The "Sex" 'urge': Fact or Fallacy?

[Telecaster68]

What happens is that the OP gets reported a lot because lots of members don't like it, it all gets heated, and the a mod locks it, nudges the OP, unlocks the thread, and everyone loses interest. 

 

Whereas between a combination of it this thread being (mostly) civil, and no passing teenagers finding the OP objectionable, this thread has kept going.

 

It's not direct censorship, but it's a consistent pattern and you won't find many threads properly discussing whether asexuality is learned, so go figure.

[Telecaster68]

I agree re truth, but you can't connotation and denotation are all part of what's being signified.

[JDP]

12 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

It's hardly educational to shut down a thread because someone's saying something you don't like though. Both points of view should be discussed, which is why @vega57 opting out of replying to any arguments just underlines the feeling that the OP is fixed on the idea that sexuals don't really like sex, they've just been brainwashed, unlike smart, rational, pious asexuals.

That is not what I have gleaned from her questions and statements.

 

She is simply trying to determine the gap between the copulatory urge and sexual participation demanded by culture.

 

I think it's a good question. Relationships aren't necessarily better since the cult of intimacy has taken over.

[Snao Cone]

1 minute ago, asexjoe said:

Does AVEN shut down such threads often, just because some of its members don't like them?

It's not the subject matter per se, but the spiral of arguments. Many members have stated that they acquired asexuality later in life, and some vocal members (myself included) have expressed their disagreement with portraying asexuality as a choice or consequence of illness or life events, as the general public might then assume asexuality is a disability rather than just what some people are. These threads might get shut down when arguments get nasty between the same people.

[Telecaster68]

Quote

She is simply trying to determine the gap between the copulatory urge

It's more than that. Her basic position is that there isn't a copulatory urge, which is absurd.

[Telecaster68]

Quote

portraying asexuality as a choice or consequence of illness or life events, as the general public might then assume asexuality is a disability rather than just what some people are

Even if to all intents and purposes, it is the consequence of illness or life events? Suppressing facts because of the potential reaction is dangerous. It's better to present them carefully so they're properly understood.

[JDP]

6 minutes ago, Snao Çoñé said:

It's not the subject matter per se, but the spiral of arguments. Many members have stated that they acquired asexuality later in life, and some vocal members (myself included) have expressed their disagreement with portraying asexuality as a choice or consequence of illness or life events, as the general public might then assume asexuality is a disability rather than just what some people are. These threads might get shut down when arguments get nasty between the same people.

The general public is always going to think that, though.

 

I used to read The Advocate, and from what I remember gay people are divided on whether or not to argue homosexuality is established at birth (even if it is).

 

There is a political downside to arguing that, and a political upside to arguing sexuality is a choice.

 

Notwithstanding what is published on the home page of this site, there doesn't seem to be any general agreement here on whether asexuality is established at birth, or acquired, or some combination of both.

 

The terms of service also require acceptance of anyone who self-identifies as asexual, regardless of his/her beliefs about what asexual is or isn't.

[Snao Cone]

5 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Even if to all intents and purposes, it is the consequence of illness or life events? Suppressing facts because of the potential reaction is dangerous. It's better to present them carefully so they're properly understood.

I agree. I think the method of presenting them carefully is to say right off the bat "Like heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual, asexual is just what some people are."

[Snao Cone]

5 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

The terms of service also require acceptance of anyone who self-identifies as asexual, regardless of his/her beliefs about what asexual is or isn't.

This is one reason why many threads like that be been locked. It's not because someone dared to suggest asexuality is required; it's because very vocal people (some of whom have chosen to leave) strongly believe they should be allowed to tell people they're not asexual. That may violate the ToS, which when combined with endless arguments escalating in hostility, leads to moderators locking heated threads like that. 

[Telecaster68]

If someone is saying 'I'm asexual but I would miss having sex with my partner', it's hard for anyone with a brain not to find their fingers twitching.

 

But, not allowed.

[Snao Cone]

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

If someone is saying 'I'm asexual but I would miss having sex with my partner', it's hard for anyone with a brain not to find their fingers twitching.

 

But, not allowed.

You can say "my understanding of the term 'sexual attraction' is that it includes any draw towards sharing sexual intimacy with someone else" but, well, whether the point is taken is up to the reader.

[Telecaster68]

Just now, Snao Çoñé said:

You can say "my understanding of the term 'sexual attraction' is that it includes any draw towards sharing sexual intimacy with someone else" but, well, whether the point is taken is up to the reader.

I know. But AVEN is the only place where such patent arsery has to be treated as in some way a sensible conclusion.

[SithLord]

35 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

I wouldn't have a problem with that argument. Who's to say it isn't? It's worthy of discussion.

I'm bad at quoting other things so he's something dumb looking:

 

AVEN ToS:

"f. Judgements of other users
Making judgments about other users, especially about the validity of their asexuality, is strongly discouraged. "

 

AVEN Overview of asexuality:

"Unlike celibacy, which people choose, asexuality is an intrinsic part of who we are."

 

Definition of "intrinsic" according to Merriam-Webster:

"1a :  belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing 

b :  being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains

2a :  originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part 

b :  originating and included wholly within an organ or part"

 

I find that saying something is not innate but rather learned argues that it is not an intrinsic part of ourselves, and thus saying asexuality is learned and not innate goes into the realm of invalidating one's asexuality.  Maybe this is my interpretation of things but all the same, I think it would NOT go down well.

[Telecaster68]

Quote

I find that saying something is not innate but rather learned argues that it is not an intrinsic part of ourselves, and thus saying asexuality is learned and not innate goes into the realm of invalidating one's asexuality.  Maybe this is my interpretation of things but all the same, I think it would NOT go down well.

Similarly with being sexual. Saying it's learned is just as invalidating.

[JDP]

10 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

I'm bad at quoting other things so he's something dumb looking:

 

AVEN ToS:

"f. Judgements of other users
Making judgments about other users, especially about the validity of their asexuality, is strongly discouraged. "

 

AVEN Overview of asexuality:

"Unlike celibacy, which people choose, asexuality is an intrinsic part of who we are."

 

Definition of "intrinsic" according to Merriam-Webster:

"1a :  belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing 

b :  being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains

2a :  originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part 

b :  originating and included wholly within an organ or part"

 

I find that saying something is not innate but rather learned argues that it is not an intrinsic part of ourselves, and thus saying asexuality is learned and not innate goes into the realm of invalidating one's asexuality.  Maybe this is my interpretation of things but all the same, I think it would NOT go down well.

Is it therefore against the terms of service to question the "AVEN Overview of Asexuality?"

 

Aren't most asexuals celibate?

[SithLord]

21 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Similarly with being sexual. Saying it's learned is just as invalidating.

My point exactly

[Telecaster68]

I know. But it's amazing what whooshes over the heads of some people. 

[SithLord]

18 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

Is it therefore against the terms of service to question the "AVEN Overview of Asexuality?"

 

Aren't most asexuals celibate?

I don't know if most asexuals are celibate.  You'd have to do a poll or find some real research which I doubt would turn out really well.  In my mind they're probably not if they're in relationships with sexuals.  Not all are and not all mixed relationships include sex, but my guess is that most asexuals are not celibate.

 

Either way, this was mentioned to point out that living life without sex as priests and nuns are supposed to do does not mean they're asexual and that being asexual doesn't mean you're celibate.  It's to point out that sexual actions do not invalidate the sexual orientation.  Like how a straight girl might sleep with a lesbian for kicks or for experimentation or reasons other than attraction.

 

And I think that questioning the site's definition is okay, but if it goes into the realm of offending anyone because you think asexuality is learned and not innate then you'll be slapped with the invalidation part of the ToS more than the definition bit.

[JDP]

4 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

I don't know if most asexuals are celibate.  You'd have to do a poll or find some real research which I doubt would turn out really well.  In my mind they're probably not if they're in relationships with sexuals.  Not all are and not all mixed relationships include sex, but my guess is that most asexuals are not celibate.

 

Either way, this was mentioned to point out that living life without sex as priests and nuns are supposed to do does not mean they're asexual and that being asexual doesn't mean you're celibate.  It's to point out that sexual actions do not invalidate the sexual orientation.  Like how a straight girl might sleep with a lesbian for kicks or for experimentation or reasons other than attraction.

 

And I think that questioning the site's definition is okay, but if it goes into the realm of offending anyone because you think asexuality is learned and not innate then you'll be slapped with the invalidation part of the ToS more than the definition bit.

That seems to be contradictory to me. I don't see how one can comply with the terms of service, then, even if one obliquely and generally questions the site's definition. Someone is going to be offended.

 

Maybe AVEN should not be so welcoming, if it wishes to be taken seriously by sexuals.

 

 

[SithLord]

14 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

That seems to be contradictory to me. I don't see how one can comply with the terms of service, then, even if one obliquely and generally questions the site's definition. Someone is going to be offended.

You're saying questioning the site's definition as if it would contradict the ToS when that's not always the case.  We've had discussions about it's definition of asexual before without ever claiming that being asexual isn't innate.  Maybe it's just the way you define asexual?

[JDP]

1 minute ago, sithgirlix said:

You're saying questioning the site's definition as if it would contradict the ToS when that's not always the case.  We've had discussions about it's definition of asexual before without ever claiming that being asexual isn't innate.  Maybe it's just the way you define asexual?

I can no longer defend my own definition of asexuality. I just rub people the wrong way, so I'll remain silent. This is your tree house, not mine. I get it.

 

I am just taking a high-level view of this site and what it's trying to accomplish, after having been a member, or should I say "member," for several years.

 

 

[Telecaster68]

Practically speaking, AVEN doesn't have a definition, because literally anyone can say anything is asexuality and can't be contradicted because someone somewhere might be invalidated. So it's become meaningless. And Joe's right...AVEN is generally perceived as weird and ridiculous outside the site itself and some of the academics working in the field. 

 

Generally, when it's mentioned on other forums, it's when someone has  discovered it for the first time and posts a list of labels and weird hairsplitting

[JDP]

Exactly. i have also wondered what value there is in declaring to the world that one is NOT something.

 

There are probably atheist sites, but I doubt many atheists visit them. I'm an atheist and I don't.

 

Hey everyone, look at me! I'm not a theist! Wheee!!! That's just not me.

 

Whatever I am, I'm not ashamed of it,  nor am I proud of it. If someone says I'm emotionally or psychosexually stunted, I don't take offense. If I was missing a limb and someone said my artificial leg wasn't the same thing, I'd have to agree.

[SithLord]

1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

Generally, when it's mentioned on other forums, it's when someone has  discovered it for the first time and posts a list of labels and weird hairsplitting

That and the presence of elitists and that we can't say someone isn't ace.  Only other site I've seen mention aven in anything besides passing is Reddit though

[Telecaster68]

It comes up every now and then on various sexless marriage forums.

[SithLord]

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

It comes up every now and then on various sexless marriage forums.

Ah. I don't frequent those sites.

I'm actually curious now about how often it's even visited by non-members and how relevant it is outside our membership.  Like the only reason I know it's mentioned on Reddit is because of the ace subreddit

[Telecaster68]

In my experience, about once every few months, someone on one of those forums will discover AVEN, have a poke around, then make a post on the 'home' forum going 'WTF? What are these people on?'. Then a bunch of people from the 'home' forum will have a poke around, there'll be a thread discussing to what extent it's all bullshit, and possibly making up some new labels, then they lose interest.

 

AVEN's main relevance apart from providing succour to anxious teenagers is that it's more or less the only place asexuality researchers can go to for recruiting for surveys etc. They sometimes adopt the AVEN terminology as part of their discussion, then AVEN sees this and goes 'oh look, academia talks about the same terms, we must be legit!', and the circle is complete.

[JDP]

I'm not impressed with the "research." Libidoist and non-libidoist aren't even real words.

[Telecaster68]

I'm fine with new words. It's the ad hoc definitions I object to.

[NoLongerActive1234]

I definitely disagree about being able to straight out write to say if people are asexual or not. That is assuming one knows everything about a person from a mere post.  It is different than posting a topic on what is asexuality and what is not as a discussion. If there, by all means fight for what you think. People's own personal experience however of how they identify is theirs alone and it is a sensitive matter. There is absolutely no need to butt in. If someone's not asking then I think one should bite ones tongue. It risks making someone feel like shit, possibly leaving the site where they should feel safe and supported. If someone won't listen to you in changing the way they identify anyhow...because they weren't looking for advice in the first place... then what's the point? Just so one gets to state ones opinion about their identity even if it changes nothing but create bad results for the person in question? People do ask if they are open to/wishing to changing something. That is my line of thinking with this.
The point of this site is that one can discuss ones own identity in a safe, non-judgmental way which can't really happen much elsewhere. Some might say that is too much but even if that creates for some rules and guidelines I think that def is worth it for the sake of people being at ease here.