a minor triad Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Oh. A lot has happened while I was away. Oh dear. 9 hours ago, Pramana said: It's a tautology to say that if they aren't asexual then they aren't asexual. But it begs the question against my argument because it assumes an essentialist definition of asexuality, whereby asexuality has to to be some innate, independent characteristic in order to be real. Instead, I propose focusing on people's experiences, for it seems to me that shared experiences are the root of community. Thus, asexuality concerns those who fall outside the social norm of people forming paired relationships through romantic attraction and sexual attraction/sexual desire. Lacking one or more of these elements suggests an asexual spectrum and/or aromantic spectrum experience which is relevant for participating in asexual/aromantic communities. This is why I favour a non-essentialist, pragmatic conception, because it seems unethical to exclude people who have relevant experiences and who could both benefit from, and contribute to, the asexual community simply because they don't fit some pre-existing rule. In this way, I would argue that there is a practical limit on how labels are used. It would be difficult for a "typical" sexual person, whose life experiences all fit within the sexual category, to participate in the asexual community as an "asexual" in a meaningful way. I also doubt that there are very many "typical" sexual people who would want to do so. I have yet to hear any real reasons for excluding the (probably very small) numbers of sex-favourable asexuals who do not experience sexual attraction but who do desire partnered sex, or for excluding people whose asexual/gray-asexual identities are more intwined with other aspects of their personalities. Why does the definition of asexuality need to be more restrictive? Where is the benefit? There's been a suggestion that this might somehow erode the social standing of asexuality in the eyes of the general public, but I have yet to see any evidence. And even if there were, I doubt that would be sufficient ethical justification to exclude people who feel asexual/gray-asexual from the community. Right. I was aware that my statement was a tautology, (new word for me) but that was kind of my point. I'm not sure what you are trying to show by pointing that out. And I suppose I am arguing that asexuality should have an essentialist definition. Do you disagree? Would you say that homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are not innate? If you think that sexual orientation is not an innate quality of a person, then we have fundamentally different underlying logic. So much so, that it would be unproductive for the both of us to discuss anything on this subject any further. And I find your comment of shared experiences a little odd, based on what I have been observing, but a few other members have mentioned that, so I won't. You seem to by implying that I have not made my own observations from reading other's experiences, and I assure you, I have. And I almost get what you are saying with the whole community thing, but I'm confused about why you are implying that only "asexual" people can reap the benefits of this community. I also do not get why you have gathered that I think we should exclude people from this community just because they don't fit the desire-based definition of asexuality. I never said that and certainly never meant to imply that. I still don't get your pragmatic argument, either. It still seems like you are suggesting that sex-averse sexuals and celibate people should be able to identify as asexual just because they have similar experiences to asexuals. Let me be clear. I don't think sex-averse sexuals, celibate people or anyone should be excluded from this community, and I don't think that means we can't have a desire-based definition either. Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that sex-favourable aces do not desire sex, they are just willing to have it for their partners' sakes, so I'm not sure how that it invalidate/exclude them. And, as I have stated before...every aspect of a person is intertwined with their personality traits, quirks, etc. They cannot be separated, so I don't think we should be thinking about personality and sexual orientation as independent things. I don't see how a desire-based definition invalidates parts of a person's personality. I won't talk about grey-sexuals or demi-sexuals because I think I might just upset you. (Plus I haven't fully developed my thoughts on the matter; as you can see I identify as grey-romantic...) It is Pan's argument that you are referring to on why we need a more "restrictive" definition, and she explained it well, so I will not reiterate it. But I really don't think a desire-based definition is restrictive. It is simply clearer. 9 hours ago, Xenobot said: In the past there have been attempts to cure homosexuality with hormone therapy, and some asexuals have tried hormone therapy to no avail. I don't think most women who have lived average sexual lives would be too happy if you called them asexual for losing their sexual desire in the latter half of their lives. In other words, hormones are seperate from sexual orientation. One does not influence the other. However, if someone lost all sexual desire for whatever reason and they found the asexual community helped them deal with it better than therapy or medication, then they should be welcome in my opinion. That might be controversial to some, but I think that's far more ethical than turning them away. There are many resources within the community that would be just as helpful to them as someone who was "born that way", and people have the right not to pursue treatment for whatever reason provided they are competent enough to make those decisions (which in this case they always unquestionably have the right to refuse treatment, as it's not a life or death situation). You misunderstood me. I was simply stating that hormones play a big role in the life span. I don't understand why people are afraid to admit that. Just because your body does different things (I'm talking on the gene-expression level) so you have different hormonal levels (and such) doesn't mean that it is unnatural. It is quite the opposite. I'm not saying the sexual orientation can be treated with hormonal therapy or anything like that. I am just stating that hormones are involved with the way we develop. That is all. I was NOT suggesting that women who lose their sexual desire, for some reason or another, are asexual. Let me be clear again. Just because I support a desire-based definition doesn't mean I think we should exclude members or anyone else who doesn't fit that definition. Of course they are welcome to this community. Of course there will be non-asexual people that will find this site helpful. And of course we can't ultimately control how anyone chooses to identify. I really don't understand why you and Pramana gathered that I was some sort of exclusive elitist from my statements. That being said, I still support the desire-based definition. Specifically, asexuality as the lack of desire for partnered sexual activity. It's simple. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Pramana said: I have not heard from any sexuals who say they have no sexual preferences or no sexual orientation. You also continue to ignore the experiences of the sex-favourable asexuals who report experiencing asexuality in terms of lack of sexual attraction. Why are their experiences not relevant? Okay, so you haven't been listening to me then when I discussed my own sexuality. In detail: My sexual preferences are so non-existent that I cried when I finally learned about asexuality, I was so happy to have something that finally I could identify with after years of suffering. I don't identify as hetero/bi/homo as I have no particular attraction to any kind of gender (the pan in my name refers to something else).. For me, I never desired or enjoyed partnered sex. It was always a gruelling experience I put up with because I thought I had no other choice. My previous partners (both sexual and asexual) have all been male but not because I have a particular preference for males exactly, it just happens to be males that I became emotionally close to over the past years in my life. It's the consciousness that I fall for, and that has never involved any desire to actually have sex with another person. However, with my partner now, if I'm aroused, I know there are certain sex acts I could enjoy enough to actively choose to have them if I'm aroused enough. None of these involve him stimulating my genitals in any way, and the only reason I can even consider having them with him is I know he doesn't care either way. He doesn't care if we *never* have sex, and this makes me comfortable enough to maybe choose to do some sexual things with him in place of masturbation sometimes. I don't care if we never have sex, and haven't actually had sex since 2011, but yeah.. I know I can enjoy certain sexual acts enough to choose to have them for pleasure if I felt like that on the day. I have no sexual "preferences" as I don't care enough about sex to have preferences.. i will choose to have it with my partner as he's my partner, but outside of a relationship I wouldn't consider having sex with anyone as I'm just not interested in sex or in anyone in that way, and I didn't dream of having a partner to have sex with or anything like that - I had assumed all my future relationships would be sexless as that's definitely my preference, I just hadn't realised though that people exist who can be happy with certain sex acts but not care if they never have them (like my partner).. I'm very lucky to have met him. And I don't have a sexual "orientation" in that I have no gender preferences. I don't prefer "all genders" (ie I'm not pansexual), it's just not applicable to me because I really don't care to or want to have sex with any specific gender. My partner just happens to be male and there are things I can do with him that I couldn't do with a female due to physical limitations. But yeah. There you go. It's not that I'd "have sex with any gender".. I'm not interested in any gender enough to think about them like that. Pretty much if asked my sexual orientation, I'd just say "not applicable" or "it doesn't matter".. or "I don't have one but I still enjoy certain sexual acts enough to choose have them" because there isn't an orientation answer (like hetero, bi, whatever) I could give that would be accurate. I'm not the only sexual person on AVEN who feels this way, who came here assuming they were ace due to being very different from the average sexual person but slowly realized we can still desire sex under certain circumstances. But yeah, I'll leave it for them to reveal themselves if they happen to come across this thread. And it certainly didn't happen overnight either.. I identified as ace for like 2 years before I officially started questioning that. Regarding sex-favourable asexuals, how are they defining sexual attraction, in your experience? Because in my experience, they're almost always defining it as some variation of "wanting sex with others but not caring about appearance". I've even heard some say they desire partnered sex but humans are just masturbation toys to them and nothing else - Believe me, I met plenty of people exactly like that at the brothel I used to work at and none of them were asexual. If someone has no desire to have sex for pleasure, but gives sex to a sexual partner to keep the partner happy and just happens to enjoy the sex despite having no desire to have it, then yes in that case I concede why someone would possibly identify as "sex favourable".. it's just very rarely I see it used in that way. Pretty much if someone would choose to have partnered sex specifically for the pleasure of it and calls themselves asexual, I'd ask how they are defining sexual attraction. In all the discussions I've ever been in on here, how they've defined sexual attraction is never something that applies to *all* sexual people. Yes, there are sexual people who desire sex without experiencing sexual attraction, regardless of how you define "sexual attraction". Skullery Maid herself has been "accused" of being asexual quite a few times here when partaking in discussions about sex-favourable asexuals, because she tried to say that she also doesn't care about appearance and doesn't even need to see someone's face or body or anything before meeting them for sexual interactions (she's been very open about this in the past here so wouldn't mind me saying it now).. So yeah, I've seen people saying to her things like "have you considered maybe you're just a sex-favourable asexual?" when she's tried to describe her lack of aesthetic preferences here in the past. Someone here also suggested maybe my hypersexual ex partner was asexual because he had no preference for appearance.. he'd literally screw anyone who would have sex with him. No, he wasn't asexual, appearance just didn't matter to him. A lot of people here assume that sex-favourable asexual means someone who desires sex but doesn't care about appearance and doesn't specifically want to have sex with any certain person, they just enjoy sex so will choose to have it with someone who is available (ie a partner or a friend or whatever).. However of course, again, there are many sexual people just like this (my ex, for example, was exactly like this).. so how are these sex favourable asexuals different from sexual people who have no real preference for appearance? And to be clear, I'm not saying people should be excluded from this community even if they do clearly desire sexual interactions. Am I saying I myself should be excluded? Nope. I'm just saying that they wouldn't necessarily be asexual but that doesn't mean they can't hang out here if they feel they have more in common with people in this community than with the rest of this population. I don't even care if they call themselves asexual if that's what they're convinced they are, but I still want an official definition that accurately defines asexuality as a lack of desire for partnered sexual contact for pleasure. (which the current definition actually does, I just want it clarified to included AVEN's definition *of* sexual attraction.. so it would be clarified to "an asexual is someone who has no desire for partnered sexual contact" and just drop the sexual attraction part all together as it causes too much confusion. Also, how am I still commenting here? Y_Y Link to post Share on other sites
Pramana Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 6 minutes ago, a minor triad said: Right. I was aware that my statement was a tautology, (new word for me) but that was kind of my point. I'm not sure what you are trying to show by pointing that out. And I suppose I am arguing that asexuality should have an essentialist definition. Do you disagree? Would you say that homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are not innate? If you think that sexual orientation is not an innate quality of a person, then we have fundamentally different underlying logic. So much so, that it would be unproductive for the both of us to discuss anything on this subject any further. And I find your comment of shared experiences a little odd, based on what I have been observing, but a few other members have mentioned that, so I won't. You seem to by implying that I have not made my own observations from reading other's experiences, and I assure you, I have. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by innate? If you think that sexual orientations are only biologically determined, born this way phenomenon, which cannot be affected by later life experience, I would reject that conception. I place experiences first according to a pragmatic view because all that really matters for how we should treat people are their preferences for how they wish to live in society. If people don't feel a need to form sexual or romantic relationships, then they can call themselves asexual or aromantic or a gray identity thereof. I argue that an essentialist definition has negative consequences because it would prevent someone who lives this type of asexual experience, but who does so say partly because they have autism and an introverted personality or because it's a disposition they've developed gradually over the course of their life, should not use the label they wish to use to accurately describe how they'd like to participate in society. This would make them feel excluded (or at least less included), and would prevent them from using terminology in conversation that best expresses their relationship interests. I don't think a person in this situation chooses to not have sex in the manner of a celibate person who chooses to join a monastery, though, as I said in my last reply. I think sexual people can participate in asexual communities, my point is just that it would be difficult for "typical" sexual people to represent themselves as asexuals. That is how I respond to the accusation that my pragmatic conception would lead to an unworkable broad conception of asexuality. 18 minutes ago, a minor triad said: Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that sex-favourable aces do not desire sex, they are just willing to have it for their partners' sakes, so I'm not sure how that it invalidate/exclude them. Sex-favourable asexuals is kind of a confusing term which I think is used in at least a couple of different ways, but I was thinking of this type of experience:https://asexualagenda.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/living-as-a-sex-favourable-asexual/And I'm still not seeing any advantages for the desire-based definition, besides the fact that it would be easier for some people to understand. There's still the fact that it goes against the major trend in the academic literature, which I keep pointing out and no one has provided anything close to a satisfactory response. Plus the fact that lot of sexual people, including all my sexuals friends whom I've consulted on the matter, seem to understand what sexual attraction is. And I'm not even rejecting the desire-based definition. I'm only claiming that the attraction-based definition should be included, which seems like a very reasonable suggestion. I would also add that there is some potential to combine a desire-based definition with a non-essentialist pragmatic definition. But it seems like people who favour desire-based definitions usually also take an essentialist view and a more restrictive view. I would suggest that an attraction-based definition, alongside a desire-based definition, is a more natural fit with a non-essential and pragmatic conception because it has greater flexibility to include potential asexuality candidates such as the sex-favourable asexuals I've described above and because it preserves the ability of people to know what they want (a desire-based definition might entail people who only experience responsive desire would have to try having sex to know if they wanted it). Link to post Share on other sites
Cimmerian Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 5 hours ago, Pan. said: Yeah I pointed this out in that thread too! Editing the definition to a desire-based one wouldn't actually be "changing it" but clarifying it. However supporters of the attraction-based defitnion only support it as far as the term "sexual attraction" and refuse to acknowledge AVEN's definition OF sexual attraction (the desire for partnered sexual conatact) as it's that exact idea they're arguing against by supporting an attraction-based definition. No wonder it's all so confusing for newbs haha. I used to be a supporter of the attraction-based definition after I first joined. I was worried that "desire" was going to be misconstrued in the definition (but I've long since realized that's a small and easily solved problem in comparison) and I liked that "sexual attraction" was reliably used across other sexuality definitions, but looking back I don't know why I supported it because it took weeks to get people to explain what exactly qualified as "sexual attraction" to me because of all the problems with the definition. 17 minutes ago, Pramana said: I don't think you've followed the syntax of the sentences that I've written. I explicitly said that I believe sexuals know what they are experiencing. Everyone I've heard from here who's said that sexuals don't experience sexual attraction usually describe it as though it entails the cliched behaviour of a teenager or a hyper-sexual male. I agree they are not experiencing that. However, attraction is a nuanced, complex phenomenon, which at root has to do with sexual preferences and orientation (according both to academic descriptions and depictions in popular culture). I have not heard from any sexuals who say they have no sexual preferences or no sexual orientation. You also continue to ignore the experiences of the sex-favourable asexuals who report experiencing asexuality in terms of lack of sexual attraction. Why are their experiences not relevant?I've talked to some sexuals (both men and women) I know outside the AVEN community, and the general consensus has been that of course they have "types" that they're attracted to, etc. I do not understand the insistence on relying solely on reports from sexuals who post on AVEN forums as the sole source of evidence. I have social interactions both on and off of AVEN, plus I consult academic research because the impressions provided by any one social circle are bound to be limited. I just want to point out that reading this felt a bit like a "Who's on First?" scenario because you keep saying that other posters are claiming that "sexuals don't experience sexual attraction" but the other posters are not describing sexual attraction in a singular way that they (as an individual) define it only, but are responding that they've heard from sexuals who disagree with how sexual attraction is described by AVEN/asexuals. No one is disagreeing (from what I've read) that "sexual attraction" is nuanced and more complex than the caricature of a teenage male's sexuality, but other posters are trying to point out that the way "sexual attraction" gets defined on this website is NOT nuanced in many ways and often gets limited to a one-dimensional interpretation of sexual attraction and that is a problem which then carries over to become a definition problem. The phrase "sexual attraction" has been used so often that everyone has an idea of what it could be/is, at least until they try to declare what constitutes or does not constitute "sexual attraction" and realizes their definition doesn't fit everyone's experience of sexual attraction. Then we see that many people have different ideas of what sexual attraction is (exactly because different people focus on different aspects that can, but don't have to be, involved in experiencing it) and it is this practical definition (not the academic definition) that is the problem, because to be able to define what something is in the case of asexuality we have to be able to say what sexual attraction isn't and everyone can't even agree on how to define "sexual attraction" from the experience perspective. The definition of "sexual attraction" from an experience-perspective is important because you can't expect individuals to be able to understand whether a label applies to them or not through a dry academic definition that doesn't tell them how it feels to go through it. It'd be like asking an individual-- who may or may not have a disease-- to determine whether they are sick based on a list of medical terms rather than symptoms; it doesn't work. Link to post Share on other sites
Xenobot Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 19 minutes ago, a minor triad said: You misunderstood me. I was simply stating that hormones play a big role in the life span. I don't understand why people are afraid to admit that. Just because your body does different things (I'm talking on the gene-expression level) so you have different hormonal levels (and such) doesn't mean that it is unnatural. It is quite the opposite. I'm not saying the sexual orientation can be treated with hormonal therapy or anything like that. I am just stating that hormones are involved with the way we develop. That is all. I was NOT suggesting that women who lose their sexual desire, for some reason or another, are asexual. Let me be clear again. Just because I support a desire-based definition doesn't mean I think we should exclude members or anyone else who doesn't fit that definition. Of course they are welcome to this community. Of course there will be non-asexual people that will find this site helpful. And of course we can't ultimately control how anyone chooses to identify. I really don't understand why you and Pramana gathered that I was some sort of exclusive elitist from my statements. That being said, I still support the desire-based definition. Specifically, asexuality as the lack of desire for partnered sexual activity. It's simple. Ah, no... It was never my intention to imply you held those beliefs. I was just providing information and examples to address your question about (if memory serves me) whether it mattered if hormones were the cause because what are we beyond hormones and neural signals, or something similar to that. I was trying to explain that evidence suggests that hormones don't play a role in established sexual orientations and therefore, in that sense it does matter when it comes to defining asexuality. At the same time, I don't think we should keep out people who are functionally nonsexual due to hormonal reasons, so in that sense it does not matter. I guess I didn't convey that well. I was also thinking of recent conversations on exclusion and the ethics of exclusion within the asexual community. That honestly wasn't directed at you. I was referencing conversations I assumed you had read and would connect to my statement. Also, yes, I acknowledge hormones play an important role in development. There have been some experiments on animals that show if you introduce androgens to a litter of mice in utero while their brains are developing that when the morphologically female mice reach sexual maturity they will display male sexual behavior even though they are hormonally female at that point. So, yeah, there's certainly something to be said about the role of hormones in utero at least. Hopefully this is more clear. It is now 2:40am so I am just going to have to cross my fingers and submit reply. Link to post Share on other sites
Arctangent Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 As many people on AVEN recognize, there are many ways to be attracted to someone - for instance, there is attraction to someone's looks (aesthetic attraction) which need not necessarily be sexual. But what differentiates sexual attraction based on looks from nonsexual aesthetic attraction? This is where many people on AVEN bring up things like genital arousal, in an attempt to distinguish sexual attractions from nonsexual ones. But, as others in this thread have already mentioned, this distinction doesn't really hold up in practice, since not all sexual people experience genital arousal upon looking at people they find attractive. So in that case, what is the difference? Well, some would say that the difference is that the sexual person desires partnered sex with the person they're attracted to, while the asexual person doesn't... in which case the difference between the two still comes down to desire. A lot of people who aren't aware of the asexual community won't be aware of the ways asexuals distinguish between attractions, and so they may lump all attractions under the banner of "sexual attraction." From a sexual perspective, this is not necessarily incorrect, as common understandings of sexual attraction can include many components (aesthetic, intellectual, emotional, romantic, etc.) that asexuals might define as distinct attractions. Not everyone dissects attraction the same way asexuals often do (and there's much to be said for a less reductionist "attraction is attraction" approach, in my opinion, but that's getting into another topic). If you were to go out and ask random sexual people about sexual attraction, they'd probably say that they experience it... but if they were aware that the concept of "sexual attraction" is being used by asexuals as special type of attraction that definitively separates sexuals from asexuals (who still experience "nonsexual" versions of the same types of attraction), some might not be so sure anymore. Academic definitions wouldn't necessarily reflect this additional context either. I think the apparent fact that sexual people on AVEN seem to differ from the general populace in their views of sexual attraction does not necessarily mean that the sexuals on AVEN are not representative of sexual people. If a bunch of randomly selected sexual people joined AVEN and began participating in the discussions here, I suspect some of them would begin to find the sexual attraction based definition of asexuality to be problematic as well, once they became aware of the context in which it is used here. I don't think there's anything special about the sexual members on AVEN that makes them not representative - we have all kinds here (or at least we used to...). Link to post Share on other sites
Pramana Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 13 minutes ago, Cimmerian said: The phrase "sexual attraction" has been used so often that everyone has an idea of what it could be/is, at least until they try to declare what constitutes or does not constitute "sexual attraction" and realizes their definition doesn't fit everyone's experience of sexual attraction. Then we see that many people have different ideas of what sexual attraction is (exactly because different people focus on different aspects that can, but don't have to be, involved in experiencing it) and it is this practical definition (not the academic definition) that is the problem, because to be able to define what something is in the case of asexuality we have to be able to say what sexual attraction isn't and everyone can't even agree on how to define "sexual attraction" from the experience perspective. The definition of "sexual attraction" from an experience-perspective is important because you can't expect individuals to be able to understand whether a label applies to them or not through a dry academic definition that doesn't tell them how it feels to go through it. It'd be like asking an individual-- who may or may not have a disease-- to determine whether they are sick based on a list of medical terms rather than symptoms; it doesn't work. I think that's a reasonable point, but how would you feel about this definition: “People who do not experience sexual attraction to anyone else and/or people who do not desire partnered sex.” I've heard two contradictory arguments against sexual attraction: One is that people on AVEN don't know what it is, and another is that sexuals on AVEN know they don't experience it (which would require that they know what it is). I don't find any of that is useful for making judgments about the validity of the concept. If you think it's difficult trying to define "sexual attraction," imagine trying to define a concept such as art or knowledge. I think we should preserve the attraction-based definition because it resonates more with some asexuals, and because I think it's politically and intellectually useful to be mindful of the academic discourse. I agree that many asexuals resonate more with the desire-based component, which is why I've argued for adding it. Link to post Share on other sites
Pramana Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 18 minutes ago, Law of Circles said: I think the apparent fact that sexual people on AVEN seem to differ from the general populace in their views of sexual attraction does not necessarily mean that the sexuals on AVEN are not representative of sexual people. If a bunch of randomly selected sexual people joined AVEN and began participating in the discussions here, I suspect some of them would begin to find the sexual attraction based definition of asexuality to be problematic as well, once they became aware of the context in which it is used here. I don't think there's anything special about the sexual members on AVEN that makes them not representative - we have all kinds here (or at least we used to...). Sexuals on AVEN are not randomly selected, though, they're most likely in relationships with asexual partners, which makes it a biased sample group. And, look, I have nothing against listening to what they have to say. In fact, I have spent a great deal of time doing so. What I have difficulty understanding are the great lengths some people have gone to try to justify using these sexuals as their only sample group. Surely it would be a far better research method to also take into account experiences of sexuals from outside AVEN. It's probably a fact that if you get any group of people to discuss an abstract concept, confusion will arise. Imagine trying to get agreement on what constitutes an "artwork" for example. I took two university courses on that very topic, so I know it's not easy. But "artwork" is still a good and useful concept. Besides that, I'm defending this definition: “People who do not experience sexual attraction to anyone else and/or people who do not desire partnered sex.” I can't see dropping attraction, thus alienating people who resonate more with the attraction component, simply because other people have difficulty understanding it/resonate more with the desire component. Link to post Share on other sites
Arctangent Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 30 minutes ago, Pramana said: Sexuals on AVEN are not randomly selected, though, they're most likely in relationships with asexual partners, which makes it a biased sample group. And, look, I have nothing against listening to what they have to say. In fact, I have spent a great deal of time doing so. What I have difficulty understanding are the great lengths some people have gone to try to justify using these sexuals as their only sample group. Surely it would be a far better research method to also take into account experiences of sexuals from outside AVEN. It might be a biased sample group, but that doesn't mean it's biased in a way that would affect the outcome of what we were discussing. In fact, I could argue that sexuals in intimate relationships with asexuals are uniquely positioned to understand the differences between sexual and asexual people, potentially having more insight than the "average" sexual. I don't think that's an unreasonable idea. Although I can't say I've spoken to a large number of people about it, I have discussed the notion of asexuals who innately desire partnered sex but don't experience sexual attraction with a few sexual friends of mine who aren't members of AVEN. None of them felt that the idea made any intuitive sense. One did acknowledge that she personally wouldn't want to be in a romantic relationship with someone who wasn't sexually attracted to her, but she still would be hard-pressed to think of anyone who desired and enjoyed sex for the sake of sex as asexual. Take that for what you will. Link to post Share on other sites
Pramana Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 2 hours ago, Pan. said: And to be clear, I'm not saying people should be excluded from this community even if they do clearly desire sexual interactions. Am I saying I myself should be excluded? Nope. I'm just saying that they wouldn't necessarily be asexual but that doesn't mean they can't hang out here if they feel they have more in common with people in this community than with the rest of this population. I don't even care if they call themselves asexual if that's what they're convinced they are, but I still want an official definition that accurately defines asexuality as a lack of desire for partnered sexual contact for pleasure. (which the current definition actually does, I just want it clarified to included AVEN's definition *of* sexual attraction.. so it would be clarified to "an asexual is someone who has no desire for partnered sexual contact" and just drop the sexual attraction part all together as it causes too much confusion. I think I have a much better idea of where you're coming from now. Thanks very much. It seems like there are two groups: 1. There are people such as yourself among others who do not experience sexual attraction (lack preferences/orientation) and who experience desire for partnered sex in some circumstances. They identify as sexual. 2. There are people who consider themselves sex-favourable asexuals who do not experience sexual attraction (lack preferences/orientation) and who experience desire for partnered sex in some circumstances. They identify as asexual. I recall that you raised a point like this before (although in a lot less detail). This is one of the reasons why I take a non-essentialist, pragmatic conception of language. People in these circumstances fit within both formal definitions of sexuality and asexuality, so they're free to choose whichever designation they feel best describes them, according to what would be most useful for communicating with people in their day to day interactions, etc. In my view, sexual orientations are conceptual fictions anyway, so an apparent contradiction between formal definitions may be solved by differences in application on the ground. I prefer this solution to a solution which would require having to say that either #1 or #2 is mistaken.Besides that, in order to try to represent everyone, I've been proposing this definition off asexuality: “People who do not experience sexual attraction to anyone else and/or people who do not desire partnered sex.” I don't have a proposed definition of sexuality, but I would be willing defend one that includes people who desire partnered sex but who never experience attraction/orientation. Plenty of sexual people who do have an orientation/experience attraction will still sometimes desire sex for reasons outside that scope, so it seems reasonable to me to think that some sexuals may not experience orientation/attraction at all. Then I'd leave it up to people in this situation to decide which identity best describes them. I'd also add that the term "sex-favourable" asexual (besides being confusing), may well be over-applied per some of the examples you mention. In the same way, I find that claims regarding the number of sexuals who don't experience attraction are often overstated. It's probably quite rare for people to never experience attraction in any of its forms or have an orientation. But I accept, based on a couple of asexuality blogs I've read and from your experience, that it does happen. And some people will find that experience is asexual, others will find it's sexual, and they can all be right. Link to post Share on other sites
Pramana Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, Law of Circles said: It might be a biased sample group, but that doesn't mean it's biased in a way that would affect the outcome of what we were discussing. In fact, I could argue that sexuals in intimate relationships with asexuals are uniquely positioned to understand the differences between sexual and asexual people, potentially having more insight than the "average" sexual. I don't think that's an unreasonable idea. Although I can't say I've spoken to a large number of people about it, I have discussed the notion of asexuals who innately desire partnered sex but don't experience sexual attraction with a few sexual friends of mine who aren't members of AVEN. None of them felt that the idea made any intuitive sense. One did acknowledge that she personally wouldn't want to be in a romantic relationship with someone who wasn't sexually attracted to her, but she still wouldn't think of anyone who desired and enjoyed sex for the sake of sex as asexual. Take that for what you will. I partly agree with your first point, but I still don't see any good reason for taking it as one's sole source of information. It's a pretty well established scientific principle that the larger and more varied the sample groups, the better (I used to work in agricultural research; data from multiple locations/sample groups is required for data to be valid). I also partly agree with you second point, in the sense that I think most people would have trouble understanding a rare and complicated form of sexual experience that's outside what they normally encounter. I had difficulty understanding it. I also had difficulty understanding that some sexual people might never experience attraction or a sexual orientation, but I'm also willing to accept that based on experience reports. See my previous post where I discuss that issue. Link to post Share on other sites
MrDane Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 I like @Pan.'s simple definition and I like @a minor triad's scale of how you feel about things. I would like to include something about 'innate/by itself/need'. Link to post Share on other sites
Arctangent Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Pramana said: I partly agree with your first point, but I still don't see any good reason for taking it as one's sole source of information. It's a pretty well established scientific principle that the larger and more varied the sample groups, the better (I used to work in agricultural research; data from multiple locations/sample groups is required for data to be valid). I don't disagree with that. I wasn't trying to say that we should take it as our sole source of information, just that it is information we have available to us right now, and I believe it's very useful information that shouldn't be disregarded. I find it unfortunate that many people seem to do just that. Being a sexual ally on AVEN can be quite frustrating at times. (Edit: this is a general musing that isn't directed at anyone in particular.) Link to post Share on other sites
nanogretchen4 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 People who want to have sex but say they don't experience whatever their definition of sexual attraction is are very common. People who don't experience sexual desire at certain times in their life due to bring too young, too old, or going through trauma, grief, or illness, are very common. People who consistently throughout their lives never have any desire to have sex with others are very rare. People in this third group are actually asexual. AVEN actively encourages the regular sexual people in the first group in the confused belief that they are asexual. This is harmful because they are very much more numerous than actual asexuals and soon we will have a situation where the great majority of those claiming to be asexual are regular sexuals. Actual asexuals will be a powerless minority within asexual spaces. Although people in group two don't typically identify as asexual, AVEN has certainly managed to confuse some minors into thinking typical puberty is a sign of asexuality. In addition, there have been cases of people in group two having the asexual label pinned on them by others, which is bad on multiple levels. Again, in addition to the other harm caused by trying to define group two as asexual, actual asexuals become a powerless minority within asexual spaces. So, let's define asexuality as no desire for partnered sex and also state that asexuality is a sexual orientation. That should correctly identify the actual asexuals in group three without causing confusion about the sexuals in groups one and two. Link to post Share on other sites
Mundane Mesh Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 5 hours ago, Pan. said: I've even heard some say they desire partnered sex but humans are just masturbation toys to them and nothing else - Believe me, I met plenty of people exactly like that at the brothel I used to work at and none of them were asexual. Similarly, but slightly different: I have a friend who says that he's attracted to men, but also enjoy sex with women sometimes, and describes sex with women like "aided masturbation". He first identified as bi, then gay then just left it at "I'm complicated". I don't know what my point with mentioning all that is, but I felt it was mildly relevant. I guess my point is that "attraction vs desire" might be a complicated issue even to people outside of the asexual community. Link to post Share on other sites
Kai99 Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 Keep in mind that the new definition still covers actual sex-favorable aces. No one is saying that asexuals can't have sex. The sex favorable asexual from the asexual agenda would definitely fit into the label. She doesn't want sex, but she has it because it is necessary for most relationships to survive. She finds things she likes about it. There are definitely some sex favorable aces who wouldn't, mostly because they do desire and want sex, but aren't turned on by people they are attracted to. I've seen the posts of asexuals who say "I'm asexual, but that doesn't mean I don't want sex" or "I don't experience sexual attraction, but I love having sex with my friends". What makes them different from actual sexuals? Sure your not turned on by flashing boobs or a muscular chest, but you still have the desire to participate in the act that the sexual attraction leads to. I mean what is the problem with being just sexual? If I desire sex as much as the next person, why would I want to be group in with a bunch of people who don't want sex under any circumstance? Just because I relate to not being turned on by appearances? Some people see that changing the definition is going to exclude people. Keep in mind asexuality already excludes the majority of the population from the label( good, what, 99% of people). Asexuals are a very small minority and always have been. If the new label is going to lessen the confusion and keep some individuals from identifying as ace than I don't see it as a bad thing. Labels are meant to be exclusive. I wouldn't identify as a lesbian if I wasn't. That doesn't mean sexuals who can really relate with asexuals can't. AVEN doesn't exclude anyone so even those who don't fit in the asexual label still have a community to bond with. Link to post Share on other sites
Snao Cone Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 7 hours ago, Law of Circles said: As many people on AVEN recognize, there are many ways to be attracted to someone - for instance, there is attraction to someone's looks (aesthetic attraction) which need not necessarily be sexual. But what differentiates sexual attraction based on looks from nonsexual aesthetic attraction? This is where many people on AVEN bring up things like genital arousal, in an attempt to distinguish sexual attractions from nonsexual ones. But, as others in this thread have already mentioned, this distinction doesn't really hold up in practice, since not all sexual people experience genital arousal upon looking at people they find attractive. So in that case, what is the difference? Well, some would say that the difference is that the sexual person desires partnered sex with the person they're attracted to, while the asexual person doesn't... in which case the difference between the two still comes down to desire. Very well put. I find some people good looking, with charming personalities, and so I spend time with them flirtatiously, bringing us to a point where it makes sense to get sexually intimate. And yet I do not feel at all driven to do so. It doesn't make me feel like I'm unable to meet my own needs. It doesn't cause me distress. I just don't want it, despite having a number of other factors in the right place. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 4 hours ago, Mundane Mesh said: Similarly, but slightly different: I have a friend who says that he's attracted to men, but also enjoy sex with women sometimes, and describes sex with women like "aided masturbation". He first identified as bi, then gay then just left it at "I'm complicated". I don't know what my point with mentioning all that is, but I felt it was mildly relevant. I guess my point is that "attraction vs desire" might be a complicated issue even to people outside of the asexual community. Skullery Maid was also very open about being lesbian, but also choosing to have sex with men sometimes. (I feel bad mentioning her so often as she's not here but this is another thing she was always very open about here so I know she wouldn't mind me mentioning it), and it's the same thing with heterosexual people in prison sometimes having gay/lesbian sex in place of there being no other option. When I used to support the attraction definition, I said that an asexual will have sex in the same way a lesbian might have sex with a man (a couple of the girls I worked with at the brothel identified as lesbians but actively enjoyed sex with clients and would sometimes even invite them back for freebs) ..I used to assume that was what sex without sexual attraction was for asexuals. I know now (after talking to enough sexual people here who have done that) that what that is, is someone's desire for partnered sexual contact overriding their gender preferences. It's not about sexual attraction (because many sexual people enjoy and desire sex without attraction regardless), it's that sexual people have a desire to connect sexually with others, and sometimes if someone of their preferred gender isn't available, they will actively choose to have sex with people outside their gender preferences for pleasure because masturbation sometimes just won't cut it. Obviously not all sexual people do this, but the ones that do often insist they're not bi because they actively prefer sex with a certain gender (and also generally experience romantic attraction toward a certain gender) but will choose to have sex with a different gender if that's the only option at hand at the time. (Edit: I've also seen sexual people explain it as just feeling different so it's like, interesting sexual variety, even if they *prefer* sex with a particular gender, or are romantically driven to one gender and not the other - sex with the other gender can still be an interesting pleasurable experience. Whereas asexuals aren't driven to seek that partnered sexual contact for pleasure/intimacy etc in the first place.) Sexual people have an innate desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure under some circumstances, that will sometimes (for some sexuals) override gender preferences. Asexuals have no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure. To me, "sexual attraction" comes into it for some sexuals when dictating their gender preferences. The underlying desire for partnered sexual contact is already there, that's what makes them sexual - and sexual attraction works for some to help them understand which gender/s that innate desire might be directed at. I know also plenty of sexuals don't really get that "sexual attraction" response to certain genders, but do experience romantic attraction to a certain gender/s and innately desire partnered sex as an intimate bonding activity when in love (with zero desire or interest to have sex with anyone they're not in love with) ..that's really common but rarely mentioned in these discussions. So that's another way that helps some sexual people identify the direction desire for partnered sexual contact (edit: obviously for many they know what their gender preferences are from quite young, but some do spend time questioning and exploring etc) But yeah, underneath it all is an innate desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure that just isn't there for asexuals. Link to post Share on other sites
a minor triad Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 9 hours ago, Pramana said: I'm not sure what exactly you mean by innate? If you think that sexual orientations are only biologically determined, born this way phenomenon, which cannot be affected by later life experience, I would reject that conception. I place experiences first according to a pragmatic view because all that really matters for how we should treat people are their preferences for how they wish to live in society. If people don't feel a need to form sexual or romantic relationships, then they can call themselves asexual or aromantic or a gray identity thereof. I argue that an essentialist definition has negative consequences because it would prevent someone who lives this type of asexual experience, but who does so say partly because they have autism and an introverted personality or because it's a disposition they've developed gradually over the course of their life, should not use the label they wish to use to accurately describe how they'd like to participate in society. This would make them feel excluded (or at least less included), and would prevent them from using terminology in conversation that best expresses their relationship interests. I don't think a person in this situation chooses to not have sex in the manner of a celibate person who chooses to join a monastery, though, as I said in my last reply. I think sexual people can participate in asexual communities, my point is just that it would be difficult for "typical" sexual people to represent themselves as asexuals. That is how I respond to the accusation that my pragmatic conception would lead to an unworkable broad conception of asexuality. Ok, thank you for clarifying your pragmatic view. I guess third time's a charm. I still don't have fully formulated opinions on the grey identities, but isn't that what they're for? For people who don't fit the asexual definition exactly but still have a very different experience from most sexual people? I don't think a desire-based definition prevents people from identifying as grey or demi. I also don't think the desire-based definition "cares" how someone "became" asexual--whether or not it is linked to autism, OCD, introversion or any other traits like that. I've already mentioned that I believe epigenetics play a huge role in all this, which mean that I don't think anything in a person is completely fixed. By believing in the importance of epigenetics, I am saying that I believe that both a person's environment and genes are important and interact with each other in a way that it is useless to try to think about them separately. It's the nature AND nurture argument. 8 hours ago, Pramana said: And I'm still not seeing any advantages for the desire-based definition, besides the fact that it would be easier for some people to understand. There's still the fact that it goes against the major trend in the academic literature, which I keep pointing out and no one has provided anything close to a satisfactory response. Plus the fact that lot of sexual people, including all my sexuals friends whom I've consulted on the matter, seem to understand what sexual attraction is. And I'm not even rejecting the desire-based definition. I'm only claiming that the attraction-based definition should be included, which seems like a very reasonable suggestion. I would also add that there is some potential to combine a desire-based definition with a non-essentialist pragmatic definition. But it seems like people who favour desire-based definitions usually also take an essentialist view and a more restrictive view. I would suggest that an attraction-based definition, alongside a desire-based definition, is a more natural fit with a non-essential and pragmatic conception because it has greater flexibility to include potential asexuality candidates such as the sex-favourable asexuals I've described above and because it preserves the ability of people to know what they want (a desire-based definition might entail people who only experience responsive desire would have to try having sex to know if they wanted it). You are correct. Academic literature does use the sexual attraction definition, but several studies also refer to asexuals as "self-identified" whereas I didn't see studies referring to homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals as "self-identified." Truthfully, I don't really know what that means, but I think it is relevant. Also, a lot of the studies I read were defining sexual orientation of patterns of romantic and sexual attraction, and as you are probably aware, AVEN has divided the romantic and sexual attraction into two parts so there can be sexual and romantic orientations. I'm just trying to point out that AVEN is already diverging from the academic community in at least one respect. Also, I haven't found any research articles that give clear definitions of what sexual attraction is. I have however found the Sexual Desire Inventory (SDI) that has been used to discuss the multiple levels of sexual desire, which include dyadic sexual desire (desire for partnered sexual activities) and solitary sexual desire, which is self-explanatory. As some people have already told you. It's not about the academic definition of sexual attraction. It's about AVEN's definition of sexual attraction. There is a disconnect between the two. I also find it a bit frustrating that you seem to think that academic literature is the end-all-be-all, and value it over people's shared experiences when psychology as a science has gone back and forth between valuing empirical evidence and self-report data (i.e., data you can find on AVEN). Obviously it is not a random sample, but you seem to be running under the assumption that academic literature is perfect and that published studies and the people who run them have no flaws. Psychology is like any science, and that means it builds off of everyone's ideas, basically inviting people to prove any theory wrong. (Scientifically, of course.) I'm just saying you shouldn't solely rely on academic literature. You already know my thoughts on the and/or definition. I still find it redundant (especially using AVEN's definitions). And to the bolded part. Just look up the SDI, and I'm sure you will find studies that allude to the fact that there is a general trend that women experience the responsive desire, who would not identify as asexual. For example, in the Mayano, Vallejo-Medina, Sierra study, they found men were statistically significantly more likely to experience dyadic sexual desire for "attractive" people than women were, even though both men and women experienced similar levels of dyadic sexual desire for their partners. I don't know what you're looking for, but it's not difficult to find studies that talk about typical female sexual desire trends. @Xenobot Ok, sorry about that. All the text was in the same paragraph, so I assumed it was all directed towards me. I'm assuming you are talking about the AVEN's values conversation? Yeah, I've been keeping up with it. And, yes, I was mostly referring to hormones in utero. I could have been clearer, as well. 51 minutes ago, Pan. said: To me, "sexual attraction" comes into it for some sexuals when dictating their gender preferences. The underlying desire for partnered sexual contact is already there, that's what makes them sexual - and sexual attraction works for some to help them understand which gender/s that innate desire might be directed at. I know also plenty of sexuals don't really get that "sexual attraction" response to certain genders, but do experience romantic attraction to a certain gender/s and innately desire partnered sex as an intimate bonding activity when in love (with zero desire or interest to have sex with anyone they're not in love with) ..that's really common but rarely mentioned in these discussions. So that's another way that helps some sexual people identify the direction desire for partnered sexual contact (edit: obviously for many they know what their gender preferences are from quite young, but some do spend time questioning and exploring etc) But yeah, underneath it all is an innate desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure that just isn't there for asexuals. I agree with this so much. Link to post Share on other sites
Pramana Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 5 hours ago, a minor triad said: Ok, thank you for clarifying your pragmatic view. I guess third time's a charm. I still don't have fully formulated opinions on the grey identities, but isn't that what they're for? For people who don't fit the asexual definition exactly but still have a very different experience from most sexual people? I don't think a desire-based definition prevents people from identifying as grey or demi. I also don't think the desire-based definition "cares" how someone "became" asexual--whether or not it is linked to autism, OCD, introversion or any other traits like that. I've already mentioned that I believe epigenetics play a huge role in all this, which mean that I don't think anything in a person is completely fixed. By believing in the importance of epigenetics, I am saying that I believe that both a person's environment and genes are important and interact with each other in a way that it is useless to try to think about them separately. It's the nature AND nurture argument. I agree with both the nature and nurture view and that a desire-based model is compatible with gray identities. My defence of the gray identifies is directed towards people such as Skullery Maid who I referenced in my first two posts, and who has a problem with asexual identities when they're the product of personality traits or mental health issues. This kind of view is sometimes tied up with scepticism regarding the attraction model, as an extension of a bias towards recognizing only a smaller percentage of the asexual community as legitimate. But these two lines of argument could be separated, which I gather is what you might want to do. 5 hours ago, a minor triad said: As some people have already told you. It's not about the academic definition of sexual attraction. It's about AVEN's definition of sexual attraction. There is a disconnect between the two. I also find it a bit frustrating that you seem to think that academic literature is the end-all-be-all, and value it over people's shared experiences when psychology as a science has gone back and forth between valuing empirical evidence and self-report data (i.e., data you can find on AVEN). Obviously it is not a random sample, but you seem to be running under the assumption that academic literature is perfect and that published studies and the people who run them have no flaws. Psychology is like any science, and that means it builds off of everyone's ideas, basically inviting people to prove any theory wrong. (Scientifically, of course.) I'm just saying you shouldn't solely rely on academic literature. I only partly rely on academic sources; this is a common misstatement of my position. It seems like if you use a fair amount of academic sources, people stereotype you as only using academic sources, perhaps because it's so rare for people to do research! Seriously, I think you're the first, and so far only, supporter of the desire-based definition I've encountered who even accepts that considering academic sources might be a good idea. I also use my friends's experiences, popular culture, and stories such as this blog:https://asexualagenda.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/living-as-a-sex-favourable-asexual/ I don't think academic sources are infallible, but this is a situation where the concept of sexual attraction has been used by a lot of researchers for a long time, and plays an important role in how sexual orientation is theorized. I haven't found anyone who defends a desire-based definition. I proportion my beliefs to the evidence, and when there's a high degree of consensus within an academic field for a long time, that's pretty solid, not decisive, but about as strong as evidence can be. Sure, the field could change, but that's purely speculation. As for the AVENwiki definition: "Sexual attraction is an emotional response sexual people feel where they find someone sexually appealing, and often results in a desire for sexual contact with the person." I don't think this is in conflict with the academic sources, although some people are misinterpreting it as though it requires that one immediately experience sexual desire and arousal, rather than merely finding something sexually appealing and a potentially desirable sexual candidate. It is difficult to define a concept like this, much in the same way as it's difficult to define "art" or "truth," but I don't think there's any reason why we can't have a working understanding (like most people outside AVEN do). It seems the problem is that sexual attraction can be experienced in dozens of different ways, and so when people try to define it in terms of some of those experiences, the result is bound to be unsatisfactory. Instead, we should just say that if you have an orientation and some preferences, such that you would rather fulfill your desire to have partnered sex through pairing with certain people over others, then you experience sexual attraction. It seems the vast majority of sexual people experience that, at least, although I accept that some do not. If you define asexuality in terms of sexual attraction, then you'd never need to have sex to know your orientation. If you define it in terms of desire, then if you haven't had sex, you might think that maybe you're just a responsive desire person, and so you won't know whether you desire partnered sex unless you first try having sex. This strikes me as problematic because it denies people's agency. The post I've made immediately below this one contains probably the clearest statement I'm going to make for why both the desire model and the attraction model should be included within the definition. Link to post Share on other sites
Pramana Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 On 3/19/2017 at 0:07 PM, Pan. said: Sexual people have an innate desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure under some circumstances, that will sometimes (for some sexuals) override gender preferences. Asexuals have no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure. To me, "sexual attraction" comes into it for some sexuals when dictating their gender preferences. The underlying desire for partnered sexual contact is already there, that's what makes them sexual - and sexual attraction works for some to help them understand which gender/s that innate desire might be directed at. I know also plenty of sexuals don't really get that "sexual attraction" response to certain genders, but do experience romantic attraction to a certain gender/s and innately desire partnered sex as an intimate bonding activity when in love (with zero desire or interest to have sex with anyone they're not in love with) ..that's really common but rarely mentioned in these discussions. So that's another way that helps some sexual people identify the direction desire for partnered sexual contact (edit: obviously for many they know what their gender preferences are from quite young, but some do spend time questioning and exploring etc) But yeah, underneath it all is an innate desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure that just isn't there for asexuals. I agree with most of the above. I think we're on the same page regarding desire for partnered sex and how attraction in the form of orientation/preferences overlies that.This breaks down to a point I've discussed before, where we have a couple of different options:First Option1. Asexual: lack of intrinsic desire for partnered sex.2. Sexual: intrinsic desire for partnered sex, which may be expressed on its own, or as: A. Heterosexual: attracted to people of the opposite gender. B. Homosexual: attracted to people of the same gender. C. Bisexual: attracted to people of both genders.So there is a strong divide between asexuality and sexuality, neither of which are orientations, but sexuality may be expressed in terms of three different orientations.Second Option1. Asexual: lack of sexual attraction to other people. 2. Heterosexual: attracted to people of the opposite gender. 3. Homosexual: attracted to people of the same gender. 4. Bisexual: attracted to people of both genders. So asexuality is an orientation, analogous to the other three orientations.You would like to view asexuality only in terms of the first option; I would like to view it in terms of both.Ultimately, these are merely conceptual models. Their value lies in their utility with regard to understanding the phenomenon and in advancing the interests of the people who employ them.The first option is useful because:1. It's a valid way of looking at asexuality and thus assists understanding the phenomenon.2. It resonates more with one segment of the asexual population.3. It enables sexuals who do not experience sexual attraction/have a sexual orientation to use the sexual label (because they can choose to use this perspective to view themselves).The second option is useful because:1. It's another valid way of looking at asexuality and thus assists understanding the phenomenon.2. It resonates more with another segment of the asexual population.3. It enables sex-favourable asexuals (asexuals who desire partnered sex) to use the asexual label (because they can choose to use this perspective to view themselves).4. It has political utility for the asexual community, because it's helpful to be able to represent asexuality as an orientation in line with current academic understanding when defending the legitimacy of the phenomenon as a valid human experience (against spurious claims that it's a desire disorder).The main objection brought against the second option is that the concept of sexual attraction creates confusion. However, it seems that from what we've been discussing, it should be easy to avoid that confusion. All we have to do is ask: 1. Do you desire partnered sex?, and if so, 2. Do you have any preferences regarding what type of people you would like to have sex with (gender or otherwise)?It seems the problem that's been happening with respect to defining sexual attraction is that the content of those preferences may take dozens of different forms, and be expressed to greater or lesser intensity. So when people try to explain attraction in terms of some of those forms, of course others will say they don't experience attraction that way (for example, physical features may be very important to some people, but others may care more about emotional attributes). But if we focus on the concept of having preferences or not, regardless of how those preferences are formulated by the person, the concept should be clear and workable.Therefore, I conclude that since the second option has pragmatic utility, and the main objection to it has been defused, it should be maintained alongside the first option so that we can give ourselves every advantage for understanding asexuality and advancing the interests of the asexual community. Link to post Share on other sites
Xenobot Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 @Pramana This: The main objection brought against the second option is that the concept of sexual attraction creates confusion. However, it seems that from what we've been discussing, it should be easy to avoid that confusion. All we have to do is ask: 1. Do you desire partnered sex?, and if so, 2. Do you have any preferences regarding what type of people you would like to have sex with (gender or otherwise)? Reminds me of what @Pan. said here: There are people who self-identify as asexual who say "I desire sex but I'm asexual because while I love having sex, I don't really care about appearance or gender, so I don't experience sexual attraction. I desire sex because sex is enjoyable, it's a fun bonding activity, and I like to have it with friends" So you respond "you're saying, you'd literally have sex with anyone no matter how smelly or gross or scary they are?" Response: "no no, I have to trust them, I like having sex with my friends as a fun bonding activity. I just don't care about appearance. It's the friendship bond that matters, not appearance, so I'm asexual" In both cases the presence of sexual partner preferences is being used to discern the presence of sexual attraction. So, this would apply equally to the apparent strawman sexual who says they never experience sexual attraction but desire sex, and the apparent strawman asexual who says they never experience sexual attraction but desire sex. Either we can assume that they are both wrong due to a misunderstanding of themselves or of terminology, we can assume they are both right and the imperfection of verbal expression limits them from explaining their internal reality perfectly, or we can accept that it just doesn't matter because: 1. They don't exist in high enough numbers to be detrimental to the movement, and 2. Self-identification and support is more important than disputing which side of the fence they fall on until the end of time. Despite that, I do think that using sexual partner preferences as a way to clear up confusion about sexual attraction would do far more good than harm. It could cause more problems for the strawmen above, but that's when you fall back on "only you truly know yourself, so the decision to identify one way or another is ultimately up to you." Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 1 hour ago, Pramana said: All we have to do is ask: 1. Do you desire partnered sex?, and if so, 2. Do you have any preferences regarding what type of people you would like to have sex with (gender or otherwise)? I can't reply to all of this as I urgently have to finish a lot of work today, but I just wanted to say that according to my answer to 2, I would be asexual (I'm not) as would other people like me. But the thing is, depending on how you answer that second question, you could be either Pansexual, or a sexual person whose only requirement for sex is that you have a bond with a certain person, or someone whose only requirement is that partner be willing (like my hypersexual ex.) For example: "Do you have any preferences regarding what type of people you would like to have sex with (gender or otherwise)?" Answer: No I'll literally have sex with anyone who is willing because I love sex, I'm one of the most sexual people I know. = Sexual. Answer: I'm pansexual so what genitals someone has mean nothing to me and I have no aesthetic preferences. As long as I have an emotional bond with someone, I can feel safe enough to desire sex with them. The bond is the only factor, and that's more a safety and trust thing than anything else.. I couldn't be comfortable having sex with someone I don't know. = sexual. Answer: No I'm not interested enough in sex to have "preferences" sexually, and I don't view people' sexually' or make any attempt to appear sexually appealing to others - I go out of my way to actually appear the opposite of sexually appealing, I just can't be bothered with that kind of attention. However if I'm in a relationship with someone who doesn't place any importance on sex, I can feel comfortable enough to choose to have certain sexual acts for pleasure in favour of masturbation, because it's something fun my partner and I can do together that will feel good for both of us. However neither of us care if we never have sex and place absolutely no importance on it. Having coffee together is more important than having sex together. (that's me) = still sexual. Answer: No, I have no desire to have sex with anyone so I have no "preferences" sexually. How can I have preferences for something I don't desire in the first place? However, I do have gender preferences when it comes to romantic partners, and I have aesthetic preferences, ie I find long hair on men attractive, I prefer tall women, I prefer tanned skin, etc etc. - This person would still be ASEXUAL, despite having non-sexual preferences that the above sexuals do not have. So question 2 adds too much confusion into the mix. Stick with question 1 and you have a pretty good indicator of asexuality, though I would word it: Do you desire partnered sex *for sexual and/or emotional pleasure*, under some circumstances? Because there are people here who get confused and think that "desiring partnered sex" means wanting to make a sexual partner happy by having sex with them, wanting to have a baby by having sex, wanting to try to 'fit in' by having a lot of sex. None of that actually counts as having an innate desire for partnered sex, but if you add "for sexual and/or emotional pleasure" on the end there, that covers asexuals who want to have sex, but for reasons other than desiring it for pleasure (like to have a baby or make a sexual partner happy) Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 19 minutes ago, Xenobot said: Haha we responded at the same time (I was typing when you posted but couldn't see your comment until after I had submitted my response) and we said practically the exact opposite to each other regarding the partner preferences question Edit: Again, there are sexual people who don't have partner preferences. If you go to FetLife you'll find thousands of them. They may be a minority among sexuals, but that doesn't invalidate their experience or somehow make them asexual. My ex was like that, and Skullery was very open here about not having preferences when it came to sex partners. I'm the same but the opposite, in that I don't have preferences as to who I have sex with because I don't want to have sex with anyone. My partner is my friend and I trust him enough to try certain things with him, but I wasn't drawn to him for that reason or anything like that. Sex isn't something I desire in general and I certainly don't have people I would prefer to have sex with over others or anything like that - I equally don't want sex with everyone haha. My partner is different because I love him enough and we are close enough friends that I can trust him and feel safe with him, and know he wouldn't start pressuring me for certain sexual acts ever. But if he was 100% asexual like one of my ex partners was, that wouldn't be an issue and the topic of sex wouldn't even come up. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 13 hours ago, Pramana said: Sexuals on AVEN are not randomly selected, though, they're most likely in relationships with asexual partners, which makes it a biased sample group. And, look, I have nothing against listening to what they have to say. In fact, I have spent a great deal of time doing so. What I have difficulty understanding are the great lengths some people have gone to try to justify using these sexuals as their only sample group. Surely it would be a far better research method to also take into account experiences of sexuals from outside AVEN. I missed this before. Sexuals on AVEN are generally random sexual people who ended up with asexual partners and came to AVEN to learn more about asexuality, so they often have a better understanding of both sexuality and asexuality than your average sexual. Other sexuals here are often people who are in such a sexual minority that we came here assuming we were asexual and over time came to realise that we are sexual. Also for me, my opinions aren't based solely on people from AVEN, but from my experiences with my sexual ex partner, the many sexual women I worked alongside at the brothel for two years (it was a combined brothel and strip club, and there were women from all walks of life working there). Then there are the hundreds - possibly thousands? of clients I had to spend a lot of time with (I tried to take up a lot of that time talking with them about their sexuality etc to put the sex off as long as possible), and the many sexual people I interacted with on FetLife over the last few years, who are all a very interesting minority of the sexual population. Again though, being a minority doesn't invalidate their experience or make them asexual. So no, I'm not just basing my opinons and conclusions off the experience of sexuals I've met and talked to on AVEN, though I do think they have a very unique perspective on this issue as people who get to fully experience both sides of this issue: Being sexual, and living with an asexual partner. I also believe I have a unique perspective, in that very few people - whether sexual or ace - would have had the chance to interact on a close personal (sexual) level with as many sexual people I have (both colleagues and clients). Link to post Share on other sites
Mundane Mesh Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 [START_OF_BAD_SUGGESTION] Would it be stupid to accept both definitions but separate them as two different kinds of asexuality? Something like "Type A Asexual" & "Type B Asexual" (or "Type AB" if you are asexual in both ways), but maybe call them something else that doesn't imply that one comes after the other. Then you can talk about both concepts without restricting the language to only have a word for one of them. We already have several specializations of asexuality such as sex averseness/favorability and libidoists vs non-libidoists etc. Maybe one more kind of subtyping would put this debate to rest? Or maybe that would be really stupid. I suspect that it is really stupid and I'm pretty skeptical to the idea. I'm just throwing it out there to make sure we explore every potential solution. [END_OF_BAD_SUGGESTION] I mean, I can come up with plenty of critique to that idea already: It might make asexuality even more confusing to beginners and it won't be a good compromise at all if you think asexuality is to broadly defined as it is. Also it might split the community even more than today. I don't know. Also it sort of doesn't solve anything. It might even make things worse? It was a pretty bad suggestion. Disregard and continue. Link to post Share on other sites
Xenobot Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 8 minutes ago, Pan. said: I can't reply to all of this as I urgently have to finish a lot of work today, but I just wanted to say that according to my answer to 2, I would be asexual (I'm not) as would other people like me. But the thing is, depending on how you answer that second question, you could be either Pansexual, or a sexual person whose only requirement for sex is that you have a bond with a certain person, or that person be willing or whatever. For example: "Do you have any preferences regarding what type of people you would like to have sex with (gender or otherwise)?" Answer: No I'll literally have sex with anyone who is willing because I love sex, I'm one of the most sexual people I know. = Sexual. Answer: I'm pansexual so what genitals someone has mean nothing to me and I have no aesthetic preferences. As long as I have an emotional bond with someone, I can feel safe enough to desire sex with them. The bond is the only factor, and that's more a safety and trust thing than anything else.. I couldn't 've comfortable having sex with someone I don't know. = sexual. Answer: No I'm not interested enough in sex to have "preferences" sexually, and I don't view people' sexually' or make any attempt to appear sexually appealing to others - I go out of my way to actually appear the opposite of sexually appealing, I just can't be bothered with that kind of attention. However if I'm in a relationship with someone who doesn't place any importance on sex, I can feel comfortable enough to choose to have certain sexual acts for pleasure in favour of masturbation, because it's something fun my partner and I can do together that will feel good for both of us. However neither of us care if we never have sex and place absolutely no importance on it. Having coffee together is more important than having sex together. (that's me) = still sexual. Answer: No, I have no desire to have sex with anyone so I have no "preferences" sexually. How can I have preferences for something I don't desire in the first place? However, I do have gender preferences when it comes to romantic partners, and I have aesthetic preferences, ie I find long hair on men attractive, I prefer tall women, I prefer tanned skin, etc etc. - This person would still be ASEXUAL, despite having non-sexual preferences that the above sexuals do not have. So question 2 adds too much confusion into the mix. Stick with question 1 and you have a pretty good indicator of asexuality, though I would word it: Do you desire partnered sex *for sexual and/or emotional pleasure*, under some circumstances? Because there are people here who get confused and think that "desiring partnered sex" means wanting to make a sexual partner happy by having sex with them, wanting to have a baby by having sex, wanting to try to 'fit in' by having a lot of sex. None of that actually counts as having an innate desire for partnered sex, but if you add "for sexual and/or emotional pleasure" on the end there, that covers asexuals who want to have sex, but for reasons other than desiring it for pleasure. Those are good points about the shorcomings of that line of questioning. Though, I feel like even if we could come to a strong agreement about the definition of asexuality, and we hired a team of the top lawyers in the world to draft a 1000 page document on who does and does not apply, there would still be some odd man out or loophole somewhere. I mean, if you start reading up on the philosophy and psychology of desire and motivation, you'll see that there are loopholes and issues with that end of the argument too. For example, there's this rather sound argument that there is no such thing as altruism in the strictest sense of the word, because people who believe they are selflessly doing good are still being rewarded for it on a chemical level within their brains (like that good feeling/warm fuzzy feeling people who do volunteer work talk about getting). If you apply that to people who willingly (truly willing, not coerced or anything) engage in sex but say they aren't doing it for their own pleasure, there are some grey areas/unfortunate implications. I don't agree with making that argument, just pointing out that you could if you really wanted to. I waver back and forth between whether I like the sexual attraction or desire based definition more. I keep drawing up the pros and cons of both and consistently find myself in the middle. I do think that even if AVEN is unwilling to officially add a desire based "part 2" to their official definition, then in the spirit of transparency and intellectual honesty, they should at least make their sexual attraction definition much more visible. I don't quite agree with their definition of sexual attraction, as their definition basically implies that sexual attraction and sexual desire are the same thing while I think sexual attraction is (usually) a significant contributing factor to feeling sexual desire towards someone, but I think the subject of innate sexual desire should be more visible in whatever form in an official capacity. I find myself wondering if they've deliberately kept that definition of sexual attraction less visible, and why that might be. Link to post Share on other sites
a minor triad Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 3 hours ago, Pramana said: As for AVEN's definition: "Sexual attraction is an emotional response sexual people feel where they find someone sexually appealing, and often results in a desire for sexual contact with the person." I don't think this is in conflict with the academic sources, although some people are misinterpreting it as though it requires that one immediately experience sexual desire and arousal, rather than merely finding something sexually appealing and a potentially desirable sexual candidate. It is difficult to define a concept like this, much in the same way as it's difficult to define "art" or "truth," but I don't think there's any reason why we can't have a working understanding (like most people outside AVEN do). It seems the problem is that sexual attraction can be experienced in dozens of different ways, and so when people try to define it in terms of some of those experiences, the result is bound to be unsatisfactory. Instead, we should just say that if you have an orientation and some preferences, such that you would rather fulfill your desire to have partnered sex through pairing with certain people over others, then you experience sexual attraction. It seems the vast majority of sexual people experience that, at least, although I accept that some do not. Honest question: where did you find that definition? The one I have been referring to is on AVEN's General FAQ tab on the front page of this site. It's the one that says sexual attraction is the "desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them." I'd quote it, but I don't know how. I'm saying that this definition that I have found diverges from academic literature since sexual attraction and sexual desire are treated as separate things in research. Also, for the second bolded part, isn't that kind of what other people have been saying on this thread? This statement seems to be saying that sexual attraction is emergent from sexual desire...which is what I started out with at the beginning of all this. Edit: I should include that although I think sexual attraction is emergent from sexual desire, I don't think that sexual desire always brings about sexual attraction, as explained and experienced by @Pan.. Link to post Share on other sites
Pramana Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 1 minute ago, a minor triad said: Honest question: where did you find that definition? The one I have been referring to is on AVEN's General FAQ tab on the front page of this site. It's the one that says sexual attraction is the "desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them." I'd quote it, but I don't know how. I'm saying that this definition that I have found diverges from academic literature since sexual attraction and sexual desire are treated as separate things in research. Also, for the second bolded part, isn't that kind of what other people have been saying on this thread? This statement seems to be saying that sexual attraction is emergent from sexual desire...which is what I started out with at the beginning of all this. It's from the AVEN wiki page for sexual attraction. Just do an Internet search. The main AVEN definition is too oversimplified such that it can lead to confusion that sexual attraction and desire are the same thing, and it's not detailed enough to be of much use. My view is that sexual attraction overlies sexual desire, but I wouldn't say it's emergent from it. Sexual attraction can be a cause of sexual desire. I don't think an emergent phenomenon can be the cause of that from which it emerges. Link to post Share on other sites
Xenobot Posted March 19, 2017 Share Posted March 19, 2017 9 minutes ago, a minor triad said: Honest question: where did you find that definition? The one I have been referring to is on AVEN's General FAQ tab on the front page of this site. It's the one that says sexual attraction is the "desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them." I'd quote it, but I don't know how. I'm saying that this definition that I have found diverges from academic literature since sexual attraction and sexual desire are treated as separate things in research. Also, for the second bolded part, isn't that kind of what other people have been saying on this thread? This statement seems to be saying that sexual attraction is emergent from sexual desire...which is what I started out with at the beginning of all this. Edit: I should include that although I think sexual attraction is emergent from sexual desire, I don't think that sexual desire always brings about sexual attraction, as explained and experienced by @Pan.. Ah, you know. I wondered the same thing because I just looked at their definition today on the website proper, and it is as you said. Then I got distracted and forgot. Heh. The wiki definition blatantly contradicts the definition in the FAQ. They should probably correct that. Either way, AVEN does accept the importance of sexual desire in this whole discussion, but seem unwilling to make it more visible for whatever reason. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.