KAGU143

What is "asexual elitism" and why does AVEN discourage it?

545 posts in this topic

*CLAPS*

Great post and I fully agree. Does get a bit annoying with people saying otherwise, especially people with all of twenty posts under their belt as I've noticed a few times the past month. But never thought it was AVEN's official stance on it *g*

Good post.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get this too, from time to time.

And I always counter it.

The position that asexuality is determined by behavior is not valid, any more than the position that homosexuality is determined by a single marital status.

There are no behavioral, personality, or physical determinants of this orientation.

It is a phenomenon of the perspective and emotions.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jaws dropped, eyes wide open, hands clapping still...............amen to that! You got it spot on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, GB. As you say it comes up from time to time...I think it would be a great idea to have this 'stickied', it would save us either having to find this or you having to recreate ;) . It's just a pity we have to do this again and again.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asexuality is defined as not experiencing sexual attraction to either (or any) gender. That's all. It has nothing at all to do with libido or with behavior.

B.b.b.but... what about THE TEST!? http://web.archive.org/web/20031130122909/www.theofficialasexualsociety.com/productssimple7.html No sexual attraction indeed... how can one possibly be quaified as a card-carrying asexual unless they pass THE TEST, by the "Official Asexual Society", no less.

Actually that site, and its later version re-named as "The Official Non-Libidoist society", was, while it existed, possibly the best example of asexual elitism out there. Seems there was an early asexual schism of that site v. AVEN. I'm glad the "liberals" won!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a very early schism indeed!

AVEN became the tolerant asexual network.

:cake: to AVEN

:cake: to GBRD

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chapeau.

B.b.b.but... what about THE TEST!? http://web.archive.o...ctssimple7.html No sexual attraction indeed... how can one possibly be quaified as a card-carrying asexual unless they pass THE TEST, by the "Official Asexual Society", no less.

Actually that site, and its later version re-named as "The Official Non-Libidoist society", was, while it existed, possibly the best example of asexual elitism out there. Seems there was an early asexual schism of that site v. AVEN. I'm glad the "liberals" won!

O-M-G. I repeat, O-M-G. People never stop to surprise me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very good post. I like the analogy with the itch.

Actually that site, and its later version re-named as "The Official Non-Libidoist society", was, while it existed, possibly the best example of asexual elitism out there. Seems there was an early asexual schism of that site v. AVEN. I'm glad the "liberals" won!

Darn it, I'm on the side of the liberals! I think I'm in the wrong place...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get tired of the "sexual orientation is fluid" argument also, which seems to be put forward by people who believe that an orientation is a straight-jacket and they don't want to be defined, or even self-defined. But they seem to claim that the fluidity theory applies only to asexuality, not that homosexuals or heterosexuals float around between orientations in some sort of cosmic lake. You needn't define yourself, ever, if you don't want to, but don't deny others the right to define themselves by claiming that orientation is always fluid. That's a kind of intellectual orientational elitism, it seems to me.

End of rant.

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*applauds*

I do believe this post made my day!

I fully agree and even wonder why anyone would want to use the term "pure", anyway. We have quite a number of aces on AVEN from varying backgrounds and circumstances. Regardless of what we did or do feel comfortable doing, sexually, the common denominator is still lack of sexual attraction. Is that really so hard to fathom?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post! *claps for the excellent, clear wording of your points* :)

Luckily, what it seems to me, usually there's hardly any wannabe-elitism going on on AVEN!

But recently there has been... some posters who continuously have stated that "your not a real ace if you have sex" and other BS <_<

Well, when I was all noobie I might have said something a bit unthoughtful of the pure lack of understanding... but after reading more posts I realized better what the definition of asexuality fundamentally is about. So let's hope it doesn't take long for anyone else to understand it either, and be patient... :ph34r: I guess... :wacko: Probably there's no way to avoid it that points like this have to be brought up over and over again...

(sorry for extra crappy english, I'm sleepy :P )

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm linking to this every time I find someone who rants about asexuals who have sex not being asexual. I find a lot more sexual people getting confused over that than asexual ones, coincidentally, and its bloody annoying trying to convince them otherwise. DX

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for writing this. And I would support it being stickied, also.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get tired of the "sexual orientation is fluid" argument also, which seems to be put forward by people who believe that an orientation is a straight-jacket and they don't want to be defined, or even self-defined. But they seem to claim that the fluidity theory applies only to asexuality, not that homosexuals or heterosexuals float around between orientations in some sort of cosmic lake. You needn't define yourself, ever, if you don't want to, but don't deny others the right to define themselves by claiming that orientation is always fluid. That's a kind of intellectual orientational elitism, it seems to me.

End of rant.

Mmmm, either it's fluid for people of all sexualities or of none. My theory is we have fuzzy areas may move around in, but what they are and how big they are varies person to person. And in the end, whatever you identify yourself as is valid no matter that shape. To be honest, don't think those areas are all that big for most people lol.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get tired of the "sexual orientation is fluid" argument also, which seems to be put forward by people who believe that an orientation is a straight-jacket and they don't want to be defined, or even self-defined. But they seem to claim that the fluidity theory applies only to asexuality, not that homosexuals or heterosexuals float around between orientations in some sort of cosmic lake. You needn't define yourself, ever, if you don't want to, but don't deny others the right to define themselves by claiming that orientation is always fluid. That's a kind of intellectual orientational elitism, it seems to me.

End of rant.

O.o I say that. Although for me it is true and i let people decide for themselves what they are or aren't.

I think I might have multiple personalities or something so it kinda would be fluid. Well that's not a good word to describe it really but that's the reasoning behind why I suggest it to others.

My friend was bi sexual then kinda went back to being straight and she was genuinely into girls but isnt now so I'd see that as fluid too.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get tired of the "sexual orientation is fluid" argument also, which seems to be put forward by people who believe that an orientation is a straight-jacket and they don't want to be defined, or even self-defined. But they seem to claim that the fluidity theory applies only to asexuality, not that homosexuals or heterosexuals float around between orientations in some sort of cosmic lake. You needn't define yourself, ever, if you don't want to, but don't deny others the right to define themselves by claiming that orientation is always fluid. That's a kind of intellectual orientational elitism, it seems to me.

End of rant.

Well, having read my comment, it does seem a bit over the top in tone. I believe what I said but didn't need to put it quite that emphasis-ly. Or whatever.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

absolutely Love that post

And yes I did laugh when I read that soap box thing it's probably something meaning something else like it's a slippery subject but I just can't help myself imagening someone stepping down from a real soap box gosh that's hard :lol:

and again; loved the post. Absolutely agree. Absolutely very much and

if I didn't already know this would make me so relieved because I did actually think I couldn't be asexual from all those reasons and that made me only more confused so thanks and thanks again for being here and making things understandable for someone like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think pinning this thread is an excellent idea.

The ideas of writing and pinning a thread like this are ones whose time has come. I do get tired of having to explain this over and over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get tired of the "sexual orientation is fluid" argument also, which seems to be put forward by people who believe that an orientation is a straight-jacket and they don't want to be defined, or even self-defined. But they seem to claim that the fluidity theory applies only to asexuality, not that homosexuals or heterosexuals float around between orientations in some sort of cosmic lake. ... don't deny others the right to define themselves by claiming that orientation is always fluid. That's a kind of intellectual orientational elitism, it seems to me.

Excellent arguments.

Sexual orientation, in my experience, has not been fluid. I think the fluidity of such a thing is more the exception than the rule.

I've had the experience of being uncomfortable with my orientation. To say that sexual orientation is fluid brings with it the implication that I could just think my way beyond this and be oriented some way else.

It's not going to happen.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely agree with all of this. I can really relate to this "Some people itch more than others, but the amount doesn't matter. What matters, when determining sexual orientation, is whether the person would prefer for somebody else to help them scratch it when/if it happens". Also about a person who could still earn their living as a prostitute and still be a perfectly valid asexual

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*claps* Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post deserves mass amounts of :cake:. Delicious pastries for delicious, logical knowledge.

(does cake count as a pastry? no matter! we shall have it in abundance regardless!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I joined the site back in 03, and then there was a big "but that's not really asexuality" thing came up and I stopped visiting the site because I felt uncomfortable. Something like this would have made me feel a lot better back then, when I was unsure, and I think other people will find it similarly valuable today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An asexual who has sex under extenuating circumstances is still asexual.

An extenuating circumstance can be almost anything. Seriously! It doesn't have to be a death threat! It might be nothing more than the path of least resistance which will avoid an argument or, even worse, the loss of a relationship.

That makes very much sense! (I'm reading this post again now that I'm not sleepy anymore, and wow, it's like a new post I've never read before :lol: :lol: And a great one, besides :) )

The part I didn't understand when I was new on AVEN, was that some asexuals who have sex even enjoy the act itself (not talking about masturbation but "real" sex)... :unsure: Now I know that it's possible, that aces who enjoy sex are still just as asexual, whether or not you enjoy the act of sex has nothing to do with the definition of asexuality and so on... Now I know all this.

But I have to admit, that the idea is still hard to really grasp (like... internalize and deeply understand) for me - I mean, I can't imagine myself in that situation, that I'd enjoy sex itself although I didn't feel sexual attraction towards anyone.

But on the other hand, I can't even imagine myself in the situation of a common sexual, who has a strong desire to have sex with people they're attracted to... so maybe my "skill to imagine myself in situations" doesn't matter :P

It would be interesting (and hopefully enlightening :) ) to hear someone, who likes sex (not only to please their partner but in other ways too) but feels no attraction, to describe how it is to feel that way, though. But I understand that it could be just as impossible as to get me understand how it is to be sexual, and I've given up the hope to ever fully understand it :lol:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting (and hopefully enlightening :) ) to hear someone, who likes sex (not only to please their partner but in other ways too) but feels no attraction, to describe how it is to feel that way, though. But I understand that it could be just as impossible as to get me understand how it is to be sexual, and I've given up the hope to ever fully understand it :lol:

It's been attempted: http://apositive.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=15

And thanks GBRD, for putting it so well :cake:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Applauds the OP*

"15. Anything to add that might help in this questionaire?" Uh, I might have a few suggestions...

And not just about spelling. That site is like an asexual equivalent of old anti-homosexual 'educational films', like this horrorshow:

WARNING: You may, nay, *should* find the views expressed in this You Tube video appallingly offensive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3S24ofEQj4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now