Definition of Asexuality

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

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.

That's how I look at too, to be perfectly honest. On one side you have 'sexuality' (people who desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure under certain circumstances) and for those people, their 'sexual orientation' is where their sexual preferences lie. You could call those preferences 'sexual attraction' or whatever, but some desire sex with men, some desire sex with women, some desire sex with both, some don't even care about gender in any way etc etc. Then on the other side (well, the small leftover 1 percent) you have asexuality, which is all the people who have no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure. They don't have a 'sexual orientation' (sexual preferences) because those concepts are invalid to someone who has literally no interest in seeking sexual activity with others in the first place.

[Galactic Turtle]

Such a long convo. @__@   

 

I actually have been wondering about asexuality as an orientation. Admittedly I only pitched it that way to my parents so they wouldn't think I had a mental problem. Ended up not working anyway but at least I tried. XD

 

Oftentimes I see people trying to explain to me that asexuality is different from other orientations when they're talking about the supposed scope of it. Like on this same Facebook group I mentioned at the very beginning of this thread a person was explaining asexuality to someone new in the group saying asexuality has nothing to do with your attitude towards sex. You can be sex repulsed or hypersexual or anywhere in between. Which... of course had me scratching my head. When people try to explain to me why asexuality isn't like other orientations they give me some type of... chart? The chart in itself makes sense to me so I say something like "oh ok so the bottom row on this chart is describing asexuality" because I think the y-axis is sexual desire or... sex something. But then they say no it's really like.... the whole bottom third of this chart which is including sexual attraction. 

 

Anywho regardless of that chart which I clearly can't describe or remember very well I wonder about asexuality not being an orientation when it's both the way @FictoVore. described it and their reasoning for it but also how @Pramana describes asexuality basically ballooning to include people that most of the world wouldn't intuitively call asexual. 

 

The reason why I felt the desire to use asexual to describe myself in the first place is because I thought the term in itself was clear kind of like how calling yourself heterosexual or homosexual is clear. Like.... we don't need endless theory papers to talk about those.  But if you apply rhetoric often found in the asexual world to other orientations it quickly gets a bit odd. For example if I went up to one of my gay friends and asked him if he was a "women-favorable homosexual" I think I'd get smacked. So more and more I wonder that even if asexual is a term that would describe me I think "non-sexual" might do a better job at encompassing the whole picture. Like the admin of this Facebook group is sex-favorable and makes posts every few days saying "asexual =/= non-sexual" but non-sexual is the point I'm trying to make about myself. On the other hand saying "asexual" anywhere outside of actual ace spaces, the conclusion people jump to (that's not like.... "oh are you a plant?") is pretty much... well.... non-sexual. It's a tossup, really.

 

Granted I also realize that unlike in heterosexual/homosexual spaces, in the ace community it seems like people's sexual and romantic orientations don't usually align.... maybe that's why they insist it's so different? Not sure.

 

I'm just rambling now. Sorry. Continue! *jumps into the river to disrupt scent trail*

 

 

[Guest]

I'm sure Pramana can find you a paper written by some straight scholar saying that homosexual men can actually be entirely 100% woman-favourable and 0% man-favourable and still be homosexual And if a scholar with a psychology degree wrote it then it's obviously true and applies to most homosexual men. If homosexual men disagree with the paper and say it's entirely incorrect they're obviously the ones who are wrong, they're just not educated enough and don't have a doctorate in psychology so they don't understand what it actually means to be homosexual. Pramana knows though because he read the papers, so he'll explain how homosexuality really works to them

[Pramana]

I don't think anyone has responded to the key issues. The contention that asexual does not equal nonsexual is accurate according to:
 

A. Sexual orientation theory, and that theory as it has been applied to asexuality (I know this both from extensive reading on the topic and from personal communications with a few different academics (some of whom identify as sexual, some of whom identify as asexual, some of whom have been involved in the AVEN and other asexual communities for a long time).
B. Community history, as sex-favourable asexuals have been included within AVEN and other asexual communities since an early date (I know this from reading asexual blogs, AVEN's site info materials from the early 2000s, and from personal communications as one of the academics I spoke with was involved in the AVEN community at this early date).

Therefore, it seems to me that if people would like an identity like non-sexual or non-partnered sexual, then the onus shifts to them to develop that as a separate concept. 

[Snao Cone]

So an asexual person can't use their asexuality to express not wanting sex. Is the end goal here, or one of the end goals, to enable people to accuse me and people like me of bullying/abuse/discrimination for not having sex with them? Or at least to push discussions about not having or not wanting sex out of the asexual community dialogue?

[Pramana]

5 minutes ago, Snaocula said:

So an asexual person can't use their asexuality to express not wanting sex. Is the end goal here, or one of the end goals, to enable people to accuse me and people like me of bullying/abuse/discrimination for not having sex with them? Or at least to push discussions about not having or not wanting sex out of the asexual community dialogue?

The queer theory academic who I talked to about this (who is also asexual and seemed to know AVEN history really well) argued for an emphasis on opposing compulsory sexuality, like the attitudes you describe where people feel entitled to sex. That point is analogous to criticisms from queer theory which hold that the "born this way" argument doesn't properly challenge heteronormativity. Essentially:
 

A. Born this way – Tacitly accepts that one would and should be heterosexual, but for the fact that one was born homosexual and can't change one's orientation, implying that one should choose to be heterosexual if one had the choice.
B. Asexuality and not wanting sex – Tacitly accepts that one would and should want to have sex, but for the fact that one can't experience sexual attraction/desire and is therefore unable to do so, implying that one should choose to be sexual if one had the choice.

They also reported that a few years ago there was a period of "sexual cheerleading" in the community, where promoting the idea that asexuals could like sex was seen as a way of presenting a positive image of asexuality to the wider public. This strategy alienated a large percentage of asexuals who don't like sex and identify as asexual for that reason, thus resulting in push back in the other direction against sex-favourable asexuals. Arguably, both approaches are misguided as both tacitly accept compulsory sexuality (either we have to be able to like sex to appear normal, or the only reason why we shouldn't want sex is our "born this way" inability to do so).

[Kai99]

Quote

Oftentimes I see people trying to explain to me that asexuality is different from other orientations when they're talking about the supposed scope of it. Like on this same Facebook group I mentioned at the very beginning of this thread a person was explaining asexuality to someone new in the group saying asexuality has nothing to do with your attitude towards sex. You can be sex repulsed or hypersexual or anywhere in between. Which... of course had me scratching my head. When people try to explain to me why asexuality isn't like other orientations they give me some type of... chart? The chart in itself makes sense to me so I say something like "oh ok so the bottom row on this chart is describing asexuality" because I think the y-axis is sexual desire or... sex something. But then they say no it's really like.... the whole bottom third of this chart which is including sexual attraction. 

 

These are just one of the many attempts by people trying to make asexuality fit them. The only orientation that means not desiring sex, and people want to change it to suit them. The way the asexual community is going, the only people who wont fit into asexuality are those who experience sexual attraction to every living thing.

[Pramana]

38 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

These are just one of the many attempts by people trying to make asexuality fit them. The only orientation that means not desiring sex, and people want to change it to suit them. The way the asexual community is going, the only people who wont fit into asexuality are those who experience sexual attraction to every living thing.

The research I did suggests it's the other way around. I spoke with an asexual academic who has been a member of the community for a long time, and they reported that sex-favourable asexuals were active in building the community during the early years. People have identified as asexual for different reasons, such as lack of attraction, lack of desire, and lack of interest in partnered sex. Asexuality has never been exclusively about not desiring sex. Thus, the claim that asexuality is only about not desiring sex is a revisionist one, made by people who are either unaware of community history or actively trying to redefine asexuality in a narrower way.

[Snao Cone]

So what's the deal here then, are we just not allowed to explore ideas if they could imply that actively wanting sex is a pretty sexual thing?

[Kai99]

48 minutes ago, Pramana said:

The research I did suggests it's the other way around. I spoke with an asexual academic who has been a member of the community for a long time, and they reported that sex-favourable asexuals were active in building the community during the early years. People have identified as asexual for different reasons, such as lack of attraction, lack of desire, and lack of interest in partnered sex. Asexuality has never been exclusively about not desiring sex. Thus, the claim that asexuality is only about not desiring sex is a revisionist one, made by people who are either unaware of community history or actively trying to redefine asexuality in a narrower way.

Is that so? Than why are they talking about not wanting sex here when it comes to asexuality? I've seen this interview years ago when I was first discovering asexuality. Why is it that, at 9.00 mark in the video, that the asexual said "she wasn't suppose to feel like this" in reference to the growing desire to have sex with her partner?  She even took herself off the website.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Pramana said:

The research I did suggests it's the other way around. I spoke with an asexual academic who has been a member of the community for a long time, and they reported that sex-favourable asexuals were active in building the community during the early years. People have identified as asexual for different reasons, such as lack of attraction, lack of desire, and lack of interest in partnered sex. Asexuality has never been exclusively about not desiring sex. Thus, the claim that asexuality is only about not desiring sex is a revisionist one, made by people who are either unaware of community history or actively trying to redefine asexuality in a narrower way.

You're defining sex-favourable asexual incorrectly Pramana. 

 

Sex-favourable = ABLE TO ENJOY THE SENSATIONS OF PARTNERED SEX. This differentiates them from neutral and repulsed asexuals, both of which make up the vast majority of asexuals. Sex-favourable asexuality is rarer but it's definitely a thing.

 

Desiring partnered sex (ie not asexual) = Enjoying aspects of sexual intimacy enough to  actively desire to have sex with certain other people to experience that pleasure and feeling something is missing if partnered sexual intimacy is not included in at least some aspects of one's life.

 

Please, please, at the very least get the basic definitions correct. Is that too much to ask Pramana? 

 

Quote

I spoke with an asexual academic who has been a member of the community for a long time

1) Tell them to come to this convo and discuss it with us then. Or link us to some of their posts.

 

2) Hopefully they at least have their basic definitions correct, unlike you, in which case yes I agree with them: Sex-favourable asexuals have been a part of this community for a long time.

 

Quote

  Thus, the claim that asexuality is only about not desiring sex is a revisionist one, made by people who are either unaware of community history or actively trying to redefine asexuality in a narrower way.

No, those people are trying to explain to you that you are defining hetero/homo/bi/pansexuality too narrowly. You are insisting that this one thing that no one can agree on the definition of is what makes someone hetero/homo/bi/pansexual.. when others (including actual sexuals) are trying to explain that no, when it comes to defining an entire sexual orientation, the one thing that all sexual's have in common the desire for partnered sexual intimacy with others under certain circumstances - they choose certain partners over others for many, many different reasons depending on the individual. You seem to be saying it's how people choose who they have sex with that makes someone sexual or asexual.. But the thing is, self-identifying 'sex-desiring' asexuals who say they actively desire partnered sexual activity for pleasure will still choose certain partners over others.. Sexual people choose partners for so many different reasons that it's IMPOSSIBLE to lump all those reasons into one category, especially not one that would be so vastly different from the way self-identifying 'sex-desiring' asexuals choose partners as to render them a completely different sexual orientation - That's quite literally ridiculous. 

 

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

Is that so? Than why are they talking about not wanting sex here when it comes to asexuality? I've seen this interview years ago when I was discovering asexuality. Why is it that, at 9.00 mark in the video, that the asexual said "she wasn't suppose to feel like this" in reference to the growing desire to have sex with her partner?  

@Pramana

 

To expand on this, as soon as they realized they might want sex they both removed themselves from the asexual community, even though they hadn't actually had sex at that point. In the same way I stopped IDing as ace as soon as I found I might enjoy aspects of partnered sexual intimacy enough to actively want to have sexual contact under some circumstances (even though I haven't physically had sex since discovering this). It's about acknowledging facts, not dancing around those facts the way some people seem to want to do when they twist the 'sexual attraction' definition to include people who actively want to have sex with others for pleasure.

 

In these documentaries (I've seen other 20/20 ones, and the doco (A)sexuality which also has Jay speaking in it) they are always using the definition 'no sexual attraction' but if you listen to everything else they are saying (including David Jay) they're using the term 'sexual attraction' to mean 'not wanting sex with other people'. They repeatedly say things like 'Asexuals just don't see sex as a necessary aspect of relationships' 'Asexuals just don't want sex' 'Asexuality isn't celibacy because celibacy is a choice, asexuality isn't' etc etc.. And yes, this makes total sense -that is how asexuality applies to the real world: Someone who has no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure in comparison to sexual people, who definitely desire sexual intimacy for pleasure under some circumstances.

 

AGAIN though, that's not saying 'sex-favourable' asexuals don't exist if you're defining that correctly: Someone who can enjoy the sensations of sex when they have it but would be perfectly happy without it and don't see it as a necessary part of their interactions with certain other people, as opposed to sex-neutral or sex-repulsed asexuality, both of which are far more common.

[Pramana]

1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

You're defining sex-favourable asexual incorrectly Pramana. 

 

Sex-favourable = ABLE TO ENJOY THE SENSATIONS OF PARTNERED SEX. This differentiates them from neutral and repulsed asexuals, both of which make up the vast majority of asexuals. Sex-favourable asexuality is rarer but it's definitely a thing.

 

Desiring partnered sex (ie not asexual) = Enjoying aspects of sexual intimacy enough to  actively desire to have sex with certain other people to experience that pleasure and feeling something is missing if partnered sexual intimacy is not included in at least some aspects of one's life.

 

Please, please, at the very least get the basic definitions correct. Is that too much to ask Pramana? 

Sex-favourable asexuality involves different degrees of desire for partnered sex. Some sex-favourable asexuals may enjoy partnered sex if available but have no interest in pursuing it, others may enjoy it enough to want to pursue it, and some may even want to pursue it a lot. I explicitly asked three different academics (representing behavioural psychology, sociology, and queer theory, respectively – one of the people I talked to I believe has been involved in the asexual community for a lot longer than you have) whether an asexual could enjoy partnered sex enough to want to actively pursue it. They all agreed that could be the case. And in this context, I brought up the human sex toys analogy, the fact that the sexual behaviour of some sex-favourable asexuals may appear indistinguishable from that of some pansexuals, and that occasionally sex-favourable asexuals may describe themselves as hypersexual in their pursuit of partnered sex (as I wanted to cover all the possible bases).
 

1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

 Someone who has no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure in comparison to sexual people, who definitely desire sexual intimacy for pleasure under some circumstances.

What you're describing here sounds more like an expression of sex drive, and sex drive has never been a basis for distinguishing between orientations. "Desiring partnered sex for pleasure in certain circumstances" is not a criterion that could distinguish between heterosexuality, homosexuality, etc.; therefore it's not a criterion that could distinguish between those orientations and asexuality either. You are making a logical error (albeit a fairly common one) in thinking that "(a)+(sexual)" means "lack of sex", and thus that there is some difference in kind between sexuals and asexuals, but that is not how sexual orientations work. In the past, nonlibiodists would make a similar type of error, asking sexual people what makes them sexual and determining that since masturbation is a sexual activity that makes people sexual, then asexuals can't have a libido or masturbate. The question isn't what makes people sexual, but what makes people heterosexual, homosexual, etc.

Preferences can vary a great deal between individuals, but the concept that defines orientations is the idea of forming sexual desires for people that one finds attractive (for whatever reason). In the absence of available partners within their preferred gender preference, some sexual people will desire sex with those outside their gender preference (such as heterosexual men in prison). But it's important to note that not all heterosexual men in prison want to have sex with other men. Therefore, not all heterosexual men have an "innate desire for partnered sex" that they are willing to act on in the absence of female sexual partners, so that cannot logically be used as a criterion to separate sexual people from asexual people. To explain why some heterosexual men desire sex with other men in those circumstances, there are two possibilities: 1. They were always slightly bisexual and thus experience some same-sex attractions, 2. They are acting to assuage libido/sex drive in the absence of attraction. Neither option affects sexual orientations theory or its application to asexuality.

I'm pretty confident in these conclusions, because I've done my research really well, and I've had some good conversations with academics regarding sexual orientation theory and asexual community history which suggest that my interpretations are accurate. It also seems apparent that you're making logical errors in your interpretation, such that I'm sure your interpretation can't work as a logically coherent theory of sexual orientations.

[Moonchaser]

It's pretty obviously a spectrum that each person experiences individually. But I haven't seen much of that here, anyone telling someone they can't be asexual. I find most people posting here to be pretty open to "if you say you are, then you are" most of the time.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Pramana said:

such that I'm sure your interpretation can't work as a logically coherent theory of sexual orientations.

See, that's your issue right there Pramana.

 

I'm not exploring abstract theories, I'm talking about experiences that have practical application to real human beings that live in the real world. You're only interested in exploring theoretical ideas that have no practical application in real life, yet you're arguing with people who are talking about something completely different. We are only interested in how all this applies to actual real life situations.

 

I really think you need to take your theoretical musings and ramblings to some place where other people would be more interested in discussing such theories with you without considering the fact that they have literally no practical application to real life human beings.

[Telecaster68]

Quote

I explicitly asked three different academics (representing behavioural psychology, sociology, and queer theory, respectively – one of the people I talked to I believe has been involved in the asexual community for a lot longer than you have) whether an asexual could enjoy partnered sex enough to want to actively pursue it. They all agreed that could be the case.

Did they go on to explain how an asexual who likes partnered sex enough to actively pursue it is different to a sexual who likes sex enough to pursue it (ie most sexuals)?

 

The  only different I can see in this conceptual model is that they don't experience this thing called attraction. Logically, they can't  know exactly what it is they're missing, and the people who might be able to come up with a defintion or description are sexuals; and sexuals experience their desire for sex in a million different ways so there is no definition worth having. So there's this mysterious thing, a bit like Victorians came up with the idea of an unknowable 'ether' to explain loads of things they didn't understand. And it's the only difference between sexuals and asexuals, and there's no way of verifying what it is.

 

Honestly Pramana, does this seem like academics are on the right track here? Chasing arcane concepts that only make sense in terms of themselves and fall apart at first contact with reality is a lovely way for academics to receive a salary, but the rest of us really don't have to take them seriously.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Snaocula said:

So what's the deal here then, are we just not allowed to explore ideas if they could imply that actively wanting sex is a pretty sexual thing?

 We are totally allowed to explore the abstract theoretical concept that asexuals can love and desire sex as much as any hetero/homo/bi/pansexual person (because sexuals experience some magical, indefinable thing which is totally separate from their desire for sexual intimacy. And asexuals don't experience this thing. Duh Snao) but it's morally reprehensible to consider the illogical idea that actively desiring partnered sex for pleasure kind of renders the A (meaning 'without') in the term a-sexual invalid, or that such desires may actually be very sexual in nature. 

[Alejandrogynous]

7 hours ago, Galactic Turtle said:

Oftentimes I see people trying to explain to me that asexuality is different from other orientations when they're talking about the supposed scope of it. Like on this same Facebook group I mentioned at the very beginning of this thread a person was explaining asexuality to someone new in the group saying asexuality has nothing to do with your attitude towards sex. You can be sex repulsed or hypersexual or anywhere in between. Which... of course had me scratching my head. When people try to explain to me why asexuality isn't like other orientations they give me some type of... chart? The chart in itself makes sense to me so I say something like "oh ok so the bottom row on this chart is describing asexuality" because I think the y-axis is sexual desire or... sex something. But then they say no it's really like.... the whole bottom third of this chart which is including sexual attraction.

Not to be pedantic, but if I read this without the context of what this thread (and that FB post) were discussing, I'd actually agree with it.

1) Asexuality has nothing to do with one's attitude toward sex. I personally think sex is great in concept and everyone should have as much or as little sex as they want, I just won't be having any personally. Some sexuals think sex is dirty and immoral even though they desire it. How we feel about sex overall is separate from our orientations.

2) Asexuality also is separate from how high or low one's libido is. My libido is high enough to qualify as hypersexual but I still don't have partnered sex, so the two terms are not mutually exclusive, and there are sex-repulsed sexuals in the world too.

3) Lastly, (I haven't seen the chart you're referring to, but) asexuality ISN'T like other orientations. Every other orientation (homo, hetero, etc.) defines their orientation by who they have sexual desires for, but that is already built on the basis that they want sex in the first place. Asexuals are the only ones that challenge that base assumption, so we are fundamentally different from the others and how we define it needs to be approached differently because of that.

 

 

To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your skepticism since those facts are so often twisted and manipulated to support the 'asexuals can love and desire sex as much as anybody else' idea that I/we are debating against, but the facts themselves are not incorrect.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

 (representing behavioural psychology, sociology, and queer theory, respectively – one of the people I talked to I believe has been involved in the asexual community for a lot longer than you have) 

 1) Again, will that person join this convo, or will you kindly link us to some of their comments on AVEN so we can assess their theories for ourselves as opposed to having info filtered through you?

 

2) I might have only been on AVEN since 2013 but I was experiencing asexuality first hand, in an extremely sexual environment, from the moment I was old enough for males (and females) to be actively interested in trying to have sex with me.. and as I was a thin, relatively attractive teenager with huge tits, we are talking a LOT of people here - I'm not sexually inexperienced. It wasn't until around age 27-28 that I began to experience what it's actually like on the opposite side of the fence, being the one who desires sex with someone else as opposed only bring desired by  others. Someone's years on AVEN don't necessarily indicate how much experience they have with asexuality. I've also had a fully asexual partner for 18 months, as well as sexual partners, which is something most 'academics' probably don't have much personal experience with.

 

 

3) no matter how long this 'academic' has spent on AVEN, they'd have trouble rivalling the amount I have personally written about this topic on this site.

 

47 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Did they go on to explain how an asexual who likes partnered sex enough to actively pursue it is different to a sexual who likes sex enough to pursue it (ie most sexuals)?

I'm still waiting for a logical answer to this question since it was posed to Pramana in a different thread months ago.

 

@Pramana   The sexuals here want to know exactly what it is about literally every single one of us (and every other sexual alive) that somehow makes us so different from a self-identitying 'sex-desiring' asexual who actively seeks and desires partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure. 

 

 

Please, oh wise one, I'd love to learn what this special, magical thing is that myself, Tele, and every other sexual person alive apparently possesses.

 

[Pramana]

2 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Did they go on to explain how an asexual who likes partnered sex enough to actively pursue it is different to a sexual who likes sex enough to pursue it (ie most sexuals)?

One of the points I raised is that the sexual behaviour of some sex-favourable asexuals might appear similar to that of some pansexuals. The answer is that the asexuals don't experience sexual attraction, and the behavioural psychologist I talked to had a more technical explanation based on the concept of autochorissexuality (asexuals might have eroticism and pleasure when engaging in partnered sex without connecting themselves to their partners, in a sexual sense, because they're missing the subjective component of sexual attraction).
 

2 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Honestly Pramana, does this seem like academics are on the right track here? Chasing arcane concepts that only make sense in terms of themselves and fall apart at first contact with reality is a lovely way for academics to receive a salary, but the rest of us really don't have to take them seriously.

Honestly, I've never met anyone outside of AVEN who had a problem understanding sexual attraction. The concept seems self-evident to me, and no more problematic to explain than why people are attracted to and want to eat fatty and sugary foods.

The concept of sexual attraction derives from Charles Darwin's theory of sexual selection. I'm pretty sure evolutionary theory is on the right track. And I'm not sympathetic to anti-academic argumentative retreats.

[Kai99]

Why don't you address these two post, Pramana?

 

Quote

Is that so? Than why are they talking about not wanting sex here when it comes to asexuality? I've seen this interview years ago when I was first discovering asexuality. Why is it that, at 9.00 mark in the video, that the asexual said "she wasn't suppose to feel like this" in reference to the growing desire to have sex with her partner?  She even took herself off the website.

Quote

To expand on this, as soon as they realized they might want sex they both removed themselves from the asexual community, even though they hadn't actually had sex at that point. In the same way I stopped IDing as ace as soon as I found I might enjoy aspects of partnered sexual intimacy enough to actively want to have sexual contact under some circumstances (even though I haven't physically had sex since discovering this). It's about acknowledging facts, not dancing around those facts the way some people seem to want to do when they twist the 'sexual attraction' definition to include people who actively want to have sex with others for pleasure.

 

In these documentaries (I've seen other 20/20 ones, and the doco (A)sexuality which also has Jay speaking in it) they are always using the definition 'no sexual attraction' but if you listen to everything else they are saying (including David Jay) they're using the term 'sexual attraction' to mean 'not wanting sex with other people'. They repeatedly say things like 'Asexuals just don't see sex as a necessary aspect of relationships' 'Asexuals just don't want sex' 'Asexuality isn't celibacy because celibacy is a choice, asexuality isn't' etc etc.. And yes, this makes total sense -that is how asexuality applies to the real world: Someone who has no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure in comparison to sexual people, who definitely desire sexual intimacy for pleasure under some circumstances.

 

AGAIN though, that's not saying 'sex-favourable' asexuals don't exist if you're defining that correctly: Someone who can enjoy the sensations of sex when they have it but would be perfectly happy without it and don't see it as a necessary part of their interactions with certain other people, as opposed to sex-neutral or sex-repulsed asexuality, both of which are far more common.

 

[Telecaster68]

You're still begging the question of what is this 'attraction' thing, since it doesn't seem to have any real world effect on anything at all.

 

To run with your food analogy - you're saying that you can have two people who'll go out of their way to buy sugary foods because they really like eating them, but one of them isn't 'attracted' to them, and therefore is fundamentally 'asugarist' because they've said they are, while the other one is 'sugarist'? This is supposed to be taken seriously because some people who are employed by a university to consider people's diets have had peer reviewed papers published which explore this idea?

 

Quite apart from the inherent silliness, how is this enhancing anyone's understanding of humans' relationships with food, which is after all the whole point of academia studies of the area?

 

 

 

 

[Pramana]

20 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

 1) Again, will that person join this convo, or will you kindly link us to some of their comments on AVEN so we can assess their theories for ourselves as opposed to having info filtered through you?

I decided to get in touch with some academics as part of research for an essay that I'm writing on sexual orientations and identity politics. I'm not sure if any of them want to become personally involved in AVEN drama, which is why I didn't quote anyone directly. But I thought it'd be worthwhile to provide a summary of main points, which might be of interest to people.

Beyond that, it's up to people whether or not they want to do their own research. I'm quite confident in mine.
 

7 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

Why don't you address these two post, Pramana?

Obviously, not wanting sex has been a common reason to identify as asexual, but it hasn't been the only reason (and there are prominent asexual bloggers who identify as sex-favourable, which for them involves actively desiring partnered sex to some extent). I've also read through the early FAQs that David Jay presumably wrote for AVEN in the early 2000s, and they clearly suggest that asexuals could desire partnered sex for various reasons, as well as including concepts like gray-asexuality and demisexuality.
 

32 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

I'm still waiting for a logical answer to this question since it was posed to Pramana in a different thread months ago.

 

@Pramana   The sexuals here want to know exactly what it is about literally every single one of us (and every other sexual alive) that somehow makes us so different from a self-identitying 'sex-desiring' asexual who actively seeks and desires partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure. 

 

Please, I'd love to learn what this magical thing is that myself, Tele, and every other sexual person alive possesses.

 

Sexuals experience sexual attraction to either one or more genders, whereas asexuals do not experience sexual attraction to any gender. So theoretically if someone doesn't experience sexual attraction but has a high sex drive and happens to like having a lot of sex, by outside appearances they might look similar to a bisexual or pansexual person in their behaviour. That's a consequence of sexual orientations understood in terms of the internal capacity of sexual attraction, rather than the outward capacity of sexual behaviour.

My personal experience is that sexual attraction exists as an internal subjective state, and can be separated from libido. If anything, I would say that sexual attraction is obvious rather than mysterious. I haven't seen any place besides AVEN where this seems to be an issue.

[Telecaster68]

How would you describe this internal state of sexual attraction as you experience it?

 

And I do mean *you*, not a bunch of abstractions quoted from someone else.

[Telecaster68]

Oh, and the reason it's never questioned anywhere but AVEN is that AVEN is the only place where it's not synonymous with wanting to have sex with its object.

[Pramana]

16 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

You're still begging the question of what is this 'attraction' thing, since it doesn't seem to have any real world effect on anything at all.

 

To run with your food analogy - you're saying that you can have two people who'll go out of their way to buy sugary foods because they really like eating them, but one of them isn't 'attracted' to them, and therefore is fundamentally 'asugarist' because they've said they are, while the other one is 'sugarist'? This is supposed to be taken seriously because some people who are employed by a university to consider people's diets have had peer reviewed papers published which explore this idea?

 

Quite apart from the inherent silliness, how is this enhancing anyone's understanding of humans' relationships with food, which is after all the whole point of academia studies of the area?

I would suggest reading Charles Darwin's discussion of sexual selection (the origin of the idea in evolutionary psychology). Sexual attraction is what draws organisms to want to mate with certain members of their species rather than others. It deals with preferences, and therefore is a crucial evolutionary mechanism. Someone who bases their desires for partnered sex purely on libido or sex drive wouldn't be choosing partners in a way that reflects this mechanism that has evolved to maximize reproductive success. Thus, there is a significant consequential difference.

For a more recent influential paper that updates Darwin's views, and which I know has been cited in papers on asexuality: (David M. Buss and David P. Schmitt, Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating, Psychological Review, April 1993, 100:2, pp. 204-232)

[Telecaster68]

Would you like to address the logical problem in my question rather than throwing up evolutionary straw men?

[Kai99]

Quote

Obviously, not wanting sex has been a common reason to identify as asexual, but it hasn't been the only reason (and there are prominent asexual bloggers who identify as sex-favourable, which for them involves actively desiring partnered sex to some extent). I've also read through the early FAQs that David Jay presumably wrote for AVEN in the early 2000s, and they clearly suggest that asexuals could desire partnered sex for various reasons, as well as including concepts like gray-asexuality and demisexuality.

Post those early FAQs than. Are you sure he was talking about asexuality or the asexual spectrum? Of course demis and greys could desire sex to an extent, but asexuals? Also, I've seen many early videos on Asexuality. This is how David Jay explains sexual attraction.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Sexuals experience sexual attraction to either one or more genders, whereas asexuals do not experience sexual attraction to any gender. So theoretically if someone doesn't experience sexual attraction but has a high sex drive and happens to like having a lot of sex, by outside appearances they might look similar to a bisexual or pansexual person in their behaviour. That's a consequence of sexual orientations understood in terms of the internal capacity of sexual attraction, rather than the outward capacity of sexual behaviour.

This 'sexual attraction' thing is what I was referring to when I said:

 

49 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

 

@Pramana   The sexuals here want to know exactly what it is about literally every single one of us (and every other sexual alive) that somehow makes us so different from a self-identitying 'sex-desiring' asexual who actively seeks and desires partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure. 

 

We already know you're saying it's sexual attraction, I was asking how you're defining sexual attraction that makes our desire to connect sexually with others so different from a 'sex-desiring' asexual's desire. What is it that makes the way we choose who we have sex with (like, all of us, globally) so different from the way these people choose who they have sex with?

 

And the reason the term 'sexual attraction' isn't 'misunderstood' outside of AVEN is because someone hears it and believes that how they experience is exactly what you mean when you say the term 'sexual attraction', so they're not arguing because they think you're both talking about the same thing. Most people just assume it has something to do with who you want to have sex with (it does, but that works differently from person to person) which is very easy to understand and accept. However, these self-identifying asexuals are still choosing someone to have sex with.. How are their 'preferences'  (the reason they choose one person over another, instead of just screwing their dog or whatever) so vastly different from every sexual person's preferences (every sexual alive) that it makes them an entirely separate and unique sexual orientation. How are you defining attraction that makes these people so different from many sexual people who choose partners based on reasons other than 'getting turned on by specific people', 'having a sexual reaction to attractive people' etc?

[a minor triad]

Wow, was this painful to read through, and now crazy me is jumping into this mess.

 

17 hours 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.

16 hours ago, Pramana said:

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.

6 hours ago, Pramana said:

I don't think anyone has responded to the key issues. The contention that asexual does not equal nonsexual is accurate according to:
 

A. Sexual orientation theory, and that theory as it has been applied to asexuality (I know this both from extensive reading on the topic and from personal communications with a few different academics (some of whom identify as sexual, some of whom identify as asexual, some of whom have been involved in the AVEN and other asexual communities for a long time).
B. Community history, as sex-favourable asexuals have been included within AVEN and other asexual communities since an early date (I know this from reading asexual blogs, AVEN's site info materials from the early 2000s, and from personal communications as one of the academics I spoke with was evolved in the AVEN community at this early date).

Let me tell you a story about psychology. Psychology has always been seen as a "soft" science, but psychologists wanted to be taken as seriously as hard scientists, and the only way to do that in our Western society is to strive for objectivity. Here's the thing. Objectivity is an impossibility in psychology. It just is. It is a very subjective science. Anyone who claims otherwise is in denial. However, the problem with psychology is that is still poses as if it is objective, so people will take what psychologists say as truth. The problem becomes especially bad when psychologists, who up until this point (and really still to this point) have been straight, white, upper-class males, try to study people who are different from them. I'm talking women, racial "minorities," people of different ethnicities, and, of course, non-heterosexuals. The fact of the matter is that psychologists use theories developed by white men for white men and try to apply them to everything else when they probably shouldn't. This is a HUGE issue within the field that a majority of psychologists are willfully ignoring. That is why I am skeptical of applying asexuality to the terms of sexual orientation theory. I really feel that asexuality doesn't fit within the framework the scientific community uses. Call it a cop-out but that is why I am skeptical. Note that I am studying psychology, and like @FictoVore., I would love to hear from the academics you have contacted. I get they probably wouldn't want to talk to people on some board, but I would love to hear what they have to say.

 

Quote

Therefore, it seems to me that if people would like an identity like non-sexual or non-partnered sexual, then the onus shifts to them to develop that as a separate concept. 

Here's a question for you @Pramana, say people like me do go off and create another concept. What word could we use? Asexual is already "taken," and fun reminder that asexual literally breaks down to mean "without sex." Shall we use "ansexual," which incorporates the other Latin root for "without"? Just curious what you are thinking here.

 

15 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

That's how I look at too, to be perfectly honest. On one side you have 'sexuality' (people who desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure under certain circumstances) and for those people, their 'sexual orientation' is where their sexual preferences lie. You could call those preferences 'sexual attraction' or whatever, but some desire sex with men, some desire sex with women, some desire sex with both, some don't even care about gender in any way etc etc. Then on the other side (well, the small leftover 1 percent) you have asexuality, which is all the people who have no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure. They don't have a 'sexual orientation' (sexual preferences) because those concepts are invalid to someone who has literally no interest in seeking sexual activity with others in the first place.

I'm one of those people who "made up" the word asexual before finding AVEN, and my thinking behind it was that I didn't have a sexuality to orient to/wasn't sexually oriented towards anything, so I am open to this idea.

 

5 hours ago, Pramana said:

The queer theory academic who I talked to about this (who is also asexual and seemed to know AVEN history really well) argued for an emphasis on opposing compulsory sexuality, like the attitudes you describe where people feel entitled to sex. That point is analogous to criticisms from queer theory which hold that the "born this way" argument doesn't properly challenge heteronormativity. Essentially:
 

A. Born this way – Tacitly accepts that one would and should be heterosexual, but for the fact that one was born homosexual and can't change one's orientation, implying that one should choose to be heterosexual if one had the choice.
B. Asexuality and not wanting sex – Tacitly accepts that one would and should want to have sex, but for the fact that one can't experience sexual attraction/desire and is therefore unable to do so, implying that one should choose to be sexual if one had the choice.

I'm skeptical of these arguments. The only reason why the born this way criticism works is because heterosexuality is the dominant sexual orientation and in our culture, homosexuality is looked down upon, but that criticism could easily be reversed if the dominant sexual orientation had been homosexuality. I'm not sure if I'm making sense here, but just because we argue that asexuality is about not desiring sex does not mean we are also favoring the argument that if given a choice people should choose to be sexual. It is a very culturally specific argument, which is fine, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. 

 

3 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

You're defining sex-favourable asexual incorrectly Pramana. 

Thank you! 

 

1 hour ago, Alejandrogynous said:

 Every other orientation (homo, hetero, etc.) defines their orientation by who they have sexual desires for, but that is already built on the basis that they want sex in the first place. Asexuals are the only ones that challenge that base assumption, so we are fundamentally different from the others and how we define it needs to be approached differently because of that.

Exactly!

 

50 minutes ago, Pramana said:

The concept of sexual attraction derives form Charles Darwin's theory of sexual selection. I'm pretty sure evolutionary theory is on the right track. And I'm not sympathetic to anti-academic argumentative retreats.

Ok, yes, but we have also learned what happens when we try to apply Darwin's theories to other things. Eugenics movement, anyone?