Jump to content

Rewording the definition of Asexuality to Increase Clarity


Guest

  

  1. 1. Do you feel the current definition of asexuality is adequate?

    • Yes. It is very clear and needs not be redefined
      18
    • Yes, but it could be improved upon
      16
    • Unsure, it seems to have some issues but it also seems to work fine
      13
    • No, it is problematic
      11
    • No. It does not work at all and must be changed.
      0
  2. 2. Would you prefer Asexuality were defined as "the lack of an inherrent inclination to engage in sexual relations "

    • Yes
      10
    • I prefer the current definition, but would not mind.
      9
    • I do not care.
      5
    • I prefer it, but the current definition is fine as well.
      5
    • No.
      29
  3. 3. If you believe the current definition needs revision, do you have any sugestions or edits you would like made to the proposed one?

    • Yes (please comment)
      9
    • no, the suggested is fine.
      13
    • no. the current is fine
      30
    • no, I do not care
      6


Recommended Posts

They wouldn't fall out of it Nigel...the and/or in front of the bit you quoted in addition to the current definition takes care of it.

However, the bit about not experiencing sexual attraction makes me laugh...because I don't experience it to a greater extent than most of the people here. How can I say this? Because I know what it is, and I don't experience it unless I'm with my husband, it has to be procured I guess. Anyway, I am not asexual as most of you know. If you look up sexual attraction...arousal, interest, and desire are all part of it. They are. Really!

And yeah, what's with all the asexual fetishists? It kind of defies the definition of a fetish, which has been mentioned.

It should be simple Nigel...gay, bi, and straight are pretty simple. I really hope someday it is simple, the explaining it to such great extent takes away from it's validity. I'm not sure why, but it does.

I hope that at some point we just stop caring who sleeps with who or why or the extent of other people's relationships because it doesnt affect us unless we want a relationship with that person. Even then, all you really need to know is hoe they feel about you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Midnight Lady

It is useful to have a debate like this, as I happen to agree the current definition has a lot to be desired. That saying, I do have a number of concerns ...

Lacks an inherent desire for partnered sex or sexual relations.

I know many of you in this thread experience this, and so it makes sense. However, there are members on AVEN, like myself, who only experience sexual attraction towards their partner, and are willing to engage in partner sex and / or sexual relations. Yet, because they do not experience sexual attraction to anyone else, do define themselves as asexual, as indeed do I. The problem then is by having the definition as suggested, this group of people will then fall outside of that definition.

Isn't it demisexuality???

Yes, but as far as I am aware of, it still comes under being asexual.

I always thought that was the purpouse of the gray-a. To cover people who arent strictly asexual but fall near it on the spwctrum...

And I thought that gray-a doesn't require the emotional/any kind of bonding while demisexuality does require that...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's a good idea to make the definition too specific. You don't want to invest the whole of asexuality into one particular theory of what sexual attraction is.

Demisexuality used to have this problem, in that it was defined as secondary attraction without primary attraction within the Rabger model. The Rabger model is no longer very popular and Rabger himself rebuked it, so what happens to demisexuality then? The answer is that everyone has a slightly different way to describe it, and it's more of an idea than a precise definition. And that's just fine.

If the definition is unclear, you can elaborate on it. But there is no end-all elaboration of the definition, just as there is no Greatest Metaphor for sex.

BTW, I recommend reading a bit on the history of the definition, it's rather fascinating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is useful to have a debate like this, as I happen to agree the current definition has a lot to be desired. That saying, I do have a number of concerns ...

Lacks an inherent desire for partnered sex or sexual relations.

I know many of you in this thread experience this, and so it makes sense. However, there are members on AVEN, like myself, who only experience sexual attraction towards their partner, and are willing to engage in partner sex and / or sexual relations. Yet, because they do not experience sexual attraction to anyone else, do define themselves as asexual, as indeed do I. The problem then is by having the definition as suggested, this group of people will then fall outside of that definition.

Isn't it demisexuality???

Yes, but as far as I am aware of, it still comes under being asexual.

I always thought that was the purpouse of the gray-a. To cover people who arent strictly asexual but fall near it on the spectrum...

And I thought that gray-a doesn't require the emotional/any kind of bonding while demisexuality does require that...

Im not totally up to speed on the more blurry part of the line, Ive always been a bit confused by it all since I am very asexual and aromantic, but I thought gray-a was for anyone near asexual and demisexual was a subcategory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And yeah, what's with all the asexual fetishists? It kind of defies the definition of a fetish, which has been mentioned.

Huh? No, it doesn't. Having a fetish is not a sexual orientation. If someone says "I'm heterosexual: I'm a woman who is only sexually attracted to men. Oh, by the way, I have this thing for feet", no one will go, "Then why did you say you are only sexually attracted towards men?" - because 1) context matters and 2) there are various definitions of the word "fetish" and I'm not at all convinced that the one based on sexual attraction is the most wide-spread one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Midnight Lady

It is useful to have a debate like this, as I happen to agree the current definition has a lot to be desired. That saying, I do have a number of concerns ...

Lacks an inherent desire for partnered sex or sexual relations.

I know many of you in this thread experience this, and so it makes sense. However, there are members on AVEN, like myself, who only experience sexual attraction towards their partner, and are willing to engage in partner sex and / or sexual relations. Yet, because they do not experience sexual attraction to anyone else, do define themselves as asexual, as indeed do I. The problem then is by having the definition as suggested, this group of people will then fall outside of that definition.

Isn't it demisexuality???

Yes, but as far as I am aware of, it still comes under being asexual.

I always thought that was the purpouse of the gray-a. To cover people who arent strictly asexual but fall near it on the spectrum...

And I thought that gray-a doesn't require the emotional/any kind of bonding while demisexuality does require that...

Im not totally up to speed on the more blurry part of the line, Ive always been a bit confused by it all since I am very asexual and aromantic, but I thought gray-a was for anyone near asexual and demisexual was a subcategory.

Yeah, let's not go into more fuzziness here, because I thought that for gray-a people it was still ok from time to time to see someone and go like "I would tap it" (since that was the main criterion for me to define ANY sexuality) but so rarely, that it would be almost never, whereas for demisexuals it would be just a non-existent concept never ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look Skulls: You keep going on and on about making Asexuality simple enough for the average person to understand, yet you also seem to be forgetting that that same average person thinks of sexual attraction in terms of human-human relations. I was just pointing that out, is all. I don't deny that there people sexually attracted to objects and animals.

Then what exactly are you debating? If you admit that there sexual attraction can be to objects as well as subjects, why exactly are you challenging Skullery? There is also the academic/medical/scientific community to think about, and I seriously doubt that any psychologist, philosopher, biologist or MD is going to restrict themselves to human to human relations when thinking about sexual attraction and its relation to asexuality.

I have an idea why people first coming onto AVEN ask what sexual attraction is. It's because they don't feel it.

Once they're told what it is -- by whatever means, using whatever words -- they tend to say "Oh, that's me! I don't feel that!" Because, you know, most people coming to AVEN are doing so because they're asexual.

Duh.

And frankly, I don't care whether any sexual disagrees with any given definition of asexuality. We're not defining what sexuals feel.

A person does not need a conception of an ethical system to feel that something is right or wrong, why must they necessarily need a definition or objective conception of sexual attraction in order to feel it. If anything that would cause confusion.

It is not impossible that people can be oblivious to their own feelings, sometimes intentionally (such as in the case of repression or rationalization), and sometimes not. They also can and often do remember things differently than what may have actually conspired in order to maintain the stability of a current line of thought or belief.

Furthermore, I can think of two primary reasons why people come here questioning:

1) They don't relate to others sexually and want to know why.

2) They have relationship issues in which sex was a hurdle to overcome rather than a natural progression.

They then see the definition as it is, and wanting to be accepted, they try to understand exactly what the term 'sexual attraction' is and how their feelings relate, often attributing their own personal set of feelings as being the exact definition for what is supposed to be a universal term. This is primarily because this site has left sexual attraction as something vague and mysterious, when I and others have shown that this is clearly not the case outside of AVEN.

However, this debate is less about what asexuals are feeling, but the language and terms being used and how they are being used to define asexuality. There is a clear dividing line between saying someone's feelings are wrong, and claiming that the language being used is vague and imprecise though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

I was pointing the inconsistency in Skull's argument. On one hand, she argues that the current definition of Asexuality is 'too confusing' for the average person, while on the other hand, she keeps going on about people who are sexually attracted to animals and objects. And really, outside kink/fetish groups, people don't really associate sexual attraction in terms of human-horse/cow/other animal here_____, or human-car/other object here____ relations.

Anyway, I'm done arguing here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also prefer the current definition.

Mostly, I want to ask -- if someone has a preference for partnered sex, but it's because they enjoy it as a matter of social interaction (e.g. they're doing it for purely selfish reasons of enjoying sexual attention from another individual, though they don't experience any sexual attraction), where does that put them exactly?

I think, when defining sexual orientations, we shouldn't be using any language that would encourage any reliance on making assumptions about people based on their apparent behaviour.

I also prefer the current definition of asexuality.

I really agree with what Fae has said, it's not the behavior that should be used to define this, and I see the new proposed definition as less clear than the one currently used. If it was worded in the way that is being suggested I would have stayed uncertain about whether or not I was asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will repeat this ad nauseum until it has been made clear: sexual attraction does not by necessity always compel nor lead to sexual interaction. One could be sexually attracted yet have no inherent desire to ever have sex with the subject/object of that attraction.

I say "would compel" rather than "compels" for that very reason. I suppose there may be a better way to express that sexual attraction inclines a person toward sex with someone without necessarily meaning they want to do it.

I don't care about the partnered sex thing. But AVEN needs to stop using sexual attraction to mean "only to people". It's going to be done for you if it's not done by you... meaning that, if and when asexuality finally reaches a tipping point where people involved in sexuality theory start picking it up and dealing with it, they're going to toss out the whole "sexual attraction only means toward people" thing, since that's not true.

You know what? I think you need to understand that people who are asexual -- actual asexuals -- deserve the right to define themselves.

Love you dearly, Skullery, but really, you're one toke over the line on this issue.

This makes me think I was misguided to propose further defining sexual attraction. AVEN doesn't define sexual attraction. Asexuals don't define sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is a concept that has a perception mostly beyond our influence, and for the most part we can merely decide whether that concept is useful in defining asexuality.

I wonder if that actually supports dropping the whole current definition, which is based on sexual attraction.

A reminder of what I originally said:

Asexual - Someone who does not experience sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction - attraction toward another person that would compel an individual to interact sexually with that person.

For the record, it would have been better to say:

Asexual - Someone who does not experience sexual attraction towards other people.

Sexual attraction - attraction that would compel another person to interact sexually with the object of that attraction.

But I could certainly go for something like this:

This. I would say something more simply like maybe "a person with no interest in having sexual relations."

But maybe "a person with no innate interest in having sexual relations," because some people could have other reasons for being uninterested other than it's innately how they feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't voted yet, but I don't see how this new definition would be any better. I think we'd just go from being asked to explain what sexual attraction is to being asked to explain what "inherent inclination" means. I also believe the original definition will continue to be the most wide-spread one at this point, and it might just cause confusion to add another one.

I think this definition works better as part of an explanation of what it means (or can mean) to not experience sexual attraction.

Na...just add the and/or lacks desire to have partnered sex (or sexual relations). There actually are a lot of asexuals who don't lack sexual attraction but disconnect somewhere else in the process. It really only seems fair to include them and their experience.

It doesn't ruin anything. It makes it fuller as the Other Jon said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest member25959

okay so, I've not read through the last couple of pages but I feel that this needs to be said.

Seriously? I mean, really, you want to change it from ''not experiencing sexual attraction'' to ''"the lack of an inherrent inclination to engage in sexual relations''. That's more clear?

Why would any change warrant scrapping the accepted definition, the simpler definition, the established definition?

I accept that I'm a moron, but jeez, the proposed definition really isn't clear at all, and that's coming from someone who's had 3 years of experience using asexual-specific definitions in this community.

Do you really think that someone who's had zero interaction with this community will comprehend what the proposed term means?

Here's a suggestion, why not add it alongside our current defintion.

Asexual - A person who does not experience sexual attraction.

OR, the lack of an inherrent inclination to engage in sexual relations

Really, I wouldn't support replacing the current definition, and it's only going to harm visibility efforts if we go around making such drastic changes to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

okay so, I've not read through the last couple of pages but I feel that this needs to be said.

Seriously? I mean, really, you want to change it from ''not experiencing sexual attraction'' to ''"the lack of an inherrent inclination to engage in sexual relations''. That's more clear?

Why would any change warrant scrapping the accepted definition, the simpler definition, the established definition?

I accept that I'm a moron, but jeez, the proposed definition really isn't clear at all, and that's coming from someone who's had 3 years of experience using asexual-specific definitions in this community.

Do you really think that someone who's had zero interaction with this community will comprehend what the proposed term means?

Here's a suggestion, why not add it alongside our current defintion.

Asexual - A person who does not experience sexual attraction.

OR, the lack of an inherrent inclination to engage in sexual relations

Really, I wouldn't support replacing the current definition, and it's only going to harm visibility efforts if we go around making such drastic changes to it.

That's pretty much what the suggestion is...just add to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And what if half of AVEN disagrees with that nutshell? How can the video claim to know what the common factor among asexuals is when a lot of those same asexuals on here have stated that they agree with the lack of sexual attraction rather than with the lack of desire for sexual relations?

They don't. It does, and they don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nameless123

Dear INTHEORY:

I have you blocked but happened to see this since it was quoted.

Dear SkulleryMaid, I shall endevour to never quote you again. And by the way, no need to shout my (former) name. Please familiarise yourself with internet etiquette.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Skullery I think you're way on the edge about all this. You're arguing just to be arguing. Why don't you dial it back.

You need to stop telling me to shut up. I'm not the only one arguing. In one camp are: Lady Girl, Beachwalker, Hap, Naosuu, Vampyremage, SkulleryMaid, Lucina, PiF when PiF was around in various forms, Ellii (to the extent they agree sexual attraction is causing problems), SamePage (to the extent they acknowledge sexual attraction is causing problems)... I know there are more and I apologize for forgetting anyone.

So please stop acting like this is me against everyone else. It's really mean and bullying to do so. Either make posts specifically targeting everyone or leave me alone personally, but don't call me out when I'm not the only one involved in this.

EDIT: It's really hurting my feelings and I acknowledge I'm probably a bit PMSy right now, but it really hurts my feelings when you call me out separately from everyone else, like I'm a little kid being picked on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Skullery I think you're way on the edge about all this. You're arguing just to be arguing. Why don't you dial it back.

You need to stop telling me to shut up. I'm not the only one arguing. In one camp are: Lady Girl, Beachwalker, Hap, Naosuu, Vampyremage, SkulleryMaid, Lucina, PiF when PiF was around in various forms, Ellii (to the extent they agree sexual attraction is causing problems), SamePage (to the extent they acknowledge sexual attraction is causing problems)... I know there are more and I apologize for forgetting anyone.

So please stop acting like this is me against everyone else. It's really mean and bullying to do so. Either make posts specifically targeting everyone or leave me alone personally, but don't call me out when I'm not the only one involved in this.

EDIT: It's really hurting my feelings and I acknowledge I'm probably a bit PMSy right now, but it really hurts my feelings when you call me out separately from everyone else, like I'm a little kid being picked on.

I'm not picking on you or anyone, and no, I'm not going to name everyone I may have disagreed with. I'm not keeping track.

But you are beginning to sound like a kid who is really angry at anyone who in the least disagrees with them. That's why I said "dial it back". Not shut up, but dial it back. Think before you write another angry screed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly

As we now have three active discussions on pretty much the same topic, as well as three accompanying polls, it has now become necessary to organize this conversation for cohesiveness, so that it is easier to follow. To this end, after Tuesday, June 12, 5:00 EST, I will close the threads 'Rewording the definition of Asexuality to Increase Clarity' and 'What does asexuality mean?'. I will be leaving links in those two conversations to 'What is sexual attraction in its relation to defining asexuality?', which is the originating thread. This will give everyone 48 hours to wrap up the conversations in the threads to be closed. During that 48 hours, I will also likely be doing some further thread actions to re-integrate parts of the conversation back into the originating thread. Any further threads and polls created on this topic are subject to immediate closure whilst the first remains active.

If you have any questions, concerns or suggestions regarding these actions, please PM me. (Note: any requests to move posts will only be considered if accompanied by a direct link to the post, found by clicking on the post number in the upper right corner of the post box.)

Qutenkuddly,

Asexual Musings and Rantings Moderator

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think multiple threads and polls indicates a real live problem. And now we can only talk about it in our one little corner, and with no chance of being pinned I'm sure. I feel like we've just been given an edict from the popes.

EDIT: Nothing personal Qute, I do wonder about the pinning though. What was the reason that can't happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly

EDIT: Nothing personal Qute, I do wonder about the pinning though. What was the reason that can't happen?

I want to use pinning as sparingly in the forum as possible, especially as there is already four threads pinned to the top already. I reckon that I can only really pin one or two more threads before the top gets too cluttered and minimalizes the benefit of pinning them. So, before I pin another thread, I want to make sure that it is going to be both relevant and helpful to either the forum and/or the community. I'm not yet convinced that this conversation has reached this point.

However, one of the key points to pinning a thread is keeping it near the top of a forum folder to make it easy to find. Frequent responses to the topic, which is currently occurring, achieve much the same effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly

Thanks! And thanks for working on the three threads to reintegrate it into one place...sorry again if I was rude.

You're welcome and, again, no worries. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly

As was announced two days earlier, I have now moved a number of posts from this thread and merged them with the originating conversation 'What is sexual attraction in its relation to defining asexuality?'. I apologize in advance for any confusion some of these changes may cause. If you have any questions or concerns about these changes, please feel free to PM me. This thread is now closed.

Qutenkuddly,

Asexual Musings and Rantings Moderator

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...