Jump to content

Anti-sexual or asexual?


anamikanon

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Provided asexuality is defined as the experience of an internal psychological state (according to the traditional "born this way, not a choice" paradigm), there will always be some people who have a preferred behavioural pattern that differs from that typically associated with the orientation (because the human mind is so complex, people can develop different real world preferences for different reasons). On the other hand, if asexuality is defined according to a preferred behavioural pattern, then there will be a variety of different causes that might produce a lack of interest in partnered sex (many of which wouldn't be accepted as constituting an orientation within the traditional psychological framework).

For example, there are people in the community such as myself who do experience sexual attraction, but who have a strong aversion to the act of sex, and are unable to enjoy sex. So whether one calls that asexuality, gray-asexuality, or sex-conflicted sexuality is going to depend on which account of sexual orientation one follows. For those reasons, I have become less concerned with identity labels and more concerned with simply stating my real world preferences (i.e. I want nonsexual relationships).

But your situation fits the definition doesn’t it?

 

So, If we run with this idea though that an asexual does not necessarily have ‘no innate desire to connect sexually with other people for sexual and or emotional pleasure’ and therefore they can want sex, does that not mean it would be reasonable to suggest that someone who has no innate desire to connect sexually with another person, could in fact be sexual?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, James121 said:

But your situation fits the definition doesn’t it?

 

So, If we run with this idea though that an asexual does not necessarily have ‘no innate desire to connect sexually with other people for sexual and or emotional pleasure’ and therefore they can want sex, does that not mean it would be reasonable to suggest that someone who has no innate desire to connect sexually with another person, could in fact be sexual?

What happens with these discussions are that people are trying to stick together two incompatible intuitions about sexual orientation:

1. Orientations are innate/instinctual.
2. Orientations correspond with a preferred pattern of behaviour in humans.

The issue centres on which of #1 or #2 people want to relinquish. Following #1, we would ground asexuality in the same thing that makes animals asexual. Asexuality is observed in sheep, which exhibit a nonsexual behavioural pattern. However, humans are more complex than sheep, so even if a human lacks the same instinct as an asexual sheep (generally accepted to be a lack of sexual attraction) that human might still exhibit a sexual behavioural pattern, because the human mind is more complex people can develop non-instinctual sexual interests (contrary to popular intuitions about how sexual orientations should work). Of course, this is playing out in a socio-political context where the naturalistic "born this way" paradigm has significant political utility for LGBTQ and LGBTQ-inspired organizing like asexuality. For asexuality, that centres on distinguishing asexuality from celibacy, on the grounds that asexuality is not a choice.

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

No, asexuality is defined as a lack of sexual attraction, not an inability to enjoy sex. Likewise, other sexual orientations are not defined by ability to enjoy sex, but by directions of sexual attraction.

 

1 hour ago, James121 said:

So the definition of asexuality is wrong then?

When you think about it like this, it makes sense: When a man says he's gay, you 1) know he's someone who desires partnered sexual contact with other people for pleasure, and 2) know he means he prefers to have sex with men. No one thinks he means ''I'm a gay man because I absolutely love having sex with women, I would be miserable if I didn't have women in my life to have sex with and I honestly could never enjoy sex with a man. I do think men are very physically attractive to look at though, that's why I'm gay''... If a man went into the gay community claiming to be gay while saying something like what I just typed out, people would (politely I hope) tell him that he's not at all gay, he is very straight, or at the very least bi. Any sexual person can identify intrinsically that this man is not gay if he has no interest at all in ever having sex with a man, and only desires sex with women for pleasure, happiness, and sexual satisfaction in his life.

 

So a gay person is: Someone who desires partnered sexual contact with other people for pleasure, and has an innate preference that the sexual contact they desire be with people of the same gender. This whole concept is summed up (when it comes to sexual orientations) as - being sexually attracted to the same gender as yourself.

 

An asexual (if we are insisting on sticking away to using 'sexual attraction' to define sexual orientations) is someone who does not experience sexual attraction so has no desire to connect sexually with other people for pleasure in the first place, ever. That innate capacity that sexual people have within them that drives them to seek certain sexual partners over others to have sex with just does not exist in an asexual. The moment someone is CHOOSING specific people to have sex with, and has a preference to have sex with other people instead of NOT having sex (for pleasure I mean) then they're exhibiting clear partner preferences that may be hetero, gay, bi, or pan, depending on the genders of the people that person prefers to have sex with.

 

So even by the sexual attraction definition (though I prefer to just go straight to explaining it by lack of desire for partnered sex, because that's easier to understand) we can still see that an asexual does not have a desire to connect sexually with other people for pleasure. The moment they want sex with other people and have a preference for one sexual partner over another, they are showing a sexual orientation that is NOT asexuality (instead it's either bi, pan, gay, or straight).

 

I have to go down to my mum's now (staying there with my kids for the night) and Pramana will respond claiming my arguments are completely inaccurate and that no academic would ever agree with me. However, I have academic sources with me that claim the exact same things that I am claiming here (ie asexuals do not desire partnered sex for pleasure) which I will link here for you when I get back from my mum's tomorrow, if you want that @James121. Pramana will link plenty of his own sources of his own, while claiming there is total consensus in the academic community as to what asexuality is and is not, but the fact is, there is not a consensus. Asexuality has not been studied for long enough for there to be a consensus, or for there to even be a very good understanding in the academic community as to what asexuality actually is. Pramana will also possibly imply that whatever my sources are, I clearly am just not smart enough to fully understand them or I'd be agreeing with him (he's done this many times in the past). But yeah, at the end of the day it's up to you to go with your gut and decide what you think makes most sense based on all the information you are able to acquire. I'll link that stuff when I get home tomorrow if you're interested in seeing it :):cake: 

 

 

20 minutes ago, James121 said:

But your situation fits the definition doesn’t it?

 

So, If we run with this idea though that an asexual does not necessarily have ‘no innate desire to connect sexually with other people for sexual and or emotional pleasure’ and therefore they can want sex, does that not mean it would be reasonable to suggest that someone who has no innate desire to connect sexually with another person, could in fact be sexual?

And yes, that's one of the main reasons why so many people (including myself) want to ditch the term 'sexual attraction' completely and define asexuality by a lack of desire to actually connect sexually with other people for pleasure. We have many members in this community who do experience a type of attraction to other people that can be so strong it even causes them arousal, yet they have no desire to actually have sex with anyone else no matter how aroused they are. These people are still very much asexual, or grey at the very least if you'd prefer to define it like that. As opposed to someone who doesn't experience any deep-seated arousal-inducing type attraction to anyone, but still does desire sexual intimacy for pleasure, intimacy, bonding, fun etc.. the latter would still be a sexual person despite the lack of something that could stereotypically be defined as 'sexual attraction', because when they have sex they'll still be showing clear preferences for certain partners over others.

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

What happens with these discussions are that people are trying to stick together two incompatible intuitions about sexual orientation:

1. Orientations are innate/instinctual.
2. Orientations correspond with a preferred pattern of behaviour in humans.

The issue centres on which of #1 or #2 people want to relinquish. Following #1, we would ground asexuality in the same thing that makes animals asexual. Asexuality is observed in sheep, which exhibit a nonsexual behavioural pattern. However, humans are more complex than sheep, so even if a human lacks the same instinct as an asexual sheep (generally accepted to be a lack of sexual attraction) that human might still exhibit a sexual behavioural pattern, because the human mind is more complex people can develop non-instinctual sexual interests (contrary to popular intuitions about how sexual orientations should work). Of course, this is playing out in a socio-political context where the naturalistic "born this way" paradigm has significant political utility for LGBTQ and LGBTQ-inspired organizing like asexuality. For asexuality, that centres on distinguishing asexuality from celibacy, on the grounds that asexuality is not a choice.

I’m a little lost with regards to your explanation.

 

Are you saying that an asexual can....

 

1) be repulsed by sex

 

2) experience no desire to have sex

 

3) want to have sex with the right person for emotional reasons

 

4) want to have sex with someone for their own physical pleasure 

 

5) be sexually attracted to someone 

And finally....

6) experience no sexual attraction to anyone 

 

Can an asexual be any of, or a conlbination of any of the above?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

We have many members in this community who do experience a type of attraction to other people that can be so strong it even causes them arousal, yet they have no desire to actually have sex with anyone else no matter how aroused they are. These people are still very much asexual, or grey at the very least if you'd prefer to define it like that.

I'm glad you raised this, because I spoke with an academic who is the world's leading expert on this phenomenon (autochorissexuality), and his opinion was that despite this: 

 

6 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

And yes, that's one of the main reasons why so many people (including myself) want to ditch the term 'sexual attraction' completely and define asexuality by a lack of desire to actually connect sexually with other people for pleasure.

Asexuals might lack a desire to connect themselves sexually to others, but still have eroticism and pleasure when engaged in partnered sex!

That is to say it doesn't matter if you define asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction or a lack of desire to connect sexually with others. The real issue is whether you define asexuality as an internal psychological pehnomeon or as an external preferred pattern of behaviour phenomenon.

What I figured out after reading into the literature on sexual orientation (particularly the analytic philosophy literature, and also after consulting a few psychologists) is that there's a logical contradiction involved within the popular picture of sexual orientation, so people will have to give up something one way or the other (and in my opinion, people place too much importance on the concept to start with).

Now one should also keep in mind that this is playing out in an identity politics culture where there's perceived social value to belonging to a minority sexual orientation. So when people report that they love sex and enjoy it despite not experiencing sexual attraction, one should remember these social factors which may be biasing their subjective self-assessment. The more convincing stories of sex-favourable asexuals I've read tend to be those who only want sex on rare occasions. However, I would argue that this all speaks to too much importance being placed on sexual orientation.

 

4 minutes ago, James121 said:

I’m a little lost with regards to your explanation.

 

Are you saying that an asexual can....

 

1) be repulsed by sex

 

2) experience no desire to have sex

 

3) want to have sex with the right person for emotional reasons

 

4) want to have sex with someone for physically pleasurable reasons

 

5) be sexually attracted to someone 

And finally....

6) experience no sexual attraction to anyone 

 

Can an asexual be any of or a conlbination of all of the above?

 

Essentially, there have always been two primary definitions of asexuality within the community:

1. Lack of sexual attraction - which is the official community line and the interpretation followed in the academic research to date.
2. Lack of interest in partnered sex  - which creates overlap with voluntary celibacy.

And the problem is that they conflict with each other.

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

Essentially, there have always been two primary definitions of asexuality within the community:

1. Lack of sexual attraction - which is the official community line and the interpretation followed in the academic research to date.
2. Lack of interest in partnered sex  - which creates overlap with voluntary celibacy.

And the problem is that they conflict with each other.

How is asexuality ever going to be properly accepted in this world without there being a definitive answer as to what it is? I absolutely believe in asexuality but people can’t agree on what it even is. When something has too many variables, it can lose some credibility.

 

17 minutes ago, Pramana said:

The more convincing stories of sex-favourable asexuals I've read tend to be those who only want sex on rare occasions.

What is the difference between a sexual person with low or limited libido and a sex favourable asexual who likes sex rarely?

 

And lastly, how are we supposed to adhere to the Aven TOS regarding not invalidating asexuality if we can’t agree on what it is?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, James121 said:

How is asexuality ever going to be properly accepted in this world without there being a definitive answer as to what it is? I absolutely believe in asexuality but people can’t agree on what it even is. When something has too many variables, it can lose some credibility.

 

What is the difference between a sexual person with low or limited libido and a sex favourable asexual who likes sex rarely?

 

And lastly, how are we supposed to adhere to the Aven TOS regarding not invalidating asexuality if we can’t agree on what it is?

Those are all great questions. In order:

1. With homosexuality, for the most part there probably is one thing that makes people want same-sex sex. On the other hand, there are a lot of different factors that could make people lack interest in sex. For example, there may be a percentage of people who identify as asexual because they have mental health issues which prevent them from recognizing and acting on sexual feelings. I've talked to a few longstanding community members who are of this opinion, and for sure there's anecdotal evidence to support it, plus some evidence in the psychological research.

2. If you define orientations in terms of internal feelings/mental states, then the difference would be that one experiences sexual attraction (but has low libido), while the other doesn't experience sexual attraction (but potentially has high libido). If you go by behavioural preferences then they would both have the same orientation.

3. AVEN introduced the rule against invalidating identities because otherwise these identity politics arguments consume the forums, as people become heavily invested emotionally in their favoured interpretation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
RaccoonSoda
On 2/24/2018 at 5:41 PM, FictoVore. said:

Cupiosexual is (it hurts my having to type this lol), someone who wants a sexual relationship (for pleasure) but claims that they are still asexual because they 'don't experience sexual attraction'. When you ask them to explain this further, they'll say things like 'I love having sex for the pleasure of sex itself, it feels so good and it's very intimate and makes me feel so close to my partner.. but I don't get horny when I look at my partner'. Now, I will TOTALLY concede that people like this exist, they do!! But they're called normal human beings, not asexuals. Not every sexual alive looks at their partner and starts gagging for sex just from seeing them, that's a total misconception (and pretty cruel too) about the motivations behind the sexual behavior of non-asexual people.

 

The other thing I notice with 'cupiosexual' people (when they're claiming to be asexual I mean, and self-identifying asexuals who say they love sex will do this too) is if you ask them 'would you have sex with literally anyone alive no matter what they looked like?' they will still ALWAYS voice preferences as to whom they have sex with. There will be emotional preferences, personality preferences, and sometimes even appearance and gender preferences.. so what you have now is a 100% normal person who has preferences as to whom they seek sexual pleasure with just like everyone else.

 

Yes, of course people exist who care about things that have nothing to do with appearance when it comes to who they choose to have sex with, and there are also people who don't get horny and want to bang just from looking at their sexual partner, these people do exist. They're just not asexual. (this is one of the many reasons that a lot of people don't like terms 'asexual umbrella' and 'asexual spectrum', because many of the identity labels that fall under these categories describe very normal sexual behavior).

I am sorry, kind of late to the show and all, but I believe you are mistaken. Cupiosexual is the desire to be in a sexual relationship but not feeling sexual attraction; so I believe this is still, technically asexual.

It is one thing to like the idea of sex, and another thing to actually enjoy or lust for, or see someone and say ‘I feel like (excuse the language) banging him’.

 

Though this is just my view of it, and forgive me if I am wrong,but you should consider the fact that society has formed us to believe that sex is good, healthy and just the norm.

Thus, it is more of the like of the IDEA of sex, than the sex itself.

 

‘I want it, because that’s how I was raised, but I don’t appeal to the pleasures’

 

I think it’s just similar to wanting to feel normal.

 

(Again, forgive me if I am wrong, and pardon the inconvenience)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RaccoonSoda said:

one thing to like the idea of sex, and another thing to actually enjoy or lust for, or see someone and say ‘I feel like (excuse the language) banging him’.

Hey :cake:

 

This will be kind of long sorry but in short, if someone only wants to have sex to 'look normal' that's not cupiosexuality! That's still asexuality, but doesn't fall under the definition of cupio. Cupio people actively desire sex for pleasure and that's why they say they want sexual relationships. It's based on a misunderstanding of what makes sexual people want sex!! I'll explain further in this comment which will be long sorry but I just wanted to clarify first that if someone wants sex so they can try to fit in, or to look 'normal', or to try to make a partner happy or whatever, that's just regular asexual not cupiosexual - the defining factor of cupiosexuality is that you want the sex for your own pleasure because you enjoy sex, and you want it with someone specific (the person you are in a relationship with). And you'd be unhappy without  sex in your romantic relationships. But I'll go into heaps more detail now so hopefully this comment will make things clearer :)

 

 Cupiosexual people do actively desire and enjoy sex, hence why they desire a sexual relationship. They say they don't "look at people and want to bang them" and it's that which makes them ace. 

 

HOWEVER

 

 Not all sexual people see someone and think or say "I feel like banging him/her". Only some sexual people (especially teen boys) experience their sexuality that way. There are many sexual people who need to get to know someone or need to be in a relationship with someone before they can actually want to have sex with that person, or even those who need to have a romantic bond before they can even begin to desire actually connecting sexually with someone. So that's not asexuality, it's an aspect of normal sexuality. That's why I find the way sexual attraction is commonly defined around here very anti-sexual. By some people's standards, you're not a sexual person unless you walking around wanting to have sex with every attractive person who walks past you and if you don't experience that, you're asexual. But the percentage of asexuals would be massive if that was truly the defining factor because many, many people can't actively want sex with someone just from looking at them!

 

6 hours ago, RaccoonSoda said:

Cupiosexual is the desire to be in a sexual relationship but not feeling sexual attraction; so I believe this is still, technically asexual.

AVEN (in the General FAQ) correctly defines sexual attraction as "the desire for sexual contact with someone else". Sexual attraction, when it comes to defining sexual orientation, is the desire for partnered sex with people of a specific gender/s. Ergo, if someone (a self-identified cupiosexual) says they actively desire partnered sex, then they're automatically experiencing sexual attraction. They're experiencing a type of attraction that is causing them to desire sex with other people for pleasure and intimacy. 

 

6 hours ago, RaccoonSoda said:

but you should consider the fact that society has formed us to believe that sex is good, healthy and just the norm.

Thus, it is more of the like of the IDEA of sex, than the sex itself.

 

‘I want it, because that’s how I was raised, but I don’t appeal to the pleasures’

 

I think it’s just similar to wanting to feel normal.

 That's different. Many asexuals have sex to try to make themselves 'look normal'. Some force themselves to have sexual relationships (even though they'd be happiest without sex) out of guilt, thinking there's something wrong with them or that they won't be accepted if they don't. Some even have sex because they love their partner and don't want their partner to leave them. Some have it to try 'fit in' with their peers. The difference is though that an asexual will always be happiest without sex if that's possible for them. If an asexual's partner suddenly said "honey, I love cuddles and kisses but I just don't get anything out of sex, could we please never have sex again?" the ace would be overjoyed by that!! Whereas the vast majority of the population would feel like something integral is missing from their romantic intimacy without sex.

 

Cupiosexual people actively desire sex for pleasure (that's an important part of the identification) and would be unhappy without it, but they just assume that all sexual people look at people and want to bang them (that's incorrect). As a result of this false assumption, they think they must be asexual because they don't look at people and want to bang them. So it's just a misunderstanding that led some people to think cupiosexuality is part of asexuality. It's not, it's a normal aspect of regular sexuality.

 

If someone wants a sexual relationship so they can 'look normal', that's not cupiosexuality, it's asexuality.

 

Does that help clear things up? :) Sorry it was so long!

 

(Edit: and it's also worth noting that the term cupiosexual was invented by a 15 year old girl on Tumblr) 😛

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...