A statement about the "definition discussion"

[Xenobot]

34 minutes ago, Joe Parrish said:

AVENites have proved time and time again that they cannot settle on a definition for asexuality.  I suppose it fits that they cannot settle on a thread for definitions of asexuality either.

This is actually a good strategy to divide and conquer. The more thinly spread people's mental/emotional resources are between all the various definition related threads, the easier it is to manage them after they wear themselves out. Also, something, something illuminati.

 

I'm pretty sure this thread was made for the sake of visibility to the general community. Most of the community doesn't have the time or energy to reach page 7 of the fifth definition debate thread to stumble across the original post in this thread—one which is important to understanding AVEN's official position on the matter.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Xenobot said:

This is actually a good strategy to divide and conquer. The more thinly spread people's mental/emotional resources are between all the various definition related threads, the easier it is to manage them after they wear themselves out. Also, something, something illuminati.

InB4 anyone else... dibs on inventing the word AVENati.  

[Xenobot]

12 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

InB4 anyone else... dibs on inventing the word AVENati.  

I'll do what I can to carry on the memory of this moment in your absence. 

[Zendalis]

First off, I would like to thank the OP, @timewarp for his well-cited, thoughtful, and clearly delineated post. It has given me much food for thought, and I would like to share what my opinion is on this subject by quoting three sentences from other Avenites that have really stood out for me, in terms of what the definition of "asexual" is.

 

 @Pan. stated the following in the definition thread:  "an asexual is someone who lacks an innate desire for partnered sexual contact" (emphasis added by me)

 

This still hits me as the most accurate core, or primary trait that defines a person who is asexual. It does not mean asexuals will not engage in sexual contact (some do, if involved in a relationship with a sexual partner). It does not mean asexuals will not entertain sexual, or sensual thoughts (some do). It does not mean asexuals never engage in masturbation (again, some do). It does not mean asexuals do not feel attraction (and yet again, some do). All of these examples are what I consider to be secondary traits of asexuality, We commonlyuse certain terms to describe such personal secondary traits under our avatars. For example: Romantic, A-romantic, Demiromantic, Greysexual...and so forth. I think where things start getting muddled is in the usage of the term "sexual" attraction. In most cultures, that term seems inextricably tied to the potential and desire to engage in a sexual act with a partner (or a few...). Because Asexuality is diametrically the opposite of Sexuality, I think the following quote really hits upon the solution, insofar as this term goes:

 

20 hours ago, Meow. said:

I actually would revise the AVEN wiki description of sexual attraction. a rough estimate in the now, :

 

Sexual attraction is an emotional experience felt where one person finds another person sexually appealing, and may lead to or be in conjunction with a desire for sexual contact with the person

 

and actually I'd go and adjust it (or at this point rewrite it) further to:

 

 

 

attraction is an emotional experience felt where one person is drawn to another person, item, or activity.

 

attraction is considered sexual if it leads to or correlates with sexual arousal or desire for sexual or erotic activity.

 

To sum it up, in my opinion, the following three sentences would go a long way towards clarification and consensus. 

 

1) "an asexual is someone who lacks an innate desire for partnered sexual contact" (emphasis added by me).

2) "attraction is an emotional experience felt where one person is drawn to another person, item, or activity".

3) "attraction is considered sexual if it leads to or correlates with sexual arousal or desire for sexual or erotic activity.

 

That's my two cents.

 

 

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Snow Cone said:

Yup, same with romantic attraction. That's all lumped into being "attracted to" someone. Most of the time the sexual element is only implied, because it's broadly understood. If we use "desire" instead of "attraction" we don't need to worry about that specification. Attraction always has a target; desire doesn't.

 

In academic studies, concepts and terminology are defined and explained thoroughly. In everyday interaction they're not. Studies on asexuality using "attraction" doesn't make it the most practical definition for everyday awareness and visibility. The intent of studies is to create academic dialogue. The intent of AVEN is to educate the general population. The general population is better educated by a desire definition. So this, in my opinion, is the direction the terminology should be moving in: desire-based.

Yeah that exactly.

 

Also, I have never read one academic study on asexuality (using 'sexual attraction' as the defining factor for asexuality) that actually EXPLAINS what the researchers themselves mean by sexual attraction. It's like they assume every single respondent in the study all meant the same thing when they said "no I don't experience sexual attraction" whereas we know from our time on AVEN that 10 different people can mean 10 completely different things when they say "no I don't experience sexual attraction". I've never come across a study personally where sexual attraction was actually explained to respondents, or at the very least, where the researchers explained what they personally meant by it when they were conducting their research.

 

7 hours ago, Pramana said:

I conducted some more inquiries, in the spirit of the science theme on this thread. I found a recent journal article on this very topic. This is from the paper's conclusion:
 

While there are a number of differences between asexual and sexual groups in terms of patterns of masturbation and sexual fantasy, as well as in contents of sexual fantasy, the similarity between the groups on several of these measures is striking. For example, nearly half of asexual women and three quarters of asexual men reported both experiencing sexual fantasy and masturbating, despite reporting a lack of sexual attraction to other people and identifying as asexual. Further, there was significant overlap in the sexual fantasies experienced by participants, regardless of their asexual or sexual status. Sexual fantasies have long been thought to reveal an individual’s innermost desires. However, the current data suggest that if this is true, individuals do not necessarily act on these desires. An asexual individual may not experience sexual attraction, but may nonetheless engage in sexual fantasy, perhaps to facilitate physiological sexual arousal and masturbation. The sexual fantasies may not be reflections of innate sexual wants or desires.

 

Sexual Fantasy and Masturbation Among Asexual Individuals: An In-Depth Exploration, Morag A. Yule, Lori A. Brotto, Boris B. Gorzalka, Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 2017.

The way these researchers are using "sexual attraction" is such that it only refers to fantasies which one connects to desired real life actions. They also stress that there is insufficient data on the issue to reach anything more than speculative, tentative suggestions regarding the proper interpretation. Therefore, for now I would suggest that we take sexual attraction to refer only to attraction connected to desire for real life partnered sex, subject to change pending future research.

 

In this article, sexual attraction could mean a number different of things depending on the respondents personal interpretation of it. It could be as basic as meaning "don't find others attractive in a way that turns me on" or "still want to carry out my sexual fantasies with other people but it's the fantasy I'm attracted to, the sexual partner is just a means to an end for that fantasy". It also could mean "I have sexual fantasies but don't desire to do them with anyone" which is very common for asexuals. We can assume one meaning, the researchers may have meant something quite different. Did the researchers have one set, accurate definition of sexual attraction that they explained to all the participants, or did the just ask "do you experience sexual attraction?" and leave the people responding to define it how they wished? (this is what I find is most often the case)

 

I myself have responded to some paid (some paid quite a lot!) research studies around this topic but not one explained what they meant by "sexual attraction" when they asked whether asexuals experience it. Obviously, a lot of people from AVEN would have done these studies as some were linked here, and we know for a fact that sexual attraction is defined extremely differently from person to person here and that AVEN facilitates and encourages that disconnect in definitions. This clearly skews research results when researchers don't explain what they personally mean by sexual attraction when asking respondents if they experience it.

 

So that's just one of the reasons why all the studies done into asexuality by sexual people are so utterly flawed. They don't understand the massive disconnect in definitions in the asexual community. One person is identifying as ace because they only want sex when in love, so they assume they don't experience sexual attraction because isn't that wanting to have sex with hot people? Another person is identifying as ace because they have no desire to have sex with anyone despite finding other people "hot" and "sexy" to look at. One person enjoys sex with friends but assumes that as they don't care what their friends look like, they must be asexual. Another thinks asexuality is not understanding sex jokes and sexual innuendo, and finding sexual advertising gross and yucky - sexual attraction must be something to do with getting drawn in by sexual advertising.

 

..These are just some of the many variations of how people define sexual attraction and asexuality on AVEN, and all these people are responding to studies etc based on utterly differing understandings of the topic they are responding to. Researchers don't get this. I'm not even sure if the researchers themselves in many cases know how they'd define sexual attraction if asked.

 

(excuse typos, I typed this on my phone)

[Pramana]

13 minutes ago, Pan. said:

(excuse typos, I typed this on my phone)

You typed all that on your phone? Skills!

[Pramana]

54 minutes ago, Pan. said:

These are just some of the many variations of how people define sexual attraction and asexuality on AVEN, and all these people are responding to studies etc based on utterly differing understandings of the topic they are responding to. Researchers don't get this. I'm not even sure if the researchers themselves in many cases know how they'd define sexual attraction if asked.

My impression is that sexual attraction is usually treated as an intuitive concept. That's why there seems to be a disconnect between its usage in popular culture and what happens when people try to describe it here. I'm not saying the studies are perfect, but it's going to far to say that they are useless. At the moment, they're the only non-ancedotal, scientific evidence that we have to go on. We can expect that studies will become more nuanced over time, and when we have better information we can adapt as required. I would also add that in the vast majority of cases, people who do not experience sexual attraction probably don't experience sexual desire either. And I doubt many respondents are really trying to parse whether they feel attraction but not desire or vice versa.

[nanogretchen4]

There have been no studies relevant to the issue of whether asexuality should be defined in terms of desire or attraction. So far, the studies have just discovered that there are people who, when you ask them who they are attracted to, will say no one, and there are people who when you ask them how often they want sex, will say never. In all likelihood the researchers and respondents were both assuming that people don't want to have sex with people they aren't attracted to, so attraction and desire were being used more or less interchangeably, much like the desire based definition of attraction on AVEN. The major studies so far weren't even studies of asexuality. They were general studies of sexuality that accidentally discovered that asexuality exist. A scientist who set out to study asexuality specifically would create a better designed study that would give us more information. The researchers will pretty much have to define asexuality first and then design a study to measure the specific phenomenon they are calling asexuality. A starting point would be to find out what percentage of the general population answers true to the statement, "I have never in my life felt a desire to have sex with any other person," broken down by age, sex, and possibly other demographic factors. This needs to be a large random sampling of the general population, of course, not a sampling of people who self identify as asexual. It would work best as a few carefully planned questions in a more general sexuality study.

 

I think attraction is an interesting area for further research, but right now it is so poorly understood, especially in females, that we should stay far away from using it in the definition of a minority sexual orientation.  Let's wait and give science some time to figure out what is common and average among the general population, especially females. Recent discoveries about desire nonconcordance in females have raised a lot of questions about previous sexuality studies that attempted to empirically measure attraction based on physical arousal. Researchers who phrased their questions based on attraction because they assumed attraction could be measured with meaningful accuracy are probably kicking themselves now. Meanwhile, I believe we are on much safer ground assuming that it is unusual for an adult human to have never experienced any desire to have sex with anyone. It's a better investment of research funding to study that.

[Pramana]

2 hours ago, nanogretchen4 said:

There have been no studies relevant to the issue of whether asexuality should be defined in terms of desire or attraction. So far, the studies have just discovered that there are people who, when you ask them who they are attracted to, will say no one, and there are people who when you ask them how often they want sex, will say never. In all likelihood the researchers and respondents were both assuming that people don't want to have sex with people they aren't attracted to, so attraction and desire were being used more or less interchangeably, much like the desire based definition of attraction on AVEN. The major studies so far weren't even studies of asexuality. They were general studies of sexuality that accidentally discovered that asexuality exist. A scientist who set out to study asexuality specifically would create a better designed study that would give us more information. The researchers will pretty much have to define asexuality first and then design a study to measure the specific phenomenon they are calling asexuality. A starting point would be to find out what percentage of the general population answers true to the statement, "I have never in my life felt a desire to have sex with any other person," broken down by age, sex, and possibly other demographic factors. This needs to be a large random sampling of the general population, of course, not a sampling of people who self identify as asexual. It would work best as a few carefully planned questions in a more general sexuality study.

 

I think attraction is an interesting area for further research, but right now it is so poorly understood, especially in females, that we should stay far away from using it in the definition of a minority sexual orientation.  Let's wait and give science some time to figure out what is common and average among the general population, especially females. Recent discoveries about desire nonconcordance in females have raised a lot of questions about previous sexuality studies that attempted to empirically measure attraction based on physical arousal. Researchers who phrased their questions based on attraction because they assumed attraction could be measured with meaningful accuracy are probably kicking themselves now. Meanwhile, I believe we are on much safer ground assuming that it is unusual for an adult human to have never experienced any desire to have sex with anyone. It's a better investment of research funding to study that.

There are a number of studies specifically on asexuality, and Bogaert has published a book on the topic. And the 1% estimate figure comes from a study surveying 18,000 British respondents. True, the study of asexuality is still in its early stages, but it's factually incorrect to say that there isn't a body of research dedicated to it.

Arousal/desire issues in females (particularly females in long term relationships) is a different issue from finding people sexually attractive. My impression is that most people, including most females, start finding people sexually attractive when they go through puberty. At least, that's my high school memories and every teen movie I've ever watched. Women possess the agency to know their own sexual inclinations. I find it highly problematic, in fact patronizing, to say that women can't tell if they experience sexual attraction. Surely they know what kind of people they're attracted to.

Furthermore, you talk about waiting for science to catch up, well that's exactly what you should be doing before you propose a desire-only definition, because none of the published papers currently support it. We should go by the research we have now, if for no other reason than the fact that it's the only research we currently possess. You're proposing that we reject research on the grounds that it is imperfect, but your alternative is no research. Seriously?

[nanogretchen4]

To address your last point first, I'm pretty sure I did not recommend no research. I think I recommended a specific direction for further research. If it is true that none of the currently published studies address the issue that a small minority of the general population has no desire for partnered sex, we should research that rather than just go by whatever research happens to have been done so far.

 

I do not think research on arousal/desire nonconcordance in females is patronizing and problematic. What I think is patronizing and problematic is the assumption made until very recently that if a woman became physically aroused in response to a stimulus she found that stimulus sexually desirable and was repressed, deluded, or lying if she claimed otherwise. The studies measuring physical response to stimuli were attempting to measure "attraction", which was often conflated with desire anyway. Thus I think the results of many "attraction" based studies need to be approached with skepticism in light of new research.

[timewarp]

14 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

I do not think research on arousal/desire nonconcordance in females is patronizing and problematic. What I think is patronizing and problematic is the assumption made until very recently that if a woman became physically aroused in response to a stimulus she found that stimulus sexually desirable and was repressed, deluded, or lying if she claimed otherwise. The studies measuring physical response to stimuli were attempting to measure "attraction", which was often conflated with desire anyway. Thus I think the results of many "attraction" based studies need to be approached with skepticism in light of new research.

 

That is actually one of the main reasons why Bogaert (Toward a Conceptual Understanding of Asexuality, 2006) prefers the "subjective attraction" definition to "physiological attraction". He refers to Chivers, Meredith L., et al. "A sex difference in the specificity of sexual arousal." Psychological Science 15.11 (2004): 736-744.

[nanogretchen4]

I just read a summary of the Bogaert article, and he claims there are three types of asexuals. First, there are asexuals who have no "desire" (but he also uses the word libido interchangeably) and whose libido can't be increased by any known medical intervention. Second, there are asexuals whose libido can be increased by medical means, yet they still don't want to act on their libido in any way. Third there are asexuals who have "desire" (i.e. libido) and may wish to act on that "desire" (i.e. libido) by masturbating but they do not make any connection between "desire" (i.e. libido) and any person or object. Nowhere does Bogaert suggest that a person can want to have sex with another person for the gratification of their own sexual desire and still be asexual. "Cupiosexuality" is not a thing in the Bogaert model of asexuality. 

[Pramana]

13 hours ago, nanogretchen4 said:

To address your last point first, I'm pretty sure I did not recommend no research. I think I recommended a specific direction for further research. If it is true that none of the currently published studies address the issue that a small minority of the general population has no desire for partnered sex, we should research that rather than just go by whatever research happens to have been done so far.

 

I do not think research on arousal/desire nonconcordance in females is patronizing and problematic. What I think is patronizing and problematic is the assumption made until very recently that if a woman became physically aroused in response to a stimulus she found that stimulus sexually desirable and was repressed, deluded, or lying if she claimed otherwise. The studies measuring physical response to stimuli were attempting to measure "attraction", which was often conflated with desire anyway. Thus I think the results of many "attraction" based studies need to be approached with skepticism in light of new research.

If you're arguing for a desire-only definition, you're arguing for a definition which is not supported by current research. Maybe one day science will move in that direction, but so far it has not. We should stick with definitions that are supported by the the science we currently possess, limited though it may be.

Your claim that asexuality researchers are not sensitive to arousal/desire nonconcordance in women is contradicted by the followed quote. Asexuality research has focused on people's subjective reports of attraction/desire, not measures of physical arousal, for determining asexuality. In my view, this reflects respect for the fact that women can tell subjectively whether or not they experience sexual attraction, and therefore we can use it as a category.

"Concerning sexual functioning of asexual individuals, research showed that they score low on sexual desire, sexual excitation and subjective feelings of arousal (Brotto et al., 2010; Brotto & Yule, 2011; Prause & Graham, 2007). However, no differences were found in genital arousal between asexual and nonasexual women (Brotto & Yule, 2011). This finding, even though preliminary given the small sample size of this study, may be important for the differentiation between asexuality and female sexual arousal disorder."

Ellen Van Houdenhove, Luk Gijs, Guy T’Sjoen & Paul Enzlin (2014) Asexuality: Few Facts, Many Questions, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40:3, 175-192

[Pramana]

16 hours ago, Pan. said:

So that's just one of the reasons why all the studies done into asexuality by sexual people are so utterly flawed. They don't understand the massive disconnect in definitions in the asexual community. One person is identifying as ace because they only want sex when in love, so they assume they don't experience sexual attraction because isn't that wanting to have sex with hot people? Another person is identifying as ace because they have no desire to have sex with anyone despite finding other people "hot" and "sexy" to look at. One person enjoys sex with friends but assumes that as they don't care what their friends look like, they must be asexual. Another thinks asexuality is not understanding sex jokes and sexual innuendo, and finding sexual advertising gross and yucky - sexual attraction must be something to do with getting drawn in by sexual advertising.

Let's say you wanted to conduct survey regarding the percentage of people who like art. Could you start by defining "art". No, because there's no definition of art. And people mean different things by it. Does that mean you couldn't do the survey? Of course not. People can still tell you accurately whether they like art or not.

I would suggest the same applies for sexual attraction. I agree the examples you provide suggest limitations, but only limitations. And given the interrelation between attraction and desire, the examples you raise don't strike me as that problematic. I doubt, for example, that someone who otherwise has a regular sex life will say that they don't experience sexual attraction just because they dislike sexual advertising.

Furthermore, the research is more complex than your caricature. Here's a list from one research project intended to create a list of questions effective at detecting asexuality:

The initial open-ended item pool was generated through discussions between the first two authors. The intent of this initial stage was to generate open-ended questions that might best discriminate asexual from sexual individuals. The resulting eight open-ended questions focused on definitions of asexuality, sexual attraction, sexual desire, and romantic attraction, and included solicitations of asexual individuals’ opinions on factors that initially led them to identify as asexual, how they distinguish asexuality from low sexual desire, how they might have described their sexuality before they came across the term asexual, and what questions they would use to identify an individual as asexual. There were no space limitations, and participants were encouraged to answer in as much or as little detail as they felt necessary. (See Table 1 for initial item list).

A Validated Measure of No Sexual Attraction: The Asexuality Identification Scale, Morag A. Yule, Lori A. Brotto, and Boris B. Gorzalka, Psychological Assessment, 2015

In addition, even if you have reasons to be sceptical of current research, you haven't offered any research that supports your alternative desire-only definition. Even if the research that we have now if flawed, it's still the best evidence that we currently possess.

[nanogretchen4]

On the validated measure of no sexual attraction, only two out of twelve questions say anything about attraction. Two questions are about self identification with labels. One question is about confusion about other people's sexuality. Seven questions are about whether you want to have sex. I took the quiz, deliberately claiming to have never experienced "attraction" and also claiming to ID as "nonsexual" and not to ID as any other sexual orientation, while answering positively to all questions about wanting to have sex in a relationship or ever. I got a score of 47% percent and the advice "You are probably sexual." Zero attraction ever plus self identification is not enough to rate as asexual on this alleged scale of "attraction" if you desire sex. Next study, please.

 

By the way, this study at least mentions self identification though it's used as a very small factor in the assessment. Bogaert explicitly rejects self identification as a means of determining asexuality.

[Pramana]

3 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

On the validated measure of no sexual attraction, only two out of twelve questions say anything about attraction. Two questions are about self identification with labels. One question is about confusion about other people's sexuality. Seven questions are about whether you want to have sex. I took the quiz, deliberately claiming to have never experienced "attraction" and also claiming to ID as "nonsexual" and not to ID as any other sexual orientation, while answering positively to all questions about wanting to have sex in a relationship or ever. I got a score of 47% percent and the advice "You are probably sexual." Zero attraction ever plus self identification is not enough to rate as asexual on this alleged scale of "attraction" if you desire sex. Next study, please.

Were those positive answers true? You can't deliberately give false answers and then complain that the formula produces the wrong result. That's ridiculous!

[Pramana]

Issues Underlying the Definition Debate?
(I’ve posted this in both active discussion threads, rather than starting a new thread)

I have noticed a striking difference so far between those who favour an attraction-based or an attraction/desire-based definition, and those who support a desire-only definition. Those on the desire-only side will occasionally appeal to psychological/scientific evidence when it appears to suit them, but for the most part resort to rejecting most published research on the topic – and often the entire field of psychology – when it becomes clear that there is little support for their views. And often the methods of reasoning employed by this side conflict with accepted principles of logic.

I have a background in law, and in law it’s common for clients to insist on positions that conflict with evidence and reason. That’s usually a sign there’s some unstated, often highly emotional, motivation underlying the dispute.

For that reason, I’ve been reading through old forums on this topic, to try to get a better sense of the issue. I realize that I’m working backwards and my picture is incomplete, but here are some observations:

1. Earlier in AVEN’s history, the definition didn’t matter that much because members were more likely to be “classical” textbook example asexuals. They didn’t experience either attraction or desire, so it wasn’t an issue. Instead, people fought over whether asexuals could have a libido or not.

2. Later, enter the gray-area and demisexuality and the concept of the asexual spectrum. These new categories make it less clear who can associate with the term “asexual”. And “sexual attraction,” as a concept separate from sexual desire, starts to become important for making these determinations.

3. Some people in the community who identify more with the older framework disagree with some of these newcomers. There appear to be at least three reasons for this:
A. The top part of the gray-area overlaps with the bottom part of the sexual spectrum. Some people who have debated their (a)sexual identity dislike the fact that they could also be viewed as asexual or gray-asexual under the currently used definitions.
B. The concept of gray-asexuality leads to more adolescents in the process of forming their sexual identities to associate with asexuality through terms such as fraysexual or cupiosexual, perhaps partly because they don’t fit into a highly sexualized high school environment. There is concern that this contributes to a negative “special snowflake” public image of asexuality.
C. The concept of gray-asexuality leads to more people with mental health issues and/or atypical personality traits associating with asexuality. There is concern this contributes to a negative public image of asexuality as a bunch of socially awkward anime fans.

My thought is that it would be more productive to focus discussion on these underlying issues. I found this old thread from about a year and a half ago that I think might be useful for situating the conversation. Notice how the original poster claims that too many people are calling themselves gray-asexual based on inaccurate stereotypes of sexuality. And how the first poster to respond claims that the original posters’s views are based on inaccurate stereotypes of the reasons people in the gray-area use for identifying that way. Therein lies the impasse.
 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

 rejecting most published research on the topic – and often the entire field of psychology – when it becomes clear that there is little support for their views.

Behavioristic psychology. I don't hide my contempt for it, as I consider it a completely nonsensical field of study resting on ludicrous base assumptions. (Remember, women can't be straight, as heterosexuality is just about a purely male phenomenon; and bestiality is a lot more mainstream-normal than homosexuality. "Science" says so! )

 

But behaviorism is, thankfully, not the entirety of psychology.

 

In fact, I think a place like AVEN is the place that should spearhead change... to firmly reject and discredit attraction-based models, because asexuality is a prime example to demonstrate by that attraction simply does not work to define sexual orientations.

 

 

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

And often the methods of reasoning employed by this side conflict with accepted principles of logic.

Examples please. I mostly see the attractionist side make statements that do not hold up logically, while desirists (myself, especially) point out the glaring flaws in their logic.

 

A lot of attractionist argumentation tends to be a mix of a) appeal to tradition coupled with b) factually false statements. If that's what you consider "accepted principles of logic", then such "logic" should not guide any rational decision - "logic" should be discarded, and replaced by honesty and ethical integrity. "Logic" is demonstrably openly antiscientific, and as you seem to take science seriously, you should firmly reject "logic" as basis for any argument.

[Pramana]

6 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Behavioristic psychology. I don't hide my contempt for it, as I consider it a completely nonsensical field of study resting on ludicrous base assumptions.

I appreciate that you restrict your scepticism of psychology only to the behavioural sciences. Many supports of a desire-only definition go farther than that.

 

7 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

A lot of attractionist argumentation tends to be a mix of a) appeal to tradition coupled with b) factually false statements. If that's what you consider "accepted principles of logic", then such "logic" should not guide any rational decision - "logic" should be discarded, and replaced by honesty and ethical integrity. "Logic" is demonstrably openly antiscientific, and as you seem to take science seriously, you should firmly reject "logic" as basis for any argument.

A prime example of a logical error made by a desire-only definition supporter: conflating appeals to science with appeals to tradition.

Perhaps the most prevalent, though, is the inference from "many sexuals on AVEN don't know what sexual attraction is" to the conclusion that "sexual attraction doesn't exist".

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Pramana said:

A prime example of a logical error made by a desire-only definition supporter: conflating appeals to science with appeals to tradition.

Science as a whole does not agree that attraction were the criterion by which either orientations or asexuality is, or should be, defined. That's a fact.

 

So, no. It's not an appeal to science. It is, as I said, an appeal to tradition: "we've always definied it that way (and spare me anything that could shake my conviction on that, whether it be citation of sources or plain, simple logic)".

 

I did not make a logical error, you stated a falsehood. Plain and simple.

[Pramana]

34 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Science as a whole does not agree that attraction were the criterion by which either orientations or asexuality is, or should be, defined. That's a fact.

 

So, no. It's not an appeal to science. It is, as I said, an appeal to tradition: "we've always definied it that way (and spare me anything that could shake my conviction on that, whether it be citation of sources or plain, simple logic)".

 

I did not make a logical error, you stated a falsehood. Plain and simple.

Strange, then, that no one's shown me a publication endorsing a desire-only definition.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Strange, then, that no one's shown me a publication endorsing a desire-only definition.

Attractionists have to prove that there is nothing but attraction-only definitions within all of science (hint: they can't because the statement is verifiably false, by sources linked within this very thread).

 

The burden of proof is on attractionists making the claim.

[Pramana]

37 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Attractionists have to prove that there is nothing but attraction-only definitions within all of science (hint: they can't because the statement is verifiably false, by sources linked within this very thread).

 

The burden of proof is on attractionists making the claim.

I'm not supporting an attraction-only definition; I'm supporting an and/or definition.

Furthermore, your standard of evidence is weird. I'm basing my view on the preponderance of evidence, and I'm actually pushing it a bit to try to include the concerns of desire-only supporters. Would that they were as reasonable.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Furthermore, your standard of evidence is weird. I'm basing my view on the preponderance of evidence, and I'm actually pushing it a bit to try to include the concerns of desire-only supporters. Would that they were as reasonable.

Basically: The side you decree to call reasonable and logical can make unsubstatiated claims because you say so. The ideological enemy may never, ever do anything remotely like that.

 

You don't have a logical point, you merely have an ideology.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I'm not supporting an attraction-only definition; I'm supporting an and/or definition.

You are talking in defense of people who go with attraction-only, and call them less/not at all in conflict with accepted principles as logic compared to desirists.

 

So, yeah, don't wonder if you come across as massively attractionist partisan, blinded by your bias.

 

BTW... If someone is pissing against your leg, and offers you a cookie along with continuing to piss against your leg, it's reasonable to accept the cookie, instead of saying "dude, stop pissing against my leg!"...? Thank God I'm not reasonable - reason is for weaklings.

[nanogretchen4]

On the "Validated Measure of No Sexual Attraction", claiming desire but no attraction and self identifying as asexual gives a score of 47% and a verdict of " You are probably sexual." Claiming to experience attraction but no desire and self identifying as asexual gives a score of 80% and a verdict of "You are probably asexual." Claiming to experience attraction but no desire and not self identifying as asexual gives a score of 67% and a verdict of "You are probably asexual." Despite the title it is actually a validated measure of no sexual desire. Therefore your choice to introduce it into evidence does not help your case.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

On the "Validated Measure of No Sexual Attraction", claiming desire but no attraction and self identifying as asexual gives a score of 47% and a verdict of " You are probably sexual." Claiming to experience attraction but no desire and self identifying as asexual gives a score of 80% and a verdict of "You are probably asexual." Claiming to experience attraction but no desire and not self identifying as asexual gives a score of 67% and a verdict of "You are probably asexual." Despite the title it is actually a validated measure of no sexual desire. Therefore your choice to introduce it into evidence does not help your case.

^ This is how actual evidence is gathered. Checking the predictive output after input of data. Kudos.

 

This post is more scientifically grounded than most of Pramana's (especially if - which I freely admit I'm personally too lazy to do - anyone else can input the same data and come out with the same results ).

[Pramana]

11 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

On the "Validated Measure of No Sexual Attraction", claiming desire but no attraction and self identifying as asexual gives a score of 47% and a verdict of " You are probably sexual." Claiming to experience attraction but no desire and self identifying as asexual gives a score of 80% and a verdict of "You are probably asexual." Claiming to experience attraction but no desire and not self identifying as asexual gives a score of 67% and a verdict of "You are probably asexual." Despite the title it is actually a validated measure of no sexual desire. Therefore your choice to introduce it into evidence does not help your case.

But the researchers who developed it still use an attraction-based definition. No one's denying that lack of sexual desire is a significant aspect of asexuality.

[Pramana]

2 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

^ This is how actual evidence is gathered. Checking the predictive output after input of data. Kudos.

 

This post is more scientifically grounded than most of Pramana's (especially if - which I freely admit I'm personally too lazy to do - anyone else can input the same data and come out with the same results ).

For someone who is complaining about me not being scientific enough, it's kind of odd that you have yet to produce publications in support of your view. In fact through this entire discussion, I have yet to encounter a desire-only supporter who is able to do so.

[Guest]

You're the one who claims to take the scientific view, not me. So you need to be held to scientific rigor far more than I need to.

 

Besides, Gretchen has just shown that by a source you yourself quoted, desire for sex is at the very least a far more strongly supported measurement of asexuality than "sexual attraction". Cold, hard evidence is hitting you right in the face.

[binary suns]

@Pramana the patterns of discussion Myst is using right now with you mimic pretty spookily the patterns they used right before they labeled me not-worth-discussing with, then to continue to pull me along until I flipped out about it. You are being baited. I strongly advise you cease speaking with them at all now, because they are leaving aven and are not afraid of warnings. so they can troll you all they want and you are the only one at any risk. 

 

the mods certainly didn't step in to do anything to help me then. they won't do anything now either. let it go, walk away, and be the better person than I was. 

 

if anything, I'll get a warn for "vigilante modding" lol because when someone is being abused, speaking up about it is a no-no. someone being taken advantage of must roll over, turn the other cheek, and submit to the abuse.