Sexual Allies Policing Asexual Spectrum Identities

[Philip027]

It's because your argument is precisely the sort used by people who claim to love sex and seek it out whenever they can, yet still claim to be "asexual" on a technicality because they're twisting the definition of attraction into one they technically don't fall under.  This commits 3 sins: 1) it makes light of what actual asexual people go through, 2) it often sets up sexuals as being ravenous horndogs that are slaves to their emotions and "attraction" when really, that's usually not how they are, 3) it sets up false expectations for sexuals interacting with asexuals ("oh, this supposedly ace person still loves having sex with me; I guess it doesn't really mean anything after all!")

 

"Attraction" is really a lot more generalized than people seem to think it is.

[NickyTannock]

16 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

By this sort of logic, a lot of self-identified sexual people would actually be "asexual" because they simply just want sex, which is obviously bogus.

And how do you know that's Bogus?
I genuinely want to know your answer, because people have joined this site with highly sexual partners who they've come to realise are Asexual after years of sexual problems between them.

[Philip027]

Because it is?  Maybe in the online/AVEN/tumblr world someone who loves and eagerly pursues sex can be "asexual", but the real world doesn't operate like that.

 

Also, your assumption that you know more about a sexual person's identity than the sexual person themself is already quite arrogant.  If they are calling themselves (hetero/homo/whatever) sexual, you might want to look at the reasons why they are doing that, rather than trying to tell them they could be ace.  Trust me, they would know more about what it means to be sexual than an asexual person would.

 

Quote

because people have joined this site with highly sexual partners who they've come to realise of Asexual after years of sexual problems between them. 

I don't understand this statement, sorry.

[NickyTannock]

Just now, Philip027 said:

Because it is?  Maybe in the online/AVEN/tumblr world someone who loves and eagerly pursues sex can be "asexual", but the real world doesn't operate like that.

Then how does it operate? I genuinely want to know.

 

1 minute ago, Philip027 said:

Also, your assumption that you know more about a sexual person's identity than the sexual person themself is already quite arrogant.

I'm not making any such assumption. Just the opposite, I'm taking people at their word when they say what their identity is because I can't know someone else better than they know themselves. Please don't project yourself onto me.

 

5 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

I don't understand this statement, sorry.

This is the most recent example, ( @lifeisntfair I apologise for bringing you into this, but people need to know that Asexuals like your wife really do exist, or they will never find acceptance inside the Asexual community)

 

[Philip027]

Quote

I'm not making any such assumption. Just the opposite, I'm taking people at their word when they say what their identity is because I can't know someone else better than they know themselves. Please don't project yourself onto me.

If this is really what you believed, you wouldn't be entertaining the idea of a self-proclaimed sexual person being read by asexuals as "might actually be asexual because Reasons!" as legitimate and an okay thing to express.

 

You instead asked "how do you know it is bogus?" which implies you DO entertain the idea of asexuals doing this to sexuals.

 

Quote

Then how does it operate? I genuinely want to know.

A guy who wants sex + looks toward girls, as opposed to other guys, to have it with = heterosexual.

 

Expand for every other orientation.

 

As for your example, I don't get how that has anything to do with asexual people claiming they know more about sexual people's orientations than they do (which IS a thing that sometimes happens here, to the sexual people's inevitable and warranted disgust)

[NickyTannock]

2 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

If this is really what you believed, you wouldn't be entertaining the idea of a self-proclaimed sexual person being read by asexuals as "might actually be asexual because Reasons!" as legitimate and an okay thing to express.

 

You instead asked "how do you know it is bogus?" which implies you DO entertain the idea of asexuals doing this to sexuals.

I DON'T entertain the idea of Asexuals labelling Sexuals as Asexuals, but I DO entertain the idea of people self-identifying as Asexuals if they don't experience Sexual Attraction.

Whereas you seem to have a big problem with someone self-identifying as Asexual if they desire sex, which smacks of Asexual Elitism to me, which is why I asked you not to project yourself onto me.

 

7 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

A guy who wants sex + looks toward girls, as opposed to other guys, to have it with = heterosexual.

 

Expand for every other orientation.

I think you have that backwoods in that I think it's: A guy looks towards girls and consequently wants to have sex with them as opposed to other guys = heterosexual.

But I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong, and want to see a persuasive argument. I found Ficto.'s argument about people denying that they're experiencing Sexual Attraction even though they do to be persuasive, so I was hoping for something similar from you.

 

6 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

As for your example, I don't get how that has anything to do with asexual people claiming they know more about sexual people's orientations than they do (which IS a thing that sometimes happens here, to the sexual people's inevitable and warranted disgust)

It has nothing to do with that, because that's not the discussion that you and I are having.

The discussion we're having is on what constitutes Asexuality.

[Philip027]

Quote

Whereas you seem to have a big problem with someone self-identifying as Asexual if they desire sex,

Because if you desire sex with someone for sexual gratification, to me that's inherent capacity for sexual attraction.  There isn't any getting around that.

 

Quote

I think you have that backwoods in that I think it's: A guy looks towards girls and consequently wants to have sex with them as opposed to other guys = heterosexual.

Potato, potahto.  If A+B=C, B+A=C as well.

[NickyTannock]

1 minute ago, Philip027 said:

Because if you desire sex with someone for sexual gratification, to me that's inherent capacity for sexual attraction.  There isn't any getting around that.

To you, yes. To me, for it to be Sexual Attraction, it must be an attraction to a person that causes you to desire sexual gratification with them.

 

3 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Potato, potahto.  If A+B=C, B+A=C as well.

Not everything works like that. (A/B=C)  =/=  (B/A=C)

And my contention that an attraction which leads to the desire for partnered sex constitutes Sexual Attraction doesn't mean the same as your contention that the desire for partnered sex itself constitutes Sexual Attraction, or we wouldn't be having such a lengthy disagreement about that point.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

To you, yes. To me, for it to be Sexual Attraction, it must be an attraction to a person that causes you to desire sexual gratification with them.

 

Not everything works like that. (A/B=C)  =/=  (B/A=C)

And my contention that an attraction which leads to the desire for partnered sex constitutes Sexual Attraction doesn't mean the same as your contention that the desire for partnered sex itself constitutes Sexual Attraction, or we wouldn't be having such a lengthy disagreement about that point.

What would you say causes a person to choose a sexual partner if not attraction of some sort though? If you are selecting a specific person over another, something is drawing you to them. 

[Philip027]

Quote

To you, yes. To me, for it to be Sexual Attraction, it must be an attraction to a person that causes you to desire sexual gratification with them.

That's... literally the same thing?  They are not different.

[R_1]

4 minutes ago, Serran said:

What would you say causes a person to choose a sexual partner if not attraction of some sort though? If you are selecting a specific person over another, something is drawing you to them. 

You could in theory only want the physical aspect,  not the person like a object or other dynamics.

[Philip027]

Quote

You could in theory only want the physical aspect,  not the person like a object or other dynamics.

Yep, because seeing your sex partners as people/objects/dinosaurs is something only sexual people do, right?

 

The motivations behind it or how you see your partner doesn't matter.  If you want sex with them, that's sexual attraction.  It doesn't mean that you have to appreciate them as a person (you might not), that you care for them romantically (not always), or any other such thing that has absolutely nothing to do with sexual attraction.

[NickyTannock]

15 minutes ago, Serran said:

What would you say causes a person to choose a sexual partner if not attraction of some sort though? If you are selecting a specific person over another, something is drawing you to them. 

Convenience. Basically what @R_1 has said.

 

12 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

That's... literally the same thing?  They are not different.

They're different things. If you desire partnered sex, and the partner doesn't matter, then it's not the partner you're attracted to, but the act. If they're the same, then you're essentially saying that people are sexually attracted to sex, and the other people are just stand-ins like a human sex toy.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, R_1 said:

You could in theory only want the physical aspect,  not the person like a object or other dynamics.

In which case, literally any person should do, as the physical pleasure can come from anyone. Even if you want a specific type, like PiV, then any penis or vagina works for the job. And it is pretty easy to get if you aren't picky. However, it is rare that a person would choose sex with just anyone. They tend to have specific qualities they need in a partner. What qualities vary.

 

So... what do you call what draws the person to their specific chosen partner ?

[NickyTannock]

6 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Yep, because seeing your sex partners as people/objects/dinosaurs is something only sexual people do, right?

 

The motivations behind it or how you see your partner doesn't matter.  If you want sex with them, that's sexual attraction.  It doesn't mean that you have to appreciate them as a person (you might not), that you care for them romantically (not always), or any other such thing that has absolutely nothing to do with sexual attraction.

If you want sex with them specifically, that's sexual attraction. If you want sex in general, and you decide to have sex with them purely because it's convenient, then you're not doing it because of an attraction to them.

[NickyTannock]

Just now, Serran said:

In which case, literally any person should do, as the physical pleasure can come from anyone. Even if you want a specific type, like PiV, then any penis or vagina works for the job. And it is pretty easy to get if you aren't picky. However, it is rare that a person would choose sex with just anyone. They tend to have specific qualities they need in a partner. What qualities vary.

 

So... what do you call what draws the person to their specific chosen partner ?

If your draw to them causes you to want sex with them, then I'd say it's Sexual Attraction.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MichaelTannock said:

If your draw to them causes you to want sex with them, then I'd say it's Sexual Attraction.

Well. But. If you desire sex and choose a partner without just going with "first person willing", then you have a draw that makes you desire them over others. So, you would call that sexual attraction?

[NickyTannock]

Just now, Serran said:

Well. But. If you desire sex and choose a partner without just going with "first person willing", then you have a draw that makes you desire them over others. So, you would call that sexual attraction?

If the draw didn't cause you to want sex with them but caused you to be close to them before you wanted sex, then I'd say it's another type of attraction, like Sensual, or Aesthetic.

[Philip027]

Quote

They're different things. If you desire partnered sex, and the partner doesn't matter, then it's not the partner you're attracted to, but the act.

You cannot be "attracted" to an act.  You can fetishize it maybe, but attraction needs to be toward an actual tangible thing.

 

Quote

If your draw to them causes you to want sex with them, then I'd say it's Sexual Attraction.

Here's the thing though: sometimes sexual people just want sex.  It's not necessarily a draw to anyone in particular that causes them to desire it.

 

They're still sexual, because they desire sex.  What a concept, right?

 

The order in which these things happen doesn't really matter, at all.

[R_1]

26 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Yep, because seeing your sex partners as people/objects/dinosaurs is something only sexual people do, right?

 

The motivations behind it or how you see your partner doesn't matter.  If you want sex with them, that's sexual attraction.  It doesn't mean that you have to appreciate them as a person (you might not), that you care for them romantically (not always), or any other such thing that has absolutely nothing to do with sexual attraction.

But, how do you explain individuals who agreed to have sex despite going against their own identity, and some of those actually found that the sex was very much fun, but there was something missing in there. Actually, there was a controversial member of this site who was over her 30s, and she id as a lesbian, and she admitted to having sex with men, but in the end, there was something missing even though she did found having sex with men fun at times. How do you explain the missing element? And I believe you know who exactly was I talking about.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

If the draw didn't cause you to want sex with them but caused you to be close to them before you wanted sex, then I'd say it's another type of attraction, like Sensual, or Aesthetic.

Confused. 

 

So scenarios to figure out what you are saying. Mark each one by attraction type if you dont mind.

 

1) Mark is cuddling with Sarah. During the cuddling, he becomes aroused and wants sex. He asks Sarah and she agrees, so they have sex. He doesn't find Sarah particularly pretty, but they have a trusting relationship so he feels safe having sex with her.

 

2) James is out at a bar and sees Alicia dancing. Her body movement makes him want to spend the night with her. 

 

3) Cory is horny and wants sex. He goes out to a bar and begins talking to ladies until he finds one that seems appealing enough to take home. 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, R_1 said:

But, how do you explain individuals who agreed to have sex despite going against their own identity, and some of those actually found that the sex was very much fun, but there was something missing in there. Actually, there was a controversial member of this site who was over her 30s, and she id as a lesbian, and she admitted to having sex with men, but in the end, there was something missing even though she did found having sex with men fun at times. How do you explain the missing element? And I believe you know who exactly was I talking about.

I know who. I still email with her at times. And she did not believe aces who love sex fit the definition. She said what was missing with men was the romantic component, despite sex being fun with them. So do not try to use her to defend a model of attraction and a definition she doesn't agree with just because she has left the site. 

[Philip027]

Quote

But, how do you explain individuals who agreed to have sex despite going against their own identity, and some of those actually found that the sex was very much fun, but there was something missing in there. Actually, there was a controversial member of this site who was over her 30s, and she id as a lesbian, and she admitted to having sex with men, but in the end, there was something missing even though she did found having sex with men fun at times. How do you explain the missing element? And I believe you know who exactly was I talking about.

Do you literally mean agreed to, or outright desired?

 

Because if you meant the latter, then I would say it's a case of them being mistaken about their identity.

 

And I do know who you're talking about, and as Serran indicated, if she were here I'm sure she'd also be condemning these mental hurdles and gymnastics going on about sexual attraction too, because I know she did just that in the past.  This person is actually a perfect example of the sort of sexual person I'm talking about; someone who doesn't do all this cartwheeling around what sexual attraction actually is, but still nevertheless knows she is sexual because of the one thing that defines sexual people: she desires sex.

[R_1]

4 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Do you literally mean agreed to, or outright desired?

 

Because if you meant the latter, then I would say it's a case of them being mistaken about their identity.

 

And I do know who you're talking about, and if she were here she'd also be condemning these mental hurdles and gymnastics going on about sexual attraction too, because I know she did just that in the past.

I did mean agreed to do so just because... I'm pretty sure I could probably find another series of people that don't say about anything about romantic component if I really wanna bother doing that, and from what I found on the web on several components, some of them actually knew their own identity, but only agreed just to think more about the mechanical aspect of it than the other person and that's the main goal, but it's not quite the same thing as doing it with someone they believe they're attracted to. My question is why deny those experiences?

[Guest]

The reason agreed vs desired is important is because you can agree to sex for many reasons other than desiring it for your own emotional and/or physical pleasure. So that wording is troublesome in how to respond to it. 

 

Enjoy vs desire is another important difference. If you agree for whatever reason and enjoy it but dont desire it for yourself it is different to desiring it for yourself and enjoying it. 

 

So are you talking about people who agreed to sex for other people then ended up enjoying it, or people who desire it for themselves and seek it out and enjoy it ? 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Serran said:

I know who. I still email with her at times. And she did not believe aces who love sex fit the definition. She said what was missing with men was the romantic component, despite sex being fun with them. So do not try to use her to defend a model of attraction and a definition she doesn't agree with just because she has left the site. 

Yes I know her too @R_1 

 

And she said that for this very reason that's why she thinks the sexual attraction definition is so ridiculous, because it just leads aces to being confused over what makes sexual people tick. To her (and to me and other sexuals here) it's the underlying desire to connect sexually with others that makes us 'sexual', even if we sometimes might fuck people we aren't attracted to. That's WHY 'attraction' is such a confusing way to define all this, because really it's about whether or not we want to fuck and who we fuck. It's a lot more about the underlying desire to connect sexually with others than it is about being drawn in this or that way to whichever specific person. But to SIMPLIFY things, it's still easiest to go with most basic definition of 'desiring partnered sexual contact with certain other people under certain circumstances' and calling that sexual attraction.

 

I'm tired so that comment is all over the place grammatically, sorry peps.

 

 

[Ceebs]

Why the fuck is this so complicated. I don't get it. I will never get it.

[Sally]

1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

You cannot be "attracted" to an act.  You can fetishize it maybe, but attraction needs to be toward an actual tangible thing.

 

No, you can't.  However, you can WANT sex.   And that's the whole problem with using "attraction" in any part of a definition of asexuality.   Asexuality is not "I don't feel sexual attraction."   It's "I don't want to have sex with any other person."    

[Telecaster68]

3 hours ago, Sally said:

 Asexuality is not "I don't feel sexual attraction."   It's "I don't want to have sex with any other person." 

And to be fair to AVEN as an entity, if you go down the rabbit hole of definitions on the site, you do end up with 'attraction' being defined as 'wanting to have sex with another person'. So it comes to the same thing.

 

This kind of debate is exactly what I meant by the way asexuals turning something simple into something weird and complicated by attempting to define something they have no experience of. (I know a few asexuals are on the same side of this as sexuals, and it's precisely because they take sexuals at their word about sexuality. So, QED).

 

We need to get Tim Peak on here, so the rest of us can tell him what zero gravity feels like....

[Kimmie.]

I have said it before and i will say it again, I think that sexuals have more of a say in what sexual attraction is because they experience it.