Philip027 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 There is nothing up for interpretation or debate there. If you can experience sexual attraction toward someone, that makes you sexual. One would think that's pretty self-explanatory. The implication that it falls under some asexual umbrella/spectrum just because you're not feeling attracted to someone all of the time not only impedes asexuality visibility efforts by making it seem way more common than it actually is, but is also quite offensive to sexuals because it carries a further harmful implication that they're all uninhibited ravenous sexual beasts. Someone using this identity may at times feel like they can relate to asexuals and their experiences (same thing goes for demis), but that is still not the same thing as actually being asexual. Link to post Share on other sites
bare_trees Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 23 minutes ago, Philip027 said: There is nothing up for interpretation or debate there. If you can experience sexual attraction toward someone, that makes you sexual. One would think that's pretty self-explanatory. The implication that it falls under some asexual umbrella/spectrum just because you're not feeling attracted to someone all of the time not only impedes asexuality visibility efforts by making it seem way more common than it actually is, but is also quite offensive to sexuals because it carries a further harmful implication that they're all uninhibited ravenous sexual beasts. Someone using this identity may at times feel like they can relate to asexuals and their experiences (same thing goes for demis), but that is still not the same thing as actually being asexual. What if you experience attraction but no desire? Why is there an "ace spectrum" if there seems to be no room for variation? Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 8 minutes ago, bare_trees said: Why is there an "ace spectrum" if there seems to be no room for variation? I asked about this a while back and consensus seemed to be that asexuality is an endpoint, not a spectrum in itself, and that things like freysexuality, demisexuality, greysexuality, etc., are varyingly close to that endpoint but not at it. I’m told what was termed “the asexuality spectrum” is actually the entire spectrum of sexuality, meaning “ace spectrum” is a misleading name. Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 1 minute ago, bare_trees said: What if you experience attraction but no desire? Attraction is desire directed at a specific person, so that's impossible. 2 minutes ago, bare_trees said: Why is there an "ace spectrum" if there seems to be no room for variation? Precisely because of people trying to pawn off vaguely ace-like aspects of themselves as though it were full blown asexuality (usually while conveniently ignoring that the rest of the package resembles, in most cases, perfectly *normal* human sexuality) Personally, I don't buy into the whole ace spectrum nonsense. People are either asexual, or they are not. If you can experience sexual attraction, no matter how limited it is, that is an aspect that you have in common with sexuals, not aces. Link to post Share on other sites
bare_trees Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 2 hours ago, ryn2 said: I asked about this a while back and consensus seemed to be that asexuality is an endpoint, not a spectrum in itself, and that things like freysexuality, demisexuality, greysexuality, etc., are varyingly close to that endpoint but not at it. I’m told what was termed “the asexuality spectrum” is actually the entire spectrum of sexuality, meaning “ace spectrum” is a misleading name. I can see that. Instead of saying, "I'm on the ace spectrum," it would be more like, "I'm not asexual but fall close to it on the sexual spectrum." Link to post Share on other sites
bare_trees Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 2 hours ago, Philip027 said: Attraction is desire directed at a specific person, so that's impossible. Precisely because of people trying to pawn off vaguely ace-like aspects of themselves as though it were full blown asexuality (usually while conveniently ignoring that the rest of the package resembles, in most cases, perfectly *normal* human sexuality) Personally, I don't buy into the whole ace spectrum nonsense. People are either asexual, or they are not. If you can experience sexual attraction, no matter how limited it is, that is an aspect that you have in common with sexuals, not aces. Well, rather than trying to be some sort of impostor, maybe more of us just relate more to asexuality than to sexuality, and feel more comfortable in those spaces. I have had difficulties relating to my sexual peers all my life, and when I found this site about ten years ago, I thought, Wow--finally some people who see relationships the way I do! Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 18 minutes ago, bare_trees said: I can see that. Instead of saying, "I'm on the ace spectrum," it would be more like, "I'm not asexual but fall close to it on the sexual spectrum." Yeah, I think that’s where people were going with it. “I’m not completely asexual because XYZ but in practical application I might as well be.” Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 43 minutes ago, bare_trees said: Well, rather than trying to be some sort of impostor, maybe more of us just relate more to asexuality than to sexuality, and feel more comfortable in those spaces. I already accounted for that, and that's fine: 4 hours ago, Philip027 said: Someone using this identity may at times feel like they can relate to asexuals and their experiences (same thing goes for demis), Still doesn't actually make you asexual though. All it means is just that -- that you can relate. When these same people try to say they are asexual too, or on the same "spectrum" as us, or whatever (and there ARE people that do this), that's what tends to get some of our panties in a bunch. It's like a white person claiming he knows what it's like to be black just because he's experienced racism or segregation before. He will never fully understand what it's like because he is not black -- and the insinuation that he does is just likely to piss off black people. Link to post Share on other sites
Telecaster68 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Actually it's more like a white person redefining 'black' to include 'white' because they really like jazz... Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 I don't listen to music, so I'll just have to defer to you on that one 🤔 Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 While I think it makes sense to use something like near-asexual or functionally asexual to convey “I’m asexual in practice/nearly all the time, but not 100% there,” I don’t think the white/black analogy really fits. It’s more like the situation where someone has a bad reaction to a particular food but isn’t actually allergic to it. If the end result is that the person behaves as if allergic and never eats, they may find it simplest to say “sorry, I’m allergic to cashews” rather than trying to explain “I’m not really allergic to them, but they don’t sit well with me and give me the worst intestinal cramps ever, so please make sure they’re not in my food.” In a perfect world “I don’t eat cashews” would always suffice and no one would have to ride on the coattails of the truly allergic but... Link to post Share on other sites
The Dryad Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 It still falls under asexuality, so yeah, there should probably be more people talking about this, since I've heard sexual attraction can fade in other orientations as well. I know this topic was on an older thread, but it was asked if you've gone through menopause, or had surgery, or are a monk or nun, are you asexual? At first I argued, that clearly no- because that's not really an sexual orientation, considering there are choices and hormones involved. But thinking on it now, sexuality is something that you feel, and if your hormones don't allow for it, can you become asexual? Or train yourself to be asexual??? I'm so confused Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 11 minutes ago, ryn2 said: I don’t think the white/black analogy really fits. Why not? As far as I'm concerned, if it's an otherwise perfectly edible food that nevertheless makes your body react poorly upon eating it (in a way that goes beyond simply not liking the taste), pretty much everyone except maybe a really particular doctor/physician (who mostly likely annoys the people around him in other ways with his insistently precise ways) would accept it as an "allergic reaction", regardless of whether it technically actually is one. At least, I have never once heard anyone try to say "you're not actually allergic" to someone puking their dinner out (and has some kind of established history of puking out that particular kind of food) The white/black person thing, on the other hand, is something that actually comes up and stirs up controversy and debate in real life. Hell, maybe it's why asexuals are represented by black. Joking. Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 12 minutes ago, The Dryad said: I know this topic was on an older thread, but it was asked if you've gone through menopause, or had surgery, or are a monk or nun, are you asexual? At first I argued, that clearly no- because that's not really an sexual orientation, considering there are choices and hormones involved. But thinking on it now, sexuality is something that you feel, and if your hormones don't allow for it, can you become asexual? Or train yourself to be asexual??? I'm so confused None of those things will necessarily kill off sexual desires. Especially in the case of priests and such (you do watch the news every so often, right?) Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Around here at least it’s a fairly big deal, with people (or parents of people) who are actually allergic protesting that by claiming to be allergic when they’re not others are watering down the meaning, taking focus away from the possible life threat, and encouraging restaurants to treat accommodating allergies less seriously. Meanwhile those others may not be suffering in exactly the same way as the allergic people are but are still suffering enough to avoid those cashews. Link to post Share on other sites
The Dryad Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 10 minutes ago, Philip027 said: None of those things will necessarily kill off sexual desires. Especially in the case of priests and such (you do watch the news every so often, right?) That's exactly what I thought beforehand as well (yes I watch the news) but it's possible that some if those things can lead to losing sexual attraction to people, I don't know if that's particulary true though. For example, in the case of priests (I was referring to Buddhist monks and nuns) I've heard of temple prostitutes that they visit, but technically, they're supposed to be celibate people, just like Christian monks and nuns and priests. Link to post Share on other sites
The Dryad Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 26 minutes ago, Philip027 said: Hell, maybe it's why asexuals are represented by black. Joking. Ha. So funny. Not. Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 It's okay, you just couldn't ever understand what it's like to have my sense of humor, on account of not being me. 2 hours ago, ryn2 said: Around here at least it’s a fairly big deal, with people (or parents of people) who are actually allergic protesting that by claiming to be allergic when they’re not others are watering down the meaning, taking focus away from the possible life threat, and encouraging restaurants to treat accommodating allergies less seriously. Allergic reactions can take all shapes and forms, really. Just because one isn't life threatening doesn't mean it shouldn't all be taken seriously. Sounds like misappropriated blame to me. What exactly do those people want, anyway? For it to only be called an allergy if it's life threatening? Restaurants need to be held more accountable. My partner is allergic to a variety of things and the number of times she's been haplessly served peanut when she specifically mentions to the establishment in advance that she can't do peanut is appalling. Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Totally agreed on establishments (not) taking food allergies seriously (whereas they absolutely should). The response of some (understandably frustrated) allergic folks here (here in my geography, not here as in AVEN) reminds me of the “not quite ace enough” debate, though. Sure, there are probably a few confused, uncaring, or even malicious people out there who claim to be ace just to mess with people, but a lot of the “nearly ace” (grey, functionally ace, frey, etc.) people live lives so ace-ish and view sex in such an ace-like way that letting them lump themselves in with “real aces” does little harm... ...much like - excepting the folks with no food issues at all who are just lying about it to be funny, to “ensure their food is fresh,” and so on - the not-quite-allergic eaters are not actually making things worse for the truly allergic people. Link to post Share on other sites
Dawn Sharp Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 On 8/20/2018 at 7:24 PM, FictoVore. said: Some people (long-term bachelors for example) go their whole lives having very short term relationships because they just lose interest in their partners so quickly and need to move on to the next person. It's not losing interest and moving onto the next person, it's losig interest in having sex with that person, and continue to have a romantic relationship. SO it would count as casual sex (when having it), but not casual relationships. If I meet someone for a week, have sex with them and never again, is different than having a boyfriend for a year and not wanting to have sex with him. So, the asexual part is greater than the sexual one, thus making it good for the Grey umbrella. Getting into a short relationship looking for sex is not the same as not wanting to have sex with someone you had a serious relationship. Is not losing interest in a person, is losing interest in the sexual connection, but wanting to keep the romantic/emotional one for long time. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.