What is the point of saying you’re Asexual?

[Ms. Carolynne]

@Winter McCoy I can see where you're coming from, I'd be careful with your phrasing though.

 

I definitely agree that it's odd to have tons of sex, and be sexually active as an asexual. I'm not sure how that pans out without any sexual attraction.

 

It is supposedly possible to have, and even enjoy sex without attraction though.

 

But there is some ambiguity as from what I understand there are two valid definitions, and yours is one of them, and theirs is the other

 

I'll quote FaerieFate's thread on this one

 

TBH, it has confused me some too. 

 

By the first definition, in regards to attraction, I am gray-asexual as I feel a negligible amount of sexual attraction sometimes.

 

By the second definition, having no desire for partnered sex, it is fair to say I'm asexual, as I have never wanted sex or a sexual relationship with another person.

 

So you might see why there is some leeway, and why the "true" ace thing is touchy. Besides, I don't think it's fair to push out those in the gray area, especially those who identify more closely with asexuality, and face the same issues.

[Winter McCoy]

‘Be careful with my phrasing’? Is this the Mafia? If I say the wrong thing am I going to be made to sleep with the fishes?

 

sorry that’s not directed at you at all and I see your point. I’m just noticing that anyone who dares to disagree with the ‘Anyone who wants to can call themselves asexual’ thing gets shouted down (Or possibly ‘disappeared’ in the night considering how nervous everyone seems to be!) 

 

i think that tightening up the actual definition would solve a lot of these problems. 

[Winter McCoy]

Maybe there IS no such thing as Asexual and we’re all just nuts. 

[Alejandrogynous]

Elitism is something that the asexual community has dealt with for a very long time, so there's a lot of history there that can be tricky to navigate if you're just getting into the community. Basically, there used to be a huge problem with people saying that in order to be asexual, one couldn't have sex, couldn't compromise with their partners, couldn't masturbate or have a libido or ever think about sex, had to be 100% repulsed and virginal, etc. and anybody who didn't fit this wasn't a 'true asexual'. There was a lot of fight against this (naturally), and as with most kinds of push-back, it swung a little too far into the opposite extreme. 

 

"Compromise doesn't mean I'm not asexual" --> "You don't have to hate sex to be asexual" --> "Asexuals can even LOVE sex!"

 

Not ideal, but that's just the way it often goes.

 

AVEN's policy is that nobody can directly invalidate anybody else's identities, which can feel like a hassle but doesn't mean you can't have and share your opinions. You just have to pay attention to how you word things, for instance, "such-and-such traits don't fit with my understanding of asexuality" vs "you're not a real asexual if you do such-and-such."

 

31 minutes ago, Winter McCoy said:

i think that tightening up the actual definition would solve a lot of these problems.

This is a debate that has been ongoing for yeeeeaaars, and if you look into any (of the many many many) past threads on it, you'll see just how vocal people can be with your/our views on asexuality. Folks just have to be tactful about how they state it, is all. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Winter McCoy said:

I see. I’ll be honest, I just find it odd and a bit offensive. I don’t think I’m better than people who have sex,  I’m not disgusted by it and I sure as hell don’t think I’m the next stage in evolution (humankind would be doomed!) but, to me, not being interested in sex is what makes you Asexual.  For example, a woman who calls herself a lesbian but only has sex with men and enjoys sex with men is, to my mind, not a lesbian. I think you can be asexual and not be a virgin, same way you can be gay but have had a relationship with the opposite sex at some point in your past. You can also be asexual and have sex just because your partner wants to and you lovd them and don’t loathe it so you do it to please them. To me, it’s almost like appropriation or something when someone who is enthusiastically shagging rings round them calls themselves asexual, and I can see how those who have come to the realisation that they are asexual after years of struggle and social stigma because they don’t like/avoid sex can feel put out and excluded again.  

 

Anyway, that’s just my opinion and people can take it leave it. 

 

 

That opinion is perfectly valid and acceptable. 

 

40 minutes ago, Winter McCoy said:

‘Be careful with my phrasing’? Is this the Mafia? If I say the wrong thing am I going to be made to sleep with the fishes?

 

sorry that’s not directed at you at all and I see your point. I’m just noticing that anyone who dares to disagree with the ‘Anyone who wants to can call themselves asexual’ thing gets shouted down (Or possibly ‘disappeared’ in the night considering how nervous everyone seems to be!) 

 

i think that tightening up the actual definition would solve a lot of these problems. 

Haha oh, we have definition debates all the time and there are people strongly on both sides of the fence so they never tend to end up anywhere. But, yes, there are a lot of people who want to tighten up the definition. Then there are others who want it to stay loose. And there have been many, many, many hours spent debating this, through hundreds of pages of threads. No consensus was ever reached.

 

And the phrasing is just be careful so you don't end up on the wrong side of the ToS. AVEN's founder actually calls asexuality a tool, not a label and that anyone should pick it up if they feel it helps. So, that tends to be the official stance. And the invalidation rules are pretty strict. However, that doesn't mean you have to agree with the official stance, you're free to disagree.

[Winter McCoy]

Gotcha! Thanks for the history lesson. 

[Winter McCoy]

3 minutes ago, Serran said:

That opinion is perfectly valid and acceptable. 

 

Haha oh, we have definition debates all the time and there are people strongly on both sides of the fence so they never tend to end up anywhere. But, yes, there are a lot of people who want to tighten up the definition. Then there are others who want it to stay loose. And there have been many, many, many hours spent debating this, through hundreds of pages of threads. No consensus was ever reached.

 

And the phrasing is just be careful so you don't end up on the wrong side of the ToS. AVEN's founder actually calls asexuality a tool, not a label and that anyone should pick it up if they feel it helps. So, that tends to be the official stance. And the invalidation rules are pretty strict. However, that doesn't mean you have to agree with the official stance, you're free to disagree.

Ok.  Boy, the LGBT community actually have it easier in that sense. At least they can all agree on definitions! 

[Winter McCoy]

@Serran so is Asexual a sexual orientation at all? 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Winter McCoy said:

@Serran so is Asexual a sexual orientation at all? 

THAT IS UP FOR DEBATE

 

But, seriously, yes it is. The researchers are trying to pinpoint the scientific definition. Check out Anthony Bogaert and Lori Brotto. 

[Galactic Turtle]

17 minutes ago, Winter McCoy said:

@Serran so is Asexual a sexual orientation at all? 

Depends on who you ask. XD

[Winter McCoy]

Bloody hell people, my head is melted with all of this!😫 

[NickyTannock]

@Winter McCoy

Here's a wild question for you to think about: Is the lack of a sexual orientation a sexual orientation?

[Winter McCoy]

Maybe it’s a preference? Or a medical condition? 

[Telecaster68]

1 hour ago, Winter McCoy said:

the LGBT community actually have it easier in that sense. At least they can all agree on definitions! 

What do you mean by 'definitions'?😉

[Zoaea]

o.o Well medically speaking, orgasm releases dopamine and oxytocin, both are feel good chemicals. So, I don't see why someone couldn't be having fun having others stimulate that effect but yet not be attracted to them. I'm pretty sure that's what happens in a lot of Allomarriages anyway. =P

 

Also, as a female, I've noticed when I drop an egg my body might crave sex, but that doesn't mean I find anyone appealing or desire them. It can be a real conflict when you find something both gross and your body is mindlessly craving. lucky it's pretty weak and hasn't even really happened lately. Mostly when I was in my 20's. I figure that is nature pushing for reproduction and doesn't change my orientation. 

 

Also, before I knew any of this stuff, I thought I did have sexual attraction, that it was just weak. Turns out its only aesthetic attraction. It wouldn't be hard for someone that wasn't sex-adverse (like I am) to mistake that for sexual attraction I don't think. So telling someone that has conformed with society that they cant be asexual seems a bit overly harsh. 

 

Oh, and to the OP. I don't tell anyone really. Unless it is relevant then I think it will be useful. Mainly it's helped me stop calling my self broken and not feel like a freak. 

[Winter McCoy]

1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

What do you mean by 'definitions'?😉

Quit your messing son before I brain ya with your guitar!😉🤣

[Rhaenys]

21 hours ago, Winter McCoy said:

Ok so I admit I am new to this and I don’t mean to offend at all, I’m just confused. If you like sex and have sex frequently, then what is the point of even telling people you are asexual? To me it seems either pointless or a good way to start a fight, e.g “I’m asexual so I’m not sexuality attracted to you, but I’ll have sex with you because I have needs.” And if you’re romantic and in a romantic relationship, and like sex with your partner, then why bother? 

My friend I think you are confused.

An asexual wouldn't most likely have sex because they have needs usually it's because they want to make their partners happy, are curious or for other reasons. Despite doing that they won't usually seek it out like a sexual would.

[Philip027]

Quote

My friend I think you are confused.

An asexual wouldn't most likely have sex because they have needs usually it's because they want to make their partners happy, are curious or for other reasons. Despite doing that they won't usually seek it out like a sexual would.

I don't think he's confused, he's saying that he's run into people who literally say things like what you bolded.

[Curi]

8 hours ago, Winter McCoy said:

Bloody hell people, my head is melted with all of this!😫 

Prepare the tinfoil hats

[Lucas Monteiro]

10 hours ago, Winter McCoy said:

@Serran so is Asexual a sexual orientation at all? 

Some researches say that it is and others say that it's the lack of orientation. That it's still open for debate just like @Serran said.

 

Producing facts: Empirical asexuality and the scientific study of sex

Asexuality: A Mixed-Methods Approach

Anthony_F._Bogaert - One of the biggest researchers on asexuality

Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality

[binary suns]

@Winter McCoy asking for a difference in definition is equivalent to caring about how things are worded   

 

The definition doesn’t really equate to prescriptive universal truth. Definitions are descriptive.

 

Needs for sex are a part of sexual attraction. If an asexual doesn’t experience sexual attraction, they don’t have needs for sex. But there is more to sexual attraction than only needs for sex.

 

The definition may not be super precise, but this is actually already true of all words. Words are symbolic abstractions. They are very good at being effective and efficient, but pretty bad at being thorough and all-encompassing.

 

 

Sometimes communicating meaning requires a lot of words. 

[Homer]

On 11.3.2018 at 3:05 AM, float on said:

no such thing as true ace. please don't cross that line. 

I don't think that it was meant the way you seem to interpret it. There are people who use this "label" inaccurately (and sometimes deliberately so, for whatever reason) and there are people who are actually asexual. I think it's okay to point out the difference, even though the wording might leave room for improvement.

[Winter McCoy]

14 hours ago, Rhaenys said:

My friend I think you are confused.

An asexual wouldn't most likely have sex because they have needs usually it's because they want to make their partners happy, are curious or for other reasons. Despite doing that they won't usually seek it out like a sexual would.

I’m well aware of that. Yet that’s the sort of people I have been encountering, people who claim to enjoy sex and actively seek it yet describe themselves as Asexual. Which, to me, suggests either a misinterpretation of what an Asexual actually is, or a bizarre need for a label that is ‘different’, to the point of inaccurate appropriation. 

[Winter McCoy]

51 minutes ago, Homer said:

I don't think that it was meant the way you seem to interpret it. There are people who use this "label" inaccurately (and sometimes deliberately so, for whatever reason) and there are people who are actually asexual. I think it's okay to point out the difference, even though the wording might leave room for improvement.

Exactly. Cheers @Homer

[binary suns]

@Homer @Winter McCoy

 

I know exactly what was said. It’s not okay to get in the mindset that “true” asexuals are the standard we must all measure against. It is the same with any sexuality.  There is a lot of variety in how people feel and express attraction to each other, and the belief that standards rule who is true and who isn’t is invalidating erasure. Sexual identity is often in the grey area, and people lean on the best fit for them. 

 

 

 It doesn’t matter what was meant - and while I like to be someone who trusts intention, the message still needs to be said, so I said it. 

 

 

There is is no such thing as true asexuality, and do not find yourself crossing the line from “I believe [X] is sexual attraction” to saying “only [Y] are true aces”

 

It does not matter your intentions with some things. If you call someone a c*** out of intention of friendliness if that word is largely considered inappropriate, you done wrong. If you shoot the gun mistaking it for your lighter, that bullet still kills.

 

Elitism has existed long before this discussion, long before asexuality discussion in fact, and talking about “who is true and who is not” is a sore wound. Don’t cross that line.

 

This isn’t about you, so please don’t  take it personally. It just isn’t okay to brand one way of being ace as the true way. That is all. 

[Philip027]

Quote

It doesn’t matter what was meant

Meaning always matters in any form of communication.  Particularly here, since you don't seem to be catching the meaning of what was said.

 

All that was meant by "true asexual" is someone who is actually using the term appropriately, because there are very definitely "false" asexuals who don't.  Nobody here is trying to start a "only the most asexual people are really asexual" pissing contest, but there comes a point where it must be accepted that some things just don't fit inside the box and they have to go find a different box.

[Telecaster68]

3 hours ago, float on said:

“only [Y] are true aces"

I'm very happy to say that only people who feel no inherent desire for partnered sex are asexual, 'true' or otherwise. It's simply the definition of the word. 

[binary suns]

if meaning was universal for every human, asexuals would know what sexual attraction is, and non-aces would accept them! 

 

 

If meaning were universal to everyone, there would be no inside jokes! puns wouldn't exist! metaphor would be entirely unneeded! everyone would agree on what "god" means! 

 

Ironically, if meaning were universal for everyone, you guys would understand perfectly 

 

 

[binary suns]

you know what, I am sorry but I am not skilled enough to explain this all very well. So I'll make it as straightforward and simple as I can, and it's up to you to care to want to try to figure out what I'm saying - because you don't need me to explain it. you need to realize it yourself. 

 

Okay? here it is. (not just phil, nor just phil and tele and w.mccoy, but anyone who isn't following why I'm saying that meaning is subjective)

 

 

 

Understanding does not exist in language. Language is symbols. Abstraction. If understanding existed in language, books and sound waves would have sentience, hell, air would be effectively all-knowing as collectively it's carried every word ever uttered by humankind. 

 

Understanding exists in you. in your mind, in your consciousness, as a result from your experiences.

 

When you speak, you take the understanding you have, and compartmentalize it - however way your brain does it - and represents that understanding with words, then you speak those words. 

 

Then you trust the people around you to have a close enough approximation of prior understanding combined with working memory and mental gymnastics to not only apply their meaning to your words, but if they don't understand what you understand, to then recognize that they do not, and to take the time to sort it out - or ask questions in pursuit of coming to realize what you do that they do not. 

 

 

Understanding comes from experience. It is contained in our minds. It is never contained in the words we communicate. It is at best represented with them. 

 

 

 

[Telecaster68]

That's all well and good, but if you insist they must understand a word to mean something it explicitly excludes from its usual meaning, don't expect your new definition to get any traction.