Asexuality and bad experiences

[uhtred]

From reading posts here, its clear that some people are "innately" asexual - for whatever reason they don't have a sex drive.  In some other case though I see people posting who have had terrible sexual experiences. These can range from actual assault to very unpleasant or painful experiences with selfish terrible partners.

 

How can people who have had bad experiences know if they are naturally asexual, or if their lack of interest / disgust with sex is a reaction to these negative experiences? 

 

There is nothing wrong with not wanting sex in your life, but it would be sad for someone who otherwise would enjoy sex, to do without due to bad early partners. 

[Tasha the demi squirrel]

It's different person to person but I think the best way to tell if lack of attraction and/or desire is natural or due to experience is to think back to before the experience and remember how you felt then and if that ever changed

[Baam]

16 minutes ago, uhtred said:

How can people who have had bad experiences know if they are naturally asexual, or if their lack of interest / disgust with sex is a reaction to these negative experiences? 

Well it's really irrelevant. If you're asexual, you're asexual, no matter whether if you were always that way or your sexuality shifted in some way. A person's sexuality has been known to change anyway.

 

It doesn't make you 'less asexual' if you used to desire sex with other people and no longer do now. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

19 minutes ago, uhtred said:

There is nothing wrong with not wanting sex in your life, but it would be sad for someone who otherwise would enjoy sex, to do without due to bad early partners. 

Isn't it sad if someone could enjoy a life without sex, but never discovered it because they thought that it's abnormal not to have sex?

[Tasha the demi squirrel]

13 minutes ago, Baam said:

Well it's really irrelevant. If you're asexual, you're asexual, no matter whether if you were always that way or your sexuality shifted in some way. A person's sexuality has been known to change anyway.

 

It doesn't make you 'less asexual' if you used to desire sex with other people and no longer do now. 

True it's about how you feel right now and experience doesn't devalue asexuality no one should question someone else but many question themselves 

[uhtred]

I don't see it as a question of "devaluing" asexuality, but rather of people understanding their own feelings. The sexual / asexual situation isn't symmetric.   A sexual person knows what it is like not to have sex, but an asexual person may not know what it is like to have sex.  

 

 

[StreetlightDawn]

Listen, you don't think I've asked myself the same question?  I had trash partners. I spent years battling this notion that I'll like sex eventually.  But being asexual doesn't mean you had one too many crappy partners, it means there is a complete lack of sexual attraction.  I'm not abstaining from sex because I'm afraid of another terrible ride around the block, it is just my nature to not want it. Trust in people to know who they are and what they do or don't want.

[binary suns]

2 hours ago, uhtred said:

 

How can people who have had bad experiences know if they are naturally asexual, or if their lack of interest / disgust with sex is a reaction to these negative experiences? 

How do people who never had sex know they want it? how do people who have had a bad experience and yet are driven to overcome their emotional hang-up about sex, know they can want sex without the stress? 

 

It's instinct basically, and sure.... sometimes instinct can get covered by incomplete beliefs or pain from harsh experiences. I guess I don't know how people can know in the end. Self-acceptance, perhaps, patience perhaps, trust for sure. 

[binary suns]

a response to Baam's post that isn't honestly necessary and it's fine for anyone who doesn't want to read this post. Writing it out is more for myself, and I'm sorry I posted it, but w/e, hopefully my confused rambling here isn't harmful to anyone. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Baam said:

Well it's really irrelevant. If you're asexual, you're asexual, no matter whether if you were always that way or your sexuality shifted in some way. A person's sexuality has been known to change anyway.

 

It doesn't make you 'less asexual' if you used to desire sex with other people and no longer do now. 

 

I'm wary of such a claim... a person is not invalid for wanting a sexless life for any reason, that much is true. but people who want to understand "what" asexuality really is want to differentiate between ... well idk how to say it. but to differentiate between "natural" so to speak and "repressed" so to speak. 

 

Further, some people who are "repressed" do want to know if they are ace or not - they want to know if they can change if they heal, and if so, will prioritize healing that over other things. Further, some people who have trauma want more clarity in whether they should be preparing for a life sexless - or a life with sex - and either such folk would actually have meaningful differences in how they move forward depending on which is true. Not everyone "repressed" are these folk - but some are. 

 

additionally, while it isn't usually as big of an issue... with serious illnesses and other life conditions, people who are literally impaired can feel quite the appropriation imposed on their situation when people casually go "lol I'm so _____" and this can exist with asexuality. I wouldn't want to police people out of the asexuality community, but I believe it's more helpful to say, "if asexuality fits, might as well ID that way" rather than "you're asexual no matter what" - er, crap this doesn't target my concern perfectly. uh.. .

 

ok, here - the other aspect to that prior concern comes from my experience in how some of my identity has shifted. For me, it does actually matter "what used to be" because it was a part of who I am. So between the risk of appropriation, and the fact that our past is a memory that we might cherish, I just didn't feel comfortable with how you said "it's irrelevant. If you're ace you're ace, no matter your past" - that just really rubs me the wrong way... Sorry  

 

ugh and another nuance to this. You say "it doesn't make you less asexual" and the problem I have with that is that I am greysexual, because I am clearly and obviously less alike other asexuals. I think that it is very wise to say "it don't make you less of a person if [this or that]" and 100% agree with such a sentiment. but when you say "it doesn't make you less asexual" this to me implies that I'm either an ace or not an ace. I'm not either of those - I'm sort of asexual, and sort of not. I am, in fact, less asexual than most asexuals, and less sexual than most sexuals. but by your wording, it's implied I must be an ace... when I'm not. 

 

I'm sorry that I'm so sensitive to what you've said. don't think too much into it.. it comes from bad experiences in the past. It's nothing against you personally, and I probably am being annoying saying anything at all. What you said contained the information you wanted to say, and that in and of itself is important to remember. It's just that I needed to nitpick it 'cause of things contained in the implication that I doubt you intended to say. So, I'm sorry for bothering you...

[binary suns]

30 minutes ago, uhtred said:

people understanding their own feelings.

ah! this is the key - some people understand their own feelings without a need to have sex to "prove it" 

 

it is true though that some people do need to experience to really understand or trust their beliefs. I was one of them... just wish I'd known in advance that it was okay to not have sex - and to stop in the middle of it - and to tell someone pining adamantly for sex that they don't need you to get off. 

[binary suns]

@everyone so far the OP has not been hostile towards us. Becareful not to attack them just because they ask a question. so far, all that's been done is the OP asked a few questions. 

[Tasha the demi squirrel]

11 minutes ago, float on said:

@everyone so far the OP has not been hostile towards us. Becareful not to attack them just because they ask a question. so far, all that's been done is the OP asked a few questions. 

I was thinking along the same lines I understand the topic can be sensitive but questions are not always to mock they can be to better understand

[uhtred]

I see two different situations:

 

In one, someone has never felt sexual attraction. They cannot imagine enjoying sex under any conditions with anyone.

 

In the other, someone has had bad experiences with sex and based on those experiences they believe that they cannot enjoy sex. 

 

 

I would never suggest that people in the first category "try" sex anymore than I would suggest someone "try" a partner who does not match their orientation. 

 

In the second case though I think it would be useful for people to think about their feelings vs their experience. Someone who has felt desire but not enjoyed sex may not be naturally asexual. 

 

 

As far as trusting people to know what they want - maybe, but most people are TERRIBLE at actually knowing what they want about anything. They choose jobs they hate, partners who treat them terribly, have children they don't want, etc etc.  I think everyone can benefit by thinking about their feelings and choices. 

 

I'm aware some people will be offended by this.  If you are sure about your feelings, then I really am not talking to you. Its just a few of the posts here have seemed like people who were interested in sex, but had terrible experiences and from that have concluded that they don't want sex. 

 

 

 

[Telecaster68]

11 minutes ago, uhtred said:

most people are TERRIBLE at actually knowing what they want about anything

This is one of the major flaws in AVEN's 'you are if you say you are' philosophy. Humans, as a species, are bad at understanding themselves - we see patterns where there aren't any, we have strategies of dealing with the world that aren't realistic, and our brains interpret bodily feelings and convince us they're based on the wrong stimulus. That's quite apart from diagnosable conditions like anxiety and Asperger's which by definition mean people are having problems processing the world around them accurately. 

 

There are plenty of (mostly former) posters who initially identified as asexuals but realised that with the right person, they were sexual. There are plenty of asexuals who thought they were sexual for a long time. It's not so much orientations change, as our perceptions of orientations change. 

[Tasha the demi squirrel]

20 minutes ago, uhtred said:

I'm aware some people will be offended by this.  If you are sure about your feelings, then I really am not talking to you

I personally am not offended but if you know some people will be offended maybe the questions should have been worded a bit differently so as not to offend

 

6 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

'you are if you say you are' philosophy

This philosophy isn't a problem because it promotes the concept of not allowing others to define us only we can define ourselves 

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, Tasha27 said:

This philosophy isn't a problem because it promotes the concept of not allowing others to define us only we can define ourselves 

But people are wrong about themselves sometimes, so people who are clearly not asexual can claim to be and nobody can point this out, which feeds the whole special snowflake trope.

[Tasha the demi squirrel]

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

people are wrong about themselves sometimes, so people who are clearly not asexual can claim to be and nobody can point this out, which feeds the whole special snowflake trope

Even if someone is perceived to be wrong about themselves it isn't for others to assume they know them better that I'm sorry to say is arrogant and as for the "special snowflake" trope it is stupid to claim someone is trying to be considered special by identifying as an orientation that isn't as well known so that needs to stop

[Telecaster68]

4 minutes ago, Tasha27 said:

Even if someone is perceived to be wrong about themselves it isn't for others to assume they know them better that I'm sorry to say is arrogant and as for the "special snowflake" trope it is stupid to claim someone is trying to be considered special by identifying as an orientation that isn't as well known so that needs to stop

If someone is saying they're asexual but regularly seeking out sex because they like the emotional and physical pay off, they're not 'perceived to be wrong', they are actually objectively wrong about themselves. When they - and the rest of AVEN insist that nevertheless, they're asexual because they say so in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, everyone else is going to see that as special snowflakism.

[uhtred]

17 minutes ago, Tasha27 said:

I personally am not offended but if you know some people will be offended maybe the questions should have been worded a bit differently so as not to offend

 

This philosophy isn't a problem because it promotes the concept of not allowing others to define us only we can define ourselves 

Some interesting topics are controversial.  I don't mean to give offense, but at the same time I think its an important enough topic to be worth discussing even if some people are offended.  My feeling here is that its not the wording that is offensive, but the difficulty in indicating that what I'm talking about applies to some but definitely not all people.  Unfortunately in any social media discussion any statements tend to feel like they are addressed directly at the reader, and my questioning the feelings of some readers can easily be felt to be a question to *all* readers - something I don't intend.

[uhtred]

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

If someone is saying they're asexual but regularly seeking out sex because they like the emotional and physical pay off, they're not 'perceived to be wrong', they are are actually objectively wrong about themselves. When they - and the rest of AVEN insist that nevertheless, they're asexual because they say so in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, everyone else is going to see that as special snowflakism.

Part of this just comes down to people using different definitions of terms like "asexual". To some it is a complete lack of any sexual desire at all under any conditions. To others it is a lack of desire / interest in conditions where most people would feel desire - but not *all* conditions.   There are also people who feel desire for things similar to sex (like cuddling, kissing etc), but not for sexual intercourse. 

 

 

[TheAP]

9 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

If someone is saying they're asexual but regularly seeking out sex because they like the emotional and physical pay off, they're not 'perceived to be wrong', they are actually objectively wrong about themselves. When they - and the rest of AVEN insist that nevertheless, they're asexual because they say so in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, everyone else is going to see that as special snowflakism.

Doesn't this contradict itself? It matters whether people are objectively right about their identity, but it doesn't matter whether there's objective evidence that someone is a special snowflake, it just matters what people think?

[StreetlightDawn]

1 hour ago, uhtred said:

As far as trusting people to know what they want - maybe, but most people are TERRIBLE at actually knowing what they want about anything. They choose jobs they hate, partners who treat them terribly, have children they don't want, etc etc.  I think everyone can benefit by thinking about their feelings and choices. 

Fair point.  Self-reflection is a very good thing, that without, you are correct, can lead to regrettable choices.

 

I read your opening post as condescending instead of you asking a genuine question.  That's on me.  It's a knee-jerk reaction to the common question upon revealing oneself as asexual. "But how do you knowww you're asexual if you haven't had good sex?"  As someone who struggled with the question you're asking (how does one innately know they are asexual), it felt frustrating to be confronted with it again.  To me, there's an assumption in the question that zero self-reflection has occurred.  And that's kind of insulting.  But that's how I read it, which I see now doesn't mean that's how you "said" it.

 

To try and answer your question genuinely then: I don't think it's sad if someone who is sexual writes it all off and claims asexuality.  It's not on anyone to police how people identify, or to police if they've researched their own feelings to see if they've come to an accurate conclusion, or to police what even is an accurate conclusion for them.

[binary suns]

 

6 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

It's not so much orientations change, as our perceptions of orientations change. 

 

I think the difference telecaster says here is pretty important to remember. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Tasha27 said:

This philosophy isn't a problem because it promotes the concept of not allowing others to define us only we can define ourselves 

 

I think the self identity = absolute truth belief is hurtful, not helpful. It’s important that people come to understand that what they know about themselves is valid. and other people having aggressive or dismissive negativity about them is something to ignore. 

 

 

But forcing that on them is the exact same problem imo. Let them learn it, the nuance is easy to miss. 

 

 

If you aren’t careful, you’ll teach people to be sensitive bigots instead of confident asexuals. Telling someone to trust themselves when they’re facing wrongful criticism is healthy - but telling someone who’s asking questions about a sexuality due to a lack of knowledge regarding sexuality “you’re  ace if you say so” actually damages the community and their sense of self. And your own. That’s not the correct context of such a statement and people don’t really get that nuance very well. 

[Tasha the demi squirrel]

6 minutes ago, float on said:

Telling someone to trust themselves when they’re facing wrongful criticism is healthy - but telling someone who’s asking questions about a sexuality due to a lack of knowledge regarding sexuality “you’re  ace if you say so” actually damages the community and their sense of self

I was thinking more from the first situation you mentioned than the second 

[Telecaster68]

24 minutes ago, TheAP said:

Doesn't this contradict itself? It matters whether people are objectively right about their identity, but it doesn't matter whether there's objective evidence that someone is a special snowflake, it just matters what people think?

No, because it's two different things.

[TheAP]

13 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

No, because it's two different things.

Of course it is, but why does objectiveness matter for one and not the other?

[binary suns]

35 minutes ago, TheAP said:

Doesn't this contradict itself? It matters whether people are objectively right about their identity, but it doesn't matter whether there's objective evidence that someone is a special snowflake, it just matters what people think?

Objective is the wrong word I agree there. But when everyone thinks of sexuality as both an emotional and physical need for and enjoyment of sex, someone claiming they’re lacking sexual attraction then describing exactly what the social construct of sexual attraction is will certainly be laughed at, dismisses, and ignored. 

 

 

No one could get away with telling people they’re martians from the future, and then providing “proof” by showing their ID card from Google dated to expire in 2019.  

 

You aren’t a doctor just because you say you are and you aren’t ace JUST because you say you are. 

 

 

Here - is an ace someone who suddenly realized at 15 that they will never experience sexual attraction ever, or is an ace someone who noticed other people flirting and dating and said “huh, I’m not that way” and then they did a bunch of research and self inquiry and came to realize, “it’s clear to me that sexual attraction is not an experience I have”

 

onviously few aces are either extreme. But they sure aren’t ace “just because they say so” 

 

im not trying to say to police people out of the community that’s dumb. I’m just advocating for visibility over blind faith. 

 

This site takes “accept the person and support them” way too extremely. Support includes helping someone confused find meaningful answers. Support includes being brave enough to say “honey I’m sorry but the world doesn’t work that way” when it’s needed. 

 

My mom has been a very supportive parent but when I told her I needed money did she just give it to me? No she had her boundaries according to her experience and responsibilities, and those boundaries helped me to learn good financial sense as a result. 

 

[binary suns]

Identity isn’t slapping  a label on yourself and calling it a day. That’s get you fired from the storage job. 

 

Identity is is way more involved than simply going “I’m ace and there’s nothing more to say” 

 

 

 

[binary suns]

55 minutes ago, StreetlightDawn said:

To me, there's an assumption in the question that zero self-reflection has occurred. 

Yes! This exactly. Accepting a person for what they say they are is trust and, as a community let’s do that. There are already too many times in all our lives it doesn’t happen. 

 

 

 

But... saying “you’re ace just because you say you are” is equivalent to saying “sorry but I just met you so it’s your responsibility to explain in full diction everything about your sexuality so that I can believe you”

 

 

but how how to explain that equivilence.  if someone writes a post saying “I’m ace hello my name is pumpkinlover44” I’d say “hi and welcome  this is a community of aces so you’ll fit right in!”

 

but if someone says “hi am I ace? I think I have sexual attraction but I never could go through with sex” I sure wouldn’t say “yup, you thought maybe you’re ace and so that’s that - it’s fine - you’ve proved it, you're ace”

 

and so I have a problem with the statement “ace just because you said so”. Because it’s both fallacious and belittling of aces. 

 

 

(Sorry for piggybacking your post just to tangent away from it’s content) 

 

 

(ok now I posted way too much in this thread sorreeee will be mute for a bit now I got carried away)

[StreetlightDawn]

1 hour ago, float on said:

Telling someone to trust themselves when they’re facing wrongful criticism is healthy - but telling someone who’s asking questions about a sexuality due to a lack of knowledge regarding sexuality “you’re  ace if you say so” actually damages the community and their sense of self. And your own. That’s not the correct context of such a statement and people don’t really get that nuance very well. 

 

I really like this statement.  I get that people in the community are saying "hey, these are the definitions of these labels and it sounds like you are this. Or you aren't that."  It makes sense when one is questioning which label fits that the community would nudge them to an appropriate one. I don't mean to make it seem like I'm arguing against this.

 

I guess, I just didn't like the way the initial post read to me, which is that if you are talking about previous experiences that don't match the label you claim now, then maybe you should reflect on that.  As someone stated above, perceptions of orientations change.  We change.  Maybe the reflection has been done and it's not okay to question someone about that.

 

20 minutes ago, float on said:

(Sorry for piggybacking your post just to tangent away from it’s content)

Nah, no worries, I've really thought a lot about what everyone has had to say. I'm new and I want to know where my community stands on these issues.