Dual Asexuality reference & discussion

[skepa]

The previous reply is dedicated to FictoVore and others who know exactly what normal sexuality is and love to define it online for everyone else to see ❤️

[Guest]

12 hours ago, skepa said:

Displaying preferences does not make someone automatically sexual.

So if you're not defining sexual attraction by desiring partnered sex with someone else for pleasure, and you're not defining it by wanting to have sex with one specific person instead of just anyone random (which is sexual preferences) ...how the heck are you defining it and who the heck does it apply to???

 

 

[Guest]

 

12 hours ago, skepa said:

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.

No one is saying someone can't call themselves asexual if they want to. A man who absolutely loves having sex with women and has no interest in having sex with men, ever, can still call himself gay.. even though he's not gay. The definition of gay isn't automatically exclusionary though just because it doesn't include straight people, and asexuality if it is to have any meaning at all would also automatically exclude some people.. isn't that obvious?  That doesn't mean they can't still call themselves asexual if they want though.

 

6 hours ago, skepa said:

This is what a toxic community does, leads to gatekeeping, and sexual elitism, and comments like above keep on promoting those thoughts.

And yet AVEN has been around for over a decade and we still have people identifying as asexual for... all sorts of reasons, based on all sorts of different (and often contradictory) definitions.

 

6 hours ago, skepa said:

about myself, 

The posts that people responded to were about asexuality in general, which also reflects on sexuality - if you're defining asexuality as someone who desires sexual intimacy for whatever reason, then you need to clearly define how sexual people are 'different' from that, which you did, and you had it wrong. Then some sexual people here got offended and tried to better explain what it feels like for them to be sexual, which was more like what you were describing as asexuality, and that's how the arguments started.

 

6 hours ago, skepa said:

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.

Almost anyone would do these things though if a man was saying ''I love having sex with women, I desire sex with women, I couldn't be happy without sexual intimacy with women in my life, I have no interest in having sex with a man, ever - I just would not enjoy that emotionally or physically, but I'm gay'' ..Almost any normal person would ask him how he is defining gay, how he is defining straight, how he is defining 'sexual attraction', and try to explain to him that he has clearly misunderstood the definitions of gay and straight. No one can stop him from calling himself gay, but they're going to make it clear that he is defining 'gay' incorrectly and that what he's experiencing is what all straight men experience to some extent or another.

 

5 hours ago, skepa said:

The previous reply is dedicated to FictoVore and others who know exactly what normal sexuality is and love to define it online for everyone else to see ❤️

...So, people who experience something should not be allowed to partake in discussions with people who don't experience it, when those discussions are specifically about what it is like to experience that thing? Because when you say that an asexual person can desire sex for pleasure, then go on to describe how that is different from 'normal' sexuality, you are immediately inviting all the people who do experience 'normal sexuality' to come in and explain to you why you're incorrect in your assumptions about what it feels like to be sexual.

 

[Guest]

Look at it this way.

 

If there was someone here saying ''I'm asexual, that means I don't really understand sex at all, I find penises yucky, and would never have sex with anyone because it's a sin unless you're married and I don't want to get married.. that's what asexuality is'', other people would certainly come along and say ''You can call yourself whatever you want, but that's not actually asexuality''. They would then describe what asexuality feels like for them (and others) and explain why what that person is describing is actually sex negativity as opposed to asexuality (the person could still be asexual, but what they're defining in their original comment is not asexuality).

 

This wouldn't be an education forum if you just had to blindly accept every single new definition of asexuality no matter how it's worded or what negative connotations it has (on asexuals or sexuals), while at the same time persistently denying the facts about how varied and multi-faceted regular sexuality is. It also wouldn't be a discussion forum (which is all any online forum really is) if you couldn't discuss these things.

 

If there was no actual education allowed on AVEN, they'd have to remove the 'E' from the name at the top of the forums.

[Cobie]

4 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

... If there was no actual education allowed on AVEN, they'd have to remove the 'E' from the name at the top of the forums.

Exactly. Nice one 

[skepa]

1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

I just would not enjoy that emotionally or physically, but I'm gay'' ..Almost any normal person would ask him how he is defining gay, how he is defining straight, how he is defining 'sexual attraction',

I mean I wouldn't, but I mean I guess I'm not a self righteous jerk who goes around telling others how they should and shouldn't label themselves ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Alejandrogynous]

15 hours ago, skepa said:

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.

Labels are, by their very nature, exclusionary. It's not because they're gatekeeping jerks, but because that's the function of words - to reference something that is not something else. Gay means 'attracted to people of the same gender' and thus excludes people who are not attracted to their same gender. A chair is a chair because it's not a teapot or a slipper or a paintbrush. You could very well start calling chairs 'paintbrushes' from now on, but you'll probably find any conversations involving 'paintbrushes' to be very confusing in the future since no one will understand you.
 

Nobody here is telling you what you can and can't label yourself as, not only because it's extremely against the ToS but because literally nobody can (or should) stop you, lol. It's your life, call yourself whatever you want and if it helps you, that's awesome. But we can disagree with how you're defining those things, especially when you then try to fit the entire asexuality community into a new model that is built on a foundation we see flaws in. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, skepa said:

I mean I wouldn't, but I mean I guess I'm not a self righteous jerk who goes around telling others how they should and shouldn't label themselves ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

1) But no one is telling anyone how they should or shouldn't label themselves. We are discussing the meaning of definitions and words. 

 

2) Some people care that words have meanings. It's fine if you don't think words should have any meaning, but it's best not to call people who do care about the definitions of words 'self righteous jerks', because, well - that would mean everyone who has ever contributed to writing a dictionary (as just one example) is a self righteous jerk. Oh also, the entire LGBT community is full of self-righteous jerks because they created labels that, by definition, differentiate them from straight people. But by doing that they're defining straight people in a specific way.. so they must all be total jerks. And straight people must all be total jerks because the definition of their sexual orientation excludes all gay people.. and so on and so forth.

 

3) I don't understand how you can care so much about how asexuality is defined (because you've started sooo many threads about it now) yet at the same time you seem to be claiming you don't think words (especially the word 'asexual') should have any meaning because anyone who tries to apply a specific meaning to a specific word is a self-righteous jerk.

 

Why have these discussions about how asexuality is defined if the ONLY definition you can truly accept is

 

'asexuality can be defined any way you want to define it as long as you don't disagree with the way anyone else defines it'

 

.. what's the logic here?

 

I'm still waiting for an answer to this:

 

4 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

So if you're not defining sexual attraction by desiring partnered sex with someone else for pleasure, and you're not defining it by wanting to have sex with one specific person instead of just anyone random (which is sexual preferences) ...how the heck are you defining it and who the heck does it apply to???

 

 

 

[skepa]

2 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

Oh also, the entire LGBT community is full of self-righteous jerks because they created labels that, by definition, differentiate them from straight people.

I'm sorry, I only associate with the part of the LGBT community that accepts all people if they say they are gay, or otherwise at face value. A bunch of the rest of them are self righteous jerks, especially if they judge people, and mentally label them. If you say you are gay, you are gay in my mind, no further questions needed.

 

8 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

(because you've started sooo many threads about it now

Most of my threads are proposals, or hypothesis (should, could, maybe) that I was using to try to help clear up things

 

9 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

I'm still waiting for an answer to this

You don't understand my point, sexual attraction, sexual desire, sexuality, can mean completely different things to different people. So trying to define things is pointless here, If someone has sex for pleasure with a partner, and they call themselves asexual, let them have it, it's not hurting you, don't be like those pedantic pitiful preachers populating populations with putrid prose. hakuna matata my friend. 🤙

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, skepa said:

I'm sorry, I only associate with the part of the LGBT community that accepts all people if they say they are gay, or otherwise at face value. A bunch of the rest of them are self righteous jerks, especially if they judge people, and mentally label them. If you say you are gay, you are gay in my mind, no further questions needed.

 

And people are accepted here regardless of whether they are ace or not, or even if they say they're asexual but love having sex and can't get enough of it It's not the people who aren't accepted. We are discussing definitions, not who and who should not be allowed in the community or who should be allowed to call themselves ace. In the gay community, even the most loving and accepting people don't define gay as ''literally anyone who wants to be gay'', it still has a definition. Why isn't asexuality also allowed to have a definition? (regardless of whether or not people agree on it, they should still be allowed to discuss it without being compared to self-righteous jerks or pedantic pitiful preachers).

 

20 minutes ago, skepa said:

Most of my threads are proposals, or hypothesis (should, could, maybe) that I was using to try to help clear up things

And people are not allowed to disagree with these proposals or hypothesis or have different ideas about the 'should' 'could' and 'maybes'? Your opinion is the only valid one, is that it? People are going to have their own opinions regardless of what you say, and the nature of a discussion forum is that we then go and discuss those different opinions. What we are doing is no different to what you are doing, yet we're getting accused of all sorts of nonsense as a result.

 

20 minutes ago, skepa said:

You don't understand my point, sexual attraction, sexual desire, sexuality, can mean completely different things to different people. So trying to define things is pointless here, If someone has sex for pleasure with a partner, and they call themselves asexual, let them have it, it's not hurting you, don't be like those pedantic pitiful preachers populating populations with putrid prose. hakuna matata my friend.

If trying to define things is pointless, why are you engaging in these discussions about what asexuality is and is not at all?

 

And again (I have lost count of the amount of times myself and others have tried to explain this to you now),

 

no one is telling anyone they can't call themselves asexual.

 

We are on a discussion forum where the main topic of conversation is, as per the title of the forum, asexuality. That means we discuss different aspects of asexuality here, including the way it is defined (which leads directly into the way non-asexuality is defined as well, because you can't define one without defining the other).

 

These conversations are about the definition of the word and discussing different hypothesis about what asexuality is and is not (as you yourself already stated), they are not an attempt to exclude people who have a different preference for how they define the word.

 

 

 

[skepa]

40 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

We are discussing definitions,

Oh FictoVore, you sweet sweet thing, by defining definitions you define who can or can't label themselves, because as we all know the definition of a Scottsman is one who does not put sugar on his porridge

 

You must be careful you know, with those nasty definitions and all.

 

40 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

And people are not allowed to disagree with these proposals or hypothesis or have different ideas about the 'should' 'could' and 'maybes'?

I love disagreements!! Please disagree with me more 😘

 

40 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

no one is telling anyone they can't call themselves asexual.

But one sure is telling everyone if they have sex for pleasure in any way shape or form with another person, they are not asexual 😉❤️

 

Fierce furious FictoVore fervently fumes at fast frisky fox, fortunately friendly Mr. fox flies freely over fulminating flibbertigibbets.

 

Is FictoVore finally finished? find out next time!! Love ya 😋

 

p.s. flibbertigibbets is a great word!!

[Galactic Turtle]

I'm asexual because I have a penis allergy and disagree that vaginas are a thing that exist.

 

I'm aromantic because on Valentine's Day I eat squash instead of chocolate. 

 

I'm black because I identify with the Freshest of Princes: Prince Harry.

 

I'm a woman because I eat Cheerios with chocolate milk.

[Galactic Turtle]

On 3/27/2018 at 11:04 PM, skepa said:

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:

 

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)?”

 

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

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?

Definitions are cancelled so this is a no go.

That solves that.  

Unless I've missed something completely obvious and highly pivotal.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, skepa said:

I love disagreements!! 

Really? Because you seem to not actually be partaking in the discussion at this point even though everyone else is bringing up relevant and interesting points. Everyone else is trying to discuss the topic at hand and you're doing.. whatever it is you've resorted to doing (alliteration.. etc)

[skepa]

3 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Because you seem to not actually be partaking in the discussion at this point even though everyone else is bringing up relevant and interesting points.

It's hard to really see points when they are covered up by 36 size underlined bold red fonts. I mean don't get me wrong 90% of all words(other than mine) on this post are coming from you, and when you keep repeating the same things over and over again, while not responding to what I'm saying it does become rather tiring.

 

I mean in your mind you've already rejected the initial premise, have obstinate opinions on what you believe normal sexuality to be, have pre-formed and very (very) solid definitions of exactly who is real and true asexuals vs who isn't. Yeah people can label themselves how they'd like but you are the true labeler. You really know if someone is a true asexual or not, and you have the nerve to hold those opinions as well. If I say one wrong thing, if I say oh hey, I had sex for pleasure with a partner, a part of the in-group/out-group of your brain shoots off and already starts the labeling process. You start forming opinions of that person based off of your own experiences, even though "surprise surprise" people experience the world differently. 

 

That means while you may have had sex for pleasure with another person, someone else who also may have had sex for pleasure might have experienced it in such a radically different way that you can not even begin to comprehend. But since you can't comprehend you start incorrectly rationalizing their own subjective experiences based off of your own. You won't even consider the possibility that someone might have sex for pleasure with a partner, and still be asexual because their internal state is so radically different than yours. You reject that premise from the get go.

 

Until you are able to say, it may be possible for someone with a completely different internal state of mine to have sex for pleasure with a partner and still be asexual, we are not going to progress forward. I fully expect a response from you to not take in all of the points of this reply, and just to repeat the same things you have been saying over and over and over again, probably with large font and bolded words as is expected

 

I liken debating with you to debating with a block of wood, or maybe cheese. Do you prefer cheddar or Swiss? Just curious.

[Guest]

Everyone eIse (and not just in this thread, in the others you made as weII) is making the exact same points I am.. you do realize that right? I made the font bigger in the hopes you'd actuaIIy take it in what was being said, which based on this quote

 

6 hours ago, skepa said:

they are not asexual

you stiII didn't take it in.. despite the huge font.Why are you so pissed at me though when others here are aIso trying to reiterate the exact same points as I am?

 

1 hour ago, skepa said:

Yeah people can label themselves how they'd like but you are the true labeler. You really know if someone is a true asexual or not, and you have the nerve to hold those opinions as well

 

1 hour ago, skepa said:

You start forming opinions of that person based off of your own experiences, even though "surprise surprise" people experience the world differently. 

And yet, surprise surprise, I have never once IabeIIed you or any other member in any of these threads. 

 

1 hour ago, skepa said:

while you may have had sex for pleasure with another person

physicaIIy, I haven't  

 

1 hour ago, skepa said:

someone else who also may have had sex for pleasure might have experienced it in such a radically different way that you can not even begin to comprehend.

 

1 hour ago, skepa said:

You won't even consider the possibility that someone might have sex for pleasure with a partner, and still be asexual because their internal state is so radically different than yours. You reject that premise from the get

I aIready went into aII this extensively in your other threads though, as did others (both sexuaI and asexuaI). The issue was that what you were describing was very simiIar to what some sexuaI-identifying peopIe experience. I mean, you described me aImost word for word in some of your posts. Different topic though. 

 

1 hour ago, skepa said:

, it may be possible for someone with a completely different internal state of mine to have sex for pleasure with a partner and still be asexual,

MyseIf and others have been asking you from the start, how is someone who desires partnered sex for pIeasure different from the average sexuaI person? You stiII haven't given an adequate explanation other than 'sexuaI attraction', which you then refuse to define (weII, you did initiaIIy, but it was a very Iimited view that onIy applied to some sexuaI peopIe). I'm not saying it's impossible for an asexuaI to desire sex for pleasure, but I'II need an explanation that isn't something reguIar sexuaI peopIe do experience. StiII waiting for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Galactic Turtle]

Ya know, every once in a blue moon you'll see a thread from an ace person who likes to have sex having difficulties with their ace partner who doesn't want to have sex or is having second thoughts about staying with their ace partner because they don't want to have sex. That's usually when you get some introspection happening. So while I'm not labelling anyone, I can say that these threads do have a similar themes to ones with sexual folks having issues with their ace partners and from that one might infer certain things on their own.

 

In general, definitions do come more into play and really do matter when actual real life partnerships are involved (gay, straight, ace, Christian, Jewish, whatever). Any individual can define these however hey want and ID however they want but when they run into folks who fit the actual dictionary definition of these things and find themselves being quite different from the majority in whatever category they ID with, they might then realize that they're not in the right category instead of redefining that category entirely.

[skepa]

7 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

I'm not saying it's impossible for an asexuaI to desire sex for pleasure, but I'II need an explanation that isn't something reguIar sexuaI peopIe do experience.

Hey that's progress!! Congrats. Well there are many self labeling asexuals who do have sex, and many for pleasure, it would be wrong to automatically label all these people in your mind as sexual, yes some may be, but what if a portion are not? What if a portion actually are asexual! What might they be experiencing? What is it that makes them different than a sexual person(which there would be tangible differences)? These are the questions that you should keep in mind when going forward.

 

I'm not some wise old man on the top of the mountain with the answers. I'm simply a messenger that comes along and says "what if", yeah people might not like that, what if the earth is round? What if the universe doesn't orbit the earth? What if someone can be asexual and still have sex for pleasure? It's an interesting question don't you think? I'm sure as time goes on we'll have more definitive answers, hopefully backed up by science and research, but it's the question, "can an asexual have sex for pleasure?", and how we mentally respond to that question is what really matters, perhaps automatically with a firm no, but also perhaps more with scientific and curiosity driven maybe.

[skepa]

 

7 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

 I have never once IabeIIed you or any other member in any of these threads.

Anyway FictoVore, I've realized a key difference between you and me. You have this clear divide in your mind between people who just call themselves asexual, and people who are "actually" asexual, and you are trying to push the definition of asexuality more towards what you define as your true group. I'm actually not like this, for me real and true asexuals are anyone who calls themselves asexual, I don't question it further, they all go in the same group in my mind, one big asexual family. The definitions will eventually sort themselves out based off of this big group sorting itself out over time, but I think that it's a more healthy inclusive way of thinking, it allows people to get along better, rather than jumping to conclusions about someone before you even really get to know them.

[skepa]

I've also updated the model to include this wonderful self test here: https://avia-viridis.neocities.org/acescale.html

 

This test was created from a large sample size of the population.

[ZzedTheGrammarPunisher]

On 4/4/2018 at 5:36 PM, skepa said:

I've also updated the model to include this wonderful self test here: https://avia-viridis.neocities.org/acescale.html

 

This test was created from a large sample size of the population.

I got 41, that means I am low tier asexual 

[Galactic Turtle]

1 hour ago, skepa said:

I've also updated the model to include this wonderful self test here: https://avia-viridis.neocities.org/acescale.html

 

This test was created from a large sample size of the population.

60. No surprises there lol. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, skepa said:

, it would be wrong to automatically label all these people in your mind as sexual

Not sure how many times I have to type this, but no one here is labeling others, we are discussing a definition. If someone personally wants to identify with something using a different definition, no one can stop them. 

 

5 hours ago, skepa said:

What if a portion actually are asexual! What might they be experiencing? What is it that makes them different than a sexual person(which there would be tangible differences)? These are the questions that you should keep in mind when going forward.

 

I started off on your side of the fence in 2013, believing asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction and/or lack of desire for partnered sexual activity. I was EXTREMELY vocal about this stance and was as strongly as opposed to people who believed asexuality was only one or the other as I am to you here now. My opinions and ideas evolved though, slowly, over many many months, as a result of partaking in these exact discussions with people who hold all sorts of different perspectives (and when I say 'discussions' I mean literally hundreds of thousands of words - back in late 2014 it was remarked that we'd already written enough between us in these discussions to fill 10 books). My point is, I've been going forward since holding my initial opinion, which was in total agreement with what you are saying here.

 

5 hours ago, skepa said:

for me real and true asexuals are anyone who calls themselves asexual, I don't question it further, they all go in the same group in my mind, one big asexual family

...Why all these discussions about duel asexuality, which is an attempt to define the experience of asexuality, then?  Why are you putting forward these ideas when your only true belief is that anyone who wants to be asexual is asexual? And at the same time, your original hypothesis of duel asexuality still excludes some people from being asexual, which is no different than my ideas excluding some people. You're saying 'anyone can call themselves asexual if they want to, even if by definition my personal hypothesis may exclude some of those individuals' (for example, if they experience sexual attraction AND desire partnered sex, then by your hypothesis they are not asexual).. That's literally no different than what I am doing. I do not care what some people call themselves, yet I still have a definition that is exclusionary due to the very fact that it's a definition of a sexual orientation (in the same way the definition of homosexual is exclusionary to heterosexual people). Or have you now completely abandoned your idea of duel asexuality?

[Guest]

3 hours ago, skepa said:

I've also updated the model to include this wonderful self test here: https://avia-viridis.neocities.org/acescale.html

 

This test was created from a large sample size of the population.

....Wait, wait, hold the phone. 

 

Skepa, that self test supports my ideas word for word, yet you called it 'wonderful'. Are you just having a laugh at all of our expense or something?

 

Someone who does desire sexual activity for pleasure (to the extent they'd feel unhappy without being able to have sex at least sometimes) would score very, very low on that test, even if they say they have never experienced sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is much less important by the standards of that test than the actual desire to connect sexually with other people - because as you can clearly see, the majority of the questions are centered around partnered sexual activity. I scored 48 (despite NOT being asexual) yet someone who actively desires sex for pleasure (to the extent they'd be unhappy at the prospect of never having it again, and sex holds a place of value in their life) would score much lower than me and I'm not even ace - though I did used to think I was when I first came here.

 

That test which you called wonderful backs up literally everything I have said here and in every other of my responses to you in all your other threads (as well as what others having been trying to say about desiring sex for pleasure, I'm certainly not the only one)

 

Did you just link it to be sarcastic or something? 

[skepa]

9 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

Why all these discussions about duel asexuality, which is an attempt to define the experience of asexuality, then?  Why are you putting forward these ideas when your only true belief is that anyone who wants to be asexual is asexual?

If someone says they are asexual I take it at face value that they are. I do not question it further, this is different than a definitional discussion. I don't hold this mentality of if someone says they are asexual, then I need more clarification before I really believe them. It's a healthy state of mind which you seem to lack. If the most sexual person comes to me and says I'm asexual, then my internal definition of asexuality will include them as well, (this of course has not happened yet)

 

What this post is about, is about how I, and others should go about labeling ourselves, which is different than the definition of asexuality, I hope this clears things up for you. Also curious, what's your score on the AIS-12 test? https://avia-viridis.neocities.org/acescale.html

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, skepa said:

What this post is about, is about how I, and others should go about labeling ourselves, which is different than the definition of asexuality, I hope this clears things up for you. Also curious, what's your score on the AIS-12 test? https://avia-viridis.neocities.org/acescale.html

See my above comment

 

12 minutes ago, skepa said:

If someone says they are asexual I take it at face value that they are. I do not question it further, this is different than a definitional discussion. It's a healthy state of mind that you seem to lack.

I do not argue with anyone here about their own personal identification. 

 

I only give label advice to people who make threads ASKING ''am I asexual do you think?'' (we have many of those threads here, and my answers are always very accommodating and I make it clear that there are currently differing definitions of asexuality)

 

AND

 

I respond to threads discussing the DEFINITION of asexuality and how it should be defined (which is what your threads have all been so far, along with myself and others making some clarifications about how you were defining sexual attraction initially).

 

I am NOT ever re-labeling individuals who have already labelled themselves, except in cases when people think they're grey because they like kissing, as one example, when actually they'd be fully asexual - in those cases I suggest to them that they'd be totally fine and correct to use the label 'asexual' instead of grey but that's a different topic.

 

You seem to have completely misunderstood my motivations on AVEN, and also, seem to have completely misunderstood my actual opinions if you think AIS-12 test is 'wonderful' (because it backs up literally everything I have said here, word for word).

[skepa]

19 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

That test which you called wonderful backs up literally everything I have said here and in every other of my responses to you in all your other threads (as well as what others having been trying to say about desiring sex for pleasure, I'm certainly not the only one)

That's where you are wrong. again, you just can't understand the perspectives of others. Also since you scored a 48, by this test you would be considered asexual, and you are in the major minority, for people categorizing as sexual, your whole 30% statistic is BS by this metric.

 

Here is a blurb from the research:

Quote

There is a possibility that some participants in this study who

identified as “sexual” actually lack sexual attraction, and would

thus be better categorized as “asexual” in research. Given the

relative recency with which the term asexuality has been available,

it maybe that an asexual is misclassifying him/herself as sexual

despite having a high AIS score. Instead, such an individual

might select heterosexual, homosexual (gay or lesbian), or bi-

sexual (rather than asexual) in response to a query about their

sexual orientation.

I agree a tiny tiny (super small) minority like you categorize as sexual even though you have a high AIS score. But I disagree with the researchers that it is mostly because of the unknown term of asexuality, but more so, individuals like yourself who can't look at numbers and say they are sexual even with evidence to the contrary.

 

If anything this test is the best scientific statistical evidence we have for if someone should label as asexual or not, and the best statistical evidence we have is someone lacks sexual attraction or not. So that's what I'm sticking to.

[Alejandrogynous]

16 minutes ago, skepa said:

I agree a tiny tiny (super small) minority like you categorize as sexual even though you have a high AIS score. But I disagree with the researchers that it is mostly because of the unknown term of asexuality, but more so, individuals like yourself who can't look at numbers and say they are sexual even with evidence to the contrary.

 

Oh, the irony...

[skepa]

1 minute ago, Alejandrogynous said:

Oh, the irony...

Evidence being the AIS-12 score, which is evidence of course.

[Alejandrogynous]

 

41 minutes ago, skepa said:

If the most sexual person comes to me and says I'm asexual, then my internal definition of asexuality will include them as well

1 minute ago, skepa said:

Evidence being the AIS-12 score, which is evidence of course.

So what you're saying is, anyone - literally anyone, even the most sexual sexual to ever sexual - would be included in your definition of asexuality just because they say they're ace, but if a sexual-identifying sexual scores highly on that test, it's not because the test is flawed, but because they "say they are sexual even with evidence to the contrary"?

 

Who exactly is labeling whom here?