Dual Asexuality reference & discussion

[skepa]

Hey everyone, the old post for Dual asexuality was getting a bit wordy, which I think was a problem, so here is a shortened version, with some of the terms removed for some healthy discussion of the thing I also think this forum might be a good place to post it as well.

 

But basically the idea is that multiple different people are using the term sexual attraction differently, so a more well defined and inclusive version of sexual attraction could be as follows:

 

either:

A yes to either:

“Is the experience of sexual attraction clear and obvious to you?”

or

“Do you think the best term used to describe yourself is sexual (compared against fully or partially asexual)?”

 

or scoring 40 or above on the following test: https://avia-viridis.neocities.org/acescale.html

 

under this definition of asexuality or a lack of sexual attraction, there are only a couple of different types of individuals:

someone who doesn't find other people interesting

someone who has low or no desire for partnered sex

perhaps a combination of the above two?

 

what do you guys think? Do you think there are more categories for different individuals? Do you think this whole thing is bogus, or has some merit, or perhaps there are some changes you'd like to see, I'd love to know, thanks

 

[Puck]

Personally, I roll with this definition: "Sexual attraction is what one feels when they have some desire to engage sexually with another person. The desire can come from an attractions to one's looks, one's personality, the way one holds one self, or many other traits."

 

The key thing is that it's not looks based. It's just that, if you wanna have sex with a specific other person, you are experiencing sexual attraction.

 

The way wikipedia defines it is: 

 

Quote

Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest.

Which again, does not speak about looks, just talks about feeling attracted to someone based on wanting to have sex with them or arousing such interest.

 

One can be sex-repulsed and still experience sexual attraction, they aren't mutually exclusive. So one can be sex-repulsed and still be heterosexual or homosexual or pansexual...

 

I think it's worth having these discussions to parse down what people mean when they same terms like "sexual attraction." However, I think there is only one definition of asexuality and if someone doesn't fit that one definition, then they aren't asexual. They get to label themselves as they choose, but how one wants to label themselves can't change a definition.

[skepa]

9 minutes ago, Puck said:

The key thing is that it's not looks based. It's just that, if you wanna have sex with a specific other person, you are experiencing sexual attraction.

yeah but I mean I think that's a bit dicey, like I feel as though many males (or females) would see someone hot walk into a room, and say they experienced sexual attraction, when they go "wow", that's hot, I wanna have sex with that person, so I feel like at least for some people there is something visual about sexual attraction, which is why I think the above definition is good, because multiple people have different definitions of sexual attraction. Also it's a bit confusing when deciphering between sexual attraction and sexual desire.

[Puck]

Just now, skepa said:

yeah but I mean I think that's a bit dicey, like I feel as though many males (or females) would see someone hot walk into a room, and say they experienced sexual attraction, when they go "wow", that's hot, I wanna have sex with that person, so I feel like at least for some people there is something visual about sexual attraction. Also it's a bit confusing when deciphering between sexual attraction and sexual desire.

I'm not saying that many people don't have sexual attraction based on looks, I'm saying looks aren't the only thing to be considered. It's just one element of a person one might feels sexually attracted to. Many people feel sexual attraction to others personalities or based on the bond that they experience once they get to know someone.

 

The point I was making was simply that sexual attraction the concept isn't based on looks. The definition of sexual attraction doesn't mention looks. It's just that looks cause sexual attraction for many people, but if one doesn't experience sexual attraction based off looks it does NOT mean they don't experience sexual attraction.

Is that clearer?

[skepa]

9 minutes ago, Puck said:

The point I was making was simply that sexual attraction the concept isn't based on looks. The definition of sexual attraction doesn't mention looks. It's just that looks cause sexual attraction for many people, but if one doesn't experience sexual attraction based off looks it does NOT mean they don't experience sexual attraction.

I suppose that makes some sort of sense, if we are thinking that something "causes" sexual attraction, rather than the two are intertwined. However the concept is still completely nebulous to me, which is why I think the question “Is the experience of sexual attraction clear and obvious to you?” paired with the other question is in some way a good litmus test, for if someone experiences sexual attraction or not. What do you think?

[Puck]

11 minutes ago, skepa said:

I suppose that makes some sort of sense, if we are thinking that something "causes" sexual attraction, rather than the two are intertwined. However the concept is still completely nebulous to me, which is why I think the question “Is the experience of sexual attraction clear and obvious to you?” paired with the other question is in some way a good litmus test, for if someone experiences sexual attraction or not. What do you think?

I mean, one could ask it to someone if they seem to be unclear about it. But I would think that learning that someone doesn't understand what sexual attraction is means that they need to do more research before they may be able to confidently understand their sexuality, but it's not like it's a totally necessary part. You could bypass it.

 

As far as I'm concerned, with sexualities, the only question that anyone ever really need to answer is "When you want to have sex, what gender do you want to have sex with?" If it's your same gender, you are homosexual. If it's the binary opposite gender, you are heterosexual. If you say you never want to have sex, you are asexual.

 

That way, if someone is confused as to what sexual attraction is, they can still understand that their identity is based on the gender they want to have sex with.

[skepa]

2 minutes ago, Puck said:

"When you want to have sex, what gender do you want to have sex with?

True, but couldn't someone that is homosexual say they want to have sex with someone of the opposite gender? I.e. just to get off. Can't someone have sex with someone they are not sexually attracted to?

[Puck]

11 minutes ago, skepa said:

True, but couldn't someone that is homosexual say they want to have sex with someone of the opposite gender? I.e. just to get off. Can't someone have sex with someone they are not sexually attracted to?

Absolutely, you can have sex with anyone. Sexual attraction is not needed, sexual arousal isn't even need (though it would likely be a rather awkward and unpleasant feeling).

 

It's just that you will only feel desire to have sex with those you are attracted to. So someone wouldn't want to have sex with someone they weren't attracted to, they would prefer to not do it. Yes, sometimes people decide to try to have sex with someone they aren't attracted to to try it (for example, many who are homosexual first try having sex with the opposite gender but find they don't like it and don't ever want to do it again) but they always find that it's not something they want to do or something they wish to continue doing. It would be like eating some vegetable they don't really like; they decided to do it for their health or whatever other reason, but their body doesn't actually want to eat it and they'd be much happier if they never had to again.

 

If someone wants to just get off but they aren't sexually attracted to anyone, they would use masturbation. They wouldn't feel any intrinsic want to involve another person.

[skepa]

6 minutes ago, Puck said:

It's just that you will only feel desire to have sex with those you are attracted to.

sure so, looking at someone's body -> causes sexual attraction to that body -> causes sexual desire, which is wanting to have sex with that body. That's one example.

can you even have sexually attraction to someones personality? I mean you can't have sex with a personality, that's not at all like being sexually attracted to one gender or another, I would think that falls more under romantic attraction, wouldn't you?

 

also another question, can attraction and desire be separated, can you experience desire without attraction, can you experience attraction without desire?

[Puck]

20 minutes ago, skepa said:

sure so, looking at someone's body -> causes sexual attraction to that body -> causes sexual desire, which is wanting to have sex with that body. That's one example.

can you even have sexually attraction to someones personality? I mean you can't have sex with a personality, that's not at all like being sexually attracted to one gender or another, I would think that falls more under romantic attraction, wouldn't you?

No, again, it's not about looks.

 

So to use your model. Enjoying someones personality -> causes sexual attraction to that personality -> causes sexual desire which is wanting to have sex with the body that houses that personality in order to become more emotionally bonded to that personality.

 

It's not romantic attraction unless one also is romantically attracted to that person, unless they want to have a relationship with that person and not just sex. The point is that person wants to have sex with the other person because of their personality.

 

Think of it this way, say Tod is sexual attracted to women who make him feel heard and safe. So if he finds a women who makes him feel that way, he wants to have sex with her.

 

Remember that sex isn't just about bodies, it's very emotional. Sex can make people feel very emotionally bonded, make them feel very safe and taken care of. What people crave isn't just the physical body, but the emotional closeness. That's where things like personality can really play a role.

 

Also, remember that just because someone is attracted to a certain gender, that DOES NOT MEAN they are sexually attracted to ALL of that gender. They might be attracted to a certain body type or hobbies or other traits. However, those other traits are not explained by their sexual orientation, which only describes gender. It's commonly called "type." If Tod sees a girl that doesn't make him feel heard and safe, he might say she's not his type. But he's still heterosexual even if he's not attracted to all women.

 

20 minutes ago, skepa said:

also another question, can attraction and desire be separated, can you experience desire without attraction, can you experience attraction without desire?

Yup.

 

Attraction -> I want to have sex with a specific person

 

Desire -> I just want to have sex

 

If someone who is sexual has desire without attraction, they either go find someone they are sexually attracted to to have sex with or they masturbate. If an asexual feels desire to have sex, they masturbate.

 

Desire can be brought on by many things not relating to attraction. For example, many people with female bodies find themselves desiring sex around certain points of their cycles. It has nothing to do with sexual attraction, they just feel they wish to have sex in that moment. Those with male bodies sometimes wake up finding that they have an erection. They have a desire to have sex, their body is clearly aroused, but it's not pointed at anyone, so it's just vague desire.

[skepa]

23 minutes ago, Puck said:

If someone who is sexual has desire without attraction, they either go find someone they are sexually attracted to to have sex with or they masturbate. If an asexual feels desire to have sex, they masturbate.

can you explain what it might feel like for someone who has sexual desire, to have sex with someone they are not sexually attracted to, but romantically attracted to?

[Guest]

5 hours ago, skepa said:

sure so, looking at someone's body -> causes sexual attraction to that body -> causes sexual desire, which is wanting to have sex with that body. That's one example.

can you even have sexually attraction to someones personality? I mean you can't have sex with a personality, that's not at all like being sexually attracted to one gender or another, I would think that falls more under romantic attraction, wouldn't you?

Yes you can be attracted to someone's personality, mind, laugh, thoughts, and that can turn you on enough to desire partnered sexual intimacy with them even if they're not someone you find aesthetically attracted. The emotion of being in love can also actively make you desire sexual intimacy with the person you're in love with - even if they gain weight, their hair falls out, or they aren't someone you'd normally be aesthetically attracted to to begin with, the love can still make you desire sexual intimacy with them (or in other words - creates sexual attraction to them).

 

I'm quite surprised you're asking all these questions though, as this stuff has been explained to you extremely clearly by multiple people since you joined - why are you asking these questions when we've all already tried to explain to you how sexual attraction is certainly not always about looks (and sometimes has literally nothing to do with looks)?

 

4 hours ago, skepa said:

can you explain what it might feel like for someone who has sexual desire, to have sex with someone they are not sexually attracted to, but romantically attracted to?

The emotions of the love make you desire sexual intimacy as a way of pleasurable emotional and physical bonding with that person. You might not get horny when you look at them, or even find them that aesthetically attractive, but if you love them then you desire to experience sexual pleasure with them. The emotions of love make you actively desire that pleasure and the emotions themselves actually heighten the pleasure. A lot of the time, sex is a LOT better with someone you're in love with, than with a super hot stranger.

 

5 hours ago, skepa said:

can attraction and desire be separated

Asexuals can experience attraction without desire, my asexual ex was very attracted to me (to the point of arousal even) but had no interest in having any kind of sex with me. And for example, a sexual person might be trapped on an island with no one around to be attracted to, but will often still desire partnered sex and miss that sexual connection. Sexual people can also want to have sex with someone without finding them physically attractive in any way which is why it's pointless to try to define asexuality as 'desiring sex without attraction' - there are too many sexual people who feel that way so it's a meaningless label (because if that was asexuality, then at least 30% of the population would be asexual - including many hetero, homo, and bisexual identifying people).

 

It's worth noting that some people become attracted to/desire sex with (and even fall in love with) people online they've never met physically or even seen a photo of. So yeah, it's 100% possible to feel sexual attraction/desire partnered sex with someone without there being any influence from the appearance of the other person at all.

 

[skepa]

17 hours ago, Puck said:

Personally, I roll with this definition:

I feel like maybe we were getting away from the central point of the post, which is multiple definitions/experiences of sexual attraction.

 

So for example, while some people with one definition of sexual attraction, who perhaps experience sexual attraction in one way might say:

10 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

it's 100% possible to feel sexual attraction/desire partnered sex with someone without there being any influence from the appearance of the other person at all.

another group of individuals with a different definition of sexual attraction, who experience sexual attraction in a different way might say

Quote

it's 100% impossible to feel sexual attraction/desire partnered sex with someone without there being any influence from the appearance of the other person at all.

Thus the point of this topic and post is to have a discussion under this assumption, I also believe the problem with what I described above is why Bogaert describes asexuality as something that is construable as a lack of sexual attraction or a lack of interest in others Thus, this definition implies a lack of lustful inclinations/feelings directed toward others. which keeps the definition generic, elusive and generally still undefined for the most part (we see that his definition does not mention a desire for partnered sex at all), and also could be applied to both of the above groups equally.

 

This was the proposed reason for the two question model, to try to capture all experiences and definitions of sexual attraction first, before we start coming up with grounded definitions.

 

 

[skepa]

Also thinking through things, two of the main categories might be:

someone who doesn't find other people interesting

someone who has low or no desire for partnered sex

 

Just based off of the Bogaert paper.

 

what do you guys think?

[Guest]

Bogaert said in his book understanding asexuality that he prefers the sexual attraction definition because it implies someone may still masturbate, they just aren't interested in actually having sex with other people. I agree with him, I just don't like the way that the term 'sexual attraction' is twisted by so many people to force asexuality to mean literally anything under the sun depending on how that person personally wants to define it

[skepa]

1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

I agree with him, I just don't like the way that the term 'sexual attraction' is twisted by so many people to force asexuality to mean literally anything under the sun depending on how that person personally wants to define it

Well I mean don't you think that different people may have different experiences of sexual attraction or sexual desire? wouldn't it be good to differentiate between these types? then we could start to have a better understanding of where people fit, and how they differ among each other. I don't think it's twisting, but it's more of understanding. I just don't believe that the experience of sexuality is the same among individuals.

[skepa]

14 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

then at least 30% of the population would be asexual

Also I'm not sure where you keep getting this statistic? Also what's the percentage difference in males vs females? I'm genuinely curious.

[Galactic Turtle]

1 hour ago, skepa said:

Well I mean don't you think that different people may have different experiences of sexual attraction or sexual desire? wouldn't it be good to differentiate between these types? then we could start to have a better understanding of where people fit, and how they differ among each other. I don't think it's twisting, but it's more of understanding. I just don't believe that the experience of sexuality is the same among individuals.

*pops into the conversation* 

 

I think it's expected that people experience sexual attraction many different ways. It's fine to categorize and talk about that all you want. I personally think it's something that's helpful and educational especially for maybe high school/college kids who might be getting all sorts of pressure from people who equate stuff they see on TV with how things are supposed to happen in reality. However I also think that means the conversation would inherently not be about asexuality but rather all the sorts of ways people can be sexual.

 

*pops out of conversation*

[Guest]

3 hours ago, skepa said:

Well I mean don't you think that different people may have different experiences of sexual attraction or sexual desire? wouldn't it be good to differentiate between these types? then we could start to have a better understanding of where people fit, and how they differ among each other. I don't think it's twisting, but it's more of understanding. I just don't believe that the experience of sexuality is the same among individuals.

Like @Galactic Turtle  said, I think it's great to discuss all the ways people experience sexual attraction and sexual desire, it's just important to remember that we're talking about different ways people can be sexual, not asexual.

 

3 hours ago, skepa said:

Also I'm not sure where you keep getting this statistic? Also what's the percentage difference in males vs females? I'm genuinely curious.

As I've said many times,it's just a random amount (which is actually quite a low estimate) based on all the people I myself know who experience their sexuality like that (myself and my partner included). Tele also said he's met a lot of sexual people like that, and we've had other sexuals on AVEN over the years say they've known sexual people like that or that they themselves are like that. One lady cared so little about appearance that she said she'd sometimes just advertise for sex on Craig's List, meet in a hotel room without ever having seen the person before, and have sex no matter what they looked like because that's how she wanted it. Some people here even tried to tell her she might be ace which she thought was the funniest thing ever. I've also had people suggest my hypersexual ex partner might be ace because he would screw literally any girl no matter what she looked like as long as she would have him. Appearance just meant absolutely nothing to him. Then you get all the people who desire sexual intimacy as a result of love instead of 'getting horny when they see hot people' and the percentage is steadily rising. The percentage would be higher among females than males but I think it's really sexist to differentiate between the two (the Craig's List lady thought that as well). It just sometimes seems that people such as yourself (we've had many over the years) wish to define 'normal sexuality' by the way predominantly young males experience it, and prefer to ignore the way that it's experienced by everyone else. (And that doesn't even include all young sexual males - my partner is only 20 and has never got horny from seeing an attractive person. Romantic intimacy with me arouses him enough to desire sex with me though is why he stopped identifying as asexual).

[skepa]

20 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

The percentage would be higher among females than males but I think it's really sexist to differentiate between the two

Statistics are not sexist, I'm sorry. It's sexist to not think there is a difference between the sexuality of males and females, plus many studies have shown just this.

 

20 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

we've had other sexuals on AVEN over the years

AVEN is predominantly female. so it's a biased sample, plus ya know, weighing anecdotal evidence vs actual scientific research.

 

20 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

it's just important to remember that we're talking about different ways people can be sexual, not asexual.

I think it's also important to discuss the different ways people can be asexual too

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, skepa said:

Statistics are not sexist, I'm sorry.

*SIGH* I meant it's sexist to base your ideas of normal sexuality only around the way many males experience it.

 

44 minutes ago, skepa said:

It's sexist to not think there is a difference between the sexuality of males and females

Exactly. There is a difference. So saying the way females experience their sexuality doesn't count when you're defining 'normal sexuality' is indeed sexist. I know you're not saying that here, but you got into the gender thing quite extensively in a different thread. If a higher percentage of sexual females experience something, but almost no males do, that doesn't suddenly mean it's asexual and not sexual. That's sexist. (and it's that which I was referring to).

 

44 minutes ago, skepa said:

AVEN is predominantly female. so it's a biased sample, plus ya know, weighing anecdotal evidence vs actual scientific research

...Ah yes, except for all the MALES who have said they experience that or know others who have experienced it here, not just the females. My partner is male, as is my ex, as is Tele (not saying Tele experiences his sexuality like that, though it's still about more than just appearance for him). We actually have about as many male sexual members here as we do female.

 

44 minutes ago, skepa said:

plus ya know, weighing anecdotal evidence vs actual scientific research.

As I've already said in the past, I will happily post screencaps from some of the books where medical professionals and researchers (ie Boegart) use sexual attraction to mean 'desiring sex with other people', and even directly say 'asexuals don't experience sexual attraction, meaning they don't desire sex with other people'... That's not 'anecdotal', even though obviously someone who has had a lot of sex will know more about this than someone who hasn't had nearly as much sex... that may be anecdotal but it doesn't change the facts of how varied normal human sexuality really is. If even one sexual person exists who desires partnered sexual intimacy without giving two hoots about appearance, that kind of instantly disproves the idea that asexuals can want sex as long as they don't care about appearance. There just happen to be many, many sexual people for whom appearance is not a factor in sexual desire, ergo, it's in no way an expression of asexuality.

 

44 minutes ago, skepa said:

I think it's also important to discuss the different ways people can be asexual too

And there are many such discussions on AVEN. Asexuals can be asexual in many, many different ways, and none of those need include them actively wanting to have partnered sex for their own pleasure or being unhappy without partnered sex in their lives.

[Alejandrogynous]

11 hours ago, skepa said:

I just don't believe that the experience of sexuality is the same among individuals.

Exactly, that's the point. Not everyone experiences sexuality in the same way, but it's still sexuality they're experiencing. So if one person only experiences sexual attraction through physical appearances, and one person only experiences it through emotional bonding (most people are a mix of both), it doesn't mean the latter person isn't experiencing sexual attraction. It's just in a different way than the first person.

 

So yes, if you want to classify those two groups as 'attraction-based' and 'emotion-based' or what have you, that's awesome and it's an interesting study of sexuality. I'm behind that, totally. It just has nothing to do with asexuality.

[GLRDT]

On 3/27/2018 at 10:17 PM, Puck said:

 

As far as I'm concerned, with sexualities, the only question that anyone ever really need to answer is "When you want to have sex, what gender do you want to have sex with?" If it's your same gender, you are homosexual. If it's the binary opposite gender, you are heterosexual. If you say you never want to have sex, you are asexual.

 

That way, if someone is confused as to what sexual attraction is, they can still understand that their identity is based on the gender they want to have sex with.

I don't desire sex and have almost no libido, but I would never say I'm asexual just as is because I like flirting and everything leading up to sex except sex. I also have felt what I think is sexual attraction perhaps three times in my life. I recognize that these few sexual tendencies don't match up with a super clear definition of asexuality at least in my mind so I feel comfortable as identifying as gray asexual. I feel that the desire for no sex makes me far closer in relating to the asexual side of things than flirting and rare attraction do to the sexual side of things. Also not to mention me not desiring sex has affected every single relationship I've ever been in. For me personally, the definition of asexuality would be asexuals don't desire partnered sex for their own pleasure. I don't really understand why sexual attraction needs to come into it. The only reason I feel gray is because I wish that I could feel passion and lust. I do love flirting and seduction. There are times when I don't desire sex but am more open to the idea or curious about it. These are things I think most people who identify straight up as asexual don't feel usually.

[GLRDT]

On 3/27/2018 at 10:44 PM, skepa said:

sure so, looking at someone's body -> causes sexual attraction to that body -> causes sexual desire, which is wanting to have sex with that body. That's one example.

can you even have sexually attraction to someones personality? I mean you can't have sex with a personality, that's not at all like being sexually attracted to one gender or another, I would think that falls more under romantic attraction, wouldn't you?

 

also another question, can attraction and desire be separated, can you experience desire without attraction, can you experience attraction without desire?

I can. When I describe desire for sex I think lust, passion, wanting an emotional connection wanting to stimulate their genitals and have yours stimulated as well. I have never ever felt this feeling. However there have been like three people ever who I've been more curious to have sex with or more open to it because I find them very aesthetically attractive, am attracted to their personality, confidence, smell. For me feeling slightly more open or curious to have sex with someone is the only experience I have with sexual attraction. It's never an overwhelming or strong desire so it's been hard to pinpoint this feeling. It's more of a I wonder if this would be different with this person because I'm attracted to slightly more things about them than the average person kind of feeling. This is why I live in a gray gray world.

[Guest]

On 3/30/2018 at 7:57 AM, GLRDT said:

I don't desire sex and have almost no libido, but I would never say I'm asexual just as is because I like flirting and everything leading up to sex except sex. I also have felt what I think is sexual attraction perhaps three times in my life. I recognize that these few sexual tendencies don't match up with a super clear definition of asexuality at least in my mind so I feel comfortable as identifying as gray asexual. I feel that the desire for no sex makes me far closer in relating to the asexual side of things than flirting and rare attraction do to the sexual side of things. Also not to mention me not desiring sex has affected every single relationship I've ever been in. For me personally, the definition of asexuality would be asexuals don't desire partnered sex for their own pleasure. I don't really understand why sexual attraction needs to come into it. The only reason I feel gray is because I wish that I could feel passion and lust. I do love flirting and seduction. There are times when I don't desire sex but am more open to the idea or curious about it. These are things I think most people who identify straight up as asexual don't feel usually.

Yep that's the best (and most accurate) definition, but there are certainly academics/medical professionals etc who mean 'the desire for partnered sex' when they use the term 'sexual attraction', and even AVEN defines sexual attraction as 'the desire for sexual contact with someone else'. So taking those factors into account, the official sexual attraction definition actually means 'asexuals are people who have no desire to have partnered sexual contact for pleasure'. It would be sooo much simpler (and more accurate) though if they'd just remove the 'sexual attraction' part altogether and just go straight to the desire part for the definition. People interpret 'sexual attraction' in so many different ways, and get so confused over it, and sometimes even intentionally twist it to expand the definition of asexuality to people who can't be happy without sex. 'No desire for partnered sex for your own pleasure' can't be twisted or misunderstood in the same way though, it's very basic and straightforward, and accurately encompass the core of what asexuality really is. Anyway, that's just my rambling way of saying I agree with you!

[skepa]

On 4/2/2018 at 12:57 AM, FictoVore. said:

'asexuals are people who have no desire to have partnered sexual contact for pleasure

I'm sorry to disagree, but there are plenty of self identifying asexuals who have partnered sex for pleasure. And even if you were to change this definition, now people can start debating what "pleasure" means. Many asexuals get pleasure from masterbation, what if partnered masterbation(or other things) is the same mentally as solitary masterbation for these people, are they not asexual now? 

 

It's still a can of worms no matter how you phrase it. The best we can do at this point is wait until we get some scientific research, and see how the complex interaction of sexual attraction and sexual desire is for sexuals and asexuals and then start going off of that, until then, our fuzzy definitions are fine imo.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, skepa said:

, but there are plenty of self identifying asexuals who have partnered sex for pleasure.

And when you ask them ''so you'd have sex with literally anyone alive, no matter how ugly or diseased or disgusting or smelly they are?'' these self-identifying asexuals will always answer something along the lines off ''Well, no, obviously I have to like the person'' or ''I have to find them aesthetically attractive'' or ''I am drawn to personality, so while I won't have sex with just anyone, their personality is very important'' .. Something to that effect. Ergo, these people are displaying very clear preferences as to whom they have sex with, which is just a normal expression of everyday sexuality. These people are almost always under the mistaken impression that being sexual means you look at attractive people then have a sexual reaction to their appearance and want sex with them based on that reaction. They truly believe that if you want sex for any reason other than that caveman-like sexual reaction, then you must be some kind of asexual. But what is happening here is a misunderstanding of just how varied and multi-faceted regular sexuality really is. Once you're saying you want sex with other people for pleasure, and are displaying very clear sexual partner preferences (regardless of what it is that makes up those preferences, because it's different for everyone) you're now discussing sexuality, not asexuality.

 

 

[skepa]

45 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

these people are displaying very clear preferences

Displaying preferences does not make someone automatically sexual. If someone has a romantic attraction to someone else, chooses to have partnered masterbation with them, because it's safer(unlike a hobo), and has the same internal mental state as when they were doing solo masterbation, I would consider them still asexual.

 

Until we have scientific evidence, as what is the difference between sexuals and asexuals in terms of sexual attraction and desire, throwing out no true scottsman fallacies  for what is defined as a self labeled identification is extremely harmful!! 

 

Regardless of how we define asexuality, I've never in my life respected anyone who anyone who goes around telling people they are gay, bi, or straight, based off of their actions and feelings, or if they have deep seeded opinions on what it means to be gay, straight, or bi, to the point of mentally judging and excluding others(usually this is because of their own insecurities). People should decide for themselves how to best label themselves, and others opinions in those matters do not matter in the slightest. I hold the same standards for asexuality as I do for other orientations, regardless of what someones behavior or feelings are, and you should too.

[Cobie]

1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

... Once you're saying you want sex with other people for pleasure, ... you're now discussing sexuality, not asexuality. ...

Exactly 😊

[skepa]

6 hours ago, Thea2 said:

Exactly 😊

Again this train of thinking and labelling is extremely harmful

 

There are two ways of someone finding out if they are sexual, or asexual

 

A) someone on some fourm, starts defining what the definition of sexuality and asexuality are, we are talking about sexuality here not asexuality, this is what it means to be asexual, you can't be asexual, if you are this or that, this is what sexual attraction is, if you experience this at all, it means you're sexual, you can't be asexual ect... This is what a toxic community does, leads to gatekeeping, and sexual elitism, and comments like above keep on promoting those thoughts.

 

B) someone looking to define themselves, goes to a fourm, and without seeing how people try to define what it means to be asexual for others, they see others talk about themselves, their experiences, and how they also label themselves. Then without pressure, they finally feel comfortable taking up a label, maybe they are wrong, who cares, some else's experience about themselves may change their mind in the future. But I'll tell you what won't, trying to define them, and define words that force people into boxes.

 

It's really sad that the first time I came to this site, and made an orginal post, about three hypothesis about myself, trying to find out where I fit, or what I should label myself as. I had a bunch of people, come out of the woodwork, to start labeling definitions, and telling me that they knew exactly what I was experiencing the definitions behind it, why I couldn't be a true asexual, for this or that reason, and were trying their hardest to label my experiences, and thus to forcefully push me to one label or another.

 

You wouldn't tell someone they are gay, because of what they have or haven't done. You wouldn't start defining what sexual attraction and desire is, and start telling people if they haven't experienced this or that, then they are not really gay. DON'T DO THE SAME FOR ASEXUALITY.