Dual Asexuality reference & discussion

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, skepa said:

it is different but it could be just as uncomfortable depending on the difference of libido or orientation. I.e. off the kinsey scale a large portion of people are not exactly a 0 or a 6.

A straight woman having a lower libido than her hypersexual boyfriend may definitely cause them issues with the frequency of sex and needing to compromise on that, I'm not denying that. But that is not in any way comparible to a straight man in a sexual relationship with a gay man, because it's not libido that is the issue between them (or between sexuals and asexuals), it's the sexual orientation. It doesn't matter how high a straight guys libido is (he might be super hypersexual) that almost certainly will not make it easier for him to be comfortable sexually in a sexual relationship with a gay man, because I was talking about sexual orientation imcompatibility, not libido incompatibility.

 

I've known many asexuals (both male and female) on AVEN with very high libidos but that never made their relationships with sexuals easier for them in the long run. They were still compromising on their sexual orientation, which led to them being deeply unhappy. It also leads to their sexual partner feeling unwanted, unhappy, and sexually unfulfilled, even if sex was happening - because having sex with someone who isn't into it is not satisfying for most people. 

 

Libido incompatibility is a completely different issue from sexual orientation incompatibility. I was talking about orientation incompatibility which is one of the reasons why I do not identify as asexual anymore (because I'd be putting an asexual in the same situation they'd be in with any other sexual if we were to be in a relationship together).

 

 

 

[skepa]

56 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

Libido incompatibility is a completely different issue from sexual orientation incompatibility.

Of course but I'm just saying that libido incompatibility can in some scenarios be more uncomfortable than orientation incompatibilities.

 

1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

It doesn't matter how high a straight guys libido is (he might be super hypersexual) that almost certainly will not make it easier for him to be comfortable sexually in a sexual relationship with a gay man

Not unless this straight identifying man, was a 2 on the Kinsey scale, but still identifies as straight, clearly there are varying degrees to which people classify as asexual as well (not everyone is a 60 on the AIS test)

[Cobie]

 

7 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Libido incompatibility is a completely different issue from sexual orientation incompatibility.

Exactly 😊

[Guest]

12 hours ago, skepa said:

Of course but I'm just saying that libido incompatibility can in some scenarios be more uncomfortable than orientation incompatibilities.

 Having experienced both of these things personally and knowing many others on AVEN who have experienced them over the years (both sexual and ace), I can say with confidence that in almost all cases having incompatible libido levels is a very different (and much easier to cope with) level of discomfort than orientation incompatibility. There may be exceptions a minority of the time, but I've personally never come across a situation where libido incompatibility is worse than sexual orientation incompatibility. I've also seen many, many sexual people on AVEN say the same thing - they could deal with libido compatibility issues, but not being wanted sexually in any way, ever, by their partner hurts deeper than any libido incompatibility ever could. 

 

You're entitled to have a different opinion of course, but yeah, I've never experienced, nor met anyone else who has experienced, greater suffering as a result of libido compatibility issues than as a result of sexual orientation compatibility issues.

 

(My writing is really frikken tiny and I'm on my phone so I can't fix it Y_Y)

[GLRDT]

On 4/5/2018 at 2:30 PM, FictoVore. said:

I'm definitely in a foggy greyish area of sexuality, but not asexual

Yes! That's why I said there should be gray asexuality and gray sexuality and it sounds like you are identifying with gray sexuality. I described it in more detail before.

[Puck]

Hey, @skepa!

 

You had mentioned that you really valued reading scientist's data/views on sexuality, so I wanted to provide you with some that supports more a different view than you hold. I apologize for not being able to come up with these sooner, I just hand to find the quotes in the book which took me a spell 

 

Here are some excerpts from Anthony Bogaert's "Understanding Asexuality." Bogaert is one of the most prominent (possibly the most prominent) scientists studying asexuality today and his book (along with "The Invisible Orientation" written by Julie Decker) are widely thought of as the two most comprehensive books on asexuality today.

 

Any who, here are Anthony's thoughts on identity (you can find this on page 23 of the 2015 edition):

 

Quote

Why not define an asexual person as anyone who, in fact, defines himself or herself as asexual> This is a reasonable question, and self-definitions/identities are important in a number of ways. For one, considering self-definitions respects the way someone chooses to label him or herself. There are also many interesting research and health issues about forging a sexual identity, including an asexual identity... But is self definition the best way to understand the main factor(s) underlying asexuality as a sexual orientation and/or as a phenomenon? Because one's sexual identity is often formed by a variety of factors - such as knowledge of a label or labels, comfort level with coming out, and political and other factors - many sexologists, including myself, are often wary of using self-identification as the key dimension in defining sexual orientation.* As mentioned above, many sexologists define sexual orientation in terms of sexual attraction, as we believe it is the "psychological core" of sexual orientation.

 

*This is true especially if you consider the various names people use to describe their identity if they have same-sex attractions: gay, lesbian, queer, butch, femme, queen, and so forth

To me, this states well my opinion and the opinions of many who posted here; that identity is important and should be respected for individuals health and well-being, but it shouldn't be used as a definition due to the fact that many factors aside from actual orientation may affect one's choice of identity.

 

To explain why attraction is the key focus of orientation, Bogaert offers this paragraph on page 17 (this is the part that Bogaert means when he says "As mentioned above" in the previous paragraph of this post, btw):

 

Quote

Most modern sexologists - and, for that matter, social scientists (e.g., psychologists, sociologists) - believe that the study of behavior by itself is too limiting. They happily include in their research the mind's other key processes, including its attractions, thoughts, and desires. These other aspects of the mind are widely accepted today, in part because we now have better ways of measuring them. Modern sex researchers also know that making conclusions about people based only on behavior is often brought with problems. Here's an example. Let's say you know a man who has had in his  lifetime one sexual partner, his wife, with whom he has sexual intercourse once a week. Based on this, you should conclude that his sexual orientation is heterosexual. And yet, somehow, you later find out that this man's sexual fantasies (reflecting his attractions), including while having sex with his wife, are exclusively of men. A shocker, to be sure! Later, you notice that, when drunk at parties, he also seems to stare rather longingly at attractive men. So, what is his sexual orientation: still heterosexual? I know no one who would suggest that this man is, in fact, heterosexual. This is because people implicitly believe that one's deep-seated sexual attractions always trump overt behavior when attempting to understand the essence of a human being's sexual orientation. Most modern sexual orientation researchers agree  (Bailey, Dunne, &Martin, 2000; Bogaert, 2003; Storms, 1980; Money. 1988; Zucker & Bradley, 1995). They suggest that if we want to know whether someone is gay or straight, we should assess his or her attractions (and not necessarily his or her behaviors). In actuality, having more information, rather than less (including information about behavior), is important, but if you were to rely on only one aspect in assessing someone's sexual orientation, it would be the person's attractions, and to exclude this aspect is very problematic.*

 

*This is not to deny that there are times when we many not be able to know about a person's true inclinations and desires, because he or she may lie (or may not know) about them. Thus, if the behavior is "observable" in some way (e.g., getting caught with a prostitute), this may provide more accurate information than what people "report" on their attractions and desires. But this does not mean that if we had a faithful window into their minds, their attractions would be a worse indicator of who they are (as a sexual being) than their behaviors. Indeed, it would not. So, I reiterate: An accurate assessment of a person's attractions always trumps and accurate assessment of his or her behavior when it comes to understanding the true nature of that person's inclinations.

So, what I conclude from his words and research here, is that inner attractions are the most basic form of learning a person's orientation. It is important to keep in mind (as he does with the footnote) that people may not know what their attractions are, and thus behavior or other factors may be helpful in determining one's orientation (which is why many who strongly support the attraction model will still question an individual who identifies as asexual but seeks out partnered sex on a constant basis).

 

Again, this is NOT to say that we should go around labeling other; as Bogaert says in the first paragraph I provided it may cause mental health issues. The man he described in the second paragraph might exhibit great distress if a large amount of people started assertively claiming he was gay, but that wouldn't necessarily make them wrong. It's just that orientation and identity can be two very different things (which is what the Dual model was trying to express). The way people identify is very important to them, whether they identify with the appropriate orientation for themselves or not. That's why one should, as you do, always take people at their word for who they identify. However, if one wishes to support someone that they believe would truly benefit from their words, pushing them to consider another orientation might, in the long run, do more good for them than simply agreeing with their assessment. Think of those in the LGBT+ community who have claimed to so value the friends and family that supported them through their coming out, including those who might have said they had guessed that they weren't straight. But, of course, knowing when to express and how to express that you don't think another's orientation aligns with their identity is incredibly tricky, nuanced, must be handled with upmost care, and sometimes isn't one's place in the end.

 

Hope those two paragraphs helped you see another perspective

[skepa]

3 hours ago, Puck said:

Hope those two paragraphs helped you see another perspective

Thanks, I appreciate the time you took for this response, and I agree that care should definitely be taken when it comes to helping others with their own identities and orientations.