Jump to content

Dual asexual hypothesis


skepa

Recommended Posts

Hey there! I first want to start with saying that this post is controversial. If you feel like it doesn't apply to you, feel free to ignore it and not post comments, however if you have an open mind, and are able to accept change, than I would love some constructive criticism or comments below! :D

Also to note this is just a hypothesis and could be completely wrong, but I believe it has some merits and should be discussed.

 

This hypothesis is based off of anecdotal evidence, a small sample size of seven people, and scientific research.

 

To start things off when I finished reading Understanding asexuality by Anthony F. Bogaret, one thing stuck out in my mind, why do I Identify very well with some of what was said in the book, and not with others, There is a specific difference between, for instance asexuals that masterbate, and asexuals that don't, as well as asexuals with paraphilias and those without. Well It got me thinking, and after asking a couple of people how they would define asexuality without labels or asexuality terms, remarkably I got two different yet very distinct answers. The hypothesis I have formed is listed below:

 

Dual asexusal hypothesis: There are two main, yet distinct types of people that identify under the label asexual. Both of these types of people have legitimate claim to the definition of asexuality and both can be considered valid asexuals.

 

Here are the two different types of asexuals that I have found by asking different asexuals and some common traits among them:

 

desire-blind asexuals: This type of asexual is very likely to identify under the definition: Someone who has no desire for partnered sex.

The urge for sex for these individuals is not there, it is completely missing. This type of asexual also is likely to feel aesthetic attraction, and is easily able to identify emotionally with the following words (for themselves or others) (cute, handsome, good-looking, blushing). They may also identify with (hot or sexy) but possibly not. Sexual attraction energy directed at them, i.e. flirting and such, may be welcome, if they identify with the words hot and sexy, they may also enjoy directing sexual attraction energy towards others, I.e. calling them cute, or making others blush, even if they don't know the other too well. This type of aseuxal may also be sex-repulsed or sex neutral, and likely does not masterbate to paraphilias. Sex may also be described as boring, or uninteresting. This asexual may kiss their significant other because they look cute to them. The main idea here is they have some sort of attraction, but lack all desire.

 

attraction-blind asexuals: This type of asexual is very likely to identify under the definition: Someone who does not experience sexual attraction to any gender.

This asexual does not feel attraction, whether sexual or not towards any member of any gender. They will have a very hard time emotionally connecting with or have a complete lack of understanding of the following words: (hot, sexy, cute, handsome, good-looking, blushing), which means they lack some sort of aesthetic attraction. This asexual will miss all queues that someone is flirting with them, and will feel very uncomfortable, or uninterested with any sort of sexual desire energy directed at them from others they do not know well. The full attraction part of this asexual is missing, people are not good or bad looking to them, sexually or otherwise. This asexual enjoys masterbation, and may also have a paraphilia, but the paraphilia is always in third person, or unrelated to themselves in some way, and may also have nothing to do with sex itself (Bogaret). They also will enjoy certain types of sex for the sole purpose of intimacy, and will feel no other reason to have sex. This asexual may kiss their significant other in order to feel intimate with them. The main point here is they may have some sort of desire, but lack all attraction.

 

Reasons for legitimacy:

The reason why both of these asexuals can legitimately be defined as asexual is because from the official definition of asexuality on the front page of asexuality.org: An asexual person is a person who does not experience sexual attraction. Desire-blind asexuals define sexual attraction as specifically related to having sex, and the emotions they do not feel in those cases. attraction-blind asexuals define sexual attraction as specifically related to not feeling sexual attraction (as in physical or mental as defined above) with anyone they see or view or imagine.

 

Thus both of these types of people are legitimate asexuals, each with their own legitimate definitions of sexual attraction. This hypothesis resonates highly with the Stanford research listed here: https://news.stanford.edu/2015/02/23/asexuality-studies-scholar-022315/

which also defines two different types of asexuals (romantic asexual and a-romantic sexual), which correlate highly with the above definitions, I have come up with the above definitions independently from the Stanford research.

 

There may also be a third type of asexual whom is both desire and attraction blind. More research would be necessary for this, as I've only encountered the first two when talking with the small sample size of asexuals. Of course a larger sample size would allow for better more conclusive results, but I think at least this may be a good starting point.

 

Again if you are going to leave a comment, PLEASE DO NOT start shouting about how one type is not a true asexual, for this or that reason, or that one type of asexual is more "pure"  than the other, those words are extremely damaging to the community and are very hurtful, again these definitions are provided by self labelling asexuals, so any of these types of comments is essentially identifying and labelling them against their will. Furthermore PLEASE DO NOT start stating as fact what you believe to be sexual attraction, for the same reasons listed above. It is a highly highly subjective term. The official definition of sexual attraction is that there is no officially accepted definition, and trying to define it is again literally identifying these asexuals against their will. Perhaps this hypothesis may actually start to clear up that definition as well.

 

If you have constructive criticism, or would like to add your own experiences, or if you fit under attraction-blind, desire-blind, both or neither, or think that you do, but the above definitions might not completely apply, please comment below! I would love to hear what you might think, Thank you!! :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Boegart himself says (in Understanding Asexuality) that asexuals (by the sexual attraction definition) lack a desire for *partnered* sex, but do not lack desire all together as many of them masturbate. This is why he says he prefers the sexual attraction definition, because it implies an asexual may still have desire, it's just not a desire that motivates them to actually have sex with other people. There is other academic material I can share that backs up this claim if you'd be interested in seeing it. When people say "asexuals lack a desire for partnered sex" they're clarifying the sexual attraction definition, not using a different definition... it's still all one definition. Many asexuals do still experience arousal and masturbate, yet these same asexuals still lack a desire or motivation for partnered sexual intimacy for their own pleasure.

 

Regarding sexual attraction, how it's being defined is integral to these discussions, because otherwise 'asexual' is 10 different things if there are 10 different people commenting who are all defining it differently. That's not the case for any other sexual orientation, and if asexuality is ever to be taken seriously then the same rules need to be applied to it. :):cake:

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

Boegart himself says (in Understanding Asexuality) that asexuals (by the sexual attraction definition) lack a desire for *partnered* sex, but do not lack desire all together as many of them masturbate. This is why he says he prefers the sexual attraction definition

 

if there are 10 different people commenting who are all defining it differently.

Did you literally not read my last paragraph about not defining sexual attraction in the comments? I disagree with Boegart defining sexual attraction, because I disagree that there is one type of asexual that can be defined in this way. Please do not do this further in this thread, thanks :D

 

This is my point, but I think the amount of people it can be defined down to is around 2 or 3. Thus the hopeful conclusion of this hypothesis would be to throw away the term sexual attraction, and come up with 2 or 3 new terms that fit the above self labelling asexuals, or to understand that there are now 2 or 3 multiple concrete definitions of sexual attraction, rather than keep the fuzzy term sexual attraction and lump both of these different asexuals together. If you define sexual attraction as one thing, you are literally throwing some of these people away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/03/2018 at 8:17 AM, skepa said:

This is my point, but I think the amount of people it can be defined down two is around 2 or 3. Thus the hopeful conclusion of this hypothesis would be to throw away the term sexual attraction, and come up with 2 or 3 new terms that fit the above self labelling asexuals, or to understand that there are now multiple concrete definitions of sexual attraction, rather than keep the fuzzy term sexual attraction and lump both of these different asexuals together. If you define sexual attraction as one thing, you are literally throwing some of these people away.

That's why it's better to stick to trying to get some base understanding of the sexual experience, how it feels for sexuals and how they explain what motivates them sexually as a kind of 'starting point' for understanding asexuality. That's how I look at it anyway. Also, looking at the way it's automatically understood in other sexual orientations:

 

If a man said "I'm gay and I only desire sex with women, I have no interest in having sex with a man, ever" people would say he's not gay, he's straight and just very confused about that. Same if a woman said "I'm straight, but I only desire sex with women.. I'd never have sex with a man, ew!" ..people would explain to her that she's actually lesbian, and possibly has some weird kind of internalized homophobia or something preventing her from accepting that she's homosexual. If it works like this almost unanimously for other sexual orientations, then it would be undermining (in a sense) asexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation to use a different defining factor, would it not?

 

Also regarding those two definitions of yours,the way you were explaining attraction blind yesterday seemed to be saying that people who experience this may still experience  aesthetic attraction, but don't want sex with people based on their appearance, and don't have a sexual reaction to appearance or whatever. The issue with that is most 'desire blind' asexuals would also fall into that category,because while they can still find people very attractive, they still don't find them attractive enough to want to have sex with them :o (and keeping in mind also that 'desire blind' asexuals often still experience arousal and masturbate etc, some of them masturbate quite a lot!! So that part of your definition there may also need to be adjusted a bit).

 

And the way you defined 'attraction blind' here seems to be totally lacking any feelings of aesthetic attraction at all,whereas yesterday you more seemed to be implying only attraction that involves sexual motivation? Have you expanded this definition to include all types of aesthetic attraction now? 

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

yesterday seemed to be saying that people who experience this may still experience  aesthetic attraction

after some thinking I've actually come to think that I don't experience aesthetic attraction, and I define myself to be attraction-blind. I think attraction-blind individuals have a hard time understanding aesthetic attraction and the related words, and I believe that desire-blind asexuals don't, which is why I listed the words under each definition.

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

That's why it's better to stick to trying to get some base understanding of the sexual experience, how it feels for sexuals and how they explain what motivates them sexually as a kind of 'starting point' for understanding asexuality. That's how I look at it anyway. Also, looking at the way it's automatically understood in other sexual orientations:

I think that sexual attraction can be accurately broken down into desire, and attraction for sexual orientations. which is why the term sexual attraction is flawed inherently for a concrete definition, and why this hypothesis lists both desire-blind and attraction-blind asexuals as legitimate asexuals.

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

undermining (in a sense) asexuality as a legitimate sexual orientation to use a different defining factor, would it not?

I think apart of the reason that many of these terms are confusing and constantly debated, is because asexuality is looked at as a sexual orientation, rather than a lack of some sexual function. People don't say that color-blind individuals are just another color orientation, however that doesn't diminish the importance of the color-blind individuals. Once we get over these intellectual hurdles everything starts making a whole lot more sense.

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

That's why it's better to stick to trying to get some base understanding of the sexual experience, how it feels for sexuals and how they explain what motivates them sexually as a kind of 'starting point' for understanding asexuality. That's how I look at it anyway.

You literally have two different groups defining the same term. The starting point is not to start throwing people away, but to start listening to how others feel, and try to come up with a model that works for everyone. I see an astounding lack of empathy in your posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd look at the hypothesis from a slightly different angle. Using asexual as a common denominator the variables are libido/non-libidonist and attraction/no attraction 

 

Keeping things simple and not further categorised grey, demi and different forms of attraction I look at it this way.

 

A desire for solo sexual activities when there is no desire for partnered activities is determined by libido. 

Attraction. Different people experience different forms of attraction, romantic, sapphic etc 

 

So rather than dual asexual maybe quad asexual would be an alternative starting point for this hypothesis 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm definitely attraction blind. Not the first time I've heard this model - I remember someone else saying they thought there are two types of asexual, those who aren't interested in other people and those who don't want sex. (Can't quite remember the details)

 

Aesthetic appreciation for other humans can be learned, like aesthetic criteria for anything else. I've only really begun to to get my eye in for beautiful people in the past couple of years, and even now I don't think my criteria are quite the same as most people's. (Still don't see the appeal of most models and actors, have a preference for faces with a bit of age and character. Am a bit better at noticing good-looking men, but I don't know whether that's because I'm a tiny bit straight or because men wear less makeup)

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

I see an astounding lack of empathy in your posts.

You are confusing disagreeing with you with lacking empathy, they are two different things. I have clearly stated, multiple times now, that anyone here is still free to call themselves whatever they want, that there isn't even consensus in the academic community as to any of these definitions, and that I understand why you may want to come to with a new term for what you are experiencing. I am simply disagreeing with you on many of the things you say, and trying to point out the logical reasons why I disagree with those things. Also, I have been trying to clarify stuff for you (like the fact that what makes someone sexual isn't the mere fact that they have an automatic sexual reaction to other people - some do and some don't, and the fact that 'non-desire' asexuals still masturbate, etc etc). I have been kind in my disagreements and have tried to be understanding of why you may have come to some of the conclusions that you have come to, but just saying ''yes yes, I agree with everything you have said!!'' would kind of render the term 'discussion' meaningless.. It doesn't really count as a discussion if everyone just says ''yes, yes, I agree!''.

 

1 hour ago, skepa said:

I think apart of the reason that many of these terms are confusing and constantly debated, is because asexuality is looked at as a sexual orientation, rather than a lack of some sexual function. People don't say that color-blind individuals are just another color orientation, however that doesn't diminish the importance of the color-blind individuals. Once we get over these intellectual hurdles everything starts making a whole lot more sense.

I agree with this, but come at more from the perspective of: Sexual people - desire partnered sex for pleasure. Their orientation is the direction of their sexual preferences. Asexual people do not desire partnered sex, rendering sexual 'preferences' invalid (because you can't have a preference as to whom you desire sex with if you don't desire partnered sex with anyone).

 

1 hour ago, skepa said:

You literally have two different groups defining the same term.

You have one group who experiences the thing, and one group who does not experience it. If I wanted to learn what it feels like to experience polyamoury (as a random example of something I'm not), I would be most interested to hear the perspectives and experiences of people who are actually polyamorous. Sure, there may be monoamorous people who come along and try to give their perspectives on what polyamoury would be like, but only the polyamorous people are going to truly know. Or, as another example, if I wanted to learn what it was like to be a black American woman, I would listen to the experiences of actual black American women. A Norwegian man may try to explain as best as he can what it's like to be a black American woman, but only black American women are really going to know what it's like to be them. That's how I look at it anyway :)

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

Asexual people do not desire partnered sex,

I'm not going to keep replying to you if you keep IDing people against their will. Stop it. The whole point of this post is to discuss a hypothesis where the terms asexual and sexual attraction have different meanings from two different groups. Please stop replying to this thread if you can't understand that.

 

I listed the rules for comments of this thread. Please respect it.

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

... Please stop replying to this thread if you can't understand that.

This is not how I understand the AVEN forum to work. One opens a topic to start a conversation, this IMHO includes being open to opinions that are very different to your own opinion. That’s actually the only way IMHO to ever learn anything. 🌸

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thea2 said:

This is not how I understand the AVEN forum to work. One opens a topic to start a conversation, this IMHO includes being open to opinions that are very different to your own opinion. That’s actually the only way IMHO to ever learn anything. 🌸

The overwhelming majority of discussions try to define asexual and sexual attraction as one thing, the point of this hypothesis is to question that assumption. If the only posts are to bash it immediately, we are not really going to get anywhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
12 minutes ago, skepa said:

I listed the rules for comments of this thread. Please respect it.

You don't get to make the rules for threads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

You don't get to make the rules for threads.

I'm simply repeating the rules for all threads, that is, don't ID people, and one asexual is not more pure than another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Ficto wasn't IDing anyone, or saying anyone was more pure than anyone. She was talking entirely theoretically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Ficto wasn't IDing anyone, or saying anyone was more pure than anyone. She was talking entirely theoretically.

Saying that asexual people don't have partnered sex is IDing people who identify as asexual and have partnered sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skepa said:

Saying that asexual people don't have partnered sex is IDing people who identify as asexual and have partnered sex.

Having and want to have is two different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, skepa said:

... the point of this hypothesis is to question that assumption. ...

to question” , is IMHO exactly what Ficto is doing here. If you only want affirmation, then you could ask a mod to move the thread for you (I’ve done that once and it was done immediately); Tea and Sympathy would be more suitable I think 🌸

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
Quote

 

Saying that asexual people don't desire partnered sex is IDing people who identify as asexual and have partnered sex.

 

No, it's saying they don't desire it for themselves. They maybe having sex for procreation, because they enjoy giving their partner pleasure, or whatever reason they like except wanting sex for its own sake. If they want sex for their own reasons, and would go out seeking it, they don't fit any sensible definition of asexual.

 

Also, the IDing rule means specific, identifiable people, as in 'You say you're asexual [name of poster], but you're not'. It's not about definition discussions.

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

Having and want to have is two different things.

Good point 👍 That’s the crucial difference. 😊 Asexual means not sexual. An asexual does not want to have sex, but might compromise inside an existing relationship for other reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

No, it's saying they don't desire it for themselves. They maybe having sex for procreation, because they enjoy giving their partner pleasure, or whatever reason they like except wanting sex for its own sake. If they want sex for their own reasons, and would go out seeking it, they don't fit any sensible definition of asexual.

 

Also, the IDing rule means specific, identifiable people, as in 'You say you're asexual [name of poster], but you're not'. It's not about definition discussions.

Ok but still the whole point of this thread is that what if the definitions of asexual and sexual attraction had different meanings. Trying to define these terms to make a point fails to grasp the whole point of the thread.

 

I'm sorry, I thought IDing was if you define a broad group of people, it would count as IDing. My bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Maybe get a bit more up to speed on how the terms are used currently before proposing they're somehow changed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thea2 said:

Good point 👍 That’s the crucial difference. 😊 Asexual means not sexual. An asexual does not want to have sex, but might compromise inside an existing relationship for other reasons.

Yes but the question of this thread is if what if there is another definition for asexual as well. Both desire(want)-blind and attraction-blind. I.e. there are many asexuals that label themselves under both terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

Maybe get a bit more up to speed on how the terms are used currently before proposing they're somehow changed?

This post is based off of me asking self labeled asexuals what they define themselves as.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

No, it's based off you clearly not understanding the definition of 'asexual'.

 

15 minutes ago, skepa said:

Saying that asexual people don't have partnered sex is IDing people who identify as asexual and have partnered sex.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

No, it's based off you clearly not understanding the definition of 'asexual'.

 

 

No, many many of the asexuals I've talked with describe their asexuality as attraction-blind, and the accompanying definition of sexually attraction I mentioned above. You clearly don't understand the community.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

In over two years, I've never seen anyone on AVEN use the term 'attraction blind', or say that asexuality requires never having sex. Quite the reverse, on the second one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...