Jump to content

Definition discussion.


Ashmedai

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Pramana said:

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.

The wiki definition is definitely much better overall. No definition of sexual attraction is going to be perfect, but that is so much better than the definition in the FAQ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
a minor triad

Hmmm...that's odd that the AVEN wiki page and the AVEN site would have two different definitions. I wonder what's going on there.

 

2 minutes ago, Pramana said:

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.

Ok, I see what you're saying here. I will need to work on rephrasing my statement so I won't be contradicting myself because I agree with the whole an emergent phenomenon cannot cause the thing it emerges from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, a minor triad said:

Hmmm...that's odd that the AVEN wiki page and the AVEN site would have two different definitions. I wonder what's going on there.

 

Ok, I see what you're saying here. I will need to work on rephrasing my statement so I won't be contradicting myself because I agree with the whole an emergent phenomenon cannot cause the thing it emerges from.

I would imagine because the wiki definition was written by the community instead of the BoD, or whoever the BoD assigned to write the FAQ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Xenobot said:

I would imagine because the wiki definition was written by the community instead of the BoD, or whoever the BoD assigned to write the FAQ.

Actually, the FAQ definition was the one done with community input (I remember that thread).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2017 at 4:51 PM, Pan. said:

Do you desire partnered sex *for sexual and/or emotional pleasure*, under some circumstances? 

I'm unfamiliar with your use of "sexual and/or emotional pleasure" language. Could "sexual" be replaced with "physical"? In any case, I think I would prefer to just say "intrinsic desire".
 

On 3/19/2017 at 4:51 PM, Pan. said:

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:

I can't see getting rid of #2 if we want to recognize and explain that sexual attraction and sexual orientations exist. Answering #2 in the affirmative would show that one is sexual, and elaborating on that answer would then show whether one is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

At the moment, I've heard one compelling story that there are asexuals who desire partnered sex without experiencing sexual attraction and one compelling story that there are sexuals who desire partnered sex without experiencing sexual attraction. My options are to either dismiss one or both by saying they lack sufficient self-awareness when explaining themselves, or to accept both at face value. I cannot see any grounds for favouring one over the other, and I'm not prepared to discount these reports, so my thought is to accept them both, by granting people in this situation the freedom to choose which of the two models they think best reflects their identity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Xenobot said:

 

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

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.

(I was trying to quote Pramana and failed, can't get rid of Xeno's quote box :S

 

1 hour ago, a minor triad said:

Ok, I see what you're saying here. I will need to work on rephrasing my statement so I won't be contradicting myself because I agree with the whole an emergent phenomenon cannot cause the thing it emerges from.

This reminded me of a comment from a sexual member on this site made aaago, I'll quote the comment they were responding to for context (I'm removing their names as I am not familiar with these people off AVEN as I am with Skulls, so I'm not sure if they'd be okay with me quoting/mentioning them)

 

Quote

initial comment made by an asexual:  ''An allosexual can see someone, even when they're not horny in the moment, and immediately think sexual thoughts about that person. They could be total strangers, they could be acquaintances, co-workers, friends, or they could be someone the allosexual is romantically interested in or involved with. But a true allosexual experiences sexual attraction to all kinds of people, regardless of how well they know them, and it doesn't depend on romantic feelings or involvement. I remember someone I was friendly with in college telling me, "I could be sexually attracted to like three different strangers on the train in a span of thirty minutes" or something like that. And that's got nothing to do with whether or not their libido's acting up or they're aroused or whatever. It doesn't even matter if they're having sex with someone they know on a regular basis and if that sex is satisfying to them. Sexual attraction is just a thing that happens all day every day to most allosexuals, regardless of their libido level, their marital status, their willingness to have sex with the people they're attracted to, etc. '' [/quote]

 

Quote

 

Response from sexuaI member: ''Except those thoughts are not the result of seeing an attractive stranger. Those sexual thoughts will exist regardless, even if there are no attractive people on the train of if there are no people on the train at all. If we encounter someone who is attractive we may pair those sexual thoughts with specific thoughts of them, but they are not the cause of it. We think sexual thoughts because we desire sex, because we are sexual. Attraction is secondary to desire. For a sexual person sexual desire is innate. It does not come from any external factor. Attraction is an external factor.

 To define asexuality in terms of attraction ignores what sexual people really are like and thus does not explain the difference between asexual and sexual people.'' [/quote]

 

 

END QUOTE (I broke the quote box and comment outside of the boxes now.. so weird)

I feel that quote by a sexual member of AVEN is really import, and many (not all, but many) sexuals feel similarly to that. I've had many discussions about this before, and for many sexuals. that underlying innate desire would exist even if they were alone on a desert island for like 10 years:There is no one to be attracted to on that island, but that underlying desire is still there causing them to miss sex, fantasize about, desire the intimacy and closeness of it, etc etc. This isn't true of all sexual people, for example I personally place no importance on sex and wouldn't think about it if I was alone on an island OR even if there were bikini models running around or whatever (lol) but obviously I'm not like many other sexual people.  Anyway, I'm procrastinating again, I just wanted to quote that member from a few years ago because their comment seemed very relevant in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Actually, the FAQ definition was the one done with community input (I remember that thread).

So then the next question has to be: What went wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Xenobot said:

So then the next question has to be: What went wrong?

I think what went wrong was the definition on the AVEN wiki itself, and the refusal to consider changing the definition of asexuality to a desire-based one.. However, defining sexual attraction that way in the AVEN General FAQ was definitely a positive step toward correctly defining asexuality (a lack of an innate desire to connect sexually with others)

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Also, I'm not that familiar with sexual/emotional pleasure language. Could "sexual" be replaced with "physical"

Others have brought that up with me before, and I personally don't think it matters whether someone uses the word sexual or physical there. I just know that there is a huge difference (for me) between a physically pleasurable sensation (ie a foot massage) and a sexually pleasurable sensation (ie giving oral). I'd partake in certain sexual acts specifically for the sexual and emotional pleasure of doing them but if I want physical pleasure, I'll just ask for a massage or to have my hair brushed or something. I'm not sure if others feel the sensations are very different, but for me they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Pan. said:

I think what went wrong was the definition on the AVEN wiki itself, and the refusal to consider changing the definition of asexuality to a desire-based one.. However, defining sexual attraction that way in the AVEN General FAQ was definitely a positive step toward correctly defining asexuality (a lack of an innate desire to connect sexually with others)

The wiki definition still puts significant emphasis on sexual desire, but it doesn't conflate sexual attraction with sexual desire. I agree that the FAQ defintion is better than nothing, but ideally it should acknowledge that those two concepts are not identical. "Sexual attraction = sexual desire" just isn't true based on how we use those terms both in general society and on a scholarly level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Xenobot said:

The wiki definition still puts significant emphasis on sexual desire, but it doesn't conflate sexual attraction with sexual desire. I agree that the FAQ defintion is better than nothing, but ideally it should acknowledge that those two concepts are not identical. "Sexual attraction = sexual desire" just isn't true based on how we use those terms both in general society and on a scholarly level.

Yeah it's definitely inaccurate as a definition for sexual attraction, but again the solution is just clarifying the overall definition of asexuality to "an asexual is someone who lacks an innate desire for partnered sexual contact" or something. That way it doesn't matter if sexual attraction is incorrectly defined (there are so many differing ideas of what it is and how it's experienced, etc, and no one can agree on any one defitnion, and again - there are sexual people who don't experience it regardless) Because it would no loner be part of the definition. That wouldn't actually be *changing* the current definition, just clarifying it (when you take into account the way AVEN defines sexual attraction).

 

So yeah, simple solution :P

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pan. said:

Yeah it's definitely inaccurate as a definition for sexual attraction, but again the solution is just clarifying the the overall definition of asexuality to "an asexual is someone who lacks an innate desire for partnered sexual contact" or something. That way it doesn't matter if sexual attraction is incorrectly defined (there are so many differing ideas of what it is and how it's experienced, etc, and no one can agree on any one defitnion, and again - there are sexual people who don't experience it regardless) Because it would no loner be part of the definition. That wouldn't actually be *changing* the current definition, just clarifying it (when you take into account the way AVEN defines sexual attraction).

 

So yeah, simple solution :P

 

 

Since it's a simple solution, it won't be accepted.  I think there's a self-stimulation situation going on with these definition threads.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pan. said:

Yeah it's definitely inaccurate as a definition for sexual attraction, but again the solution is just clarifying the overall definition of asexuality to "an asexual is someone who lacks an innate desire for partnered sexual contact" or something. That way it doesn't matter if sexual attraction is incorrectly defined (there are so many differing ideas of what it is and how it's experienced, etc, and no one can agree on any one defitnion, and again - there are sexual people who don't experience it regardless) Because it would no loner be part of the definition. That wouldn't actually be *changing* the current definition, just clarifying it (when you take into account the way AVEN defines sexual attraction).

 

So yeah, simple solution :P

 

 

This part of Pan's post: "an asexual is someone who lacks an innate desire for partnered sexual contact" (emphasis added by me)

 

BINGO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Pramana said:

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.

Just as a side note, since I don't think it's all that relevant to the actual discussion: I've had the er-- opportunity to define some of the broad concepts like "art" or "knowledge" so I'm aware of the difficulty in it. :P
You mentioned that the attraction definition resonates more with some asexuals, but my concern is that I've seen more confusion from it than anything else so wouldn't it make sense to find a definition that resonates with the Most asexuals? I certainly agree that we need to be mindful of academic discourse and how the definition will be understood outside of this community-- which is one of the main reasons I supported it for several years, but even academics have to acknowledge that a political or academic definition often needs to be tweaked when doing research on a specific community because words have different meanings for different groups. I've certainly dealt with it myself when doing research; you can't always have a term (or in this case a similar term) defined closely just because it fits nicely with the others because if it's not going to realistically measure what you think you're researching it's useless to you.
Semantically, it's a huge pain. I still like the idea of all sexuality definitions being explained the same way but it's rather useless to us if we don't understand the definition we're supposed to be defined by. And having to define one of the terms within our definition (as the wiki seems to from what I saw posted here) is just adding an additional layer onto this. If we're going to end up explaining sexual attraction with desire anyway, we might as well correct the first definition, otherwise it feels like finding dictionaries that essentially used the root-word in the definition and told you nothing at face value. The academic community is also smart enough to read a definition and say, "Oh, this sounds like what a lot of other people would consider sexual attraction" and realize that is essentially what is being referred to in different words. This is reminding me of an article I was reading over Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) and how it breaks the Pauli Exclusion Principle of other types of matter; several types of matter exist (liquid, BEC) but just because two act differently have to be defined in somewhat opposing ways doesn't mean they're not both matter. Similarly, just because asexuality and say, heterosexuality have to be defined in slightly different terms doesn't mean they're both not of the same generic category of sexualities.
Spoiler added below for a link and excerpt about the random science comparison that came to mind.
 

Spoiler

" This is why electrons, for example, have discrete "orbitals" that they have to occupy, and why they give off photons of specific wavelengths when they drop from one orbital, or energy level, to another. But cool the atoms to within billionths of a degree of absolute zero and some atoms begin to fall into the same energy level, becoming indistinguishable." (aka BEC)
"Other states of matter all follow the Pauli Exclusion Principle, named for physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Pauli (1900-1958) was an Austrian-born Swiss and American theoretical physicist and one of the pioneers of quantum physics.It says that fermions — the kinds of particles that make up matter — can't be in identical quantum states. This is why when two electrons are in the same orbital, their spins have to be opposite so they add up to zero. That in turn is one reason why chemistry works the way it does and one reason atoms can't occupy the same space at the same time. Bose-Einstein condensates break that rule.  "

Link: http://www.livescience.com/54667-bose-einstein-condensate.html


We're not going to confuse them, but we're simply trying to get a definition that doesn't need to be explained by the wording a large part of the community is arguing for in the first place. If the wiki and other locations are going to explain sexual attraction as a "desire" then why not skip the middle man and apply the most understandable definition?

Ah, I've seen that one proposed a couple times before and the reason I don't like it is mainly for two reasons. 1) We still have the problem of those strange interpretations of "sexual attraction" that @Pan. listed off previously, and because the "and/or" caveat allows for an exclusionary reading due to "OR" so we would have people happy to ignore the second part of the definition and continue applying "asexual" to some of those strange examples-- which is harmful for the asexual community and can be counter-productive for any research on asexuality because we still have the misunderstanding and odd personal, individual interpretations of the standardized academic "attraction" definition.

 

2) "Desire" by itself can be misconstrued to mean "want" and I've seen hundreds of posters in relationships read that particularly worded sentence to mean "don't want partnered sex for any reason" and so those aces who are in relationships and are willing to compromise for their partner (but have no desire for sex beyond essentially doing it to make their partner happy) confused and as if they don't fit then.

 

I personally support a definition more along the lines of "People who do not innately desire for partnered sexual contact" because of the problems with "attraction" relating to personally identifying as such for the reasons I previously mentioned, it avoids the And/Or problem, and helps eliminate as much confusion as I think we can reasonably expect without making a definition a paragraph or longer with all the potential exceptions and circumstances. We may still have to help inform people that wanting to have sex because your partner wants it doesn't qualify as "innate desire" but many people can separate the idea that them wanting to make someone else happy is different from wanting to have sexual contact with the other for themselves.
 

7 hours ago, Pan. said:

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)

Oh I see Pan's addressing the same issue I just mentioned. :) I like part of this but I'd want it worded a bit different otherwise I think we still have the problem (unless I misread your post Pan, in which case sorry! But I know we're hitting on the same point for the same reason.)
Perhaps: "People who do not innately desire partnered sexual contact for their own physical or emotional pleasure".


AN: Now I remember why I stopped commenting on definition debates after that huge thread about two years ago; these posts get ridiculously long!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clumsy Fairy
On 19/03/2017 at 0:44 AM, nataliemae said:
 
 

I state views and then you state the same ones but act like I said something that conflicts with your views. I think you really just want an argument with someone, but I'm not interested.

 

<shakes hand>

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clumsy Fairy

I think the biggest issue with asexuality is the fact that its being appropriated without being understood. 

I think there is too much emphasis on it being a "sexuality" along side Homosexuality and Heterosexuality, when in reality it isn't. Its the lack of sexuality.

 It's like trying to ask what sort of music is silence. 

 

One can get in to massive debates about definition, but realistically one is just trying to define ones own experience and leave room for others.

 

The other problem faced is that asexuality can be causal. IE, you can exhibit asexuality as a symptom of other physiological effects. And not to include those who have become asexual is elitist at best.

 

Oh and to complain that doctors assume asexuality may be a symptom is to piss in the face of modern medicine. Surely if someone's sexual desire has changed the safest thing is to investigate a cause? Just pulling a label out of the air and telling a doctor "No I am just asexual" is massively reckless, and to encourage others to do so is madness. 

 

And there in lies the problem... Trying to create a definition that tries to moderate the effects of public opinions but at the same time be inclusive. 

 

Ill just go with the entomology. A(not) Sexual(wanting or needing to have sexual intercourse).  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous

I was a supporter of the attraction-based definition for a long time, and honestly I still am in theory - in the way that "no sexual attraction" was originally intended when that definition was set. Meaning, it was set up in the framework of hetero/homo/etc. under the expectation that people would understand the concept of what attraction means. Nobody debates homosexuality, wondering 'but what does it MEAN for a man to be attracted to a man..?', so why would we debate asexuality that way? Basically, they overestimated the community.

 

"I'm heterosexual, that means I desire sex with members of the opposite gender."


"I'm homosexual, that means I desire sex with members of the same gender."


"I'm bisexual, that means I desire sex with both genders."


"I'm pansexual, that means I desire sex with all genders."


"I'm asexual, that means I desire sex with no genders."

 

And it really did work, until folks started picking apart this concept (what is attraction, what is desire, what does it mean to want something, etc.) until it ceased to make any sense at all and we ended up with these convoluted ideas of how a person can love sex and crave it everyday but because they don't instantly get horny looking at people, they can still be asexual. And somehow it turned 'sexual desire toward no genders' into 'sexual desire regardless of gender'. Which.. is actually more like pansexual, now, isn't it? (Okay, now I'm rambling.)


Regardless, I think it's such a shame that this happened because it took a definition that made sense AND kept asexuality as an orientation on the same level as hetero/homo, and picked it apart so brutally that it is not only painfully unhelpful, it is actively harmful. Because of this, I feel that "Asexuality = the lack of innate desire for partnered sex" is the only definition we are left with that can cut through this massive tangle of confusion we have created for ourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cimmerian said:

You mentioned that the attraction definition resonates more with some asexuals, but my concern is that I've seen more confusion from it than anything else so wouldn't it make sense to find a definition that resonates with the Most asexuals? I certainly agree that we need to be mindful of academic discourse and how the definition will be understood outside of this community-- which is one of the main reasons I supported it for several years, but even academics have to acknowledge that a political or academic definition often needs to be tweaked when doing research on a specific community because words have different meanings for different groups. I've certainly dealt with it myself when doing research; you can't always have a term (or in this case a similar term) defined closely just because it fits nicely with the others because if it's not going to realistically measure what you think you're researching it's useless to you.

Ah, I've seen that one proposed a couple times before and the reason I don't like it is mainly for two reasons. 1) We still have the problem of those strange interpretations of "sexual attraction" that @Pan. listed off previously, and because the "and/or" caveat allows for an exclusionary reading due to "OR" so we would have people happy to ignore the second part of the definition and continue applying "asexual" to some of those strange examples-- which is harmful for the asexual community and can be counter-productive for any research on asexuality because we still have the misunderstanding and odd personal, individual interpretations of the standardized academic "attraction" definition.

As I've argued before, it seems to me that sexual attraction can be understood in a straightforward way as "preferences (gender or otherwise) for who one has sex with". In my view, asexual education requires that we make an effort to understand human sexuality in all its complexity, rather than a simplified version of it because people got too confused talking about different expressions of sexual attraction.

Besides that, I don't think it's an ethically defensible approach to ignore the concerns of a minority of the community because they're a minority. That seems like the last thing an LGBT+ group such as the asexuality community should be doing.

I'm not really sure what to say about people who desire partnered sex but who don't experience sexual attraction. If seems to me we just have to give them the option to identify as either asexual or sexual, and therefore we need both the desire and attraction models in order to allow them to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I'm not really sure what to say about people who desire partnered sex but who don't experience sexual attraction. If seems to me we just have to give them the option to identify as either asexual or sexual, and therefore we need both the desire and attraction models in order to allow them to do that.

Well I'm sure what to say about them. If AVEN would allow me to do so, I'd be quite happy to say to every single one of them "No, you are not asexual. What you describe is called pansexual." Allowing pansexuals to identify as ace because, eh, why not, "inclusivity yay, identity policing boo", is the worst thing anyone can do in terms of education. If you can't even keep that gate, you don't have an orientation, you have a social club.

 

Desire for partnered sex without a discernible partner preference is pansexuality, because attraction - if seen as different from and decoupled from desire - does NOT inform orientation. NO orientation that would do so can be considered legitimate.

 

(Hint: No orientation, except "asexuality" as posited by a bunch of misguided internet people, does so. "Asexuals" are totally trying to be special, while lying about it by dishonestly claiming they were doing the same as everyone else. It's time they're called out on their shit, and if AVEN had integrity, it would lead the charge in calling them out on it, instead of supporting the charade.) 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Well I'm sure what to say about them. If AVEN would allow me to do so, I'd be quite happy to say to every single one of them "No, you are not asexual. What you describe is called pansexual." Allowing pansexuals to identify as ace because, eh, why not, "inclusivity yay, identity policing boo", is the worst thing anyone can do in terms of education. If you can't even keep that gate, you don't have an orientation, you have a social club.

 

Desire for partnered sex without a discernible partner preference is pansexuality, because attraction - if seen as different from and decoupled from desire - does NOT inform orientation. NO orientation that would do so can be considered legitimate.

 

(Hint: No orientation, except "asexuality" as posited by a bunch of misguided internet people, does so. "Asexuals" are totally trying to be special, while lying about it by dishonestly claiming they were doing the same as everyone else. It's time they're called out on their shit, and if AVEN had integrity, it would lead the charge in calling them out on it, instead of supporting the charade.) 

I'm inclined to stand back on this issue because I don't know enough psychology to say much about these uncommon sexualities.

What I would say, though, is that regardless of whether we call them asexuals or gray-asexuals or pansexuals or sexuals, it seems we can at least agree that they have experiences which lead them to want to participate in asexual communities. My thought is we should focus on that as what's most relevant, and therefore kind of sidestep the definition issue, which I'd suggest would be good to do because realistically we're never going to arrive at an entirely satisfactory definition which everyone can agree to (we're dealing with complex human phenomena, after all).

Secondly, I would argue there is reason to maintain AVEN's "only you truly know yourself and can decide what label is right for you" principle. There is something to be said for preserving human freedom to decide one's own identity, even if that includes the freedom to decide wrongly. At the very least, it's pretty clear that AVEN isn't going to be changing that principle anytime soon, and it seems my compromise solution is the only way to stay in accord with it.

Practically speaking, my impression is that the percentage of the human population which desires partnered sex without ever experiencing sexual attraction (if we think of sexual attraction simply as a set of preferences that guides the innate desire for partnered sex) is probably really small. Even if we accept that they should be described as sexuals/pansexuals or some variant thereof, I don't see much harm resulting if some of these people were to join asexual communities under the belief that they are sex-favourable asexuals. Like I say, what's really relevant to their participation in the community is the fact that they can relate to it, and not what label they use.

Before concluding, I would add that you've made many significant contributions to the AVEN community over a long period of time, and like many others here I would prefer that you stay. I hope that disputes over labelling and definition issues can be contained in such a way that they don't break the community apart. But I respect your decision to leave if you're convinced that's the right choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Pramana said:

What I would say, though, is that regardless of whether we call them asexuals or gray-asexuals or pansexuals or sexuals, it seems we can at least agree that they have experiences which lead them to want to participate in asexual communities. My thought is we should focus on that as what's most relevant, and therefore kind of sidestep the definition issue, which I's suggest would be good to do because realistically we're never going to arrive at an entirely satisfactory definition which everyone can agree to (we're dealing with complex human phenomena, after all).

That is not how education works. If that's what most relevant, I hope you also passionately argue for evolution and creationism to be taught side by side in science class. Creationists undoubtedly have experiences that lead them to want God the Creator included in theories about the world - no sane person can deny that fact.

 

 

36 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Secondly, I would argue there is reason to maintain AVEN's "only you truly know yourself and can decide what label is right for you" principle. I say that on the grounds that there is something to be said for preserving human freedom to decide one's own identity, even if that includes the freedom to decide wrongly. At the very least, it's pretty clear that AVEN isn't going to be changing that principle anytime soon, and it seems my compromise solution is the only way to stay in accord with it.

That only works if one holds the value that inclusivity outweighs education. That's the core point in which I vehemently, fundamentally disagree with the BoD's stance, so much that I will, indeed, distance myself from AVEN over it.

 

IMO, inclusivity must take a back seat. To get back to the above example: You have the freedom to write "God did it [cf: Genesis 1; 2]" as the full exent of your essay in a test about evolution, but your science teacher has not only the right, but the duty, to give you a failing grade for it.

 

I stand by it: For visibility of and education about asexuality, having an exclusionary definition is vastly more important than to have an inclusive community.

 

In the words on Jean Luc Picard: "This far, no farther! A line must be drawn here!" (Not the first comparison of the BoD to the Borg... ;) )

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

That is not how education works. If that's what most relevant, I hope you also passionately argue for evolution and creationism to be taught side by side in science class. Creationists undoubtedly have experiences that lead them to want God the Creator included in theories about the world - no sane person can deny that fact,

 

That only works if one holds the value that inclusivity outweighs education. That's the core point in which I vehemently, fundamentally disagree with the BoD's stance, so much that I will, indeed, distance myself from AVEN over it.

 

IMO, inclusivity must take a back seat. To get back to the above example: You have the freedom to write "God did it [cf: Genesis 1; 2]" as the full exent of your essay in a test about evolution, but your science teacher has not only the right, but the duty, to give you a failing grade for it.

 

I stand by it: For visibility of and education about asexxuality, having an exclusionary definition is vastly more important than to have an inclusive community.

 

In the words on Jean Luc Picard: "This far, no farther! A line must be drawn here!" (Not the first comparison of the BoD to the Borg... ;) )

Your points get at the fact that whatever we decide, there are going to be tradeoffs, and people can reasonably disagree about values/priorities.

I suspect many people wouldn't put as much weight as you would on the education side of the inclusivity versus education tradeoff. I, for one, would be inclined towards more of a balance. My thought is that if someone new to AVEN relates a story of experiencing desire in the absence of sexual attraction, why not just suggest that they might be sexual/pansexual and point them in the direction of some resources on that? So what if they decide to call themselves asexual anyway? What are we going to do about that? We can't really stop them, which is a point I think others have made in defence of self-labelling, the fact that at the end of the day it's a practical reality that we have to accept.

In addition, I don't find the "desire for partnered sex in the absence of attraction" phenomenon to be all that clear. Therefore, I don't think taking one side or the other is comparable to religion versus science. I would also suggest the there will be subjective aspects to how people experience the same phenomenon (based on their personality and social circumstances), and maybe on that basis it would be legitimate for some people in that group to call themselves sex-favourable asexuals, and others to call themselves sexuals/pansexuals.

In terms of education on AVEN, I'm more worried about the confusion that's developed over sexual attraction, and proposals to conflate it with sexual desire because that would simpler. Of course, there are tradeoffs here too. I don't think a journal article level analysis is suitable for general education, but surely we can explain that there's desire for partnered sex and then there's attraction which functions as a set of preferences/orientation which to one degree or another operates to direct at least some of the sexual choices of most sexual people.

Beyond that, I don't see many teenagers getting confused into mistakenly thinking that they experience sexual desire but not sexual attraction because they don't know what sexual attraction is. At least, given my high school memories and every teen movie I've ever watched, it seems people are for the most part pretty clear on that. The only thing I can see is that we might be creating confusion for them by confusing ourselves about sexual attraction, but surely we can get our acts together on that topic. I'd be interested in your impression on that, though, from your experience here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/19/2017 at 2:28 AM, Law of Circles said:

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.)

I agree that the support of sexual allies is important, and I would never want to be seen as discounting the value of that.

My thought is that sexual people who have been able to reach compromise relationships with asexuals are more likely to be sexuals whose own sexuality differs from the majority of the sexual population. My experience has been that most sexuals do not want to date asexuals, and would prefer to have a "normal" sexual relationship with another sexual person.

So I agree that sexuals who are in relationships with asexuals have a unique perspective that we should listen to in order to broaden our knowledge of human sexuality. But, at the same time, they might not always be the best sources of information about the general sexual population, especially when it comes to issues like levels of sexual desire and attraction. I think it's fair to say that sexuals who experience these phenomena with lower than average levels of intensity would have an easier time compromising in relationships with asexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Pan. said:

I feel that quote by a sexual member of AVEN is really import, and many (not all, but many) sexuals feel similarly to that. I've had many discussions about this before, and for many sexuals. that underlying innate desire would exist even if they were alone on a desert island for like 10 years:There is no one to be attracted to on that island, but that underlying desire is still there causing them to miss sex, fantasize about, desire the intimacy and closeness of it, etc etc. This isn't true of all sexual people, for example I personally place no importance on sex and wouldn't think about it if I was alone on an island OR even if there were bikini models running around or whatever (lol) but obviously I'm not like many other sexual people.  Anyway, I'm procrastinating again, I just wanted to quote that member from a few years ago because their comment seemed very relevant in this case.

Following that idea, the simplest way I can explain the relation between sexual desire and sexual attraction is like this:

Imagine a heterosexual women (we'll call her Jane, because I'm creative with names) is stranded on a desert island. After ten years:
Scenario One: Two more people, a man and a woman, arrive on the island. Jane pursues a sexual relationship with the man, because following her orientation she prefers to have sex with men. In this scenario, sexual attraction causes Jane to desire partnered sex with the man instead of the woman.
Scenario Two. Only one person, another woman, arrives on the island. Jane pursues a sexual relationship with the woman, because Jane desires partnered sex, even though she is not a lesbian and is not attracted to the woman. In this scenario, sexual attraction does not operate, because there is no one for Jane to be attracted to. Desire for partnered sex causes Jane to desire sex with the woman.

In this manner, we should be able explain sexual attraction in a way that is clear and straightforward. The fact that we've confused ourselves about it isn't a good reason to ignore the concept or conflate it with sexual desire. There's a risk in favouring explanations which are too simple, and which do a disservice to understanding the complexity of human sexual experience contrary to our educational prerogative.

Looked at in this way, I imagine the percentage of people who experience sexual desire but who never experience sexual attraction is quite small. Returning to the question of whether they are better described as sex-favourable asexuals/gray-asexuals or sexuals/pansexuals, I don't know enough about the psychology to really take a position. What I do know is that some people in this group want to call themselves asexuals/asexual spectrum, while others want to call themselves sexuals/sexual spectrum. And some people on both sides want to participate in asexual communities.

I've proposed a solution which permits either designation. My thought is that subjective elements concerning how different people experience the same phenomenon (according to their personality and life circumstances) might explain and justify why some identify more with asexuality and some identify more with sexuality. Beyond that, I'd suggest we need that kind of solution if we want to observe AVEN's "only you truly know yourself and can decide what label fits you" principle. I would argue for this principle on the grounds that there is value in preserving the freedom of individuals to decide their identities, even if that means the freedom to decide wrongly. Plus, it seems pretty clear that AVEN will be maintaining this principle for the time being, so any definition of asexuality that it uses will have to respect it. For that reason, it seems to me that we have to keep the attraction model as part of the definition (I've discussed this issue with @Mysticus Insanus in posts just above this, so I won't elaborate here).

Finally, I'd like to highlight pragmatic reasons for talking about asexuality in terms of attraction. It fits with how the main asexuality researchers are talking about it, how psychologists generally talk about orientation, and how the general public has become accustomed to thinking about orientation. Julie Sondra Decker uses the attraction model to explain asexuality in The Invisible Orientation, which so far I believe is the only general interest lay person introduction to the topic. Therefore, it is a valuable educational tool, as one legitimate way of approaching the phenomenon.

There's a debate about whether asexuality is an orientation or a lack of an orientation. I'm against deciding one way or the other. We can look at reality through different conceptual frameworks, depending on which would be more useful to us in the particular circumstances. This is an advantage of retaining both the attraction model and the desire model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once more - "Only you can decide" does not mean "Feel free to put any label at yourself, no matter if it is appropriate or not." It is NOT meant as a freedom to decide wrongly (of course there's no way to stop people who willingly decide to take a wrong "label", at least offline.)

 

"Only you can decide" says that only you have all the information about yourself and therefore only you can determine whether a definition does (not) fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Homer said:

Once more - "Only you can decide" does not mean "Feel free to put any label at yourself, no matter if it is appropriate or not." It is NOT meant as a freedom to decide wrongly (of course there's no way to stop people who willingly decide to take a wrong "label", at least offline.)

 

"Only you can decide" says that only you have all the information about yourself and therefore only you can determine whether a definition does (not) fit.

I'm not endorsing a label free for all, but I also doubt that you can have freedom of choice without freedom to make a mistake as a side effect. The reality is some people are going to make a mistake. And even if we're objectively sure that they're wrong, it's not like we can force them to change.

 

We also have to accept the possibility that we could be wrong. Major errors about the nature of human sexuality appear on AVEN regularly, as the confusion about sexual attraction demonstrates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pramana said:

Following that idea, the simplest way I can explain the relation between sexual desire and sexual attraction is like this:

Imagine a heterosexual women (we'll call her Jane, because I'm creative with names) is stranded on a desert island. After ten years:
Scenario One: Two more people, a man and a woman, arrive on the island. Jane pursues a sexual relationship with the man, because following her orientation she prefers to have sex with men. In this scenario, sexual attraction causes Jane to desire partnered sex with the man instead of the woman.
Scenario Two. Only one person, another woman, arrives on the island. Jane pursues a sexual relationship with the woman, because Jane desires partnered sex, even though she is not a lesbian and is not attracted to the woman. In this scenario, sexual attraction does not operate, because there is no one for Jane to be attracted to. Desire for partnered sex causes Jane to desire sex with the woman.

In this manner, we should be able explain sexual attraction in a way that is clear and straightforward. The fact that we've confused ourselves about it isn't a good reason to ignore the concept or conflate it with sexual desire. There's a risk in favouring explanations which are too simple, and which do a disservice to understanding the complexity of human sexual experience contrary to our educational prerogative.

So, "sexual attraction" == sex partner preference. (I agree that sex partner preference is, indeed, exactly what informs sexual orientation. However, obscuring this simple fact by calling it "sexual attraction" is is stupid and unneccessary at best, misleading and snowflaketastic at worst.)

 

Explain again what, in this model of thinking, is the supposed difference between asexuality and pansexuality. (Two words, that by any even remotely sane and logical standard should be diametrical opposites.) Unless you explain it by something else than "sexual attraction" (which you have established as synonymous with sex partner preference), asexuality and pansexuality are the exact same thing. The thing that would, however, reliably differentiate them is desire for partnered sex - pans have it, aces don't.

 

Your explanation is perfect grounds to convince people that "asexuality" simply does not exist, and is a redundant and made-up special snowflake label. If you're indistinguishable from anyone who is bi/pan, then just say you're bi/pan, goddammit.

 

If people feel invisible and erased, maybe they should check if they didn't simply bring it on themselves by choosing a stupid and illogical label, before they start whining about oppression and discrimination. Own the shit you choose to roll around in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

The difference between asexuality and pansexuality in this scenario is that a pansexual would actually want to have sex with the new arrival on the island, without caring what sex the new arrival was. An actual asexual would not want to have sex with the new arrival, and the new arrival would be equally SOL regardless of their sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if I'm missing something major here, but I don't see how that would make bi/pansexuality and asexuality the same thing. Bi/pan would be 'I don't have a gender preference when it comes to sex partners', while asexual would be 'my preference is no-one'?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...