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

[brontide]

I understand what you're trying to do. I see no scientific validity to it, however. If you say "it makes us feel better to do this" then fine (I can see the value in making you feel better), but don't try to pass it off as scientific, because it isn't. No-one is 'purely' heterosexual or homosexual anyway.

I'm sorry that you give so little importance and so much patronising dismissal to people's feelings since they're a part of the human experience.

I wasn't 'trying' to do anything other than offer a possible answer to the question which you raised in your previous post, but I'm sure I would love to hear about your 'understanding' of my motives.

Nothing of what I said was intended to be 'scientific', actually. I was making a linguistic point about the term 'asexual' and how it's a logical choice of word to describe 'someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction', when viewed in comparison with the terms 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual'. I've noticed that you're a fan of prescriptive linguistics as well as science. (Do they teach that anywhere? When I did linguistics we were always discouraged from being prescriptive as it potentially hinders you from studying the usage of language as it actually is, not as you wish it would be. Anyway.)

So your point about people not being 'purely' this-or-that was totally irrelevant.

[cosmicbimbo]

Ornello,

Yes, you could argue that the only thing that 'matters' is behaviour.

But what if a person's behaviour is in conflict with the way that they feel or the way they desire to behave? What if somebody is acting? Or doing something under pressure/duress? What if their behaviour makes them unhappy but they feel they need to do it anyway?

As has already been said in this thread and elsewhere, there are many reasons why someone might engage in a certain behaviour even though they don't feel naturally inclined to do it. Perceived pressure from society can be one reason.

Within the asexual community there is a range of sexual behaviour and a range of reasons for that behaviour, which is why I don't think the term 'asexual' is meant to say anything at all about behaviour. It's about orientation, who we're attracted to.

As for where that definition comes from, I see it as being in the same vein as 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality', both of which describe sexual orientations, but with the Greek prefix 'a' which can stand for 'not' or 'without' (e.g. amoral). So, actually, the word 'choice' makes sense to me, regardless of who chose it or who defined it.

But I don't think it really matters, since I'm afraid the reality is that words can and do take on new meanings, and neologisms can be created to describe things which haven't yet been given a name. I don't experience sexual attraction and I have found a community of people who have this in common with me if nothing else, and if we've got a term to describe that one thing which unites us, that's fine with me.

I understand what you're trying to do. I see no scientific validity to it, however. If you say "it makes us feel better to do this" then fine (I can see the value in making you feel better), but don't try to pass it off as scientific, because it isn't. No-one is 'purely' heterosexual or homosexual anyway.

Look up Kinsley Scale, there may not be many but, there are people who are purely heterosexual or homosexual,

[Ornello]

Ornello,

Yes, you could argue that the only thing that 'matters' is behaviour.

But what if a person's behaviour is in conflict with the way that they feel or the way they desire to behave? What if somebody is acting? Or doing something under pressure/duress? What if their behaviour makes them unhappy but they feel they need to do it anyway?

As has already been said in this thread and elsewhere, there are many reasons why someone might engage in a certain behaviour even though they don't feel naturally inclined to do it. Perceived pressure from society can be one reason.

Within the asexual community there is a range of sexual behaviour and a range of reasons for that behaviour, which is why I don't think the term 'asexual' is meant to say anything at all about behaviour. It's about orientation, who we're attracted to.

As for where that definition comes from, I see it as being in the same vein as 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality', both of which describe sexual orientations, but with the Greek prefix 'a' which can stand for 'not' or 'without' (e.g. amoral). So, actually, the word 'choice' makes sense to me, regardless of who chose it or who defined it.

But I don't think it really matters, since I'm afraid the reality is that words can and do take on new meanings, and neologisms can be created to describe things which haven't yet been given a name. I don't experience sexual attraction and I have found a community of people who have this in common with me if nothing else, and if we've got a term to describe that one thing which unites us, that's fine with me.

I understand what you're trying to do. I see no scientific validity to it, however. If you say "it makes us feel better to do this" then fine (I can see the value in making you feel better), but don't try to pass it off as scientific, because it isn't. No-one is 'purely' heterosexual or homosexual anyway.

Look up Kinsley Scale, there may not be many but, there are people who are purely heterosexual or homosexual,

Behavior is all that matters.

[virescence]

Ornello, I am confused by your opinion. You say that orientation should be defined purely by behaviour, which is an odd enough thing to say in itself, but then you say things like:

No-one is 'purely' heterosexual or homosexual anyway.

If you define orientation purely by behaviour, then I don't see how you can also believe this, since it would require believing that every single person in the world has had some degree of sexual interaction with both men and women.

[Not-You]

Ornello, I am confused by your opinion. You say that orientation should be defined purely by behaviour, which is an odd enough thing to say in itself, but then you say things like:

No-one is 'purely' heterosexual or homosexual anyway.

If you define orientation purely by behaviour, then I don't see how you can also believe this, since it would require believing that every single person in the world has had some degree of sexual interaction with both men and women.

FTW

[Stormy Wether]

Ornello, I am confused by your opinion. You say that orientation should be defined purely by behaviour, which is an odd enough thing to say in itself, but then you say things like:

No-one is 'purely' heterosexual or homosexual anyway.

If you define orientation purely by behaviour, then I don't see how you can also believe this, since it would require believing that every single person in the world has had some degree of sexual interaction with both men and women.

stop confusing us with facts :lol:

[Ornello]

I understand what you're trying to do. I see no scientific validity to it, however. If you say "it makes us feel better to do this" then fine (I can see the value in making you feel better), but don't try to pass it off as scientific, because it isn't. No-one is 'purely' heterosexual or homosexual anyway.

I'm sorry that you give so little importance and so much patronising dismissal to people's feelings since they're a part of the human experience.

I wasn't 'trying' to do anything other than offer a possible answer to the question which you raised in your previous post, but I'm sure I would love to hear about your 'understanding' of my motives.

Nothing of what I said was intended to be 'scientific', actually. I was making a linguistic point about the term 'asexual' and how it's a logical choice of word to describe 'someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction', when viewed in comparison with the terms 'heterosexual' and 'homosexual'. I've noticed that you're a fan of prescriptive linguistics as well as science. (Do they teach that anywhere? When I did linguistics we were always discouraged from being prescriptive as it potentially hinders you from studying the usage of language as it actually is, not as you wish it would be. Anyway.)

So your point about people not being 'purely' this-or-that was totally irrelevant.

I do not understand your response.

If you use this mean some behavior or symptom, then maybe. If you mean some 'class' then no....

Lou Gehrig may not have had Lou Gehrig's disease:

Lou Gehrig's disease

[brontide]

One could argue that the only thing that matters is behavior. (I'm not arguing that, because I have no stake in it, just making a point.)

Behavior is all that matters.

Just so you know, I can't take you seriously anymore.

:lol:

[Ornello]

One could argue that the only thing that matters is behavior. (I'm not arguing that, because I have no stake in it, just making a point.)

Behavior is all that matters.

Just so you know, I can't take you seriously anymore.

:lol:

When I told my parents I wanted to be a comedian when I grew up they laughed in my face.

[Olivier]

Ornello,

Yes, you could argue that the only thing that 'matters' is behaviour.

But what if a person's behaviour is in conflict with the way that they feel or the way they desire to behave? What if somebody is acting? Or doing something under pressure/duress? What if their behaviour makes them unhappy but they feel they need to do it anyway?

As has already been said in this thread and elsewhere, there are many reasons why someone might engage in a certain behaviour even though they don't feel naturally inclined to do it. Perceived pressure from society can be one reason.

Within the asexual community there is a range of sexual behaviour and a range of reasons for that behaviour, which is why I don't think the term 'asexual' is meant to say anything at all about behaviour. It's about orientation, who we're attracted to.

As for where that definition comes from, I see it as being in the same vein as 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality', both of which describe sexual orientations, but with the Greek prefix 'a' which can stand for 'not' or 'without' (e.g. amoral). So, actually, the word 'choice' makes sense to me, regardless of who chose it or who defined it.

But I don't think it really matters, since I'm afraid the reality is that words can and do take on new meanings, and neologisms can be created to describe things which haven't yet been given a name. I don't experience sexual attraction and I have found a community of people who have this in common with me if nothing else, and if we've got a term to describe that one thing which unites us, that's fine with me.

I understand what you're trying to do. I see no scientific validity to it, however. If you say "it makes us feel better to do this" then fine (I can see the value in making you feel better), but don't try to pass it off as scientific, because it isn't. No-one is 'purely' heterosexual or homosexual anyway.

I saw no attempt to pass anything off as scientific. Nobody who is straight or gay or anything else looks to scientists to tell them what their orientation is, they just look within. To ask asexuals to do differently is a double standard.

Also, although I've encountered people who define orientation by behaviour, most of these people have really only a very limited understanding of human sexuality, and none - not one - of them believes that virgins are universally asexual. Somehow they believe that a virgin can still be heterosexual, but then want to hit everyone else with their behaviour hammer.

[Ornello]

Ornello,

Yes, you could argue that the only thing that 'matters' is behaviour.

But what if a person's behaviour is in conflict with the way that they feel or the way they desire to behave? What if somebody is acting? Or doing something under pressure/duress? What if their behaviour makes them unhappy but they feel they need to do it anyway?

As has already been said in this thread and elsewhere, there are many reasons why someone might engage in a certain behaviour even though they don't feel naturally inclined to do it. Perceived pressure from society can be one reason.

Within the asexual community there is a range of sexual behaviour and a range of reasons for that behaviour, which is why I don't think the term 'asexual' is meant to say anything at all about behaviour. It's about orientation, who we're attracted to.

As for where that definition comes from, I see it as being in the same vein as 'heterosexuality' and 'homosexuality', both of which describe sexual orientations, but with the Greek prefix 'a' which can stand for 'not' or 'without' (e.g. amoral). So, actually, the word 'choice' makes sense to me, regardless of who chose it or who defined it.

But I don't think it really matters, since I'm afraid the reality is that words can and do take on new meanings, and neologisms can be created to describe things which haven't yet been given a name. I don't experience sexual attraction and I have found a community of people who have this in common with me if nothing else, and if we've got a term to describe that one thing which unites us, that's fine with me.

I understand what you're trying to do. I see no scientific validity to it, however. If you say "it makes us feel better to do this" then fine (I can see the value in making you feel better), but don't try to pass it off as scientific, because it isn't. No-one is 'purely' heterosexual or homosexual anyway.

I saw no attempt to pass anything off as scientific. Nobody who is straight or gay or anything else looks to scientists to tell them what their orientation is, they just look within. To ask asexuals to do differently is a double standard.

Also, although I've encountered people who define orientation by behaviour, most of these people have really only a very limited understanding of human sexuality, and none - not one - of them believes that virgins are universally asexual. Somehow they believe that a virgin can still be heterosexual, but then want to hit everyone else with their behaviour hammer.

If it isn't scientific, what is it then?

[Olivier]

If it isn't scientific, what is it then?

Personal.

[Ornello]

If it isn't scientific, what is it then?

Personal.

That isn't what I was asking. It can be both.

[Sally]

If it isn't scientific, what is it then?

Personal.

That isn't what I was asking. It can be both.

Then you have your answer, don't you.

[Olivier]

If it isn't scientific, what is it then?

Personal.

That isn't what I was asking. It can be both.

I meant that the source of one's knowledge was personal (obtained by self-awareness) rather than scientific, not that it was personal in the sense of individual, or private.

For a wordsmith, you seem to have more communication difficulties than seem credible. I, certainly, have had my fill with attempting to converse with you, as you seem to deliberately misinterpret everything said to you - to use your knowledge of language to search for possible meanings other than those plainly intended. You seem to know everything, but understand nothing. You are a bore. Good day, and welcome to my ignore list (you're currently the only one on it).

[Pamcakes]

Wow, Ornello. You managed to naff off Olivier.

I've seen that happen, like, once before.

I'm not trying to create a stacks-on or anything, but just pointing out; maybe there's a lesson, here?

Worth considering, at any rate.

P.

[mindlife]

If you say "it makes us feel better to do this" then fine (I can see the value in making you feel better), but don't try to pass it off as scientific, because it isn't.

I don't live scientifically.

I gain my knowledge of my perspective and orientation experientially.

Scientific? No.

Inductive? Yes.

And it's not a matter of "feeling good." That is a huge oversimplification.

It's a matter of knowing where your passions lie, and where your attractions go.

Sorry. Not interested in sexual contact ... that's been my answer for years.

Don't ask me to go to science for validation. My authority is experience, sensation and reflection.

And frankly, that's enough.

[Pamcakes]

If you say "it makes us feel better to do this" then fine (I can see the value in making you feel better), but don't try to pass it off as scientific, because it isn't.

I don't live scientifically.

I gain my knowledge of my perspective and orientation experientially.

Scientific? No.

Inductive? Yes.

And it's not a matter of "feeling good." That is a huge oversimplification.

It's a matter of knowing where your passions lie, and where your attractions go.

Sorry. Not interested in sexual contact ... that's been my answer for years.

Don't ask me to go to science for validation. My authority is experience, sensation and reflection.

And frankly, that's enough.

Vita Mentis; yes, that is enough. That is all that should be required of anyone.

P.

[Prodigious Storm]

An asexual elitist is simply somebody who thinks that asexuality is defined by sexual behavior rather that by sexual attraction.

That was quick and painless, right? :D You can stop reading now, if you want to, because this is an old subject, which, for some reason, Just. Won't. Die.

In the 6 1/2 years I have been here at AVEN, I have lost count of how many times I have seen it.

The same old thing keeps keeps coming up over and over again:

You can't possibly be a "pure" asexual because *gasp* you do X, Y, or *double gasp* even Z!

It's worth noting that the people who make these statements are, without exception, NOT speaking from a position which represents AVEN. This is not to say that they aren't sincere in their beliefs, or perhaps even very well-intentioned in stating them, only to say that they don't fully understand what AVEN's definition of asexuality IS.

The definition of asexuality as it pertains to humans has nothing at all to do with sexual behavior. Full stop. That's it.

In theory, a person could even earn their living as a prostitute and still be a perfectly valid asexual.

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.

Libido could be defined as a type of itch. 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. If they would prefer help, and if they prefer it from someone of their own sex, we call them homosexual. If they get the itch, and prefer help from someone of the opposite sex to help them scratch it, we call them heterosexual. If they get the itch and would prefer no help from anybody in scratching it, we call them asexual. (To put it very bluntly, whether or not a person masturbates has no bearing on their sexual orientation.)

A person who has sex with someone to whom they are not sexually attracted does NOT have to change their orientation in order to do so.

In other words, a gay person who has straight sex under extenuating circumstances is still gay, and a straight person who has gay sex under extenuating circumstances is still straight.

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.

None of us can get inside another person's head and know, with absolute certainty, WHY they do what they do, so we have to take them at their word. That's why the policy at AVEN is to let each person decide, for themself whether or not they are asexual.

*climbs down from soap box*

Ya'll go ahead and chime in if you want to!

-GB

VERY WELL SAID, I ENJOYED YOUR POST IMMENSELY ;)

[Hajime]

I had a post here, but changed my viewpoint

[PiF]

for me asexual elitism is more about the behaviour of asexuals within the community and thier thoughts on the sexual community and should always be discouraged

I've thrown a ..this is what i feel eliteism is together for comparisson

I am sexual...asexuals eliteists hate me because i have sex

I am demi/semi..asexual eliteists hate me because i am not a true asexual

I am asexual but have been married and have children......eliteist asexuals say I am not asexual because I have had sex

I am asexual but have had sex...see the above

I am a gay asexual...Asexual eliteists hate me because surely you can't be both

I am a young asexual..asexual eliteists hate me because they think I am not one just emo and going through a phase in a negative way

I am the true asexual...I have never had sex, i am straight and look down upon all these jigsaw asexuals who are beneath me

at all points of the above it allows some to rate others higher/lower or less/more of asexuals...in truth we are and do have many shades of asexuality..none are better than others..different maybe... but not better

We all do it at some stage in our lifes label others/ourselves to find a place or put others in theirs and it's that eliteism that we need to stop..even more so within the asexual community if we are to be seen and stay true to welcoming all

[ooze]

Libido could be defined as a type of itch. 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. If they would prefer help, and if they prefer it from someone of their own sex, we call them homosexual. If they get the itch, and prefer help from someone of the opposite sex to help them scratch it, we call them heterosexual. If they get the itch and would prefer no help from anybody in scratching it, we call them asexual. (To put it very bluntly, whether or not a person masturbates has no bearing on their sexual orientation.)

I thought that wanting someone else to "scratch the itch" is more like sexual desire than attraction?

Also...what if you have no itch at all, ever, and you don't know what you would do if you did?

[kelseygurl]

Libido could be defined as a type of itch. 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. If they would prefer help, and if they prefer it from someone of their own sex, we call them homosexual. If they get the itch, and prefer help from someone of the opposite sex to help them scratch it, we call them heterosexual. If they get the itch and would prefer no help from anybody in scratching it, we call them asexual. (To put it very bluntly, whether or not a person masturbates has no bearing on their sexual orientation.)

I thought that wanting someone else to "scratch the itch" is more like sexual desire than attraction?

Also...what if you have no itch at all, ever, and you don't know what you would do if you did?

I think you're right about sexual desire.

If you have no itch at all, you are still asexual. Masturbation has nothing to do with it. Lots of heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual,and asexual people masturbate. Then again, lots of heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and asexual people don't masturbate. Masturbation is a personal choice, not a measure of sexual attraction.

[Sally]

I thought that wanting someone else to "scratch the itch" is more like sexual desire than attraction?

If you want someone else to scratch the itch, you probably are sexually attracted to them, so you're not asexual. Asexuality is where you don't want a "someone else" in the picture. The itch is libido/desire, who does the scratching is the orientation.

[ooze]

Libido could be defined as a type of itch. 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. If they would prefer help, and if they prefer it from someone of their own sex, we call them homosexual. If they get the itch, and prefer help from someone of the opposite sex to help them scratch it, we call them heterosexual. If they get the itch and would prefer no help from anybody in scratching it, we call them asexual. (To put it very bluntly, whether or not a person masturbates has no bearing on their sexual orientation.)

I thought that wanting someone else to "scratch the itch" is more like sexual desire than attraction?

Also...what if you have no itch at all, ever, and you don't know what you would do if you did?

I think you're right about sexual desire.

If you have no itch at all, you are still asexual. Masturbation has nothing to do with it. Lots of heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual,and asexual people masturbate. Then again, lots of heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and asexual people don't masturbate. Masturbation is a personal choice, not a measure of sexual attraction.

But the itch is about sex drive, not attraction! I have no drive but I do have attraction, so I can't be ace. Sorry if that was unclear in my previous post. I don't think the analogy works well for people without a sex drive, I should just leave it at that I suppose.

I thought that wanting someone else to "scratch the itch" is more like sexual desire than attraction?

If you want someone else to scratch the itch, you probably are sexually attracted to them, so you're not asexual. Asexuality is where you don't want a "someone else" in the picture. The itch is libido/desire, who does the scratching is the orientation.

I get that, but I don't want someone else to scratch the itch...yet I do experience sexual attraction (I am grey-a). I just don't actually want to have sex. That is because I have no libido. I am just having some trouble figuring out where I fit in this analogy but perhaps that is not the best idea.

I think desire = attraction + drive, and while I have attraction, I have no drive.

[Sally]

Sexual desire, sexual drive, and libido are all terms for the same physical feeling. They don't have to involve another person.

Sexual attraction does involve another person.

Lack of sexual attraction to another person is what makes you asexual.

[ooze]

Sexual desire, sexual drive, and libido are all terms for the same physical feeling. They don't have to involve another person.

Sexual attraction does involve another person.

Lack of sexual attraction to another person is what makes you asexual.

Oh! Wow. I always thought sexual desire was the desire to have sex. Thanks.

Edit: To be clear. I was equating (correctly) sex drive and libido; I just thought that desire was something different but apparently it is not.

[ooze]

Sexual desire, sexual drive, and libido are all terms for the same physical feeling. They don't have to involve another person.

Sexual attraction does involve another person.

Lack of sexual attraction to another person is what makes you asexual.

Oh! Wow. I always thought sexual desire was the desire to have sex. Thanks.

Edit: To be clear. I was equating (correctly) sex drive and libido; I just thought that desire was something different but apparently it is not.

Wait a second. Then how do you say you find someone sexually attractive but don't want to have sex with them? Even sexuals experience this! What about sexuals in monogamous relationships, they still experience sexual attraction to people other than their partner, they just don't have the desire to have sex with them.

[Sally]

Wait a second. Then how do you say you find someone sexually attractive but don't want to have sex with them? Even sexuals experience this! What about sexuals in monogamous relationships, they still experience sexual attraction to people other than their partner, they just don't have the desire to have sex with them.

I guess it depends on your definition of "want". The word "desire" usually means physical desire. The word "want" can mean many things.

A sexual who is in a monogamous relationship may be sexually attracted to (i.e., have sexual desire for) someone else, but he/she doesn't want to actually carry out having sex with that person because he/she doesn't want to hurt the person they're in a relationship with.

There could be other reasons for not wanting to have sex even though you are sexually attracted, like religious reasons, or because the other person is married, or they're not someone otherwise attractive (i.e., personality), or it just seems like too much trouble at the moment to follow up on your physical desire, etc.

[ooze]

Wait a second. Then how do you say you find someone sexually attractive but don't want to have sex with them? Even sexuals experience this! What about sexuals in monogamous relationships, they still experience sexual attraction to people other than their partner, they just don't have the desire to have sex with them.

I guess it depends on your definition of "want". The word "desire" usually means physical desire. The word "want" can mean many things.

A sexual who is in a monogamous relationship may be sexually attracted to (i.e., have sexual desire for) someone else, but he/she doesn't want to actually carry out having sex with that person because he/she doesn't want to hurt the person they're in a relationship with.

There could be other reasons for not wanting to have sex even though you are sexually attracted, like religious reasons, or because the other person is married, or they're not someone otherwise attractive (i.e., personality), or it just seems like too much trouble at the moment to follow up on your physical desire, etc.

Ok thanks, this helps. I suppose repulsion towards sex would also be a possibility here.