Jump to content

In Defense of Sex-Favorable Asexuals


Konfuzd

Recommended Posts

It has not come to my attention more so that it has been waved in front of my face that next to nobody understands the concept of sex-favorable asexuality, whether they be asexual or allosexual, save sex-favorable asexuals themselves.

 

In an effort to clarify the confusion, I want to ask allosexual people an underlying question for further research:

 

Have you-- as a person who presumably regularly experiences sexual attraction-- ever sought out and/or had sexual pleasure from partnered sex whereas you were not sexually attracted to said partner(s)?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Konfuzd said:

 

 

Have you-- as a person who presumably regularly experiences sexual attraction-- ever sought out and/or had sexual pleasure from partnered sex whereas you were not sexually attracted to said partner(s)?

 

Define sexual attraction for them, so they know what definition you are applying, would be my suggestion. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Konfuzd said:

Have you-- as a person who presumably regularly experiences sexual attraction-- ever sought out and/or had sexual pleasure from partnered sex whereas you were not sexually attracted to said partner(s)?

I would say that's a succinct explanation of the concept. I can see why many people have a hard time apprehending how someone who never experiences sexual attraction but who desires partnered sex can be asexual, but other sexual orientations are defined in terms of preferences rather than in terms of who one actually has sex with.

I made a similar argument a while back in this thread, which generated many responses and led into March 2017's round of definition debates:
 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding definitions of sexual attraction, based on the reading I've done on the topic I would say that this definition curtesy of @Flygunn is really good:

"Psychologists define sexual attraction as a person's enduring pattern of preference for certain traits/attributes/actions/movements of an individual that can evoke a sexual desire for that individual.
Therefore an asexual is categorized as an individual who will not develop a sexual desire towards another individual based on any of their traits/attributes/actions/movements."

Part of the problem is that on AVEN sexual attraction has been erroneously defined as "seeing a physically attractive person and wanting to have sex with them", but it's pretty obvious from doing any research on the topic that that's not the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pramana: You will have to define "succinct" for me. That can be a good and bad thing. I also read that earlier forum a while ago and liked your initial post 😊.

 

@Serran: Hmm...I am not sure how I would explain it. My failure to do so plays a big part into why I call myself asexual. But to that end, I mean the definition that does not rely only on sexual desire or arousal-- as asexual people experience these things, the former of which have led to somewhat elitist dismissals of asexuality in that particular case.

 

To be clear, all this is not to say that sex-favorable asexuals simply have sex with those they are not sexually attracted to. Of course, there are virgin sex-favorable asexuals and also aesthetic attraction will likely play a part. However, I think it is this discordance that causes much of the confusion. Allosexual people probably experience aesthetic and sexual attraction all at once and choose to act on it or not-- sexual desire, presumably, being intrinsic. But a sex-favorable asexual person might experience aesthetic attraction and then will choose-- as more of a rational decison-- in accordance with their sex drive and interests whether or not they would like to initiate sex with the aesthetically attractive subject. (And then there are those who will not initiate, but will concede and enjoy partnered sex.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Konfuzd said:

@Pramana: You will have to define "succinct" for me. That can be a good and bad thing. I also read that earlier forum a while ago and liked your initial post 😊.

By "succinct" I mean clear and concise. I've always thought that term has positive connotations, but in any case, I mean positive connotations by it.

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

To be clear, all this is not to say that sex-favorable asexuals simply have sex with those they are not sexually attracted to. Of course, there are virgin sex-favorable asexuals and also aesthetic attraction will likely play a part. However, I think it is this discordance that causes much of the confusion. Allosexual people probably experience aesthetic and sexual attraction all at once and choose to act on it or not-- sexual desire, presumably, being intrinsic. But a sex-favorable asexual person might experience aesthetic attraction and then will choose-- as more of a rational decison-- in accordance with their sex drive and interests whether or not they would like to initiate sex with the aesthetically attractive subject. (And then there are those who will not initiate, but will concede and enjoy partnered sex.)

Keep in mind the sexual intention and sexual desire are different, that is why allosexuals can experience sexual attraction which creates sexual desire without having intercourse with everyone they deem sexually attractive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Flygunn I'm aware. The point was that both allosexual and asexual people have these features, but for asexual people sexual desire is less intrinsic, or automatic-- or at least that is what I assume coming from an asexual perspective. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna uncomplicate this thread and say yes, lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ace but a few friends of mine have said that yes, they did, for example when they went out clubbing with the idea of sex in mind they didn't need someone they were really attracted to, just someone who was willing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Icebearpanda
On 5/26/2017 at 8:41 PM, Konfuzd said:

It has not come to my attention more so that it has been waved in front of my face that next to nobody understands the concept of sex-favorable asexuality, whether they be asexual or allosexual, save sex-favorable asexuals themselves.

 

In an effort to clarify the confusion, I want to ask allosexual people an underlying question for further research:

 

Have you-- as a person who presumably regularly experiences sexual attraction-- ever sought out and/or had sexual pleasure from partnered sex whereas you were not sexually attracted to said partner(s)?

 

 I did have a friends with benefits type situation for a little bit, where I had no interest in dating them and was not sexually attracted to them but I felt safe to explore some sexual things with them at a time when I was needing it. All with their consent and everything was discussed ahead of time so we were on same page. Personally not an experience I would repeat, but it was a positive learning experience and I'm still friends w the person. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with sex-favorable asexuals is there isnt really a fixed meaning for what that actually means. Like a lot of the made up terms used on AVEN, what sex-favorable asexuals are tend to differ from person to person. I always thought it meant asexuals who dont mind having sex with their partners. They can find things that they like about sex. They do not desire sex though and would be perfectly okay with never having sex again if their partner suddenly lost their libido.

 

It is a slippery slope though, and for good reason.  Sexuals have sex for a lot of different reasons. For some, it is due to attraction. For others, it is a need for intimacy. If a sex-favorable asexual grow to desire sex just for the intimacy, than they really arent that different from other sexuals. It is toeing the line between sexual and asexual. To me, if a sex-favorable asexual start desiring sex with their partner or other people, they are no longer asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

My problem with sex-favorable asexuals is there isnt really a fixed meaning for what that actually means. Like a lot of the made up terms used on AVEN, what sex-favorable asexuals are tend to differ from person to person. I always thought it meant asexuals who dont mind having sex with their partners. They can find things that they like about sex. They do not desire sex though and would be perfectly okay with never having sex again if their partner suddenly lost their libido.

 

It is a slippery slope though, and for good reason.  Sexuals have sex for a lot of different reasons. For some, it is due to attraction. For others, it is a need for intimacy. If a sex-favorable asexual grow to desire sex just for the intimacy, than they really arent that different from other sexuals. It is toeing the line between sexual and asexual. To me, if a sex-favorable asexual start desiring sex with their partner or other people, they are no longer asexual.

Asexuals do not experience sexual attraction, sexuals do.  If someone desires sex for sex, sex for intimacy, or sex to pleasure their partner, then that does not mean that they desire sex because a trait/action/attribute/movement evoked a sexual desire in them.  In the sixties, a lot of homosexuals got married with the opposite sex to avoid discrimination, they could enjoy and desire partnered sex because being gay doesn't mean having dysfunctional genitalia, likewise for asexuals.  Also, there is a fixed concept of what sex-favourable/sex-positive asexuals are, they are asexuals that are fine with, or even desire partnered sex.  Sex-indifferent don't have any preference any which way, sex-repulsed really would rather not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Flygunn said:

Asexuals do not experience sexual attraction, sexuals do.  If someone desires sex for sex, sex for intimacy, or sex to pleasure their partner, then that does not mean that they desire sex because a trait/action/attribute/movement evoked a sexual desire in them.  In the sixties, a lot of homosexuals got married with the opposite sex to avoid discrimination, they could enjoy and desire partnered sex because being gay doesn't mean having dysfunctional genitalia, likewise for asexuals.  Also, there is a fixed concept of what sex-favourable/sex-positive asexuals are, they are asexuals that are fine with, or even desire partnered sex.  Sex-indifferent don't have any preference any which way, sex-repulsed really would rather not.

And how is a sex-favorable asexual who desire sex any different from a sexual who desire sex for sex?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Flygunn Great explanation up until the sex-positive bit. Being sex-positive is more of a political statement, as in no slut-shaming, those who want to partake in any sexual activity surely can as long as they're safe, etc.

 

@Kai99 Like I said, the desire isn't brought about by sexual attraction, and is thus less intrinsic. It is more of a rational decison made in accordance with my sex drive or interests. Interests ranging from having a baby to curiosity about sex to wanting to derive sexual pleasure. The very last example would be aligned with sex-favorable asexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To all: I don't conflate asexuality with lacking sexual desire for exactly that reason. If we define asexuality as those lacking sexual attraction, then there are some to many asexual people who do epxerience sexual desire, and their experiences and intentions align enough with the community to still identify as asexual.

 

For me, asexuality is a safe haven as it helped me describe much of the confusion and awkwardness I felt when young. Now, as a panromantic asexual who is sex-favorable, simply calling myself pansexual would feel like I'm lying to myself, especially since in the past I only called myself straight because I knew I wasn't gay and I didn't know what being asexual really was. I would hate to be in that place again: identifying with certain things to appease normative society and therefore falsifying myself in the process, leading me to feel illegitimate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Konfuzd said:

@Flygunn Great explanation up until the sex-positive bit. Being sex-positive is more of a political statement, as in no slut-shaming, those who want to partake in any sexual activity surely can as long as they're safe, etc.

 

@Kai99 Like I said, the desire isn't brought about by sexual attraction, and is thus less intrinsic. It is more of a rational decison made in accordance with my sex drive or interests. Interests ranging from having a baby to curiosity about sex to wanting to derive sexual pleasure. The very last example would be aligned with sex-favorable asexuals.

How do you define sexual attraction? If I go by Pramana's definition of sexual attraction based on a their review on scholarly studies, sexual attraction is simply many things that could cause sexual desire in a person. 

 

Even if we take sexual attraction out of the equation and based it solely on it being a rational decision, it still fits the gambit of normal sexual behavior to want sex purely for sexual pleasure. Many of the people who love and enjoy one night stands aren't doing it for any other reason than sexual release. There are sexual aromatics who only desire sex for sexual pleasure. Sexuals are diverse and their reasons for wanting sex is diverse as well. There are people who want sex for the emotional connection it can bring and those who want it for the potential pleasure. To say that people who only want it for the pleasure are asexuals doesn't make any sense when asexuality is tied with not desiring sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

How do you define sexual attraction? If I go by Pramana's definition of sexual attraction based on a their review on scholarly studies, sexual attraction is simply many things that could cause sexual desire in a person. 

 

Even if we take sexual attraction out of the equation and based it solely on it being a rational decision, it still fits the gambit of normal sexual behavior to want sex purely for sexual pleasure. Many of the people who love and enjoy one night stands aren't doing it for any other reason than sexual release. There are sexual aromatics who only desire sex for sexual pleasure. Sexuals are diverse and their reasons for wanting sex is diverse as well. There are people who want sex for the emotional connection it can bring and those who want it for the potential pleasure. To say that people who only want it for the pleasure are asexuals doesn't make any sense when asexuality is tied with not desiring sex.

I always use the answer I made in one of Pramana's post from a while back to describe sexual attraction and asexuality through that viewpoint:

 

"Psychologists define sexual attraction as a person's enduring pattern of preference for certain traits/attributes/actions/movements of an individual that can evoke a sexual desire for that individual.

 

Therefore an asexual is categorized as an individual who will not develop a sexual desire towards another individual based on any of their traits/attributes/actions/movements."

 

You are right in that from an outside perspective, an asexual who desires sex is practically indistinguishable from any other sexual because their behaviour has little to no change.  However we are never defined by our behaviour in terms of orientation, only our preferences and attractions.  If a bisexual has a lifelong partnership with one person, from an outside perspective, one could say that they are identical to either a homosexual or a heterosexual in the very same way one could claim an asexual identical to a sexual.  If we defined only by behaviour, celibates who are sexual or HSDD sufferers would be defined as asexual.  An asexual's genitalia still works; many of us do not want any part of it whatsoever, however that isn't to say that others don't.  Have you ever heard of "blue ball syndrome"?  Sufferers of that phenomenon feel extreme physical pain in their testicles if they do not ejaculate at certain moments, and that is only an extreme case of sexual tension that a lot of people can feel.  There are many reasons for desiring sex, if it isn't based on attraction, then it isn't contradicting with asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Flygunn said:

I always use the answer I made in one of Pramana's post from a while back to describe sexual attraction and asexuality through that viewpoint:

 

"Psychologists define sexual attraction as a person's enduring pattern of preference for certain traits/attributes/actions/movements of an individual that can evoke a sexual desire for that individual.

 

Therefore an asexual is categorized as an individual who will not develop a sexual desire towards another individual based on any of their traits/attributes/actions/movements."

 

You are right in that from an outside perspective, an asexual who desires sex is practically indistinguishable from any other sexual because their behaviour has little to no change.  However we are never defined by our behaviour in terms of orientation, only our preferences and attractions.  If a bisexual has a lifelong partnership with one person, from an outside perspective, one could say that they are identical to either a homosexual or a heterosexual in the very same way one could claim an asexual identical to a sexual.  If we defined only by behaviour, celibates who are sexual or HSDD sufferers would be defined as asexual.  An asexual's genitalia still works; many of us do not want any part of it whatsoever, however that isn't to say that others don't.  Have you ever heard of "blue ball syndrome"?  Sufferers of that phenomenon feel extreme physical pain in their testicles if they do not ejaculate at certain moments, and that is only an extreme case of sexual tension that a lot of people can feel.  There are many reasons for desiring sex, if it isn't based on attraction, then it isn't contradicting with asexuality.

Having sex doesn't make someone not asexual, which is a behavior. Whether or not you desire sex is a trait and the decider of where you fit. You can't define asexuality based on preferences and attraction. There is a reason why there are hetero, homo, bi asexuals. Asexuality was created as a distinction to sexuals. You have hetero, homo, bi, pan sexuals as you have the same for asexuals. Technically, I can be defined as heterosexual because heterosexual includes romantic attraction to the opposite sex. Asexuality was created for heterosexuals like me who do not desire sex with the opposite sex so as to create a distinction with sexual heteros( and others). That is all there is to it. You can't have asexuals who desire sex because you destroy the whole point of creating that distinction in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kai99 said:

Having sex doesn't make someone not asexual, which is a behavior. Whether or not you desire sex is a trait and the decider of where you fit. You can't define asexuality based on preferences and attraction. There is a reason why there are hetero, homo, bi asexuals. Asexuality was created as a distinction to sexuals. You have hetero, homo, bi, pan sexuals as you have the same for asexuals. Technically, I can be defined as heterosexual because heterosexual includes romantic attraction to the opposite sex. Asexuality was created for heterosexuals like me who do not desire sex with the opposite sex so as to create a distinction with sexual heteros( and others). That is all there is to it. You can't have asexuals who desire sex because you destroy the whole point of creating that distinction in the first place.

Simply put:

1. Sexual attraction is real (and consistently used to mean preferences with respect to sexual partners).
2. There is a significant difference between someone who never experiences sexual attraction, and those who usually experience sexual attraction as a major component of their sexuality.
3. Therefore, there is an important difference when someone never experiences sexual attraction, even though they may still experience sexual desire. And based on that important difference, someone might have reason to identify as asexual.

Furthermore,

4.  It's implausible to say that you can't define asexuality in terms of sexual attraction, when almost everyone who has published on the topic so far says that attraction should either be the definition or part of the definition.

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

Simply put:

1. Sexual attraction is real (and consistently used to mean preferences with respect to sexual partners).
2. There is a significant difference between someone who never experiences sexual attraction, and those who usually experience sexual attraction as a major component of their sexuality.
3. Therefore, there is an important difference when someone never experiences sexual attraction, even though they may still experience sexual desire. And based on that important difference, someone might have reason to identify as asexual.

Furthermore,

4.  It's implausible to say that you can't define asexuality in terms of sexual attraction, when almost everyone who has published on the topic so far says that attraction should either be the definition or part of the definition.

Pramana, you are ignoring what asexuality was meant for. There is a reason why people don't say they are gay heterosexual. Despite asexuality being included among the list of sexualities, asexuals are not people who lack interest in anyone(which, if you think about it, would make more sense ). Asexuality was made for those who aren't sexual. This is why you have straight, gay, bi, etc asexuals. We created a label to distinguish ourselves from sexuals of the same orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

Pramana, you are ignoring what asexuality was meant for. There is a reason why people don't say they are gay heterosexual. Despite asexuality being included among the list of sexualities, asexuals are not people who lack interest in anyone(which, if you think about it, would make more sense ). Asexuality was made for those who aren't sexual. This is why you have straight, gay, bi, etc asexuals. We created a label to distinguish ourselves from sexuals of the same orientation.

I mean, I do know a few people who would have sex with women and men alike (or have already did so) but can only imagine a relationship with one gender. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Salted Karamel

In case it helps you in this at all, I often use an analogy with backrubs to explain to people why I might be willing to have sex with a partner to whom I am not necessarily sexually attracted—

 

If your partner really wants a back rub, and it gives you no physical pleasure to give a back rub (indeed, might even tire your arms a bit and cause some discomfort), might you not be willing to give them a back rub solely because it makes you happy to make them feel good because you care about them? You might happily give them a back rub, and you might even offer to give them a back rub sometimes without their prompting, but that doesn't mean you're attracted to giving back rubs.

 

Or to use something less sensual, if it made your mom happy when you put the dishes away, you might be inclined to do that household chore without complaint or even without prompting because it brings you joy to make mom happy. That doesn't mean it really brings you intrinsic pleasure to put dishes away. But not experiencing intrinsic pleasure in the task doesn't mean you are never happy to do it, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

Pramana, you are ignoring what asexuality was meant for. There is a reason why people don't say they are gay heterosexual. Despite asexuality being included among the list of sexualities, asexuals are not people who lack interest in anyone(which, if you think about it, would make more sense ). Asexuality was made for those who aren't sexual. This is why you have straight, gay, bi, etc asexuals. We created a label to distinguish ourselves from sexuals of the same orientation.

I'm not wiling to make claims about who asexuality was meant for, nor do I think that I have any sort of ownership on the term. But perhaps it's relevant that AVEN has used an attraction-based definition since its founding, and also that AVEN endorses self-identification and inclusivity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, katydidd said:

In case it helps you in this at all, I often use an analogy with backrubs to explain to people why I might be willing to have sex with a partner to whom I am not necessarily sexually attracted—

 

If your partner really wants a back rub, and it gives you no physical pleasure to give a back rub (indeed, might even tire your arms a bit and cause some discomfort), might you not be willing to give them a back rub solely because it makes you happy to make them feel good because you care about them? You might happily give them a back rub, and you might even offer to give them a back rub sometimes without their prompting, but that doesn't mean you're attracted to giving back rubs.

 

Or to use something less sensual, if it made your mom happy when you put the dishes away, you might be inclined to do that household chore without complaint or even without prompting because it brings you joy to make mom happy. That doesn't mean it really brings you intrinsic pleasure to put dishes away. But not experiencing intrinsic pleasure in the task doesn't mean you are never happy to do it, either.

That is how I imagine a sex favorable asexual. Now when you start adding desire that is when things get cloudy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Member4445

Create this last year. It was kinda fun.

 

(I'm currently in a very sex repulsed phase though. I swing back and forth between the two extremes)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kai99 said:

Having sex doesn't make someone not asexual, which is a behavior. Whether or not you desire sex is a trait and the decider of where you fit. You can't define asexuality based on preferences and attraction. There is a reason why there are hetero, homo, bi asexuals. Asexuality was created as a distinction to sexuals. You have hetero, homo, bi, pan sexuals as you have the same for asexuals. Technically, I can be defined as heterosexual because heterosexual includes romantic attraction to the opposite sex. Asexuality was created for heterosexuals like me who do not desire sex with the opposite sex so as to create a distinction with sexual heteros( and others). That is all there is to it. You can't have asexuals who desire sex because you destroy the whole point of creating that distinction in the first place.

??? my whole comment was about how behaviour does not define an orientation, what are you talking about?  Heterosexuality is not the same as hetero-romanticism, a heterosexual experiences sexual attraction to the opposite gender and a hetero-romantic (which most heterosexuals are) experience romantic attraction to the opposite sex.  Asexuals were never made for heterosexuals, they were made for the vast amount of unique identities that do not experience sexual attraction, heterosexuals are not asexuals.  You can have asexuals who desire sex, because they are not experiencing sexual attraction.  

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

??? my whole comment was about how behaviour does not define an orientation, what are you talking about?  Heterosexuality is not the same as hetero-romanticism, a heterosexual experiences sexual attraction to the opposite gender and a hetero-romantic (which most heterosexuals are) experience romantic attraction to the opposite sex. 

Actually, heterosexuality can be defined as a romantic attraction to the opposite sex, so heteromantic asexuals could be considered heterosexual.

 

Quote

 Asexuals were never made for heterosexuals, they were made for the vast amount of unique identities that do not experience sexual attraction, heterosexuals are not asexuals.  You can have asexuals who desire sex, because they are not experiencing sexual attraction.  

You took my comment wrong. I was merely giving myself as an example. I didn't mean asexuals were made for heterosexuals. I was merely saying that asexuality came about as a way to separate those who desired partnered sex versus those who don't. Heterosexuals from heteroasexuals. Homosexuals from homoasexuals( we don't call it that but that is the easiest way to sum it up). You also have to consider how how sexual attraction is defined. Desiring any kind of partnered sex is considered sexual attraction so technically, no asexuals can desire sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

Desiring any kind of partnered sex is considered sexual attraction so technically, no asexuals can desire sex.

No, this is factually incorrect. That would be like saying that heterosexual men in prison who desire sex with other male inmates are sexually attracted to them (so they must all be bisexual?). I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but I've done a fair amount of reading on this topic by now, and everything I've read contradicts what you claim. With respect, I'm pretty sure that there's no real debate here and that you're just wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...