Generational Conflicts within the AVEN Community

[Pramana]

8 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

 No, we didn't accept that at all. I was saying (as do some academics) that an asexual may deseire alternative reasons for having sex that have nothing to do with sexual satisfaction. 'Trying to work out your sexual orientation' is one of those reasons. There are many, many asexuals on AVEN who will tell you that when they had 'curiosity sex' they got nothing out of it and it confirmed to them that they're definitely asexual. If you get enough out of it that you actively desire to keep having it for enjoyment then you've actually found  out that you're not, in fact, asexual. Trying to figure out your sexual orientation, having sex to make a baby, having sex to try to look 'normal', these are all things some asexuals do but that doesn't mean they're desiring sexual intimacy for their own sexual and/or emotional pleasure in the way sexual people most often have sex (sexuals can of course have sex they don't want, sex to punish themselves, sex to get money.. all sorts of things not involving active desire for sexual pleasure itself, but that's a different topic).

 

I'm assuming you don't want to see the literature where academics (the kind with PhDs) say that asexuals can have sex for alterior motivations but not because they intrinsically desire partnered sex for their own pleasure. That's fine if you don't want to see it. I can understand it would be frustrating having to admit you're wrong about there being consensus in the academic community as to what asexuality actually is, and it would be frustrating knowing there are people who have PHDs who define asexuality differently than you do. Saves me a few hours of compiling research and a very long comment that, knowing my luck on AVEN, will completely fail to post to the forums and will disappear somewhere into the deep dark forest of lost AVEN posts.

No, you're confusing lack of sexual attraction with inability to enjoy sex. What about sexual people who are unable to enjoy sexual activities (anhedonia, genital pain conditions?).

As I've said before, I consulted a cross-section of academics (including asexuals and sexuals) regarding the "actively desiring sex for pleasure" issue, and they all agreed that could happen, because of the separation between sexual attraction and desire, and the differences between orientation and preferred behavioural patterns that I described previously. Those are simply methodological/logical entailments of approaching sexual orientation as a psychological construct. There isn't any way around that logically without switching the concept of sexual orientation from a psychological construct to another type of construct.

It is highly likely that the cross-section of academics whom I consulted simply understand the material better than you do. If this were a psychology exam, I don't imagine that what you've written on this topic would receive a passing grade. My point is that you have to first learn the material before you can work with it or criticize it, and I don't think you accurately understand what's being said in the literature.

There is a tendency of people in the world of identity politics to assume a one to one correlation between orientation and preferred behaviour patterns, a result of the socio-political purposes towards which orientations are employed today. And where the real contradiction arises is that likewise in the world of identity politics, people tend to oppose the opposite correlation between preferred behaviour patterns and orientation. For example, it is commonly assumed that people who prefer not to have sex because of ideological reasons or mental health issues aren't asexual. AVEN's adoption of the lack of sexual attraction definition represented an explicit attempt to distinguish itself from those other types of reasons for lacking interest in sex. Thus, I consider these debates a manifestation of the contradictions embedded within a particular socio-political discourse, rather than debates concerning psychology.

[Telecaster68]

6 minutes ago, Pramana said:

If this were a psychology exam

There's the rub. It isn't.

[Pramana]

1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

There's the rub. It isn't.

But that fact doesn't affect the accuracy of the hypothetical, and furthermore the hypothetical is relevant to this context where the discussion has turned to sweeping claims regarding interpretations of a field of psychological research.

[timewarp]

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

But that fact doesn't affect the accuracy of the hypothetical

Of course not. Anything hypothetical is as accurate as you define it.

[Pramana]

On 2/13/2018 at 2:14 PM, timewarp said:

Of course not. Anything hypothetical is as accurate as you define it.

Uh no, the accuracy of a hypothetical concerns whether it is relevant to illuminate the issue being discussed in context. In this case, the context was whether another member should invest a large amount of time compiling references, and the hypothetical was to show that this probably wouldn't be a productive use of time, on account of their failing to possess sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the academic literature under discussion to provide a critical evaluation of that source material.

[Sally]

On 2/13/2018 at 2:53 PM, Pramana said:

Uh no, the accuracy of a hypothetical concerns whether it is relevant to illuminate the issue being discussed in context. In this case, the context was whether another member should invest a large amount of time compiling references, and the hypothetical was to show that this probably wouldn't be a productive use of time, on account of their failing to possess sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the academic literature under discussion to provide a critical evaluation of that source material.

Since you are obviously talking about Fictovore, that's damn close to a personal insult of her intellectual capacity, and a really low blow.  

[Pramana]

18 minutes ago, Sally said:

Since you are obviously talking about Fictovore, that's damn close to a personal insult of her intellectual capacity, and a really low blow.  

Well, you can say that someone doesn't understand a particular body of academic literature, without passing judgment on their intellectual capacity to understand it. My only concern here is whether the particular interpretations/representations made regarding the academic literature are accurate.

[Janus the Fox]

In the end, we are all (un)-intellectual enough to realize how smart we all are  compared to all higher orders of the mind, life is an agreement-disagreement exercise in the end.

[Guest]

 

16 hours ago, Pramana said:

No, you're confusing lack of sexual attraction with inability to enjoy sex. What about sexual people who are unable to enjoy sexual activities (anhedonia, genital pain conditions?).

 

No, I'm not confusing those two things at all. I am sexual and I actually happen to have vestibulodynia which is a chronic vaginal pain disorder making vaginal penetration impossible. I still want to fuck my partner though, I just want his cock in places other than my vagina. I am still absolutely capable of enjoying sexual activity, just nothing involving my penetration of my vagina (surprise, sex doesn't always have to involve one's genitals being penetrated to be fun and pleasurable!!) 

 

And as I've said many times, an asexual can still potentially enjoy the physical sensations of sex (in the same way a rape victim can orgasm during an attack) without having any desire to actively seek sex out for their own pleasure. Not many asexuals do enjoy the feelings of sex, but there are those who can orgasm and still be asexual because they'd still be happiest without sex in their lives.

 

16 hours ago, Pramana said:

It is highly likely that the cross-section of academics whom I consulted simply understand the material better than you do.

 

12 hours ago, Pramana said:

the hypothetical was to show that this probably wouldn't be a productive use of time, on account of their failing to possess sufficient intellectual grasp of the source material to talk about it critically.

No, no. I'm talking about academics and medical professionals directly stating things like: ''Asexuals lack a desire for sex involving a partner'' (while often using these statements interchangeably with the term 'no sexual attraction'). Blatant statements like that which even a 10 year old could understand.

 

While you seem to think I'm pretty stupid, extensive research (often involving literally months of investigation) is an integral part of my job. I would need to have at least some intellectual capability or I wouldn't get paid, and with that involves a requirement that I'm able to understand the material I'm reading.

 

Someone isn't automatically stupid just because they have read things that you yourself clearly have not stumbled across in your 'extensive' exploration into academic opinions of what asexuality is and is not.

[Lia]

Let's please keep all comments within the confines of the conversation and away from insults or accusations of insults. If the thread continues down that path, it will be locked.

 

Lia

Site Comments Mod

[Pramana]

7 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

No, no. I'm talking about academics and medical professionals directly stating things like: ''Asexuals lack a desire for sex involving a partner'' (while often using these statements interchangeably with the term 'no sexual attraction'). Blatant statements like that which even a 10 year old could understand.

Sure, because sexual attraction is commonly defined as sexual desires for others (the Dyadic subscale of the Sexual Desire Inventory correlates with lack of sexual attraction on the Asexuality Identification Scale). However, the same academics would still say that asexuals can desire partnered sex for intrinsic goods. Why, because when psychologists are using this terminology, they're referring to a particular psychological construct that defines orientations, but which doesn't necessarily fully correlate with a lack of sexual interest. There are also medical/psychiatric textbooks from the 1970s and prior which talk about asexuality as a lack of sexual functioning, at a time when asexuality was something that was diagnosed but that differs from asexuality as an orientation understood today. In any case, throughout this and other threads you've made numerous inaccurate claims regarding the academic literature on this topic, and are missing a great deal of nuance, which leads me to the conclusion that you don't have sufficient knowledge/understanding of that material at this time.

The key point, however, is the distinction between psychological and functional output accounts that I've described earlier. As long as asexuality is defined as a psychological construct, then some asexuals might desire partnered sex. Therefore, it doesn't matter if asexuality is defined with any number of equivalences or near equivalences like: lack of sexual attraction, lack of sexual desires/feelings for others, lack of innate desires for partnered sex, lack of desires to connect oneself sexually with others, etc. Regardless you're still left with the conclusion that asexuals might desire partnered sex, because of the distinction between internal psychological and functional output accounts. That applies for every other orientation as well, because provided an orientation is grounded in a particular internal psychological state, the complexity of the human mind is such that two people with the same orientation may still have different real world desires/preferences.

I doubt that this would be an issue, but for the uses towards which people attempt to put the vocabulary of sexual orientations within an identity politics framework. That, and for idiosyncratic personal reasons, it seems to be more common for sexual people to become obsessed with the definition of asexuality, and spend all their time on an asexuality forum. I wonder if we could go to a lesbian forum, to find that most active members are heterosexual males obsessed with the definition of "lesbian"?

[FaerieFate]

2 hours ago, Pramana said:

Sure, because sexual attraction is commonly defined as sexual desires for others (the Dyadic subscale of the Sexual Desire Inventory correlates with lack of sexual attraction on the Asexuality Identification Scale). However, the same academics would still say that asexuals can desire partnered sex for intrinsic goods. Why, because when psychologists are using this terminology, they're referring to a particular psychological construct that defines orientations, but which doesn't necessarily fully correlate with a lack of sexual interest. There are also medical/psychiatric textbooks from the 1970s and prior which talk about asexuality as a lack of sexual functioning, at a time when asexuality was something that was diagnosed but that differs from asexuality as an orientation understood today. In any case, throughout this and other threads you've made numerous inaccurate claims regarding the academic literature on this topic, and are missing a great deal of nuance, which leads me to the conclusion that you don't have sufficient knowledge/understanding of that material at this time.

The key point, however, is the distinction between psychological and functional output accounts that I've described earlier. As long as asexuality is defined as a psychological construct, then some asexuals might desire partnered sex. Therefore, it doesn't matter if asexuality is defined with any number of equivalences or near equivalences like: lack of sexual attraction, lack of sexual desires/feelings for others, lack of innate desires for partnered sex, lack of desires to connect oneself sexually with others, etc. Regardless you're still left with the conclusion that asexuals might desire partnered sex, because of the distinction between internal psychological and functional output accounts. That applies for every other orientation as well, because provided an orientation is grounded in a particular internal psychological state, the complexity of the human mind is such that two people with the same orientation may still have different real world desires/preferences.

I doubt that this would be an issue, but for the uses towards which people attempt to put the vocabulary of sexual orientations within an identity politics framework. That, and for idiosyncratic personal reasons, it seems to be more common for sexual people to become obsessed with the definition of asexuality, and spend all their time on an asexuality forum. I wonder if we could go to a lesbian forum, to find that most active members are heterosexual males obsessed with the definition of "lesbian"?

However, the definition of asexuality is highly dependant on the definition of sexuality. Point being the fact that "asexual" literally means "not sexual". So, with the fact that we don't really have a good enough grasp on what asexuality is, our definition and understanding lies directly on what our understanding of sexuality is. And the idea that sexuals will want to have sex with random strangers on site being what some asexuals think sexuals are like, that belief system is extremely insulting, and sexuals have a right to come on and defend themselves, especially if their understanding can help us understand what asexuality means. 

 

How am I, an asexual, different from a sexual? That's ultimately what sexuals aim to help us understand on AVEN through correcting notions that some asexuals have that are extremely insulting. 

[Pramana]

3 hours ago, FaerieFate said:

However, the definition of asexuality is highly dependant on the definition of sexuality. Point being the fact that "asexual" literally means "not sexual". So, with the fact that we don't really have a good enough grasp on what asexuality is, our definition and understanding lies directly on what our understanding of sexuality is. And the idea that sexuals will want to have sex with random strangers on site being what some asexuals think sexuals are like, that belief system is extremely insulting, and sexuals have a right to come on and defend themselves, especially if their understanding can help us understand what asexuality means. 

 

How am I, an asexual, different from a sexual? That's ultimately what sexuals aim to help us understand on AVEN through correcting notions that some asexuals have that are extremely insulting. 

I probably wouldn't care about a lesbian forum where members are depicting heterosexual males in a negative light. If I had an issue with it, I would probably just go to some other forum. And if I were to spend all my time on that lesbian forum attempting to validate my sexuality, they might legitimately suspect that my opinions are extremely biased.

For purposes of defining orientation, I would add that it's incorrect to say that asexual is equivalent to nonsexual (otherwise, arguably only nonlibidoist asexuals would be asexuals).

[FaerieFate]

56 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I probably wouldn't care about a lesbian forum where members are depicting heterosexual males in a negative light. If I had an issue with it, I would probably just go to some other forum. And if  I were to spend all my time on that lesbian forum attempting to validate my sexuality, they might legitimately suspect that my opinions are extremely biased.

For purposes of defining orientation, I would add that it's incorrect to say that asexual is equivalent to nonsexual (otherwise, arguably only nonlibidoist asexuals would be asexuals).

I didn't say asexuals were nonsexual. I'm an asexual with a high libido. But sexual (by definition) is someone that experiences sexual attraction or desires to have sex with another person (Okay, I'm still hazy on this, but by definition not all sexuals are required to have a libido. Having a libido isn't in the definition of sexuality.)

 

But, a member has the right to come in here and clear up any misconception that members have about sexuality, especially if those misconceptions have them incorrectly labelling themselves as asexual when they aren't. As long as they aren't saying, "You're no asexual." and instead are saying, "Actually, asexuality is this, and sexuality is this." or something along those lines, they can. And, I believe (as the moderator of Q&A) that such clarifications helps asexual better understand asexuality and helps us define asexuality. In fact, I'm currently using this try to make a point of, "How to know if you're asexual" or "How to explain to a sexual what asexuality is."

 

Sure, sexuals on't have to stay here and correct themselves if they don't want to. But I really think that them clarifying their experience helps benefit the asexual community greatly.

[Pramana]

1 hour ago, FaerieFate said:

I didn't say asexuals were nonsexual. I'm an asexual with a high libido. But sexual (by definition) is someone that experiences sexual attraction or desires to have sex with another person (Okay, I'm still hazy on this, but by definition not all sexuals are required to have a libido. Having a libido isn't in the definition of sexuality.)

 

But, a member has the right to come in here and clear up any misconception that members have about sexuality, especially if those misconceptions have them incorrectly labelling themselves as asexual when they aren't. As long as they aren't saying, "You're no asexual." and instead are saying, "Actually, asexuality is this, and sexuality is this." or something along those lines, they can. And, I believe (as the moderator of Q&A) that such clarifications helps asexual better understand asexuality and helps us define asexuality. In fact, I'm currently using this try to make a point of, "How to know if you're asexual" or "How to explain to a sexual what asexuality is."

 

Sure, sexuals on't have to stay here and correct themselves if they don't want to. But I really think that them clarifying their experience helps benefit the asexual community greatly.

One of the biggest problems with discussions on AVEN is that people invalidly move from statements of subjective experience to objective claims, usually because of the way that a particular interpretation of a subjective experience has become important to their individual self-narrative. For that reason, these discussions tend be pushed in an exceptionally biased direction.

I am unaware of any forum for heterosexual people, where asexuals spend time clearing up misconceptions about asexuality so that heterosexuals aren't incorrectly labelling themselves as heterosexual when they aren't. The absurdity of that situation reveals the absurdity of the situation that you describe on AVEN.

[FaerieFate]

4 minutes ago, Pramana said:

One of the biggest problems with discussions on AVEN is that people invalidly move from statements of subjective experience to objective claims, usually because of the way that a particular interpretation of a subjective experience has become important to their individual self-narrative. For that reason, these discussions tend be pushed in an exceptionally biased direction.

I am unaware of any forum for heterosexual people, where asexuals spend time clearing up misconceptions about asexuality so that heterosexuals aren't incorrectly labelling themselves as heterosexual when they aren't. The absurdity of that situation reveals the absurdity of the situation that you describe on AVEN.

Well, the definition doesn't go both ways. You need to know what sexuality is to know what asexualist is, but you don't need to know what asexuality is to know what sexuality it. This is because a majority of people KNOW what sexuality is instinctively, and society pins sexuality as the "norm". Basically, society says, "You have to be sexual ebcause everyone is sexual." It may be an incorrect statement, but that's still how society acts.

 

But as earlier stated. Asexuality basically means "not sexual". It comes from the prefix, "a-" meaning "not" or "without". and "Sexuality". Basically saying "Asexual" is "not sexual" and "asexuality" is "without sexuality".

 

Yet you cannot say the reverse is true. You can't say sexual means "not asexual" and sexuality is "without asexuality". Because you don't have a prefix there.

 

But Asexuality ISN'T the only sexual orientation whose definition is dependant on another. The definition of "pansexual" is dependant on the definition of "bisexual". Perhaps for not the same reasons, but it's still a fact. Because some people say "bisexual" is sexually attracted to anyone. If that's true, then you don't need the word "pansexual", right? But some people say "bisexual" means "sexual attraction to two genders". In which you do need pansexual and polysexual whose definitions are "attraction to all genders" and "attraction to many genders" respectively.

 

Language is constantly evolving. Before David Jay coined the term, "Asexual" wasn't even heard of. But since it's come around, it's cause many other terms to be coined like "grey-asexual" and "demisexual". And with these new terms in existence, we need to consider how they relate to already existing terms. Because people that are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual are not going to all change their terms just because the term "asexual" has popped into existence. And they aren't gong to know that we exist, ans the term is fairly new. So we have to understand how THEY feel and find out how to explain ourselves in RELATION TO them. Which I'll admit, that kinda sucks. But one of the first question when an asexual comes out of the kitchen (Get it? Like "Come out of the closet." except our stereotype is cake and not clothes.) is "What is asexual?", and the other is "How do you know you're asexual?" Just like asexuals can't know what sexuality feels like, sexuals can't know what asexuality feels like. Because neither has experienced the other, so we have to know how THEY feel to explain how WE feel. In short, we have to say, "You experience this, and we don't." But it's really hard to make them understand by just saying, "I don't experience sexual attraction." It just doesn't make sense to them (in my experience).

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Pramana said:

One of the biggest problems with discussions on AVEN is that people invalidly move from statements of subjective experience to objective claims, usually because of the way that a particular interpretation of a subjective experience has become important to their individual self-narrative. For that reason, these discussions tend be pushed in an exceptionally biased direction.

I am unaware of any forum for heterosexual people, where asexuals spend time clearing up misconceptions about asexuality so that heterosexuals aren't incorrectly labelling themselves as heterosexual when they aren't. The absurdity of that situation reveals the absurdity of the situation that you describe on AVEN.

The thing is, everyone (outside of the ace community) instinctively knows what 'heterosexual' means (just like bisexual and homosexual). It's only in this community that no one can agree upon on what asexuality even means (as very few people - being asexual - have much of a grasp on what it actually means to be sexual.)

 

21 minutes ago, FaerieFate said:

Before David Jay coined the term, "Asexual" wasn't even heard of (to define sexual orientation)

While I know this is a common belief in the asexual community I actually found evidence that asexuality was used to define someone who has no interest in partnered sex (but may still masturbate) in a song from way back in the 80's (though it sounds a lot older!). This leads to me to believe that people were using the term 'asexual' to define 'someone who has no interest in partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure' for some time, but it just never really made it into popular culture.

 

The 'evidence' I have for this is a song where a man is singing about the asexual girl he is lusting after. He says things like

 

''her only interest is electronic toys, she's not the kind of girl who plays with boys'' (lots of people speculate whether that line is referencing a vibrating dildo, which have been popular since the 60's and became even more 'visible' in advertising and stuff in the 80's, so it wouldn't necessarily be out of place to mention one) 

 

''makin' love never crosses her mind''

 

''I can't believe that she's so unaware, her lights are on but no one's home downstairs''

 

''I say let's get together we could have a lot of fun, she says she'll be right over but you know she'll never come'' (is this a reference to the fact that she won't have a partnered orgasm with him?) and 

 

''I understand that she's got no desire, I just wish she wouldn't set me on fire''

 

.. I'll link the song for you here, and anyone else interested.

 

David Jay certainly wasn't the first person to talk about asexuality, or to try to define it, but I do believe that initially his opinions were much more in line with what they're saying in the song based on some of the comments I've seen him make in interviews (he has said things like 'I don't experience sexual attraction - I just don't want sex' - as though those two things were one and the same for him when he initially defined it). Now he says things like 'asexuality is anything you want it to be!' but I personally think it's unfortunate that so many look to the way he defines it for guidance. He's the person who created AVEN, but he took a term that was clearly already being used to describe a very specific experience, tried to define it as best as he could, popularized it, and now there's all this conflict over it!!

 

I hope you enjoy the A-sexy song

 

 

[fuzzipueo]

On 2/12/2018 at 10:17 PM, Pramana said:

We've accepted that an asexual might desire at least some sex to satisfy curiosity.

The problem with this sentence is the word "desire". An asexual might seek out sex to satisfy curiosity and answer the question 'will I enjoy it?' but desire for sex never comes into the picture. I know this as personal experience (which I'm sure will get dismissed, because it's subjective), for all that I never followed through with idea. In the end, it just wasn't worth my time and effort.

[Snao Cone]

3 minutes ago, fuzzipueo said:

The problem with this sentence is the word "desire". An asexual might seek out sex to satisfy curiosity and answer the question 'will I enjoy it?' but desire for sex never comes into the picture. I know this as personal experience (which I'm sure will get dismissed, because it's subjective), for all that I never followed through with idea. In the end, it just wasn't worth my time and effort.

I have also had a curiosity to satisfy that did not end up being any deeper desire for sex itself. Relating to people with similar experiences is more important to me, personally, than academic studies. 

[FaerieFate]

3 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

While I know this is a common belief in the asexual community I actually found evidence that asexuality was used to define someone who has no interest in partnered sex (but may still masturbate) in a song from way back in the 80's (though it sounds a lot older!). This leads to me to believe that people were using the term 'asexual' to define 'someone who has no interest in partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure' for some time, but it just never really made it into popular culture.

 

The 'evidence' I have for this is a song where a man is singing about the asexual girl he is lusting after. He says things like

 

''her only interest is electronic toys, she's not the kind of girl who plays with boys'' (lots of people speculate whether that line is referencing a vibrating dildo, which have been popular since the 60's and became even more 'visible' in advertising and stuff in the 80's, so it wouldn't necessarily be out of place to mention one) 

 

''makin' love never crosses her mind''

 

''I can't believe that she's so unaware, her lights are on but no one's home downstairs''

 

''I say let's get together we could have a lot of fun, she says she'll be right over but you know she'll never come'' (is this a reference to the fact that she won't have a partnered orgasm with him?) and 

 

''I understand that she's got no desire, I just wish she wouldn't set me on fire''

 

.. I'll link the song for you here, and anyone else interested.

 

David Jay certainly wasn't the first person to talk about asexuality, or to try to define it, but I do believe that initially his opinions were much more in line with what they're saying in the song based on some of the comments I've seen him make in interviews (he has said things like 'I don't experience sexual attraction - I just don't want sex' - as though those two things were one and the same for him when he initially defined it). Now he says things like 'asexuality is anything you want it to be!' but I personally think it's unfortunate that so many look to the way he defines it for guidance. He's the person who created AVEN, but he took a term that was clearly already being used to describe a very specific experience, tried to define it as best as he could, popularized it, and now there's all this conflict over it!!

 

I hope you enjoy the A-sexy song

Well, I didn't mean to imply that David Jay was the first to use the term period. I know a few people that used it before they found AVEN, so it's not farfetched to think that people used it before David Jay. I meant he popularized it, normalized it, and put it in the face of mainstream with his talks and interviews. Before David Jay, some people identified as it, and there were aces that used other terms, but it wasn't really a "thing" until AVEN came about. Even now it's not always taken as a serious orientation!

[Guest]

5 hours ago, fuzzipueo said:

The problem with this sentence is the word "desire". An asexual might seek out sex to satisfy curiosity and answer the question 'will I enjoy it?' but desire for sex never comes into the picture. I know this as personal experience (which I'm sure will get dismissed, because it's subjective), for all that I never followed through with idea. In the end, it just wasn't worth my time and effort.

Exactly, as an asexual i’ve never had the desire to have sex not even to a small degree.Not that i can’t have sex but i just don’t want it. I honestly find your anology far more fitting then the assumption “asexuals desire at least some sex out of curiosity”. That doesn’t make any sense! And i’m a 100% sure that as a teen the only thing i worried about were my games, not having sex with a potential partner out of “curiosity” or what term would be fitting enough for my sexuality. I only ever wondered that in my mid 20’s.

[Pramana]

Given patterns of participation, I'm increasingly of the view that these debates are really about sexual people for whom a sexuality identity has become really important to their sense of self-esteem, probably because of the idiosyncratic personal histories that originally brought them into contact with the asexual community. For that reason, it's an interesting question whether these debates actually have anything to do with asexuality at all.

[Sally]

4 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

 very few people - being asexual - have much of a grasp on what it actually means to be sexual.)

 

Those of us who have had personal relationships with sexuals DO know what it means to be sexual.  We may not be able to feel it, but we've been with someone who has, and they've both talked about it with ius and demonstrated it to us.  I'm beginning to wish we didn't make this rather artificial barrier between sexuals and asexuals in this regard.  Lack of experience doesn't always mean lack of knowledge.   I know how my partner feels/felt about the physical and emotional aspects of sex.  Thus I don't think I stereotype sexuals:  I don't think they all walk down the street and want to bang everyone they see; I don't think they care only about sex in a relationship; I don't think they would all be happy just having sex with a third person and keeping their love relationship with their main partner.  Those are stereotypes that I see asexuals who haven't had relationships with sexuals have, and those are also stereotypes that I see sexuals portray all asexuals as having.   Let's let go of them; they keep us farther apart than we already are.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sally said:

Those of us who have had personal relationships with sexuals DO know what it means to be sexual.  We may not be able to feel it, but we've been with someone who has, and they've both talked about it with ius and demonstrated it to us.  I'm beginning to wish we didn't make this rather artificial barrier between sexuals and asexuals in this regard.  Lack of experience doesn't always mean lack of knowledge.   I know how my partner feels/felt about the physical and emotional aspects of sex.  Thus I don't think I stereotype sexuals:  I don't think they all walk down the street and want to bang everyone they see; I don't think they care only about sex in a relationship; I don't think they would all be happy just having sex with a third person and keeping their love relationship with their main partner.  Those are stereotypes that I see asexuals who haven't had relationships with sexuals have, and those are also stereotypes that I see sexuals portray all asexuals as having.   Let's let go of them; they keep us farther apart than we already are.

I should have explained clearer. I was saying that the *reason* no one in the ace community can agree on the definition of asexuality is due specifically to all the misconceptions about 'normal sexuality' perpetuated right throughout community by all the asexuals who have literally no idea what it feels like to be sexual, or why sexuals choose certain sexual partners over others. I didn't mean that no asexuals understand what it's like (because you're right, there are of course those who do have a pretty good idea even if they don't want sex themselves) but it's because of all those who have misconceptions about regular sexuality that all these arguments happen. Believe me, I definitely agree that the stereotypes need to be done away with so we can finally have an accurate definition for asexuality.. but there are many members (even some very vocal ones who make multiple new threads about the topic monthly) who insist on clinging to the false stereotypes and claim that they're the only correct ones and sexual people don't really know what it's like. I certainly didn't mean that ALL asexuals hold these misconceptions though.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

Given patterns of participation, I'm increasingly of the view that these debates are really about sexual people for whom a sexuality identity has become really important to their sense of self-esteem, probably because of the idiosyncratic personal histories that originally brought them into contact with the asexual community. For that reason, it's an interesting question whether these debates actually have anything to do with asexuality at all.

aaaand, what about all the asexuals who partake in these debates also? What would their secret motivation be for disagreeing with you I wonder? (because you know there are more aces here disagreeing with you than sexuals, right?)

 

That aside, you probably wouldn't know this as you haven't been around here for that long, but myself and many of the other members disagreeing with you (both sexual AND asexual) have been doing this for literally *years*, because we actually care about asexuality being something that is understood and accepted by the rest of the world. Many of us have lived the pain of being either sexual or asexual in a mixed relationship (something you've never experienced as far as I can tell?) and wish  to prevent that kind of pain happening to other people by educating as many people as possible as to what asexuality (and sexuality) truly are, as well as trying to ease that pain for mixed couples where possible.  If asexuals can love sex, and desire it for their own pleasure, then there would be no point in us doing this because obviously asexuals and sexuals would be 100% compatible and no one would have to suffer in a mixed relationship. Real life just doesn't work like that though I'm afraid Pramana. There are of course many other reasons for wanting to spread accurate education, like the fact that asexuality will be thought of as a joke identity if it continues the way it's going (what other sexual orientation has an 'anyone who wants to be gay is gay no matter who you want to have sex with' type definition? Oh that's right, none of them.)

 

I've had this exact same discussion with probably hundreds of people who have come here trying to spin the 'asexuals can love having sex and desire it for their own pleasure' rhetoric since long before I started identifying as sexual myself, and I'll have it with many more once you've moved on from this site too. 

 

Seriously Pramana, people don't have to be stupid or have strange alternative motives to disagree with you. We disagree with you because we have reached a very, very different conclusion than you about what asexuality is, based on our own experience (and the experience of others here). And yes, there is academic material that backs up our opinions, though you have made it clear that you aren't interested in seeing something that doesn't conform to your own personal beliefs about asexuality so I'll let you continue to live on in your safe academic bubble..wouldn't want to burst it by showing you that not all academics agree with you.

 

 

[Pramana]

4 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

but myself and many of the other members disagreeing with you (both sexual AND asexual) have been doing this for literally *years*..

Sounds obsessive. Perhaps indicative of people who have lost perspective.
 

5 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

There are of course many other reasons for wanting to spread accurate education, like the fact that asexuality will be thought of as a joke identity if it continues the way it's going (what other sexual orientation has an 'anyone who wants to be gay is gay no matter who you want to have sex with' type definition? Oh that's right, none of them.)

More evidence that these debates are really about identity politics.
 

6 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

And yes, there is academic material that backs up our opinions, though you have made it clear you aren't interested in seeing something that doesn't conform to your own personal beliefs about asexuality so I'll let you continue to live on in your safe academic bubble..wouldn't want to burst it by showing you that not all academics agree with you.

This is propaganda, demostrating that you don't understand the academic literature at all. Realistically, there's a reason why people go to university to study psychology. The material is complex and nuanced, and inaccessible to the layperson.

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Sounds obsessive. Perhaps indicative of people who have lost perspective.

Sounds like people who actually care that asexuality be defined accurately to me

 

48 minutes ago, Pramana said:

More evidence that these debates are really about identity politics.

Yes because it would be much more beneficial to every sexual orientation if they all changed their definition to ''you're so-and-sosexual if you want to be, it doesn't matter who you want to have sex with!''.. makes perfect sense.

 

48 minutes ago, Pramana said:

This is propaganda, demostrating that you don't understand the academic literature at all. Realistically, there's a reason why people go to university to study psychology. The material is complex and nuanced, and inaccessible to the layperson.

Yes, because clinical resources written for mental health professionals are mere propaganda  It's quite funny you say that though because, based on the material that I have, your claim that all academics are in agreement with you is actually legitimately propaganda! It's so deliciously ironic.

 

Also, out of genuine interest, which university did you study psychology at Pramana?

[Pramana]

9 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Sounds like people who actually care that asexuality be defined accurately to me

Perhaps people are placing too much importance on identity labels if they've become preoccupied with the matter to the extent you describe. The vocabulary of sexual orientation may be unsuitable for all the purposes to which the concept is put within the world of identity politics.
 

9 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Yes, because clinical resources written for mental health professionals are mere propaganda

The clinical resources are written with the objective of distinguishing asexuality from HSDD. So, lack of sexual interest caused by asexuality is not HSDD. But it doesn't follow that lack of sexual interest is asexuality. I think you're making a logical reasoning error when interpreting those resources.

[Guest]

 

Am i the only one who doesn’t get the point of this discussion? 

[fuzzipueo]

34 minutes ago, Jayce said:

 

Am i the only one who doesn’t get the point of this discussion? 

No.