Jump to content

What is sexual attraction in its relation to defining asexuality?


Beachwalker

  

3 members have voted

  1. 1. Does the current definition of asexual convey a shared understanding of what asexuality is?

    • Yes
      38
    • No
      30
  2. 2. Should the current definition of asexual be added to something along the lines of 'does not experience sexual attraction and/or has no desire for partnered sex?

    • Yes
      36
    • No
      32
  3. 3. Does it matter that there is no shared understanding of what sexual attraction is?

    • Yes
      38
    • No
      30


Recommended Posts

Most people think of blindness as a disability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

Contrast this to another example where by an individual has sex because they experience physical enjoyment from sex. If their partner did not desire sex to be a part of that relationship, they would still desire to have sex for the purposes of sex being enjoyable. Thus, a large part of their motivation is the internal reason they they enjoy sex. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this example, but said person would be sexual because one of their primary motivations for having sex is the internal enjoyment of the act.

I guess here is where we just disagree. Having sex because you like the physical feeling is not a sign of sexual attraction to people. The fact that you personally happen to choose not to have it, if the choice is up to you, shouldn't lead to remove the asexual label to those asexuals who enjoy sex differenty than you.

We are all different, but the thing we have in common as asexuals is when we look at people and don't find them sexually attractive. Not really how, when and why we have sex. Those questions don't have only 2 or 3 answers. They possibly have 1000.

I don't think it's the behavior that is messy, I think it is the language that is messy. Wouldn't it be more understandable if he simply said he was bi but preferred sex with females.

He's not bisexual. Why should he pick a label that doesn't match his sexual orientation? To make you more comfortable with it? To make it easier for you? Can't he just be free to use the label that he finds best for his life?

He can identify however he likes, but he can't stop other people identifying him as something else, nor can he insist that his chosen identity be recognised. If most people would say, "Bob, I don't believe you" then chances are he doesn't understand the label he has chosen, he doesn't want to accept a more appropriate label for some reason, or there is not an appropriate label for him in existence yet. Its possible that the existing label needs to have its meaning expanded to accommodate him. He would need to work hard to convince people of that.

AVEN is so full of words you rarely hear elsewhere because of people wanting to distinguish their experiences from what they see in general. But I have to say, what I've seen in general is a lot of boasting, lying, vanity and greed from people when they talk about sex, and engage in it. They aren't expressing the "sexual" experience of life, they are expressing character traits. If anyone tries to use that as the benchmark against which they determine their orientation, they'll have trouble. You cannot say "I don't behave like an uncouth douchebag therefore I must be asexual". And yet I think i'm seeing some Avenites doing that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrast this to another example where by an individual has sex because they experience physical enjoyment from sex. If their partner did not desire sex to be a part of that relationship, they would still desire to have sex for the purposes of sex being enjoyable. Thus, a large part of their motivation is the internal reason they they enjoy sex. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this example, but said person would be sexual because one of their primary motivations for having sex is the internal enjoyment of the act.

I guess here is where we just disagree. Having sex because you like the physical feeling is not a sign of sexual attraction to people. The fact that you personally happen to choose not to have it, if the choice is up to you, shouldn't lead to remove the asexual label to those asexuals who enjoy sex differenty than you.

We are all different, but the thing we have in common as asexuals is when we look at people and don't find them sexually attractive. Not really how, when and why we have sex. Those questions don't have only 2 or 3 answers. They possibly have 1000.

I don't think it's the behavior that is messy, I think it is the language that is messy. Wouldn't it be more understandable if he simply said he was bi but preferred sex with females.

He's not bisexual. Why should he pick a label that doesn't match his sexual orientation? To make you more comfortable with it? To make it easier for you? Can't he just be free to use the label that he finds best for his life?

He can identify however he likes, but he can't stop other people identifying him as something else, nor can he insist that his chosen identity be recognised. If most people would say, "Bob, I don't believe you" then chances are he doesn't understand the label he has chosen, he doesn't want to accept a more appropriate label for some reason, or there is not an appropriate label for him in existence yet. Its possible that the existing label needs to have its meaning expanded to accommodate him. He would need to work hard to convince people of that.

"If most people would say, "Bob, I don't believe you" then chances are he doesn't understand the label he has chosen, he doesn't want to accept a more appropriate label for some reason, or there is not an appropriate label for him in existence yet." Yet, if someone says this about ourselves and our asexual label, don't we get pretty pissed off? "you don't want to accept you're gay, you're in denial, not ace".

AVEN is so full of words you rarely hear elsewhere because of people wanting to distinguish their experiences from what they see in general. But I have to say, what I've seen in general is a lot of boasting, lying, vanity and greed from people when they talk about sex, and engage in it. They aren't expressing the "sexual" experience of life, they are expressing character traits. If anyone tries to use that as the benchmark against which they determine their orientation, they'll have trouble. You cannot say "I don't behave like an uncouth douchebag therefore I must be asexual". And yet I think i'm seeing some Avenites doing that.

And I'm sure that that is not accepted on AVEN either. So please if you see it, use the "Report" button on the post or the user who says so.

Most people think of blindness as a disability.

I personally like the colour-blind person example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

"If most people would say, "Bob, I don't believe you" then chances are he doesn't understand the label he has chosen, he doesn't want to accept a more appropriate label for some reason, or there is not an appropriate label for him in existence yet." Yet, if someone says this about ourselves and our asexual label, don't we get pretty pissed off? "you don't want to accept you're gay, you're in denial, not ace".

I think an ace would be rightly pissed off at being accused of gayness when they aren't pursuing gay relations. The accuser has no gay activity to point to as evidence, just lack of overt straight activity, of the kind they think is "normal". And its short-sighted of the accuser to assume gayness. The person could be uncomfortable expressing their sexuality, they could feel ashamed to be sexual. Or they could be asexual.

But if Bob was going to gay bars and picking up men for sex, then it kind of gives reason to think he's gay. There's fantasy, and then there's action. And continued action as opposed to a one off. So Bob might fantasize about gay sex. That doesn't necessarily mean he's gay. He might try it once. That doesn't necessarily mean he's gay. He might do it a few more times. That doesn't necessarily mean he's gay but its starting to look that way. He might adopt a habit of having sex with men. Now its kind of looking like he really is gay. Ultimately of course only he knows how he feels and why he's doing what he does. But he couldn't really blame people for drawing conclusions. And its not wrong to draw conclusions about other people. After all, often other people know things.about us that we don't notice. When they tell us, we go, "oh yeah! That is so me!" Why else do people do personality quizzes and Myers.Briggs tests?

I think we're basically on the same page. You're arguing for freedom to identify, i'm just pointing out that other people give us our identity too. Its a process.

By the way, if I've said anything to you that has seemed disrespectful I do apologize. I have a lot of respect for the way you've been conducting yourself in this thread.and I would hate to have hurt your feelings in any way. :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people think of blindness as a disability.

I personally like the colour-blind person example.

I'd look on color-blindness differently from complete blindness -- like having a limp as opposed to not having a leg.

But still, I don't want to be pitied for what someone assumes to be any sort or degree of disability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If most people would say, "Bob, I don't believe you" then chances are he doesn't understand the label he has chosen, he doesn't want to accept a more appropriate label for some reason, or there is not an appropriate label for him in existence yet." Yet, if someone says this about ourselves and our asexual label, don't we get pretty pissed off? "you don't want to accept you're gay, you're in denial, not ace".

I think an ace would be rightly pissed off at being accused of gayness when they aren't pursuing gay relations. The accuser has no gay activity to point to as evidence, just lack of overt straight activity, of the kind they think is "normal". And its short-sighted of the accuser to assume gayness. The person could be uncomfortable expressing their sexuality, they could feel ashamed to be sexual. Or they could be asexual.

But if Bob was going to gay bars and picking up men for sex, then it kind of gives reason to think he's gay. There's fantasy, and then there's action. And continued action as opposed to a one off. So Bob might fantasize about gay sex. That doesn't necessarily mean he's gay. He might try it once. That doesn't necessarily mean he's gay. He might do it a few more times. That doesn't necessarily mean he's gay but its starting to look that way. He might adopt a habit of having sex with men. Now its kind of looking like he really is gay. Ultimately of course only he knows how he feels and why he's doing what he does. But he couldn't really blame people for drawing conclusions. And its not wrong to draw conclusions about other people. After all, often other people know things.about us that we don't notice. When they tell us, we go, "oh yeah! That is so me!" Why else do people do personality quizzes and Myers.Briggs tests?

I think we're basically on the same page. You're arguing for freedom to identify, i'm just pointing out that other people give us our identity too. Its a process.

By the way, if I've said anything to you that has seemed disrespectful I do apologize. I have a lot of respect for the way you've been conducting yourself in this thread.and I would hate to have hurt your feelings in any way. :cake:

Thank you. We're totally cool, and I hope the same for my behaviour towards you (that I haven't said anything disrespectful I mean). :cake:

I still disagree on one thing: we can't stop people from thinking and from judging people in their mind, behind other peple's backs, in their faces? true, we can't. Does the fact that we can't stop it make it right? No.

It is not right to assume other people's identities. Noone helped not even a bit in my self-discovery process. All other people did was adding more confusion to the one I already had. I don't know if anyone ever "mis-labeled" you, Sweet, I hope noone did. But it's hell confusing and when you come out of it you look back and realize that no, they had no right to do that. This doesn't mean that every time people are wrong, but many times they can be.

So yeah, Bob can't stop people from drawing conclusion. But I find it wrong, for people, to draw conclusions. As I said, and as some other people (both aces and non aces) said, for some lesbians it's ok to have sex with men, and for some gay men it's ok to have sex with women. It doesn't change their orientation but it changes the conclusions people draw. People should just mind their own business.

Do people mind their own business in real life? I'd say never, or almost.

Does AVEN accept people labeling other people on the board? Nope, so if we're back on discussing AVEN, this will not change. And it shouldn't.

Most people think of blindness as a disability.

I personally like the colour-blind person example.

I'd look on color-blindness differently from complete blindness -- like having a limp as opposed to not having a leg.

But still, I don't want to be pitied for what someone assumes to be any sort or degree of disability.

I don't see colour-blindness as a disability, or a degree of one. Colour-blind people see most colours, they just don't see some of them or the difference between them (I'm not so clear on this part, and I think it may have various degrees?).

So yeah, when I talked in chat about sexual attraction, eventually one of the sexual people told me "Trying to explain sexual attraction to asexuals, it's kinda like trying to explain certain colours to colour-blind people. You can give them an idea, they might grasp some differences, but they'll never fully understand it nor experience it like a normal-sighted person".

I liked it. I can see almost all sorts of colours, but some of them I just don't see them, you know? :) But in any case, colour-blind people live a very normal life, you basically can't recognize them unless they tell you ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its ridiculous that you're equating discussing a definition with judging another's orientation.

We need definitions. We have a right to discuss definitions. Discussing definitions is not inappropriate, it's not mean, it's not "erasive"... it's necessary. Homosexuality has a definition, and discussing what is and what is not homosexuality is not in any way, shape, or form inappropriate or discriminatory. If someone said "I saw that guy wearing a purple shirt", that would be stupid, but that's not what's happening... we're discussing the qualities which make up an orientation.

This isn't about "minding one's business". Do you really not understand that? Do you really not understand that having a meaningless definition of asexuality is not a good thing? Do you not see that having as the definition of asexuality: someone who says they are asexual is really problematic? This isn't about being nice vs. not nice or judgmental vs. not judgmental.

Playing the victim card is just silly, and trying to suggest that any of our arguments are inappropriate because we're somehow "not being nice" is just... it's a demonstration that there's no actual logic with which to attack our argument so you resorted to fallacious attacks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can agree with me, Skulls, that there are lesbians who are OK having sex with men. And gay men who are OK having sex with women. You said it yourself a few days or weeks ago, I don't recall the date.

I wasn't talking of an Alice being in denial or untruthful, but an Alice being OK having also sex with women.

When did I ever say that there are lesbians who are happy to be married and have sex with men?

I have said that I personally have sex with men, but I have also said about a million times on AVEN that I'm homoromantic bisexual.

So no, I can't agree with you that there are lesbians running around entering into sexual marriages with men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

I think its ridiculous that you're equating discussing a definition with judging another's orientation.

We need definitions. We have a right to discuss definitions. Discussing definitions is not inappropriate, it's not mean, it's not "erasive"... it's necessary. Homosexuality has a definition, and discussing what is and what is not homosexuality is not in any way, shape, or form inappropriate or discriminatory. If someone said "I saw that guy wearing a purple shirt", that would be stupid, but that's not what's happening... we're discussing the qualities which make up an orientation.

This isn't about "minding one's business". Do you really not understand that? Do you really not understand that having a meaningless definition of asexuality is not a good thing? Do you not see that having as the definition of asexuality: someone who says they are asexual is really problematic? This isn't about being nice vs. not nice or judgmental vs. not judgmental.

Playing the victim card is just silly, and trying to suggest that any of our arguments are inappropriate because we're somehow "not being nice" is just... it's a demonstration that there's no actual logic with which to attack our argument so you resorted to fallacious attacks.

I think this is very much what I wanted to say but couldn't figure out quite how to word it. We are not discussing who is or is not asexual, we are discussion what is and is not asexual. I.e. we are discussing what the word asexual does and, equally importantly, does not, actually mean. The definition needs to be clear and by clear, it needs to stipulate what behaviours, feelings, ect. fall under the umbrella of asexual and what behaviours, feels, ect. do not fall under the umbrella of asexual.

If we say that any behaviour is an asexual behaviour and almost any feeling is an asexual feeling, depending on how each individual decides to interpret the phrase 'lack of sexual attraction' independently of any other person, then asexual means nothing and not asexual means nothing. There needs to be more clarity about what does and does not mean one is asexual because without that clarity, the word asexual has no meaning at all, on any practical or useful level. One does not get to arbitrarily decide what the word sexual attraction means when it comes to any other orientation, so why should asexuality be any different?

This entire discussion is not about who is and is not asexual, but rather what is an is not asexual. Again, there needs to be a line drawn in which those before that line are asexual and those after that line are not asexual, otherwise anyone can claim the label and because anyone can claim the label, the label has no actual meaning. If one who enjoys and pursues partnered sex is considered asexual, then what of the asexual who does not enjoy or pursue partnered sex? If person A, who enjoys and pursues partnered sex and, for all practical reasons, is no different than someone who identifies as sexual, then when that individual meets person B, what are they going to think when person B says they are asexual? Because, in this scenario, the word asexual doesn't have a practical, tangible meaning, using the word isn't going to get across any information at all to sexual person C and when it comes right down to it, isn't a label supposed to offer basic information in a concise and convenient format to others?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

I think you can agree with me, Skulls, that there are lesbians who are OK having sex with men. And gay men who are OK having sex with women. You said it yourself a few days or weeks ago, I don't recall the date.

I wasn't talking of an Alice being in denial or untruthful, but an Alice being OK having also sex with women.

When did I ever say that there are lesbians who are happy to be married and have sex with men?

I have said that I personally have sex with men, but I have also said about a million times on AVEN that I'm homoromantic bisexual.

So no, I can't agree with you that there are lesbians running around entering into sexual marriages with men.

The above potential example, I think, says more about the idea that sexuality comes in a spectrum than it does about the language used. There is a reason why there are sub-categories such as bi-curios, hetero-flexible, ect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you mean Asexual: One who lacks sexual attraction, (or someone who says they are, in your words), not Asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see colour-blindness as a disability, or a degree of one.

Sorry, I didn't mean you did -- when I said above I didn't want to be pitied, I meant through someone using the "blind" analogy, not color-blind. As you said, color-blindness must be disclosed; it's not apparent to the general public -- just as asexuality must be disclosed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really not understand that having a meaningless definition of asexuality is not a good thing? Do you not see that having as the definition of asexuality: someone who says they are asexual is really problematic? This isn't about being nice vs. not nice or judgmental vs. not judgmental.

I strongly agree with this.

Some of the people reading this thread might be wondering, why are you trying to do this, what's the point, the definition is fine as it is, etc etc. I will simply be explicit about my personal reasons. I do not, in any way, represent anyone else who shares my perspective about AVEN's conception of "sexual attraction", although some may or may not agree with me.

The main reason why I am so fervent about this discussion is because of legitimacy. In my humble opinion, this vague definition of asexuality poses a very, very serious threat. Imagine, if you will, that AVEN continues with its "lack of sexual attraction" definition. As far as I know, AVEN is asexuality's most "public face" and is the source of "asexuals" for many scientific studies. As asexuality starts to pick up, it is clear that the scientific community will begin to notice any "holes" or "discrepancies" about the existing definition and formulate their own ("lack of sexual desire" or, as many of us has suggested, "lacks inherent inclination towards sexual relations").

I am not sure if many people are aware of the definition's long-term implications. This conflict about the definition will ultimately boil down to this: to someone who does not know anything about asexuality, who does one believe? The people who claim to be asexual ("asexuality: someone who says they are asexual"), or the people whom have studied and researched asexuality but will never "know"? This is why the conception of AVEN's "sexual attraction" has such a tremendous impact on asexuality as a whole. This is why there must be a shared understanding of what "asexual" means within the community. This is why this conversation must happen.

It is important that AVEN's conception of what being an asexual means is reflected upon new information that is discovered. It is also important to bear in mind that AVEN was established when no one was critical about the vocabulary of sexuality. I think it is only reasonable that, a decade later with a substantially larger community, the definition can be re-visited and refined with greater precision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its ridiculous that you're equating discussing a definition with judging another's orientation.

We need definitions. We have a right to discuss definitions. Discussing definitions is not inappropriate, it's not mean, it's not "erasive"... it's necessary. Homosexuality has a definition, and discussing what is and what is not homosexuality is not in any way, shape, or form inappropriate or discriminatory. If someone said "I saw that guy wearing a purple shirt", that would be stupid, but that's not what's happening... we're discussing the qualities which make up an orientation.

This isn't about "minding one's business". Do you really not understand that? Do you really not understand that having a meaningless definition of asexuality is not a good thing? Do you not see that having as the definition of asexuality: someone who says they are asexual is really problematic? This isn't about being nice vs. not nice or judgmental vs. not judgmental.

Playing the victim card is just silly, and trying to suggest that any of our arguments are inappropriate because we're somehow "not being nice" is just... it's a demonstration that there's no actual logic with which to attack our argument so you resorted to fallacious attacks.

Who are you accusing here, Skullery? Who's the "you" who supposedly resorted to fallacious attacks?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly

Things are getting a little too heated. I'm locking this thread until Friday, 8:00 PM EST to a) give everyone a bit of time to cool off, b) give everyone a chance to reflect on some of the thoughts expressed thus far (including just how far they actually need to be carried), c) let those who are still really interested in this debate to pick out what they believe to be the 12 posts most relevant posts and d) give me time to sort out the PT's response to my queries and present its proposal to you (hence the picking of relevant posts).

Qutenkuddly,

Asexual Musings and Rantings Moderator

Link to post
Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly

The cool down period issued for this topic has not been respected. Instead, this conversation has been carried on in many other parts of the site, with much the same level of aggression the cool down period was intended to reduce. The conversation is an important one, but needs to be conducted in a constructive fashion, not a destructive one. As such, this thread will remain locked until such time as I am assured that the conversation can be carried on in a respectful and meaningful fashion that will allow for the development of future visibility and education resources.

Qutenkuddly,

Asexual Musings and Rantings Moderator

Edit: Alternate means of addressing and utilizing the ideas presented here are being considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...