Jump to content

Definition of Asexuality


Turtleslobber

Recommended Posts

Like some people in this thread, I want to respect people's choices, but I don't think someone's identity is necessarily unassailable. The main thing is people on both sides have to understand that some things need clarification and questioning someone's identity may not be intended to be malicious. If someone said they were gay, but consistently chose partners of the opposite sex, I'd be very confused. I don't get how the person could be gay because their stated preferences and actions don't line up. The same goes for asexuals who say they consistently enjoy having sex with a partner but claim they don't experience attraction. It just doesn't line up. Things can be sorted out through reason and discussion as long as it remains CIVILIZED. Witch hunts don't help, but appropriating orientations diminishes their meaning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Turtleslobber

Hey all, thank you so much for your insight! I've been putting a lot of thought into what you all have said, and I agree with your main points. It makes so much sense to me because shortly after I had joined AVEN I took a break for a while and thought of quitting entirely. It's because it was causing so much confusion for me. People saying you can desire sex all you want and still identify as asexual. It made me think "If asexuals still desire sex, but I don't, what am I then?" People would make the definition super confusing for me. The only reason I was skeptic about it at first is because I couldn't even fathom why anyone would lie about being asexual. Like why? I hope this is making sense. I'm glad so many of you cleared this up for me. Thank you!

 

Edit: I'm relatively new with the community and it never occurred to me that anyone would lie about their sexuality. I still don't see why anyone would do that, but I suppose it happens. It was naive of me to assume that everyone on here is honestly asexual according to a true and concise definition. Thank you all for warning me about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically, people have identified as asexual for different reasons, including lack of sexual attraction, lack of sexual desire, and lack of interest in partnered sex. The attraction-based definition was adopted in order to cohere with behavioural science theory regarding sexual orientations, and to be inclusive of the different approaches mentioned above. Thus, from early on in community history, it had been established that it was valid to identify as asexual provided that one did not experience sexual attraction, even if one still desired partnered sex for intrinsic goods in some circumstances. As a result, redefining asexuality to say that asexuals cannot desire partnered sex is contrary both to community history (including some prominent asexual bloggers who identify as sex-favourable) and to established and widely accepted academic interpretations of sexual orientations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As a result, redefining asexuality to say that asexuals cannot desire partnered sex is contrary both to community history (including some prominent asexual bloggers who identify as sex-favourable) and to established and widely accepted academic interpretations of sexual orientations.

Good, because those old-fashioned "interpretations" should be questioned.

 

If you go up to *anyone* and say "I'm asexual, but I still want sex" they're going to look at you like you're from another planet.  Rightfully so, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Good, because those old-fashioned "interpretations" should be questioned.

 

If you go up to *anyone* and say "I'm asexual, but I still want sex" they're going to look at you like you're from another planet.  Rightfully so, IMO.

I know for a fact that people whose professions it is to study sexual orientations and asexuality don't have a problem with the above notion, so I'm not sure why you do. Furthermore, sex-favourable asexuals have as much a claim on the term as anyone else in the community, since they were included from the beginning. Therefore, perhaps if other people don't want to follow psychology or community history, then they should develop new terminology as an alternative.

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

I know for a fact that people whose professions it is to study sexual orientations and asexuality don't have a problem with the above notion, so I'm not sure why you do. Furthermore, sex-favourable asexuals have as much a claim on the term as anyone else in the community, since they were included from the beginning. Therefore, perhaps if other people don't want to follow psychology or community history, then they should develop new terminology as an alternative.

So if I were to say "I'm asexual but I find other people incredibly sexy, if they're good looking enough - but I'M still asexual because it's them that's sexy" would I still have a claim on the term?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know for a fact that people whose professions it is to study sexual orientations and asexuality don't have a problem with the above notion, so I'm not sure why you do.

Like I said, it's not just me that would have a problem with this.

 

Seriously, try telling anybody "I love sex and I want to have it all the time, but I'm still asexual because XYZ" and see the reaction you get.  The most likely result is that you're going to be thought of as a loony, or an attention whore, or a special snowflake clinging to inaccurate and misleading terminology.

 

Quote

Furthermore, sex-favourable asexuals have as much a claim on the term as anyone else in the community, since they were included from the beginning.

There is a world of difference between simply being able to find sex enjoyable and consciously pursuing it, a difference that the term "sex-favorable" does not accurately catch.  That term can and has been used to mean either of those things.

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

So if I were to say "I'm asexual but I find other people incredibly sexy, if they're good looking enough - but I'M still asexual because it's them that's sexy" would I still have a claim on the term?

I think that's going in the other direction of asking whether something that contains aspects of sexual attraction, while missing some essential element(s) of the concept, is compatible with asexuality. I think the answer is yes, because it's only sexual attraction if – through finding the other person sexy – you develop a desire to have sex with them for that reason.
 

Just now, Philip027 said:

There is a world of difference between simply being able to find sex enjoyable and consciously pursuing it, a difference that the term "sex-favorable" does not accurately catch.  That term can and has been used to mean either of those things.

Interestingly, I got in touch via email with a behavioural psychologist about this issue last week, and I asked specifically whether the concept of a sex-favourable asexual who enjoys partnered sex enough to want to pursue the activity is compatible with sexual orientation theory. Their opinion was that an asexual could have eroticism and pleasure when engaging in partnered sex provided they don't have a subjective sense of an "I" that has sexual desires for the other person (because sexual attraction requires a subjective sense of being sexually connected to the other person). I also raised the "human sex toys" analogy that is sometimes discussed on AVEN, whereby asexuals might pursue partnered sex as an expression of sex drive operating alone, in the absence of sexual attraction. They agreed that was also possible.

It seems pretty clear that AVEN intended to endorse the behavioural scientific concept of sexual orientation (and the political legitimacy that was thought to confer) when it adopted the attraction-based definition. Therefore, it seems to me that AVEN is ethically obligated to accept the consequences of that decision, through representing all the people who fall within its scope. Furthermore, it would be fundamentally unfair to sex-favourable asexuals who worked to build this community from the start (and who follow an accurate understanding of what the attraction-based definition entails), to now say that they shouldn't be called asexuals. For that reason, it seems to me that the onus shifts to those who don't like this consequence to perhaps develop new labels if they feel that is needed to better reflect their interests.

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

I think that's going in the other direction of asking whether something that contains aspects of sexual attraction, while missing some essential element(s) of the concept, is compatible with asexuality. I think the answer is yes, because it's only sexual attraction if – through finding the other person sexy – you develop a desire to have sex with them for that reason.

So then wouldn't it be nice if people understood "sexual attraction" as the basis through which one develops a desire to have sex with them?

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

Historically, people have identified as asexual for different reasons, including lack of sexual attraction, lack of sexual desire, and lack of interest in partnered sex. The attraction-based definition was adopted in order to cohere with behavioural science theory regarding sexual orientations, and to be inclusive of the different approaches mentioned above. Thus, from early on in community history, it had been established that it was valid to identify as asexual provided that one did not experience sexual attraction, even if one still desired partnered sex for intrinsic goods in some circumstances. As a result, redefining asexuality to say that asexuals cannot desire partnered sex is contrary both to community history (including some prominent asexual bloggers who identify as sex-favourable) and to established and widely accepted academic interpretations of sexual orientations.

David Jay didn't actually base the definition he used for AVEN on any previous way the term 'asexual' had been used. He actually had to sit down and work out what he thought was the best way to describe asexuality, and him and a panel of other people spent some time deciding on the best definition. I did a lot of research on this a few years ago and posted links etc but honestly right now I just don't have time for that. ANYWAY, he based it on how he thought it should be defined, not how others had defined it before them. If you watch the documentary (A)sexual, David Jay specifically says ''I'm asexual. Sure I can find people attractive, I just don't want sex with them'' (I don't have time to re-watch the doco to find the time he says this or the exact wording, but it's in there). SO, the person who came up with the AVEN definition of asexuality MEANT 'I do not want sex with people'. He wasn't basing this on some weird psychological definition of sexual attraction which you keep quoting but that makes very little sense, Jay himself was just trying to find a concise way to explain the concept of not wanting sex with anyone.

 

He seems to have lost interest now, as more recently he's been quoted as saying ''An asexual is anyone who wants to be asexual'' *sigh* BUT when he initially tried to define asexuality he wasn't looking at obscure definitions of sexual attraction that scholars and physiologists have written about in papers most real people will never read - all he wanted was a defintion that encompassed the idea that someone doesn't desire partnered sexual contact.

 

Quote

 (including some prominent asexual bloggers who identify as sex-favourable) 

 

And as many people have said to you so many times now that I have lost count,  actively DESIRING partnered sexual intimacy is very, very different than simply being able to enjoy the sensations of sex when one has it. You just seem to not be able to accept this fact even though this is possibly the 15th or 16th time someone has tried to explain that to you.

 

3 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Interestingly, I got in touch via email with a behavioural psychologist about this issue last week, and I asked specifically whether the concept of a sex-favourable asexual who enjoys partnered sex enough to want to pursue the activity is compatible with sexual orientation theory. Their opinion was that an asexual could have eroticism and pleasure when engaging in partnered sex provided they don't have a subjective sense of an "I" that has sexual desires for the other person (because sexual attraction requires a subjective sense of being sexually connected to the other person). I also raised the "human sex toys" analogy that is sometimes discussed on AVEN, whereby asexuals might pursue partnered sex as an expression of sex drive operating alone, in the absence of sexual attraction. They agreed that was also possible.

And this psychologist has spent how much time in this community, with actual asexuals (and sexual partners) discussing this issue? Or were they just theorizing based on their own personal opinions? ..Because it sounds like the latter.

 

5 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I think that's going in the other direction of asking whether something that contains aspects of sexual attraction, while missing some essential element(s) of the concept, is compatible with asexuality. I think the answer is yes, because it's only sexual attraction if – through finding the other person sexy – you develop a desire to have sex with them for that reason.

 

You seem to be saying it's the desire for partnered sex with someone, for whatever reason, that IS the sexual attraction. 

 

And if someone identifying as asexual enjoys sex enough to go out and seek it with other people for pleasure, using them like human sex toys, they're still CHOOSING to have sex with some people over others. Ergo, they are still expressing sexual preference. Ergo, they're not actually asexual... I'm also assuming they WOULDN'T screw an animal or a kid even if offered, not so much due to legality but because they're repulsed by the idea of that (as most people are). They would have no desire to stick their dick in a dog. So that's showing sexual preference. They'll happily use an adult human as a sex toy, but would be repulsed by the idea of using an animal or kid in the same way. Soooo, they're actually no different than anyone else, in that they desire partnered sex and prefer to have it with some people over others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
straightouttamordor

Asexuality: Not giving a flying fornication about fornication. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
straightouttamordor

We consumate the relationship much differently. The honeymoon, carry the bride across the the threshold and consumate the marriage with cake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, prib23 said:

Asexuality: Not giving a flying fornication about fornication. 

but what if someone is fornication-favourable

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

So then wouldn't it be nice if people understood "sexual attraction" as the basis through which one develops a desire to have sex with them?

 

Just now, FictoVore. said:

And this psychologist has spent how much time in this community, with actual asexuals (and sexual partners) discussing this issue? Or were they just theorizing based on their own personal opinions? ..Because it sounds like the latter.

I was trying to get perspectives from different academic viewpoints, so in addition to contacting a behavioural psychologist, I also contacted a sociology person and a queer theory person. And in fact one of the people I talked to had been involved in the AVEN community from the early days, and thus was able to offer a broad perspective on the history of the community. Their view was that sex-favourable asexuals had been included from the beginning, and the issue had only become controversial relatively recently. They also observed that AVEN goes through periodic argumentation cycles regarding expansion and contraction, and that is just the way of things.

Thus, I obtained a cross-section of academic opinion, and everyone I talked to agreed that there are sex-favourable asexuals who enjoy partnered sex enough to actively want to have sex. I was also able to obtain an informed community history perspective, which showed that the attraction-based definition was understood discursively to include sex-favourable asexuals from early on in AVEN's history, and sex-favourable asexuals were involved in the community from an early point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous
1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

Seriously, try telling anybody "I love sex and I want to have it all the time, but I'm still asexual because XYZ" and see the reaction you get.  The most likely result is that you're going to be thought of as a loony, or an attention whore, or a special snowflake clinging to inaccurate and misleading terminology.

Or they'll be so worried about being PC and accepting of a minority they don't understand, they'll assume this person MUST know what they're talking about and take it without question, going forth then to spread this misinformation to the world.


OR (and this one scares me most), they'll say, 'Really? Oh wow.. actually, that sounds kinda like me. I must be asexual, I just never knew!' Perpetuating the misunderstanding and filling the asexual community with even more confusion as to how 'normal' sexuality functions.

 

*sigh*

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope I'm never shunned from this community for having a meh attitude towards sex.

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

I hope I'm never shunned from this community for having a meh attitude towards sex.

How dare you! Everyone knows asexuals can only HATE or LOVE sex.

 

I bet you don't even like cake, you monster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alejandrogynous said:

How dare you! Everyone knows asexuals can only HATE or LOVE sex.

 

I bet you don't even like cake, you monster.

I'll have you know I love cake and would never leave it for another birthday dessert tradition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alejandrogynous said:

Or they'll be so worried about being PC and accepting of a minority they don't understand, they'll assume this person MUST know what they're talking about and take it without question, going forth then to spread this misinformation to the world.


OR (and this one scares me most), they'll say, 'Really? Oh wow.. actually, that sounds kinda like me. I must be asexual, I just never knew!' Perpetuating the misunderstanding and filling the asexual community with even more confusion as to how 'normal' sexuality functions.

 

*sigh*

My comments above are based on conversations with academics who are paid to teach psychology/sociology of human sexuality in universities, and who have all published books/papers on sexuality and asexuality. It's reasonable to assume that they have a better than average understanding of the topic, given that it's their job and all.

Plus, I would highlight two crucial facts:
1. AVEN adopted an attraction-based definition following the models of behavioural psychology, a decision that helped to establish asexuality as a sexual orientation with a firm scientific basis. Psychologists applying that model accept that sex-favourable asexuals exist.
2. Sex-favourable asexuals have existed within asexual communities from an early date, correctly identifying as asexuals within the attraction-based definition that the community adopted.

Therefore, revisionist claims that sex-favourable asexuals (including those who might want to actively pursue sex to one extent or another) aren't asexuals are both:
1. Scientifically inaccurate.
2. Unfair to long-standing community members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a sex-favourable asexual starts describing asexuality as seeking sex for reasons similar to the average sexual person but without the pretense of "attraction" I would say "Oh hey, this is completely different from me and doesn't reflect me at all!" Then I guess I would be shunned by academics?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I could stretch the definitions of words to make me all sorts of things: a musician (because I play recorder), a Christian (because I really like the 1973 film rendition of Jesus Christ Superstar), a conservative (because I wear clothing), a meninist (because I believe fathers can play an equally important role in parenting as mothers do), an artist (because I doodle stick figures), etc. If I chose to join any of those communities, I could especially push my identity as equally valid to every other person who identifies as such. But a) I don't see the point of doing so for my own self-identification, and b) I don't see how I would relate more to the communities in question by simply saying "I'm ____."

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

If a sex-favourable asexual starts describing asexuality as seeking sex for reasons similar to the average sexual person but without the pretense of "attraction" I would say "Oh hey, this is completely different from me and doesn't reflect me at all!" Then I guess I would be shunned by academics?

I think the issue is that there are so many different reasons why people want sex, and many of those reasons are instrumental reasons (and I think it's fairly uncontroversial that asexuals might want sex for instrumental reasons). The more controversal issue is whether asexuals can want sex for intrinsic goods, raising a question about whether there's a one to one correlation between one's sexual orientation and one's desires for partnered sex for intrinsic goods. The sex toy analogy makes it clear that there isn't; otherwise everyone who enjoys partnered sex with a vibrator would have a sexual orientation as an objectum sexual. Another case would be gay men who marry women because homosexuality isn't acceptable in their religion, and who report having an enjoyable sex life despite not being attracted to their wives.

In conversation, I also brought up the issue that – if some asexuals want partnered sex – then other asexuals who don't want to have sex will have to provide another reason to explain why they don't want sex (since asexuality might not be accepted as sufficient). The answer I received, which I think has merit, is that instead the focus should be on opposing compulsory sexuality and the assumption that people should be sexually available. If we challenge that problematic cultural assumption, then we shouldn't need to provide an orientation as a justification for not wanting sex, since we shouldn't have to justify not wanting sex in the first place.

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

I also brought up the issue that – if some asexuals want partnered sex – then other asexuals who don't want to have sex will have to provide another reason to explain why they don't want sex

Did you bring this up strictly to challenge the tightness of the idea, or do you seriously think that people who don't want any sex are unjustified in identifying as asexual unless they can specifically say that they have no concept of "sexual attraction"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Snaocula said:

Did you bring this up strictly to challenge the tightness of the idea, or do you seriously think that people who don't want any sex are unjustified in identifying as asexual unless they can specifically say that they have no concept of "sexual attraction"?

I brought it up because I'm planning on writing an essay regarding sexual orientations and identity politics (which is what this research was for), and because that seems to be at the root of what creates community tensions when people describe themselves as sex-favourable asexuals.

Behavioural psychologists would likely say that an asexual is someone who doesn't experience subjective sexual attraction, regardless of whether or not they want sex, and not wanting sex for other reasons doesn't make one asexual. Queer theory people would think differently. My favourite definition of asexuality at the moment is this one, from a paper on asexuality in China:


 “In view of the fact that asexual individuals are not a single, unified group, my definition of the term will be a broadly inclusive and subjective one, in that it includes people of any group who consider themselves not willing or not able to meet social expectations about sexual desire and performance.”
(Day Wong, Asexuality in China’s Sexual Revolution: Asexual Marriage as Coping Strategy, 2015)

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

My comments above are based on conversations with academics who are paid to teach psychology/sociology of human sexuality in universities, and who have all published books/papers on sexuality and asexuality. It's reasonable to assume that they have a better than average understanding of the topic, given that it's their job and all.

Plus, I would highlight two crucial facts:
1. AVEN adopted an attraction-based definition following the models of behavioural psychology, a decision that helped to establish asexuality as a sexual orientation with a firm scientific basis. Psychologists applying that model accept that sex-favourable asexuals exist.
2. Sex-favourable asexuals have existed within asexual communities from an early date, correctly identifying as asexuals within the attraction-based definition that the community adopted.

Therefore, revisionist claims that sex-favourable asexuals (including those who might want to actively pursue sex to one extent or another) aren't asexuals are both:
1. Scientifically inaccurate.
2. Unfair to long-standing community members.

Do you ever actually read what people post to you..? I'm seriously starting to wonder. Truly.

 

 

My comment wasn't really meant for you anyway. You've proven by now that nothing anybody says to you will change your mind, or even prompt you to think critically about the issues we're talking about, so there's really no point that I can see. I don't have a degree in behavioral science or published anything on the subject, so anything I say is automatically dismissed by you. Obviously science is beyond reproach so they must be right, right? It must be nice to have such faith in your religion - oops, sorry, I meant science - that you never have to question anything it says. Pity us lost folks down here who just have to accept The Truth and we'll all be saved. Ah, sorry! I got it confused with religion again.

 

And before you go on again about how I'm anti-science and anti-academics, I'm not. I'm anti-Soft Sciences As Gospel in the face of real people explaining their own real experiences. I actually really enjoy psychology/sociology/anthropology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're saying is: nobody can tell me I'm not asexual. Which is good, because I am asexual and I identify as such.

 

But then, can I also personally define my asexuality as meaning a particular thing to me, and would I be justified in describing asexuality in these terms? Or do I have an obligation to describe asexuality in the terms of the people least like me, out of inclusivity? Meaning, am I obligated out of the interests of the community to begin my definition with """attraction""" and end it with "this can include people who actively want sex for any reason"? Am I allowed, morally, to state that it's very uncommon and an odd exception to the rule for an asexual person (autocorrect suggested asexual pretzel) to desire sex as fundamental to their relationships? Can an explanation of asexuality, as given in a personal conversation, ethically state that certain things are not asexual?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Snaocula said:

(autocorrect suggested asexual pretzel)

Well, it wouldn't be the first time an asexual tied themselves in knots. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Alejandrogynous said:

Do you ever actually read what people post to you..? I'm seriously starting to wonder. Truly.

 

 

My comment wasn't really meant for you anyway. You've proven by now that nothing anybody says to you will change your mind, or even prompt you to think critically about the issues we're talking about, so there's really no point that I can see. I don't have a degree in behavioral science or published anything on the subject, so anything I say is automatically dismissed by you. Obviously science is beyond reproach so they must be right, right? It must be nice to have such faith in your religion - oops, sorry, I meant science - that you never have to question anything it says. Pity us lost folks down here who just have to accept The Truth and we'll all be saved. Ah, sorry! I got it confused with religion again.

 

And before you go on again about how I'm anti-science and anti-academics, I'm not. I'm anti-Soft Sciences As Gospel in the face of real people explaining their own real experiences. I actually really enjoy psychology/sociology/anthropology.

In the above, I've made an argument, as in I've provided premises that produce a conclusion. On the other hand, what you've provided here isn't even an argument. Therefore, there's nothing for me to respond to.

But I would humbly suggest that definitions of asexuality should be based on an understanding of sexual orientation theory that is sufficient to obtain a passing grade on a first year university psychology or sociology exam. I think that is a very reasonable suggestion. Hence, why I find value in consulting academic resources.

And perhaps more importantly, I also find there's value in consulting asexual community history, and as you may have noticed a major part of my argument is based on that history.

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

In the above, I've made an argument, as in I've provided premises that produce a conclusion.  On the other hand, what you've provided here isn't even an argument. Therefore, there's nothing for me to respond to.

It wasn't meant to be an argument, it was a concession that debating with you is like debating with a brick wall when you purposefully dismiss everyone but those whose papers you love to quote.


But nevermind. I'm not going to delete my previous post because that always makes threads confusing, but I didn't need to say all that. I still mean what I said about why there's no point in debating with you anymore, but I rescind my snippiness as it was unnecessary.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't even consider asexuality a sexual orientation.  It's more like the lack of a sexual orientation.

 

You don't hear people calling atheism a religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...