Jump to content

Archived

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

diconstruction

Another question for sexuals!

Recommended Posts

gekkosan

And of course a man can have sex without arousal too!! You just stick it up his butt :lol: I get disappointed when I watch gay porn (or straight strap-on porn) and the guy getting drilled isn't hard :lol:

OMG me too!!! I feel like it's fake and it makes me sad so I have to switch to something far more disgusting. :D (I jest. Sort of.)

Isnt porn supposed to be fake?

Don't know. I'd prefer porn that isn't fake, but you're right that the overwhelming majority of it seems to be pretty fake. No idea why that is, though. Maybe a lot of people have a fetish for fakeness?

Amateur porn to the rescue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jade Cross
I find the majority of porn to be contradictory in ideals compared to amateur porn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HighDrive

If we don't "vote people off ace island" out of some PC super-inclusivity ideal, we're ruining asexual education and visibility.[/color]

Wow, to say this in a site that welcomes people that already feel ostracised from society because of their lack of sexual desire is... I don't even know what word to use.

Who do you suggest will be the ace police? Will there be a trial or just a secret junta will decide? Maybe a democratic vote by those already elected as aces? Secret ballot or raise of hands?

I think your totalitarian plan still needs some ironing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HighDrive

I find the majority of porn to be contradictory in ideals compared to amateur porn.

have you seen those museums or art installations where they project a video of a famous figure into an otherwise faceless mannequin?

Well, could it be that porn is the faceless mannequin into which we project our sexual fantasies?

That's why without sexual fantasies it looks just fake and boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

the issue isn't that people who desire sex are inherently not asexual - the issue is that some asexuals do desire sex.

the issue is - that including those people as asexual would include many more sexual people as asexual.

I ask, what kind of sexual person says they don't experience sexual attraction? the "deluded or clueless" kind who would probably call themselves asexual under any definition anyway? the fact is that no wording is perfect.

or maybe the kind of person who looks around then and says "I feel so different from the people around me. I wish there was somewhere I could fit in. I wish I was normal. I wish I understood who I was. how is telling someone who looks around and says "I'm different" that they're not different going to go over well at all?


personally I don't give a fuck how we do it. but I absolutely hate the idea of saying " this group of people who doesn't feel sexual is sexual" and at the VERY least can we at least say they are grey instead?? and btw I am adamant that it is not said that grey/demi are "sexual" OR "asexual" they are their own thing. grey is fundamentally different from "sexual" and from "asexual" just like "asexual" is fundamentally different from "sexual"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jade Cross

I find the majority of porn to be contradictory in ideals compared to amateur porn.

have you seen those museums or art installations where they project a video of a famous figure into an otherwise faceless mannequin?

Well, could it be that porn is the faceless mannequin into which we project our sexual fantasies?

That's why without sexual fantasies it looks just fake and boring.

Either that or the increadibly bad acting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

Wow, to say this in a site that welcomes people that already feel ostracised from society because of their lack of sexual desire is... I don't even know what word to use.

:rolleyes: It's exactly the people who do feel desire for partnered sex but for some reason still choose to (mis)identify as asexual who need to be "voted off". They simply aren't asexual, and if we take AVEN's name seriously, we need to be ready and willing to inform them that they're mislabelling themselves.

The one who makes the decision should be a good, solid, and reliably exclusionary definition of asexuality. AVEN's current one very much fails in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)

So one camp is defining the lack of attraction despite desire to have sex as asexuality, and the other camp is defining the presence of attraction but lack of desire to have sex as asexuality.

How about instead of both camps trying to claim that the other is actually sexual in order to strengthen their own place in the asexuality definitionboth camps just admit that they're both different kinds of asexuals?

No one needs to be voted off ace island here... Plenty of room for all.

Only if we're fine with accepting that we really are a club of special snowflakes here, and this "asexuality" thing isn't an actual real-world concept (let alone a legitimate orientation) that all these so-called "aces" would actually have in common.

Whatever the definition of asexuality is supposed to be, it needs to be strict enough to exclude people who don't fit it, otherwise it's worthless. If we don't "vote people off ace island" out of some PC super-inclusivity ideal, we're ruining asexual education and visibility. (And you bet that I consider this to be a major problem of AVEN - see my signature.)

Okay sober (ish)

I disagree Mysticus! I think that people should totally be ''allowed'' to be asexual if they do desire partnered sex (for pleasure etc) because I mean, a lesbian woman can only want to have sex with men, only desire sex with men, only enjoy sex with men, never want to have sex with women ever, but still call herself a lesbian, right? As long as she does find women more aesthetically attractive to look she's totally gay even if she would never have sex with a woman and shudders at the thought of it. Sex is just so amazing with men, it feels so good.. so right. Sex with a woman would just be weird and awkward. But still.. totally gay.

Oh wait.. no, I am agreeing with you (as usual).. The fact is that if that was the definition of lesbian (''a lesbian is a woman who innately desires and prefers sex with men but finds women more attractive to look at'') then no one would take the label seriously and all lesbian women would be viewed as a joke, even the ones (you know, the homosexual ones) who do only desire partnered sex with other women and (often) experience discrimination etc because of that. People would roll their eyes and say ''Oh she's a lesbian, you know one of those special snowflakes who is actually just a regular straight woman that wants a special label''

So yeah sure, an asexual can be someone who desires sex, as long as we all agree that asexuality is a joke that only special snowflakes and confused sexual people identify with.

EDIT: Also at Katy, I'm not ''pushing anyone out to make room for myself''. I don't want or desire sex, ever, and I have had to suffer a lot throughout my life because of that.. how is that ''trying to make room for myself''? I just am what I am. I am making a stance for the visibility and education of asexuality (and trying to bring a greater understanding of sexuality to this community in the process, which is something sorely lacking here) ..I am not trying to squeeze myself into the ace label the way some of people who desire sex here do. This is just what I am. (and I identify in the grey area anyway which is really beside the point. I don't desire sex and am unable to have sexual relationships because of massive sexual disparity between myself and sexual people, that's all that matters)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HighDrive

Wow, to say this in a site that welcomes people that already feel ostracised from society because of their lack of sexual desire is... I don't even know what word to use.

:rolleyes: It's exactly the people who do feel desire for partnered sex but for some reason still choose to (mis)identify as asexual who need to be "voted off". They simply aren't asexual, and if we take AVEN's name seriously, we need to be ready and willing to inform them that they're mislabelling themselves.

The one who makes the decision should be a good, solid, and reliably exclusionary definition of asexuality. AVEN's current one very much fails in that regard.

I agree that the definition of asexuality may be black and white. However, whose black and white definition will be agreed upon?

I disagree on people judging others over the internet based on what they say without really knowing how they feel (Specially when there are people that don't have English as first language). I don't think it is the role of others to "label" other people. As long as the definition is clarified, they will have more clarity on their identity.

We know that a lot of people who are confused come to the forum for support. Bombarding them with "but you aren't asexual, go away" is counterproductive to being an "Education network". I have been educated in these forums and corrected of previous misconceptions. It would have been sad if I had been "kicked out" just because I was a bit more ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)

Wow, to say this in a site that welcomes people that already feel ostracised from society because of their lack of sexual desire is... I don't even know what word to use.

:rolleyes: It's exactly the people who do feel desire for partnered sex but for some reason still choose to (mis)identify as asexual who need to be "voted off". They simply aren't asexual, and if we take AVEN's name seriously, we need to be ready and willing to inform them that they're mislabelling themselves.

The one who makes the decision should be a good, solid, and reliably exclusionary definition of asexuality. AVEN's current one very much fails in that regard.

Yeah that exactly.

If someone has always felt ostracised from society due to their total lack of sexual desire (a desire to connect sexually with others for sexual and/or emotional pleasure) why would they have an issue with someone saying ''someone who does desire partnered sex and feels sex is an important aspect of their pleasure in life is not asexual''?

Just as someone in the lesbian community would say ''honey you're not a lesbian if you only desire sex with men and have no interest in ever having sex with women'' we have a responsibility to say that if someone does desire partnered sex (for sexual and/or emotional pleasure) then they are not asexual. We want asexuality to be viewed as a legitimate identity, not something that people laugh at and make jokes about (because people who have no desire to have sex for pleasure, ever, get enough of that as it is). Asexuality is not synonymous with ''I'm confused about my sexuality'' or ''I know I must be special, right?'' just as homosexuality isn't either of these things. A homosexual person is someone who innately desires sex with people of the same gender for sexual and/or emotional pleasure. An asexual is someone who has no desire to have partnered sex (for sexual and/or emotional pleasure) ever. That's all there is to it.

We know that a lot of people who are confused come to the forum for support. Bombarding them with "but you aren't asexual, go away" is counterproductive to being an "Education network". I have been educated in these forums and corrected of previous misconceptions. It would have been sad if I had been "kicked out" just because I was a bit more ignorant.

We have never said ''you aren't asexual, go away''. We are welcoming of all members who legitimately are here to know more about asexuality and/or desire to be a part of this community, regardless of their sexual orientation. What we are doing here is educating, we aren't saying anyone has to leave. We are merely clarifying what asexuality is and what asexuality is not. That is something that is vitally important for the visibility and education of asexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)

And of course a man can have sex without arousal too!! You just stick it up his butt :lol: I get disappointed when I watch gay porn (or straight strap-on porn) and the guy getting drilled isn't hard :lol:

OMG me too!!! I feel like it's fake and it makes me sad so I have to switch to something far more disgusting. :D (I jest. Sort of.)

Isnt porn supposed to be fake?

A lot (though not all) of staged porn is fake, but I can't stand watching that. I prefer porn where they're both filming it because they like what they're doing and actively want to be seen enjoying and being ''into it'' (regardless of what that is). Some people just literally want to film themselves getting fucked (or tortured or whatever) and loving it, and want to share that with others either for money or just because they get off on sharing it. .. I think a lot of people prefer the latter kind, to be honest! though of course there are also those that don't care either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jade Cross
How can you concentrate on sex while both holding a camera? O.o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)

How can you concentrate on sex while both holding a camera? O.o

One person holds the camera, they can pass it to each other and take turns, they can set it up on a tripod (some set up multiple cams around the room and even sometimes looking down from the ceiling) they can get a friend to film them, they can open the laptop and film it on laptop webcam.. There are all sorts of ways to self-film your own porn ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

I agree that the definition of asexuality may be black and white. However, whose black and white definition will be agreed upon?

That will have to be debated, obviously, and then decided by majority vote. But we're not even at that point - the first step is to stop pretending that we weren't in dire need of a black and white definition.

As long as what asexuality is remains just vaguely suggested - and there are people on here who think that is a good thing, much as it baffles me - AVEN can, at its core, never be more than a special snowflake forum... and on these grounds, it's disingenous to complain about LGBT+ not accepting us. They are right in not accepting us. LGBT+ is for people with actually real orientations and identities that differ from cishet "normalcy"; letting internet special snowflakes in would just do the movement harm. They're right and justified in showing so-called "aces" the door, as long as asexuality remains inconsistently defined.

Striving for a clear definition should be a duty of AVEN, if it takes these letters V&E in its name seriously.

I disagree on people judging others over the internet based on what they say without really knowing how they feel (Specially when there are people that don't have English as first language). I don't think it is the role of others to "label" other people. As long as the definition is clarified, they will have more clarity on their identity.

We know that a lot of people who are confused come to the forum for support. Bombarding them with "but you aren't asexual, go away" is counterproductive to being an "Education network". I have been educated in these forums and corrected of previous misconceptions. It would have been sad if I had been "kicked out" just because I was a bit more ignorant.

As Ficto already said, non-asexuals do not and should not get shoved out of AVEN. Sexuals are, and should remain, welcome here; they provide much needed insight at numerous occasions, which makes a bunch of them invaluable allies to the cause.

However, they should be strongly discouraged if and when they misidentify as asexuals, and they should be educated about the error in mislabeling themselves, otherwise AVEN is just doing a bad job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gekkosan

I'm a newbie here and in reality I don't even care much about labels, but I have to say that when I first came to AVEN the definitions really didn't make much sense to me. It wasn't until I started reading the forums that things got cleared up. So I totally agree that they need to be changed, made more clear and less ambiguous. I mean, some definitions even come with a disclaimer: "Not everyone agrees with this definition".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Danzi

I'm a newbie here and in reality I don't even care much about labels, but I have to say that when I first came to AVEN the definitions really didn't make much sense to me. It wasn't until I started reading the forums that things got cleared up. So I totally agree that they need to be changed, made more clear and less ambiguous. I mean, some definitions even come with a disclaimer: "Not everyone agrees with this definition".

SAAAMMEEE! It took me over a year to realize I was asexual because even thought I knew what asexuality was I always thought "I think boobs and butts and abs are really nice to look at so that must be sexual attraction!"

I think it should be mentioned though that the whole point of labeling sexuality is so that we can convey our thoughts, feelings and/or behaviour in regards to sex very quickly e.g. "I'm gay" compared to "I exclusively enjoy/seek out sex and romantic relationships with my own gender". I can't really see the point in someone labeling themselves as asexual if they desire sex, frequently have and enjoy sex and feel as though they'd be 'missing out' if they could never have sex again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jade Cross

I agree that it would be contradictory to call yourself an ace but behave and have the regular tendencies of a sexual. But I can see how it can be more difficult for those that have doubts as to how identify and choose ace as a starting point.

So far I identify as ace so far (although Im clear on that if at any moment, I begin feeling the more common traits of a sexual, at that point, I would have to rethink what I would iddntofy as) because according to some of the more common traits, including not feeling any urges as well as not feeling distressed by the lack of sex in my life, they stick so far. Im aware of the low level libido trait but that would be harder to prove, unless someone has a better idda on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salted Karamel

You want to change the definition of asexuality so that your experience fits into it? Fine. I propose [...]:

Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction and/or the lack of innate desire for partnered sex.

[...]

So one camp is defining the lack of attraction despite desire to have sex as asexuality, and the other camp is defining the presence of attraction but lack of desire to have sex as asexuality.

How about instead of both camps trying to claim that the other is actually sexual in order to strengthen their own place in the “asexuality” definition…both camps just admit that they're both different kinds of asexuals?

No one needs to be voted off ace island here... Plenty of room for all.

Only if we're fine with accepting that we really are a club of special snowflakes here, and this "asexuality" thing isn't an actual real-world concept (let alone a legitimate orientation) that all these so-called "aces" would actually have in common.

Whatever the definition of asexuality is supposed to be, it needs to be strict enough to exclude people who don't fit it, otherwise it's worthless. If we don't "vote people off ace island" out of some PC super-inclusivity ideal, we're ruining asexual education and visibility. (And you bet that I consider this to be a major problem of AVEN - see my signature.)

The definition of asexuality that I suggested excludes those who experience sexual attraction toward others and also the innate desire for partnered sex.

Your “a definition needs to be able to exclude people” argument: ???

When I said "no one" I meant "no one in these subsets," as in "neither the aforementioned party identifying by lack of sexual attraction despite desire to have sex nor the aforementioned party identifying by lack of desire to have sex despite presence of sexual attraction," not literally "no one in the world." Perhaps that caused confusion.

So one camp is defining the lack of attraction despite desire to have sex as asexuality, and the other camp is defining the presence of attraction but lack of desire to have sex as asexuality.

How about instead of both camps trying to claim that the other is actually sexual in order to strengthen their own place in the asexuality definitionboth camps just admit that they're both different kinds of asexuals?

No one needs to be voted off ace island here... Plenty of room for all.

Only if we're fine with accepting that we really are a club of special snowflakes here, and this "asexuality" thing isn't an actual real-world concept (let alone a legitimate orientation) that all these so-called "aces" would actually have in common.

Whatever the definition of asexuality is supposed to be, it needs to be strict enough to exclude people who don't fit it, otherwise it's worthless. If we don't "vote people off ace island" out of some PC super-inclusivity ideal, we're ruining asexual education and visibility. (And you bet that I consider this to be a major problem of AVEN - see my signature.)

Okay sober (ish)

I disagree Mysticus! I think that people should totally be ''allowed'' to be asexual if they do desire partnered sex (for pleasure etc) because I mean, a lesbian woman can only want to have sex with men, only desire sex with men, only enjoy sex with men, never want to have sex with women ever, but still call herself a lesbian, right? As long as she does find women more aesthetically attractive to look she's totally gay even if she would never have sex with a woman and shudders at the thought of it. Sex is just so amazing with men, it feels so good.. so right. Sex with a woman would just be weird and awkward. But still.. totally gay.

Oh wait.. no, I am agreeing with you (as usual).. The fact is that if that was the definition of lesbian (''a lesbian is a woman who innately desires and prefers sex with men but finds women more attractive to look at'') then no one would take the label seriously and all lesbian women would be viewed as a joke, even the ones (you know, the homosexual ones) who do only desire partnered sex with other women and (often) experience discrimination etc because of that. People would roll their eyes and say ''Oh she's a lesbian, you know one of those special snowflakes who is actually just a regular straight woman that wants a special label''

So yeah sure, an asexual can be someone who desires sex, as long as we all agree that asexuality is a joke that only special snowflakes and confused sexual people identify with.

EDIT: Also at Katy, I'm not ''pushing anyone out to make room for myself''. I don't want or desire sex, ever, and I have had to suffer a lot throughout my life because of that.. how is that ''trying to make room for myself''? I just am what I am. I am making a stance for the visibility and education of asexuality (and trying to bring a greater understanding of sexuality to this community in the process, which is something sorely lacking here) ..I am not trying to squeeze myself into the ace label the way some of people who desire sex here do. This is just what I am. (and I identify in the grey area anyway which is really beside the point. I don't desire sex and am unable to have sexual relationships because of massive sexual disparity between myself and sexual people, that's all that matters)

And the very asexuals whom you are saying are not asexual are who they are, and have also suffered a lot throughout their lives because of their asexuality.

Someone might very well roll their eyes at you for saying you’re sexually attracted to people and still claiming that you’re “not sexual.” Someone might very well point out that engaging in sexuality—even without having partnered sex—is the very definition of being sexual, and therefore you’re not allowed to call yourself part of the asexual spectrum. But how would that make you feel? And more importantly, would it retroactively erase all those problems you have felt in your life by being unable to innately desire partnered sex, if they changed the definition on you, and then went on some kind of crusade where they told everyone that only their definition is asexual and your definition is plain and simply sexual and that's that?

Your analogy about the lesbian is flawed in that it would be more like a woman claiming to be a lesbian who has sex with men because in her culture it’s shameful for women to be with women, and also to not be married to men. Perhaps it’s also shameful to not have children. So she married a man and has sex with him, maybe for children, maybe to perform her “wifely duties.” Maybe every now and then she just wants sex and doesn’t care who with so it’s easier for her to have sex with her husband than to go outside her marriage and have sex with a woman. Maybe she pretends her husband is a woman with a strap-on. You don’t know. I don’t know. Maybe she wishes she could enjoy sex with her husband just as him, but she can't.

Behavior ≠ orientation, and declaring that this woman who says “I am a lesbian. This is who I am inside, regardless of what you see as an outside observer,” treads dangerously close to invalidating transgender individuals who might say “I am [this gender]. This is who I am inside, regardless of what you see as an outside observer.” Is it your place to say that if it walks like a man and talks like a man, then it can only ever be a man even if they call themselves a woman? Is it your place to say that if it walks like a heterosexual and behaves like a heterosexual, then it must be a heterosexual even if she declares herself a lesbian?

More importantly, how does it hurt you to just say, “Okay, sure, you’re a lesbian” and move on with your life and keep whatever skepticism you might have about it quietly? More than it would hurt oppressed lesbians who are pressured to perform heterosexuality for you to invalidate their homosexuality? Do the number of “special snowflake” kids who want to lie about being transgender warrant invalidating actual transgender people who just don’t “seem” very transgender to you? Does the stray occurrence of a sexual person claiming to be asexual for the street cred warrant invalidating actual asexual people who experience asexuality differently than you do, and sometimes wish they could enjoy sex for sex's sake if only they were ever attracted to anyone ever?

Because everyone is Shroedinger’s Cat, and none of us on the outside know what’s going on inside the box. So for you to take actions based on your conviction that either the cat is definitely alive and therefore we must keep feeding it or the cat is definitely dead and therefore we must throw the box into the incinerator will always risk either incinerating a live cat or wasting food on a dead one. Which is the greater tragedy, to you: unnecessarily wasted food or an unnecessary death?

You seem to err on the side of potentially unnecessary death; lets throw the baby out with the bathwater instead of risking keeping that damn bathwater around. It smells bad, or something.

But the prudence of humoring the asexual claims of people we may personally suspect to not be asexual because it’s preferable to becoming the arbiters of an asexual witch hunt is only a tangential point here. The real point I’d like to bring us back to is this:

On what basis do you assert that your definition of asexuality holds more legitimacy than someone else’s definition of asexuality?

Because I see you doing it often—as in, I don't think I've seen a thread where you have allowed yourself to not step in and tell everyone else that your worldview is THE worldview—and I am curious as to where your authority on the matter comes from. Is it majority vote? Divine mandate? Professional qualifications and expertise? And which of these types of authority truly grants someone the right to tell other people what their own experiences "actually" are and are not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season

I disagree Mysticus! I think that people should totally be ''allowed'' to be asexual if they do desire partnered sex (for pleasure etc) because I mean, a lesbian woman can only want to have sex with men, only desire sex with men, only enjoy sex with men, never want to have sex with women ever, but still call herself a lesbian, right? As long as she does find women more aesthetically attractive to look she's totally gay even if she would never have sex with a woman and shudders at the thought of it. Sex is just so amazing with men, it feels so good.. so right. Sex with a woman would just be weird and awkward. But still.. totally gay.

Oh wait.. no, I am agreeing with you (as usual).. The fact is that if that was the definition of lesbian (''a lesbian is a woman who innately desires and prefers sex with men but finds women more attractive to look at'') then no one would take the label seriously and all lesbian women would be viewed as a joke, even the ones (you know, the homosexual ones) who do only desire partnered sex with other women and (often) experience discrimination etc because of that. People would roll their eyes and say ''Oh she's a lesbian, you know one of those special snowflakes who is actually just a regular straight woman that wants a special label''

So yeah sure, an asexual can be someone who desires sex, as long as we all agree that asexuality is a joke that only special snowflakes and confused sexual people identify with.

Your analogy about the lesbian is flawed in that it would be more like a woman claiming to be a lesbian who has sex with men because in her culture it’s shameful for women to be with women, and also to not be married to men. Perhaps it’s also shameful to not have children. So she married a man and has sex with him, maybe for children, maybe to perform her “wifely duties.” Maybe every now and then she just wants sex and doesn’t care who with so it’s easier for her to have sex with her husband than to go outside her marriage and have sex with a woman. Maybe she pretends her husband is a woman with a strap-on. You don’t know. I don’t know. Maybe she wishes she could enjoy sex with her husband just as him, but she can't.

I bolded parts of the texts.

As you can see, you and Pan are talking about two completely different situations. Pan is talking about somebody who calls themselves a lesbian, innately doesn't want sex with women but seeks it out with men out of her own accord. You are talking about a person who calls themselves a lesbian, wished she didn't have to have sex with men but has it anyway for various reasons which have nothing to do with her personal desires. Pan is talking about innate desires, you are talking about behavior. You are right, behavior does no equal orientation and everyone seems to agree here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

The definition of asexuality that I suggested excludes those who experience sexual attraction toward others and also the innate desire for partnered sex.

Your “a definition needs to be able to exclude people” argument: ???

When I said "no one" I meant "no one in these subsets," as in "neither the aforementioned party identifying by lack of sexual attraction despite desire to have sex nor the aforementioned party identifying by lack of desire to have sex despite presence of sexual attraction," not literally "no one in the world." Perhaps that caused confusion.

As long as "sexual attraction" remains in the definition, it is too damn vague. Over 80% of AVENites in a 2013 poll said they do not think this term is consistently defined, and is used on AVEN in a way that the outside world doesn't use it. And if you take a vague term and add an "and/or" condition, it becomes even more vague; that's simple logic.

So, I cannot in good conscience be content with a definition of asexuality as long as it mentions "sexual attraction" at all.

A definition of asexuality that does not exclude people - i.e., that does not reliably give us the opportunity to agree to say "no, specific person X, you are not asexual" - fails as a definition. We must be able to draw a clear line, and tell the people beyond that line that whatever they may be, asexual they are not. Otherwise, we will never be taken seriously - because real orientations simply do not work that way. If a man only ever desires to date women, have sex with women, etc., but for some misguided reason chooses to call himself by the word "gay", it is not "invalidating his gayness" if we tell him "dude, you're straight, not gay". He really is not gay in any meaningful sense of the word. He would not fit into LGBT+ as anything else than as an ally, and accepting him as more than that would hurt an LGBT+ group's credibility.

In my opinion, it's high time we start doing the same here. Back in the days, AVEN - rightly - distanced itself from the raging elitism of the Nolibidoist Society. But over time, it overshot its mark and now is mired in the just as flawed opposite extreme. We have to row back from that, no matter the cries of "ohmegerd identity policing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salted Karamel

I bolded parts of the texts.

As you can see, you and Pan are talking about two completely different situations. Pan is talking about somebody who calls themselves a lesbian, innately doesn't want sex with women but seeks it out with men out of her own accord. You are talking about a person who calls themselves a lesbian, wished she didn't have to have sex with men but has it anyway for various reasons which have nothing to do with her personal desires. Pan is talking about innate desires, you are talking about behavior. You are right, behavior does no equal orientation and everyone seems to agree here.

Yes, that was very much my point, which is why part of what I said that you didn't bold was "Your analogy about the lesbian is flawed in that it would be more like" and then continued with my different analogy that was closer to the case I was presenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)

On what basis do you assert that your definition of asexuality holds more legitimacy than someone else’s definition of asexuality?

Because I see you doing it often—as in, I don't think I've seen a thread where you have allowed yourself to not step in and tell everyone else that your worldview is THE worldview—and I am curious as to where your authority on the matter comes from. Is it majority vote? Divine mandate? Professional qualifications and expertise? And which of these types of authority truly grants someone the right to tell other people what their own experiences "actually" are and are not?

This conversation is about whether or not sexuals have sex without attraction, not about my reasons for using the definition that I do. So I replied to you in the ''Defining Asexuality: A Better Definition'' thread, as that is where this convo belongs. You can find my reply here.

Please note, the poll is not relevant to the convo. That was a random thread made by a random user a long time ago, and that user came up with those definitions on their own. One day we (as in people active in that thread) do hope to make an updated poll where everyone contributes to the definitions presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zoom

I've felt sexual attraction only once, before that I did not know "what is it like". I did not have sex with that person, though.

But, theoretically, I think I would have some extra positive feelings with having sex with this one person (as opposed to having sex with anybody who looks tolerable, does what I want and smells nicely).

In most cases, I've had sex with one night stands (or: one hour stands) from the internet, so it was basically going online and picking someone who is from my area and wants to meet IRL and wants to meet now, and apart from few things about looks (not 70 y.o. and fat), I cared mostly about safety, so that the person is not totally weird or listing some ewww interests and so on. Although I can judge people like more or less desirable when seeing them in person, seeing their photos does not work. And even after meeting in person I cared only if the person is weird (in sense of being somehow dangerous) or not.

I would say that I treated the people more like sex toys than anything else. If I could buy a robot instead (or, even better, some device for direct neural stimulation), I would do that.

That was some years ago and then I discovered sex toys that worked for me, and I have significantly lower (read: close to zero) interest in actually having sex since then. But I don't know if it is causal, because many other things in my life have changed, too.

So, for me:

Sex with sexual attraction: I want to have sex with this person because I like something about them and I want to be together in this way

Sex without sexual attraction: I want to have sex, and I need some person whose looks, smell and behavior won't be nasty, so it would not distract me / give me negative feelings

Also: until I've met the one person I am sexually attracted to, I've never imagined (when masturbating) face of my sex partner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)

I've felt sexual attraction only once, before that I did not know "what is it like". I did not have sex with that person, though.

But, theoretically, I think I would have some extra positive feelings with having sex with this one person (as opposed to having sex with anybody who looks tolerable, does what I want and smells nicely).

In most cases, I've had sex with one night stands (or: one hour stands) from the internet, so it was basically going online and picking someone who is from my area and wants to meet IRL and wants to meet now, and apart from few things about looks (not 70 y.o. and fat), I cared mostly about safety, so that the person is not totally weird or listing some ewww interests and so on. Although I can judge people like more or less desirable when seeing them in person, seeing their photos does not work. And even after meeting in person I cared only if the person is weird (in sense of being somehow dangerous) or not.

I would say that I treated the people more like sex toys than anything else. If I could buy a robot instead (or, even better, some device for direct neural stimulation), I would do that.

That was some years ago and then I discovered sex toys that worked for me, and I have significantly lower (read: close to zero) interest in actually having sex since then. But I don't know if it is causal, because many other things in my life have changed, too.

So, for me:

Sex with sexual attraction: I want to have sex with this person because I like something about them and I want to be together in this way

Sex without sexual attraction: I want to have sex, and I need some person whose looks, smell and behavior won't be nasty, so it would not distract me / give me negative feelings

Also: until I've met the one person I am sexually attracted to, I've never imagined (when masturbating) face of my sex partner

I've met quite a few sexual people exactly like this ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chardog

Attraction and arousal are two different things.. If you have a significant libido and you're aroused, there are people who will often just have sex with whatever hole they can get (sometimes regardless of gender even if they're essentially straight). Doesn't have to do anything with attraction..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...