Most Aces Don't Want Sex

[SquidKen]

'We are not obligated to let you fuck us. We don’t have to try sex to make sure we hate it. We are not obligated to fuck you, just because we have sex drives. We are not obligated to fuck you, even if we masturbate and like it. We don’t need to come up with an excuse for our sex-repulsion/sex-aversion that satisfies you. We do not have to let you fuck us in order to “prove” our love for you. We do not have to let you fuck us in order to be good romantic partners. That tired pop cultural trope “Romantic relationships are about compromise” is not a permission slip for you to fuck someone who really doesn’t want to be fucked or to pull out every coercive tactic in the book and use it against an asexual until they finally surrender and let you have your way'

This paragraph here pretty much sums up all the issues I'm currently having with my ex who I'm still friends with. Pretty much everything.

I think it's accurate to say asexuals don't want to have sex. I've never wanted to, and that seems like a common theme.

[FoxEars]

I'm not ''going off'', you just feel like I am because I am disagreeing with you, strongly.

... Your usage of exclamation marks and things like "OH MY GOD YOU GUYS >.<", etc., is what I was referring to. To me, that qualifies as 'going off'. (It may not to you; I'm putting that down to a matter of cultural / linguistic differences. My apologies if I caused you any offence.) To me, agreement or disagreement is immaterial in terms of whether or not one is 'going off'. The phrase, to me, simply indicates a somewhat explosively passionate outburst.

Don't tell me to ''brush up on my terminology'', if you knew me at all (you clearly don't) you would know I am very clued up on what I am talking about when it comes to terminology on this site.

I'm very much aware that I don't know you. I was simply pointing out that you were misusing the terminology. I will do this to anyone, if I judge it relevant and constructive to do so, regardless of how well I do or do not know them.

Don't try to resort to cheap shots in attempt to make yourself look ''more correct''

Don't worry, I haven't done so and I have no intention to start now ^_^

Many here agree that ''finding someone sexy'' feels a lot different than ''finding someone beautiful'' or ''appreciating a nice sunset'' (both of these latter are aesthetic appreciation) .. And I myself can attest to this as someone who finds certain people damn sexy, I just don't want to have sex with any of them, same as a heterosexual woman who finds her friend damn sexy, she just doesn't want to have sex with her. I had a heterosexual friend who would often touch my breasts and butt when I wore tight clothes, and tell me she thought I looked ''f*cking hot'' and things, but she has no interest in having sex with me, she only desired sex with men, no matter how attractive she found women.. This really is quite common among sexuals. Maybe not among your friends, but among many of the people I have known (on and off this site)

I certainly have had friends similar to the type you described. More to the point, that sort of 'finding someone sexy' (in a non-sexually-attracted manner) is still a type of æsthetic attraction; it's just a different type from the beautiful-person or nice-sunset types.

^ FoxEars ^

[Guest]

This whole asexual spectrum thing is a nightmare. Unless you're hypersexual, you're on the asexual spectrum, basically.

Yeah but then of course we have the (self-identifying) hypersexual asexuals (''I love having sex and can't get enough of it, but I don't find anyone sexually attractive so I'm asexual!'') sooo.. everyone is asexual! :p ..*lights fireworks to celibate rainbows, unicorns, and happy elves*

[FoxEars]

Oh no, I understand that -- I just meant that there were several posts earlier on indicating that I wasn't 'good enough' of an asexual to be allowed to bear that label.

It's not a degree. Either you don't feel primary/inherent desire for partnered sex (then you're not a "good" asexual... you're just an asexual, period), or you do feel primary/inherent desire for partnered sex (then you're not a "bad" asexual... you're just not an asexual, period).

Again, I really do understand -- I don't believe in 'good' or 'bad' asexuals or anything like that. I was referring to the judgments and implications of others; I certainly don't buy into them, though.

^ FoxEars ^

[kinky cupid]

You honestly think that people go to bars and only have sex with people they're sexually attracted to? You honestly like that everyone who hooks up in gay club restrooms, or sex clubs, or swingers' clubs are attracted to everyone they have sex with?!?! SERIOUSLY? You think the phrases "beer goggles" and "coyote ugly" are just jokes? You think that glory holes make sense under a theory of attraction? What about prostitutes and their johns?

Jesus Christ I can't even. My head is going to explode. Sexual people have non-attraction related sex All. The. Time.

jesus christ dude, why are you being so hostile about this? calm down.

sexuals can have sex without attraction. sexuals can have sex just because it feels good and they want to get off, or just to feel a close bond to a person, or for any of the other reasons an asexual could have sex. my point was that those reasons are the only reasons an asexual would desire sex, whereas a sexual could desire sex for those reasons and/or because they are sexually attracted to the person, and sex where they are attracted to the person is ideal. sexuals also would feel an actual need for sex as a part of their life, whereas an asexual may just want to try it because they're curious or they think it might physically feel good or they might even want to have it somewhat regularly but still be okay with the possibility of not having it anymore. one could argue that this is a desire that isn't "innate" in the way that it is for sexuals, which would still set asexuals with sexual desire apart.

it seems that most of you think sexuality is based on sexual desire and sexual attraction doesn't matter. i disagree and i have never heard about sexual orientations being defined in that way before. i don't really have much of a response other than that, i don't think your definition is correct. and Panfictosaurus Asex, i know that people can be attracted to people for personality and mannerisms and such; that's still sexual attraction. if those mannerisms and such make someone think of that specific person in a sexual way and desire sex with them specifically, that is a form of sexual attraction. but i think that desiring sex in a general sense, independent of sexual attraction, is something that anyone of any orientation can do. it's just that asexuals would only be able to desire sex in that way, if they do desire it.

Skullery IS sexual, I think she knows what she is talking about.

okay? how does that invalidate anything i've said? her entire opinion on what sexual orientations ever are is different from mine. just because she's sexual doesn't mean her opinion is "right."

[Snao Cone]

@Fox Ears

Being curious about and open to sex with your boyfriend, yes, is asexual. Desiring; wanting; wishing; craving; yearning to have sex with someone is not asexual.

That's a messy distinction to make though.

I'm curious about consensual sex;

I want / wish / crave / yearn to know what consensual sex is like

See what I mean?

I do get what you're saying and you're not wrong exactly, it's just that you're making a very black-and-white distinction where in fact there isn't a very clear linguistic line drawn. (Several mentions have been made to how the German language deals with asexuality; my knowledge of German is minimal and frankly pretty weird, so I don't know, but perhaps in German this distinction is better made.)

^ FoxEars ^

Curiosity about sex can still be asexual, yes, but describing it as craving or yearning is pretty strong. If that curiosity is acted upon, an asexual person would likely react with a "meh, got that over with" and not pursue it. Curiosity might be part of one's asexuality if one is also a curious person in general - if it's an ongoing interest in understanding sex and sexualities it's on a more intellectual level rather than personal. The desire to understand may be strong enough for a person to say "I yearn to know what it's like to have and enjoy sex" but that's not common and it's likely to mislead people who aren't asexual and don't know what it feels like inside.

Trust me, I've had my a/sexuality questioned too, by people who assumed my knowledge and understanding and interest in sex equated to needing to have it. I know it can be difficult to be put on the spot to fit yourself into a definition and to have to explain how what makes you you - experiences, beliefs, feelings, etc - doesn't fit in a box people barely know the shape of.

[Guest]

I'm not ''going off'', you just feel like I am because I am disagreeing with you, strongly.

... Your usage of exclamation marks and things like "OH MY GOD YOU GUYS >.<", etc., is what I was referring to. To me, that qualifies as 'going off'. (It may not to you; I'm putting that down to a matter of cultural / linguistic differences. My apologies if I caused you any offence.) To me, agreement or disagreement is immaterial in terms of whether or not one is 'going off'. The phrase, to me, simply indicates a somewhat explosively passionate outburst.

Ah okay, so exactly what you did in your first post here, written in giant bolded letters telling everyone they are wrong :P

And I explained what I was referring to, I was not referring to aesthetic attraction. Though you can define aesthetic attraction however you want to, just don't try to tell me I am wrong for not defining it the way you do. What I was referring to was sensual attraction more than anything. I did used to be on your ''if it doesn't come with a desire to have sex it's just aesthetic attraction'' bandwagon though, then I got told by sexual people here that no, what they generally experience as ''sexual attraction'' (finding someone attractive in a way that can even be arousing and/or makes you want to touch them etc, but certainly does not come with a desire for partnered sex with that person) sounds exactly like what I was describing. They then also explained that sexual attraction is not what makes them sexual, it's just something that some sexual people feel sometimes, what makes them sexual is their innate desire for partnered sex for their own physical and/or emotional pleasure.

Pretty much, a yearning or craving for sex, due to an actual enjoyment of sex, is just a normal aspect of sexuality, or if one still feels they must be somewhere on the ace spectrum, grey or demi.

[WhenSummersGone]

The term Cupiosexual describes those who desire sex without sexual attraction. Pansexual is a term where someone, I think, can be sexually attracted to anyone for any reason, it doesn't need to be based on looks. With these two terms out there I feel being asexual should mean you don't desire sex.

It was mentioned in another topic that a partner isn't going to care if you're not sexually attracted to them, but they would care if you don't desire sex with them.

[FoxEars]

I'm not ''going off'', you just feel like I am because I am disagreeing with you, strongly.

... Your usage of exclamation marks and things like "OH MY GOD YOU GUYS >.<", etc., is what I was referring to. To me, that qualifies as 'going off'. (It may not to you; I'm putting that down to a matter of cultural / linguistic differences. My apologies if I caused you any offence.) To me, agreement or disagreement is immaterial in terms of whether or not one is 'going off'. The phrase, to me, simply indicates a somewhat explosively passionate outburst.

Ah okay, so exactly what you did in your first post here, written in giant bolded letters telling everyone they are wrong :P

I mean, aside from the fact that I wasn't 'telling everyone they are wrong' (as has been discussed on the status post). And in my mind, there's a difference between pure emphasis, and emphasis combined with frequently-expressed frustration. But other than that, sure, think of it that way if you like.

^ FoxEars ^

[Fire & Rain]

If someone desires sex (not the same as desiring sexual release), a longing desire to have sex with a hypothetical someone (maybe a specific gender or not) and unsatisfied with masturbation, they are not asexual in my opinion.

[FoxEars]

@Fox Ears

Being curious about and open to sex with your boyfriend, yes, is asexual. Desiring; wanting; wishing; craving; yearning to have sex with someone is not asexual.

That's a messy distinction to make though.

I'm curious about consensual sex;

I want / wish / crave / yearn to know what consensual sex is like

See what I mean?

I do get what you're saying and you're not wrong exactly, it's just that you're making a very black-and-white distinction where in fact there isn't a very clear linguistic line drawn. (Several mentions have been made to how the German language deals with asexuality; my knowledge of German is minimal and frankly pretty weird, so I don't know, but perhaps in German this distinction is better made.)

^ FoxEars ^

Curiosity about sex can still be asexual, yes, but describing it as craving or yearning is pretty strong. If that curiosity is acted upon, an asexual person would likely react with a "meh, got that over with" and not pursue it. Curiosity might be part of one's asexuality if one is also a curious person in general - if it's an ongoing interest in understanding sex and sexualities it's on a more intellectual level rather than personal. The desire to understand may be strong enough for a person to say "I yearn to know what it's like to have and enjoy sex" but that's not common and it's likely to mislead people who aren't asexual and don't know what it feels like inside.

I understand that, but part of what worries me about the counterargument here is that it seems like it'd easily mislead people who aren't asexual in the other direction. I'm trying to find a happy medium here, but for the most part people appear to want to remain polarised on this issue ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Trust me, I've had my a/sexuality questioned too, by people who assumed my knowledge and understanding and interest in sex equated to needing to have it. I know it can be difficult to be put on the spot to fit yourself into a definition and to have to explain how what makes you you - experiences, beliefs, feelings, etc - doesn't fit in a box people barely know the shape of.

Aawh, I'm sorry to hear that :\ Yeah, it sucks (especially on a place like AVEN where you sort of expect people to be somewhat accepting / understanding).

But who knows, maybe a few generations down the line, people won't interrogate other people on their sexualities like that anymore. Might be a little idealistic of me, but a little hope never killed anyone ^_^ ^_^

^ FoxEars ^

[Guest]

It was mentioned in another topic that a partner isn't going to care if you're not sexually attracted to them, but they would care if you don't desire sex with them.

This right there, yes.

If asexuals can desire sex, pretty much the entire SFPA subforum just stops making sense, and becomes just a collection of stories about randomly (!) problematic relationships. Makes one wonder why this gets posted on AVEN...

Hint: There is a very common aspect in these stories.

Hint2: This thread's title.

[kinky cupid]

The term Cupiosexual describes those who desire sex without sexual attraction. Pansexual is a term where someone, I think, can be sexually attracted to anyone for any reason, it doesn't need to be based on looks. With these two terms out there I feel being asexual should mean you don't desire sex.

It was mentioned in another topic that a partner isn't going to care if you're not sexually attracted to them, but they would care if you don't desire sex with them.

cupiosexual is actually the term i use to describe myself, but it is considered a part of the asexual spectrum at least, if not just a different way of experiencing asexuality.

someone's sexual orientation isn't defined based on whether or not their partner will care about it. that's not what sexuality is about. just because a certain struggle is common among people with a certain sexuality doesn't mean that everyone with it must experience that struggle.

[Guest]

I understand that, but part of what worries me about the counterargument here is that it seems like it'd easily mislead people who aren't asexual in the other direction. I'm trying to find a happy medium here, but for the most part people appear to want to remain polarised on this issue ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Beware the golden mean fallacy.

Wanting a clear and consistent logical criterion for asexuality, that works alongside a structurally identical criterion for other orientations, and opposing alternative criteria that fail at fulfilling these conditions, isn't polarization for its own sake, and neither is it elitism. It just means we are rating the education aspect of AVEN higher than the social network aspect.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - a total inclusivity dogma hurts AVEN more than it helps,

cupiosexual is actually the term i use to describe myself, but it is considered a part of the asexual spectrum at least, if not just a different way of experiencing asexuality.

The bolded part - as you will no doubt have noticed in this thread already - is a very controversial statement. (And rightly so, IMO.)

[FoxEars]

I understand that, but part of what worries me about the counterargument here is that it seems like it'd easily mislead people who aren't asexual in the other direction. I'm trying to find a happy medium here, but for the most part people appear to want to remain polarised on this issue ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Beware the golden mean fallacy.

Wanting a clear and consistent logical criterion for asexuality, that works alongside a structurally identical criterion for other orientations, and opposing alternative criteria that fail at fulfilling these conditions, isn't polarization for its own sake, and neither is it elitism. It just means we are rating the education aspect of AVEN higher than the social network aspect.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - a total inclusivity dogma hurts AVEN more than it helps,

I understand your point, but inclusivity does not necessarily entail decreased / poorer-quality 'education'. If anything, it means greater education, as more than one specific type of asexual voice is represented.

Keep in mind that an excess of exclusivity can be really damaging to people. Those who are very secure in their asexuality, or those who didn't have much of a struggle prior to identifying as asexual, forget that some people have suffered greatly for their asexuality and for lack of comprehension of it. It is our job to make sure that asexuals -- even if they're different from us -- have somewhere at least where they're accepted for who they are and they can explore their sexualities without backlash from their communities.

Playing with other people's identities is like playing with fire, except they're the ones who can end up getting burnt.

(I'm speaking about a certain type of AVENites in general, to be clear, not really you personally.)

^ FoxEars ^

[kinky cupid]

I understand that, but part of what worries me about the counterargument here is that it seems like it'd easily mislead people who aren't asexual in the other direction. I'm trying to find a happy medium here, but for the most part people appear to want to remain polarised on this issue ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Beware the golden mean fallacy.

Wanting a clear and consistent logical criterion for asexuality, that works alongside a structurally identical criterion for other orientations, and opposing alternative criteria that fail at fulfilling these conditions, isn't polarization for its own sake, and neither is it elitism. It just means we are rating the education aspect of AVEN higher than the social network aspect.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - a total inclusivity dogma hurts AVEN more than it helps,

cupiosexual is actually the term i use to describe myself, but it is considered a part of the asexual spectrum at least, if not just a different way of experiencing asexuality.

The bolded part - as you will no doubt have noticed in this thread already - is a very controversial statement. (And rightly so, IMO.)

ha! yeah, i've noticed. if you define orientations based on desire, most cupiosexuals would be considered sexuals of some sort (though i personally would be more along the lines of gray ace even then, as actual sexual desire is a fairly rare thing for me). but if you go with the attraction-based definition of sexuality, which most people outside of the asexual community and many within it do, it is part of the spectrum. i understand that this doesn't line up with your beliefs but it does line up with mine.

[Lost247365]

Wikipedia is not particularly reliable when it comes to things like this. Unless it is referring to loose synonyms rather than precise synonyms, that statement is simply false. (It would not be the first time Wikipedia was incorrect about something.)

^ FoxEars ^

Actually, when it comes to academic subjects like this it is very accurate.

But okay lets use a different source. The Oxford english dictionary:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sexual-attraction

Sexual allure; (an) attraction based on sexual instinct or sexual desire.

Based on sexual desire. Now, asexuals can feel attractions. For example, aesthetic attraction is one based upon the other persons appearance. The one type of attraction an asexual can't have is one based upon sexual desire. That is because asexual don't intrinsically desire sex.

Asexuality is a sexual orientation. (Presumably we can all agree on this part at least.)

Here is what one's sexual orientation indicates about the given person:

• to whom (i.e., generally, to which gender(s)) one is sexually attracted, if any

Here is what one's sexual orientation does NOT indicate about the given person:

• how one feels about sex or sexual activity
• literally anything else

Many sources call asexuality a lack of an orientation but for the most part I agree that it is an orientation. What I don't agree with is that sexual attraction should be considered what defines orientation. I feel that if a person desires sex with a certain gender in general, that defines their orientation. If a man desires to have sex with only women, regardless if he finds other men attractive or not, that makes him heterosexual.

I find the whole attraction based definition problematic for multiple reasons. Primarily because attractions are not sentient and don't tell us what type of attraction they are. It not like the attractions I feel come up to me and slap me across the face and scream "Lost you idiot, I am romantic attraction not sexual attraction!" It is just a pull I feel. But, desires do indicate the target of their actions to me. When I want cake, the thought "I want cake" pops into my mind. So, I do know.

With regards to your comments about sexual attraction differing from sexual desire in that the former is targeted toward specific people, I can't see how that works. By that a heteroflexible man (desires sex with women in general but might have one or two exceptions) would be classified as being gay or bi, when their interests are by far mainly focused on women.

Further, I have an issue with orientation being defined by sexual attraction in that, for a great many people, sexual attraction can also refer to being physically aroused by a person they are attracted toward. By limiting it to sexual attraction one could inadvertantly erase the identity of almost every straight woman and bisexual men.

That said, I know you have never defined it that way, and I am not accusing you of defining it that way, but I am listing one of the main reasons I adamantly oppose defining sexual orientation in terms of sexual attraction. Speaking of which, if what Mysticus says is true, not all countries define orientations in terms of attraction. From my limited knowledge of Japanese, it seems that they define it more in what they call "sexual love" instead.

I don't know why it just occurred to me to put it this way, and I apologise for this way of wording it not coming to me sooner -- I'm not referring to innate desire for sexual interaction. (For those of you who decided that you had any right to tell me what my orientation is, I personally do not have any innate sexual desire (and I actually alluded to this on an earlier post in this thread). In case that helps you ~keep score~ of how asexual I am or am not.) However, it's important that we can distinguish between innate and non-innate desires (and non-innate desires can include far, far more than simply partner-pleasing or procreating), because it is entirely possible to have the latter and still be asexual. To suggest otherwise is to pointlessly -- and harmfully -- reject perfectly valid members of the asexual community.

Then I don't see why you quoted me via Skullery to post in large letters your disagreement. I specifically said "intrinsic desire" in that post.

Honestly, I don't think you and I have much of a disagreement beyond a matter of semantics.

At the end of the day, it's important to remember that human sexuality is a highly complex, nuanced phenomenon. Sexuality is not your high school and asexuality is not your clique. Some people may be completely asexual and have different experiences than you; that doesn't make them not asexual or 'wrong' about their asexuality.

This I greatly agree with.

[Guest]

ha! yeah, i've noticed. if you define orientations based on desire, most cupiosexuals would be considered sexuals of some sort (though i personally would be more along the lines of gray ace even then, as actual sexual desire is a fairly rare thing for me). but if you go with the attraction-based definition of sexuality, which most people outside of the asexual community and many within it do, it is part of the spectrum. i understand that this doesn't line up with your beliefs but it does line up with mine.

Many do consider cupiosexuality to be an aspect of sexuality (a sexual person who does not experience attraction to others but still desires partnered sex) ..Also, AVEN itself (in the General FAQ) defines sexual attraction AS the desire for partnered sex with other people. As soon as you are having sex with someone, you are desiring sex with them, even if it's just for the sex itself. If you didn't want the sex with them, you wouldn't have it for your own pleasure (emotional and/or sexual) though of course, asexuals have sex for reasons other than out of a desire for the pleasure sex itself brings. If you didn't desire sex specifically with other people (even if it's just for the sex itself) you'd just masturbate and get it over with. You don't have to be attracted to someone to desire having sex with them for the sake of sex itself, as many sexual people will attest to.

Skullery IS sexual, I think she knows what she is talking about.

okay? how does that invalidate anything i've said? her entire opinion on what sexual orientations ever are is different from mine. just because she's sexual doesn't mean her opinion is "right."

Very openly sexual person: ''This is how it is to be sexual, this is what sexuals experience''

Non-sexual-identifying person: ''No, no, that's not really what it's like for sexuals, this is how they feel based on what I have seen and think of them but have not actually experienced myself personally.. I just desire sex, I don't feel what sexual people feel though based on my own personal understanding of what they feel. Just because a sexual person describes what it's like to be sexual does not mean they are right..''

*gives up*

[Guest]

I understand your point, but inclusivity does not necessarily entail decreased / poorer-quality 'education'. If anything, it means greater education, as more than one specific type of asexual voice is represented.

Keep in mind that an excess of exclusivity can be really damaging to people. Those who are very secure in their asexuality, or those who didn't have much of a struggle prior to identifying as asexual, forget that some people have suffered greatly for their asexuality and for lack of comprehension of it. It is our job to make sure that asexuals -- even if they're different from us -- have somewhere at least where they're accepted for who they are and they can explore their sexualities without backlash from their communities.

Playing with other people's identities is like playing with fire, except they're the ones who can end up getting burnt.

(I'm speaking about a certain type of AVENites in general, to be clear, not really you personally.)

^ FoxEars ^

People can, and do, get accepted here even when they are not asexual.

And no, I'm sorry: Validating people in their choice of identifying as [identity X] when they do not fit the criterion for [identity X] cannot be anything else than very bad for education. Education must mean that, when someone comes in and asks if they are asexual, and describe their situation as one that is indistingusihable from a bog-standard sexual person, we must be allowed to tell them "No, you are not." That's not elitism; it's just common sense, logical thinking, and honesty.

ha! yeah, i've noticed. if you define orientations based on desire, most cupiosexuals would be considered sexuals of some sort (though i personally would be more along the lines of gray ace even then, as actual sexual desire is a fairly rare thing for me). but if you go with the attraction-based definition of sexuality, which most people outside of the asexual community and many within it do, it is part of the spectrum. i understand that this doesn't line up with your beliefs but it does line up with mine.

And this just doesn't correspond to my experience. Before I found AVEN - I was 38 at the time and had searched for a label that fittingly described my orientation for 22 years, to no effect until then - , I didn't hear anyone define orientations by "sexual attraction". That banner up there was as confusing on day one as it is now; and I am immensely grateful that I had found the much clearer (desire-based!) definition on AVEN.de a few days before. Reading "no desire/urge for sexual interaction" was a huge bingo! moment; "no sexual attraction" remains a constant annyoance of WTF does that even mean, to this day almost four years later.

And as I said, I know sexual people outside of AVEN who have no clue what you folks even mean with "sexual attraction" - obviously, I couldn't explain it to them, either - but still know just fine that they are sexual, and can clearly identify as homo, hetero etc. perfectly well. They know they desire sex, and they can describe the sex/gender they desire it with (i.e., their partner preference). That's all there is to it. "Attraction" plays no role in it.

This "attraction" talk still is a weird subcultural lingo to me. It's certainly not the majority view it is constantly implied to be.

[Lost247365]

What is it with all the special snowflake font users posting one after another?

It is a conspiracy I tells you.

Though, If I were to post in purple/indigo rather than teal/dark cyan it would be more obvious...

[Fire & Rain]

What is it with all the special snowflake font users posting one after another?

It is a conspiracy I tells you.

Though, If I were to post in purple/indigo rather than teal/dark cyan it would be more obvious...

*hides*

[Snao Cone]

I'm using the special Snow Cone font and anyone using the same one is just copying me out of admiration :D

[Guest]

What is it with all the special snowflake font users posting one after another?

It is a conspiracy I tells you.

Though, If I were to post in purple/indigo rather than teal/dark cyan it would be more obvious...

Shhh, you're all just my schizoid alter egos breaking loose and popping up on different sock account I made. HA HA HA HA HA! :twisted:​

[That was a joke. I don't have sock accounts. Sock accounts are bad, m'kay?]

[FoxEars]

I understand your point, but inclusivity does not necessarily entail decreased / poorer-quality 'education'. If anything, it means greater education, as more than one specific type of asexual voice is represented.

Keep in mind that an excess of exclusivity can be really damaging to people. Those who are very secure in their asexuality, or those who didn't have much of a struggle prior to identifying as asexual, forget that some people have suffered greatly for their asexuality and for lack of comprehension of it. It is our job to make sure that asexuals -- even if they're different from us -- have somewhere at least where they're accepted for who they are and they can explore their sexualities without backlash from their communities.

Playing with other people's identities is like playing with fire, except they're the ones who can end up getting burnt.

(I'm speaking about a certain type of AVENites in general, to be clear, not really you personally.)

^ FoxEars ^

People can, and do, get accepted here even when they are not asexual.

And no, I'm sorry: Validating people in their choice of identifying as [identity X] when they do not fit the criterion for [identity X] cannot be anything else than very bad for education. Education must mean that, when someone comes in and asks if they are asexual, and describe their situation as one that is indistingusihable from a bog-standard sexual person, we must be allowed to tell them "No, you are not." That's not elitism; it's just common sense, logical thinking, and honesty.

There's a difference between non-asexuals being accepted, and people's asexuality being accepted. What I was referring to was the acceptance of asexuals as such, i.e., accepting that people may be asexual even if they're not exactly like certain other asexuals. And embracing that rather than fighting it.

As for that last bit -- with all due respect, no, no, no. That is elitism, it's not common sense or logical thinking or honesty. It's misguided at best, malicious at worst; harmful no matter what.

You (and I'm using the general 'you', not the personal 'you') NEVER have the right to tell ANYONE what their sexuality is or isn't. Because as much as they may try to explain, ultimately no-one can fully convey their full identity to anyone else. Now, it's one thing if someone comes forward with questions about their identity or what it's called, and you can say 'it sounds to me like you're [__]' or 'I think you're probably [___]'. Even, if you must, something like 'I feel very strongly that you're [___]'. But you NEVER have the right to proclaim yourself an authority on anyone else's identity. You NEVER have all the facts. You have no right to say 'no, you are not' because in addition to all that, sexuality is not a black and white matter. To suggest otherwise IS hindering education on the subject.

So when you're insufficiently informed to pass judgment on a subject but pass judgment on it anyway -- tell me, where is the logic in that?

And just to reiterate:

At the end of the day, it's important to remember that human sexuality is a highly complex, nuanced phenomenon. Sexuality is not your high school and asexuality is not your clique. Some people may be completely asexual and have different experiences than you; that doesn't make them not asexual or 'wrong' about their asexuality.

^ FoxEars ^

[Guest]

And as I said, I know sexual people outside of AVEN who have no clue what you folks even mean with "sexual attraction" - obviously, I couldn't explain it to them, either - but still know just fine that they are sexual, and can clearly identify as homo, hetero etc. perfectly well. They know they desire sex, and they can describe the sex/gender they desire it with (i.e., their partner preference). That's all there is to it. "Attraction" plays no role in it.

This "attraction" talk still is a weird subcultural lingo to me. It's certainly not the majority view it is constantly implied to be.

Totally agree.

Most people just automatically say ''sexual attraction'' when defining their orientation (''I am sexually attracted to women I am a lesbian'' for example) because that's what the dictionary says: ''Lesbian: a woman sexually attracted to other women''. Ask them what they mean when they say ''sexual attraction'' and you'll all sorts of answers.. Ask them ''would you agree that what makes you sexual is that you innately desire partnered sex with certain other people at certain times'' they all say something along the lines of ''oh yes, that's how everyone feels''

I have also met a lot of sexual people who use the term ''sexual attraction'' actually meaning ''romantic attraction'' .. For example ''I am a woman sexually attracted to men.. by this I mean, I only fall for men romantically and I only find men attractive in a really physical way, and I desire sex as an aspect of romantic intimacy of course, this is what makes me heterosexual'' ..but nowhere did they mean ''I only experience an arousal response to aspects of some men'' or ''I only find men attractive in a sexually arousing way'' .. They were meaning, they have romantic attraction to men and find men physically attractive and desire sex as part of romantic intimacy, and were just using the term sexual attraction to define their orientation because that's what everyone else does. This is extremely common among sexual people, in my experience. So yeah, your confusion (as well as everyone else's) regarding all of this is totally justified.

[Guest]

As for that last bit -- with all due respect, no, no, no. That is elitism, it's not common sense or logical thinking or honesty. It's misguided at best, malicious at worst; harmful no matter what.

You (and I'm using the general 'you', not the personal 'you') NEVER have the right to tell ANYONE what their sexuality is or isn't. Because as much as they may try to explain, ultimately no-one can fully convey their full identity to anyone else. Now, it's one thing if someone comes forward with questions about their identity or what it's called, and you can say 'it sounds to me like you're [__]' or 'I think you're probably [___]'. Even, if you must, something like 'I feel very strongly that you're [___]'. But you NEVER have the right to proclaim yourself an authority on anyone else's identity. You NEVER have all the facts. You have no right to say 'no, you are not' because in addition to all that, sexuality is not a black and white matter. To suggest otherwise IS hindering education on the subject.

So when you're insufficiently informed to pass judgment on a subject but pass judgment on it anyway -- tell me, where is the logic in that?

And this right there is something we will, as the very best possible outcome, have to agree to disagree on. I do consider what you call elitism a neccessary and indispensable component of education. It's my firm conviction that inclusivity can go too far, and that's a view on which I will not budge.

[Guest]

What is it with all the special snowflake font users posting one after another?

It is a conspiracy I tells you.

Though, If I were to post in purple/indigo rather than teal/dark cyan it would be more obvious...

I used to post in a green when I first came to AVEN (green is my favorite color) but a mod sent me a nudge saying as greeny-shades are mod colors, I am no longer allowed to post in that color aha. After I saw you getting away with it for so long, I thought I'd try my luck again, but everyone is so used to my purple now I'd probably confuse everyone if I changed colors :o My old font looked like this for a while but I got in troubs, maybe it was just too green and not blue enough like yours :c

[WhenSummersGone]

The term Cupiosexual describes those who desire sex without sexual attraction. Pansexual is a term where someone, I think, can be sexually attracted to anyone for any reason, it doesn't need to be based on looks. With these two terms out there I feel being asexual should mean you don't desire sex.

It was mentioned in another topic that a partner isn't going to care if you're not sexually attracted to them, but they would care if you don't desire sex with them.

cupiosexual is actually the term i use to describe myself, but it is considered a part of the asexual spectrum at least, if not just a different way of experiencing asexuality.

someone's sexual orientation isn't defined based on whether or not their partner will care about it. that's not what sexuality is about. just because a certain struggle is common among people with a certain sexuality doesn't mean that everyone with it must experience that struggle.

I personally don't agree with Cupiosexual being on the asexual spectrum. If Demisexual isn't either then that's fine with me. I'm just saying lack of having sex in a relationship can cause more problems for some people.

[Guest]

Ugh, Ficto. :P Not only is that too reminiscent of mod-official, it also hurts my eyes on the white background. I made sure to pick a dark and less saturated purple for my own posts for that exact reason... your regular color nowadays is barely ok.

[Guest]

but if you go with the attraction-based definition of sexuality, which most people outside of the asexual community and many within it do,

Line from Lori Brotto's paper based on her research into if asexuality is an extreme variant of HSDD (she studied asexuals sexual desire / distress in relation to people with HSDD and another group of just low desire individuals) :

"iii) most individuals diagnosed with HSDD have, at some point in their lives, experienced sexual desire whereas most asexual individuals often report a lifelong absence of sexual interest."

Part of the summary from Bogaert's paper on asexuality:

"One reason that people might not see asexuality as a real orientation is because it involves the lack of desire. If an asexual person's sexual desire could be increased, they might turn out to have an underlying orientation of gay, straight, or bisexual. But some asexuals cannot increase their sexual desire through any known means. Others can increase their desire - or already possess desire - but do not direct it towards other people, preferring to satisfy themselves through masturbation."

Brotto's website says she offers support to people who experience no sexual attraction or desire and often identify as "asexual".

Plus, Skullery & Tar, being the local sexuals and their experiences.

My personal experience, from sexuals I know, the difference they note between asexuals and sexuals is the lack of innate desire towards partnered sexual activity. My brother, who is sexual, learned about asexuality independently before I ever mentioned it to him and described it as a lack of desire for partnered sex (though he said no sexual attraction, he went into detail saying they lack urges towards sex and all that), when discussing it with my mother (no input from me). Most youtube videos and such of people discussing asexuality (from the sexual perspective) focuses on that they just don't want sex, even though they might have it for various reasons.

So, I am not sure I can agree with you on most people agree with defining asexuality on attraction, meaning something totally separate from desire. Most sexuals I know say sexual attraction, but when they start defining it deeper, end up coming around to desire. And it's generally come around to desire on TV interviews and youtube videos I have seen as well. And desire plays into both Brotto and Bogaert's research.

Now... as for the spectrum - sure, lots of things fall under the asexual spectrum. However, they have their own labels for a reason, so I find it horribly confusing when say, a sapiosexual IDs as asexual (I mean, sure, they can... everyone can pick their own labels).