Defining asexuality - a better definition?

[binary suns]

that makes sense.

but i apologize if I'm not seeing where you're going with this. I'm under the impression that literal impulse for sex is not an experience every sexual person has. some people just kind of... fade into having sex from flirting.

or are you specifically talking about primary desire? maybe I missed an earlier post you made or are replying to.

[Star Bit]

Yah, not every sexual person has the impulse to have sex specifically; they desire sex for other reasons. So, for example, instead of that impulse they would have the urge for emotional closeness and then decide to have sex, which to them provides a bond that can't be reached any other way so they require sex in a relationship. As for your single sentence at the end, are you refering to my definition clarification at the end of my previous sentence? By the "it's"? I was refering to sexual attraction there.

[dissolved]

Yes, alot of sexuals understand sexuality, but alot also don't. Alot insist if a guy can get aroused by gay erotica then he's bi/gay. The same goes for women, but this assumption seems to be more so from people misinterpreting the erotica arousal study and writing articles on it. But what these people don't seem to be acknowledging is that they were shown beastiality as well (among others), which would actually, to them, amount to women being sexually attracted to everything LOL. Or that if someone is aroused by an action then they really want it but are in denial. As well as many other misconceptions.

The only thing that all of that proves is that the act of sex itself can be attractive and/or spur some kind of unconscious desire for sex. I don't believe for a second that people that enjoy watching monkeys fuck are monkeysexual.

If someone gets aroused by people having sex, then it's probably the act. People don't watch porn for the actors.

If someone gets aroused by a random human doing nothing even remotely sexual, just the sight or sound of them or whatever, then that's due to attraction, pure and simple.

[dissolved]

So to be more clear, i would personally just say it's sexual attraction is "the impulse to have sex with someone specific". Or perhaps more extensively "(knowingly or unknowingly) something about someone triggers the impulse to have sex with them".

As someone who's experienced it (and talked to other people who've experienced it), gotta disagree.

The impulse comes later. Attraction just causes a physiological response, like your body preparing for sex.

It's really rather common to be attracted to someone and not want to sleep with them. Still sexual attraction because it's still strong enough to cause arousal without touching and whatnot.

[Guest]

Yes, alot of sexuals understand sexuality, but alot also don't. Alot insist if a guy can get aroused by gay erotica then he's bi/gay. The same goes for women, but this assumption seems to be more so from people misinterpreting the erotica arousal study and writing articles on it. But what these people don't seem to be acknowledging is that they were shown beastiality as well (among others), which would actually, to them, amount to women being sexually attracted to everything LOL. Or that if someone is aroused by an action then they really want it but are in denial. As well as many other misconceptions.

People don't watch porn for the actors.

Some may not watch porn for the actors. However, some obviously do have a strong attraction to the specific people in the pornogarphy. That's why some people prefer to watch say, Jenna Jameson's videos, no one elses. TMI

The fleshlight company has made an attachment to a tablet, that is a fleshlight molded after a specific woman's vagina, so you can attach it to your tablet and watch her videos while having sex with "her" via their toy

. And, if the people within the pornography have to match a certain aesthetic appeal (which many people require) then obviously the actors do matter, at least somewhat, not just the acts.

[Star Bit]

So to be more clear, i would personally just say it's sexual attraction is "the impulse to have sex with someone specific". Or perhaps more extensively "(knowingly or unknowingly) something about someone triggers the impulse to have sex with them".

As someone who's experienced it (and talked to other people who've experienced it), gotta disagree.

The impulse comes later. Attraction just causes a physiological response, like your body preparing for sex.

It's really rather common to be attracted to someone and not want to sleep with them. Still sexual attraction because it's still strong enough to cause arousal without touching and whatnot.

So you're saying arousal happens first and then the impulse to do sexual things to them? Yah, that's a thing, but the reverse is also just as true. In fact, what you said is true for most women and a minority of men, where as the reverse is true for a majority of men and a minority of women. And some don't even have arousal and just have the sexual impulse. It's not a question of when arousal happens, just that they have an impulse to do sexual things to a specific person.

[5_♦♣]

Yeah, that study that "proved" straight women don't exist... all women who call themselves straight are bisexuals in denial. #NoComment

As a straight woman, I will certainly comment that I exist and that I'm not in denial of my sexuality.

[binary suns]

Yah, not every sexual person has the impulse to have sex specifically; they desire sex for other reasons. So, for example, instead of that impulse they would have the urge for emotional closeness and then decide to have sex, which to them provides a bond that can't be reached any other way so they require sex in a relationship. As for your single sentence at the end, are you refering to my definition clarification at the end of my previous sentence? By the "it's"? I was refering to sexual attraction there.

so wait, why not just say something akin to a sexual person is someone who has sex for the purpose of achieving a bond or experiencing a bond. then this completely ignores the need for emotional-based definitions - something like a bond, or maybe joining, or union, or shared experience, that can only be accomplished via sexual contact, or is especially accomplished via sexual contact. or experienced. some concise set of words that captures that thoughtspace/realm.

er so let me write this out more clearly.

First there is the Goal, and then the Activity of -

G1) Obvious attraction towards - (any clearly discernible emotion like desire, attraction, craving, longing, etc)

G2) Wanting to accomplish or enhance any kind of bond via -

G3) Specifically noticing and enjoying the experience of some kind of existing bond during -

G4) [the one night stand version of this]

A1) - sex. (genital contact with another person)

A2) - shared orgasm. (witnessed by another, or dependant on their involvement, or mutually accomplished)

A3) - sensuality with another, which invokes arousal.

A4) - kink play with another, which evokes arousal.

(and fantasy of any of these full combinations counts)

(additionally, it is on average age 15 before a person knows they have these experiences, sometimes longer)

and so -

if there is both a G element and an A element present, then it is sexual attraction. However -

in the "A" group, only A1 on its own is full sexual by default. the other three - it is up to the individual to discern if it is frequent and/or strong enough for them to be grey, demi, cupio, lith, or full. any of the G elements is necessary for the A elements to be "ace disqualification" however it might only just shift the person to the grey area. (which in some cases is, functionally, enough ace that it doesn't really matter how they identify, although technically they are in the grey area and not ace)

an ace person would not feel one of these combinations more common than once a year.

examples -

• a grey person who hugs a friend and feels some level of arousal, but never wants to move beyond such a thing with anyone (G3:A3)
• a person who loves one night stands and has them all the time. (G4:A1)
• a lith person who loves to masturbate thinking about other people involved with themselves, but wishes not to have the actual experience (G1:A2)
• a demi, who after a bond has been met, finds a desire for sexuality with the person to occur. (no complete combination before a bond is established, but any combination after)

[Star Bit]

We've already covered this. Sexual people desire sex for sexual and/or emotional pleasure.

[binary suns]

oh um so heres the thing actually. desire as a definition for sexual does not work. a lithsexual person is a sexual person. a lithsexual person does not desire sex, they desire no sex. but they feel strong feelings of sexual attraction.

[Frigid Pink]

Maybe "asexuality" isn't a sexual orientation. Maybe it's a description of where someone falls on the sexuality spectrum, however, their orientation is homo-, hetero-, bi-, pan-, and so on. When I refer to a sexuality spectrum, I mean hyposexuality on the left (with asexuality the furthest left you can go when you experience zero desire for sex with others) and hypersexuality on the right (where you experience frequent desire for sex with others). Also, my view is that attraction is attraction is attraction (regardless of type), and everything else (cuddles, kisses, hand holding, or no touching at all, and so on) is just preferences (people may or may not want to kiss, cuddle, and so on regardless of whether or not they desire sex with others, also, people can be sex-averse or sex-repulsed regardless of whether or not they desire sex with others). So, for example, I could say I'm a hetero-sexual (or hetero-asexual) because I'm oriented towards the opposite gender and my a/sexuality is my sexuality and I'm on the very far left side of the sexuality spectrum (no desire for sex with others).

[binary suns]

attraction is just a broader term. it includes all types of attraction, and most types of attraction do overlap in most ways, yes. but for a significant percentage of people, there are distinct things that is different for them for different types of attraction, and we cannot erase them by dictating attraction is all the same, just because it is a larger grouping word. Additionally, in a less meaningful but still true way, desire is attraction. we call it desire because doing so is more meaningful than leaving it as attraction, but it is still a subset of attraction. so if desire is important in determining orientation, it will drag attraction into the picture by association.

as to the purpose of your post however, yes I also am wondering about that. It is definitely possible that asexuality scale is a "level of experience" scale that is on a perpendicular plane to "direction of attraction"

[Star Bit]

No, Lithsexuals do desire sex, and some don't feel sexual attraction but desire it in general, but they just don't react well when it's reciprocated.

Also, if we have an "and" definition (i.e. attraction and desire) i want the phrase sexual attraction out of it. So what would be a short way to include the definition of SA without being too repetitive or messing up the preexisting wording?

[Frigid Pink]

My purpose (with that above post) is to point out that we, as a society, don't fully understand sexuality, so, nobody really can make any claims about it without it being affected by the culture we live in, which certainly shapes it. Previously, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and obviously that wasn't the case. I think our society tends to pathologize normal human behavior, characteristics, and feelings, and I think part of the misunderstandings around sexuality have to do with sexism and unhealthy views and dictates about how sexuality "should be" versus understanding how it actually is and allowing it to be expressed naturally for any given individual. I was very surprised to learn about female responsive desire earlier this year and that it's a "normal" (meaning common) characteristic of female sexuality. Of course, not everyone experiences what is most common, and I think the bulk of why most females experience responsive desire and males don't is the result of sexual repression and cultural upbringing and values that generally tend to be sex negative towards female-bodied individuals especially.

[Star Bit]

We also can't use the word sexual (e.g. an asexual does not have the impulse to do sexual things to anyone nor--) because it's too broad and could include making out depending on the person's point of view.

And um, no, a majority of females don't have responsive desire because of sexual repression. That sounds like a male sexuality elitist. They have a different sexuality because their brains are literally different. Need i list those major differences? They differ sexually in more than this one way as well. If you read the research, which you obviously haven't, they literally need sexual arousal or foreplay to trigger their desire for sex.

[just an owl]

Maybe "asexuality" isn't a sexual orientation. Maybe it's a description of where someone falls on the sexuality spectrum, however, their orientation is homo-, hetero-, bi-, pan-, and so on. When I refer to a sexuality spectrum, I mean hyposexuality on the left (with asexuality the furthest left you can go when you experience zero desire for sex with others) and hypersexuality on the right (where you experience frequent desire for sex with others). Also, my view is that attraction is attraction is attraction (regardless of type), and everything else (cuddles, kisses, hand holding, or no touching at all, and so on) is just preferences (people may or may not want to kiss, cuddle, and so on regardless of whether or not they desire sex with others, also, people can be sex-averse or sex-repulsed regardless of whether or not they desire sex with others). So, for example, I could say I'm a hetero-sexual (or hetero-asexual) because I'm oriented towards the opposite gender and my a/sexuality is my sexuality and I'm on the very far left side of the sexuality spectrum (no desire for sex with others).

So, wait, what is our orientation based off of then? That sounds like you're just changing romantic orientation to equal your sexual orientation which... doesn't really change anything.

[Guest]

Sexual orientation == the kind of people who you desire to have sex with. Aka, sex partner preference.

[Guest]

So to be more clear, i would personally just say it's sexual attraction is "the impulse to have sex with someone specific". Or perhaps more extensively "(knowingly or unknowingly) something about someone triggers the impulse to have sex with them".

As someone who's experienced it (and talked to other people who've experienced it), gotta disagree.

The impulse comes later. Attraction just causes a physiological response, like your body preparing for sex.

It's really rather common to be attracted to someone and not want to sleep with them. Still sexual attraction because it's still strong enough to cause arousal without touching and whatnot.

So you're saying arousal happens first and then the impulse to do sexual things to them? Yah, that's a thing, but the reverse is also just as true. In fact, what you said is true for most women and a minority of men, where as the reverse is true for a majority of men and a minority of women. And some don't even have arousal and just have the sexual impulse. It's not a question of when arousal happens, just that they have an impulse to do sexual things to a specific person.

But, what dissolved is saying, the impulse to do sexual things doesn't have to happen for them to consider it sexual attraction.. as a person who experiences sexual attraction and has talked to people that have. So, your impulse to do things with a specific person definition doesn't fit their experiences or their definition of sexual attraction. I know many sexuals who say they are sexually attracted to someone, but not interested in sex at all with them. They lack that "impulse to do sexual things to a specific person" but would still call it sexual attraction because it triggers a sexual response.

[Guest]

But, what dissolved is saying, the impulse to do sexual things doesn't have to happen for them to consider it sexual attraction.. as a person who experiences sexual attraction and has talked to people that have. So, your impulse to do things with a specific person definition doesn't fit their experiences or their definition of sexual attraction. I know many sexuals who say they are sexually attracted to someone, but not interested in sex at all with them. They lack that "impulse to do sexual things to a specific person" but would still call it sexual attraction because it triggers a sexual response.

I don't think that this "sexual attraction" has anything at all to do with someone's orientation, then. *points at signature and mutters "ceterum censeo..."*

[Star Bit]

So to be more clear, i would personally just say it's sexual attraction is "the impulse to have sex with someone specific". Or perhaps more extensively "(knowingly or unknowingly) something about someone triggers the impulse to have sex with them".

As someone who's experienced it (and talked to other people who've experienced it), gotta disagree.

The impulse comes later. Attraction just causes a physiological response, like your body preparing for sex.

It's really rather common to be attracted to someone and not want to sleep with them. Still sexual attraction because it's still strong enough to cause arousal without touching and whatnot.

So you're saying arousal happens first and then the impulse to do sexual things to them? Yah, that's a thing, but the reverse is also just as true. In fact, what you said is true for most women and a minority of men, where as the reverse is true for a majority of men and a minority of women. And some don't even have arousal and just have the sexual impulse. It's not a question of when arousal happens, just that they have an impulse to do sexual things to a specific person.

But, what dissolved is saying, the impulse to do sexual things doesn't have to happen for them to consider it sexual attraction.. as a person who experiences sexual attraction and has talked to people that have. So, your impulse to do things with a specific person definition doesn't fit their experiences or their definition of sexual attraction. I know many sexuals who say they are sexually attracted to someone, but not interested in sex at all with them. They lack that "impulse to do sexual things to a specific person" but would still call it sexual attraction because it triggers a sexual response.

Like I've said before, sexual people use the phrase sexual attraction to refer to anything and everything they want about their sexuality without understanding what the term actually means. It's essentially now just a common phrase no one knows the meaning to because so many people misuse it. And it has such variation because sexuality varies by person.

There are a ton of misconceptions that exist, but it doesn't mean they're right. The word feminist being misused on feminazis doesn't mean they're right. The extremely common misconception that Buffalo (which only live in africa) and Bison (which only live in the U.S.) are the same thing doesn't mean they should change the animal's official profile. There are alot of misconceptions even sexuals have about sex/masturbation, but that doesn't mean they're right (e.g. a guy masturbating to gay erotica means he's bi/gay, if something triggers arousal then they really want it but are in denial, etc.).

Yet every dictionary that defines it actually words it exactly the same; attractiveness on the basis of sexual desire. If you break down the term it literally translates to the same thing;"something about someone that evokes the desire for sex with that person"

[Frigid Pink]

We also can't use the word sexual (e.g. an asexual does not have the impulse to do sexual things to anyone nor--) because it's too broad and could include making out depending on the person's point of view.

And um, no, a majority of females don't have responsive desire because of sexual repression. That sounds like a male sexuality elitist. They have a different sexuality because their brains are literally different. Need i list those major differences? They differ sexually in more than this one way as well. If you read the research, which you obviously haven't, they literally need sexual arousal or foreplay to trigger their desire for sex.

I disagree and I don't desire to have a "discussion" with someone who is already making assumptions about me and doesn't seem to be interested in "discussion," anyway.

So to be more clear, i would personally just say it's sexual attraction is "the impulse to have sex with someone specific". Or perhaps more extensively "(knowingly or unknowingly) something about someone triggers the impulse to have sex with them".

As someone who's experienced it (and talked to other people who've experienced it), gotta disagree.

The impulse comes later. Attraction just causes a physiological response, like your body preparing for sex.

It's really rather common to be attracted to someone and not want to sleep with them. Still sexual attraction because it's still strong enough to cause arousal without touching and whatnot.

So you're saying arousal happens first and then the impulse to do sexual things to them? Yah, that's a thing, but the reverse is also just as true. In fact, what you said is true for most women and a minority of men, where as the reverse is true for a majority of men and a minority of women. And some don't even have arousal and just have the sexual impulse. It's not a question of when arousal happens, just that they have an impulse to do sexual things to a specific person.

But, what dissolved is saying, the impulse to do sexual things doesn't have to happen for them to consider it sexual attraction.. as a person who experiences sexual attraction and has talked to people that have. So, your impulse to do things with a specific person definition doesn't fit their experiences or their definition of sexual attraction. I know many sexuals who say they are sexually attracted to someone, but not interested in sex at all with them. They lack that "impulse to do sexual things to a specific person" but would still call it sexual attraction because it triggers a sexual response.

Like I've said before, sexual people use the phrase sexual attraction to refer to anything and everything they want about their sexuality without understanding what the term actually means. It's essentially now just a common phrase no one knows the meaning to because so many people misuse it. And it has such variation because sexuality varies by person.

There are a ton of misconceptions that exist, but it doesn't mean they're right. The word feminist being misused on feminazis doesn't mean they're right. The extremely common misconception that Buffalo (which only live in africa) and Bison (which only live in the U.S.) are the same thing doesn't mean they should change the animal's official profile. There are alot of misconceptions even sexuals have about sex/masturbation, but that doesn't mean they're right (e.g. a guy masturbating to gay erotica means he's bi/gay, if something triggers arousal then they really want it but are in denial, etc.).

Yet every dictionary that defines it actually words it exactly the same; attractiveness on the basis of sexual desire. If you break down the term it literally translates to the same thing;"something about someone that evokes the desire for sex with that person"

Many of your sentences go both ways. Misunderstandings and misconceptions go both ways. "Asexual" people don't understand sexuality any better than "sexual" people do.

With that said, I'm going to disengage from this thread and the whole definition debate altogether. I'll leave it up to science and researchers to figure it out. In the grand scheme of things, I think it's more important to acknowledge that it's okay to be any sexuality as long as it's "safe, sane, and consensual" (regardless of the labels people want to use and the ways they define those labels) and I'll continue to promote and support that.

[Guest]

Yet every dictionary that defines it actually words it exactly the same; attractiveness on the basis of sexual desire. If you break down the term it literally translates to the same thing;"something about someone that evokes the desire for sex with that person"

I've never seen a dictionary that defines sexual attraction. Merriam Webster defines attraction as a feeling that makes someone sexually or romantically interested in another person. However, that again, can be defined multiple ways. Does looking at the person making you aroused to the point you want to masturbate mean you are sexually interested in them? Do you have to actually want to physically have sexual interactions to be sexually interested? A lot of sexuals fantasize, masturbate to, drool over, etc celebrities but admit they would never take them up on it if they offered. Does that mean they are sexually interested in those celebrities, or are they not? Some would say yes, some would say no.

Personally, I use the desire definition for myself. Because, I have read research papers. And psychologist's articles. And talked to many sexual people. And talked to many asexual people. And ... the definitions vary so much depending on who you are reading or talking to. I've read some research that measured libido and sexual attraction by showing people pornography and measuring arousal responses. But, on AVEN, we'd say that was just responding to the situations in the videos. However, I know I lack desire for everything sexual. So, that's a lot easier for me to explain and understand.

[Star Bit]

Not many do define it, but the ones that do define it exactly the same. link, link, link, link, link, link, link, and i know it may not be reliable, but wiki defines it the same too. And according to the far more elaborate wiki it has nothing to do with arousal, just what evokes the interest in sex. Someone who's sexually attracted to a person in general but won't take them up on the offer if made doesn't mean they're still not sexually attracted to them. Whether they'd have sex with them IRL, if they mentally desire sex with someone specific then that's sexual attraction.

I've read some research that measured libido and sexual attraction by showing people pornography and measuring arousal responses. But, on AVEN, we'd say that was just responding to the situations in the videos.

Oh no, no, no. People who say those sexual arousal studies display sexual attraction are just misinformed men who think arousal to erotica is sexual attraction. In those studies a majority of men could not get aroused by erotica that did not contain someone they were sexually attracted to (thus a majority of men can't understand that it's not sexual attraction). According to that studie's logic (if it's the people who studied it saying this and not just people reading the report) most women would be sexually attracted to animals because that study included animal porn. But being aroused by what you don't sexually desire is completely normal; erotica wise. Alot of straight women watch male on male poen but aren't sexually attracted to them. Gay women watch the same thing and they're obviously not interested in them that way either. The reason neither watch porn of their own orientation is because that erotica is normally "made for men".

Women commonly need an emotional element to get aroused by erotica and not just a sexual one, where as the male brain works the other way and gets aroused at sexual things and not so much emotional things (for them women on woman porn doubles the erotic experience where as women may think of same sex couples more as "you're not just into me for reproduction/you're genuinely into who i am/there's no possibility of unwanted pregnancy/same gender means more mental compatibility when a majority of male and female brains are majorly different"-- i mention the pregnancy part because women have sensitive off switches, so even if it's not something they actively worry about it's still in the back of their mind and can still impair things). And men can get aroused by male on male porn because males commonly get aroused at the sight of a boner or their own genitals. In fact that's why hermaphrodite porn is popular among men; it has the gender they're attracted to and another thing that arouses them; boners.

[binary suns]

ok from what I've read on this page I have a new thought.

I think the thing is. that some people, sexual orientation is clearly because of their desire. for other people, their desire isn't strong or doesn't exist, but their orientation is because of their sexual attraction. and I can imagine other people who would call themselves heterosexual, but because of other attributes or experiences that have nothing to do with attraction or desire, it is simply that it just makes sense to them to ID as hetero. no real reason for it.

and so really. for the most part - it is very true that it is the person's identity and self-observation, what they think or feel fits best - and not the facts about the experience - that determine an orientation.

for example, imagine a girl named Jane. and when she was a kid this guy John flirted with her, and then asked her out. and then kissed her, and then they had sex, and then they married and then lived happily ever after. and this girl Jane enjoys sex and romance and yadda yadda and has zero reason to identify any way other than just as heterosexual. because she's happy. but the reality is that everything about her relationship, John did the chasing, and she only ever enjoyed it and happily followed suit... there is literally no way we can look at her behavior and conclude anything about her emotions or inspirations, if she is really heterosexual, or maybe she's ace, or maybe bi, who knows? but she does. she just assumes she is heterosexual and that's good enough for her because she lives and dies with her only love. a happy beginning, a happy ending, a happy life.

and so I mean this is why david jay used the sexual attraction definition... because it allows for this level of flexibility. But is it this flexibility that needs to change, or the language that is misleading? I feel that it is the language that is misleading. there just isn't clarity available for an asexual person by his definition.

but I think that there must be a way to describe sexuality, or at the very least, asexuality, which does not use attraction or desire or loaded terms, but allows for this flexibility.

maybe it is correct to think about orientation about who you intend to form a lasting relationship with. or actually it isn't only lasting relationships, if we think about a person who only likes one night stands or friends with benefits and not a partnership. but whichever steps it takes to go down this path, I think this is the right path to take, the path that defines orientation by the relationships a person pursues rather than their abstract emotional experience.

Because if it is abstract emotional experience that determines orientation, than the reality is plain and simple that an abstract word like "attraction" is the best way to define it, (and we clearly don't like that or we wouldn't be discussing this so...)

[Star Bit]

No, David Jay's attraction definition isn't flexable. According to it people who feel sexual attraction but never desire to act on it can't identify as ace. And even more so, it has a giant hole where completely normal sexuals that consist of half the sexual population can identify as asexual. And honestly, desire does give you that flexibility. Someone could say "i have the mental impulse to do sexual things but don't identify with that/don't have the genuine desire to do those things".

defines orientation by the relationships a person pursues rather than their abstract emotional experience

Which i agree, i have no problem with lithsexuals identifying as ace or technical bisexuals who identify as monosexual because they'd never pursue a sexual or romantic relationship with one gender.

[Lost247365]

.

[Guest]

.

Was that written for an ant? I can't read it, it's too tiny :p

[Lost247365]

.

Was that written for an ant? I can't read it, it's too tiny :P

:P

Just practicing my ant-anese.

After waiting what seemed like two years for it to load, I had second thoughts and self deleted.

God this site is slow.

[binary suns]

technically the last post in this discussion was july. the three in august did not discuss the topic. as such, shouldn't this be unpinned? it is clear that the few remaining people interested in this discussion all have ceased wishing to discuss it with each other.

[Lost247365]

technically the last post in this discussion was july. the three in august did not discuss the topic. as such, shouldn't this be unpinned? it is clear that the few remaining people interested in this discussion all have ceased wishing to discuss it with each other.

Actually, the post I made in August was discussing this, but I edited it in to dots because I decided I didn't feel like arguing.