Sexual Allies Policing Asexual Spectrum Identities

[NickyTannock]

4 minutes ago, St. Nyaaconix the II said:

AS?

Asperger Syndrome.

 

Incidentally, I have that.

 

Sorry for the ninja Telecaster68

[Telecaster68]

Asperger's Syndrome. 

[Guest]

That's just autism spectrum, nowadays in DSM-5

 

[ryn2]

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I stand corrected. I'm still skeptical about more than a vanishingly tiny number of women preferring to go out and find emotionless sex than find a way to get themselves off. 

Maybe UK ladies are more flexible.  

 

I would guess it’s a small number today, with modern access to technology and to confidential means by which to acquire it, but it was not so small years ago.

[Telecaster68]

Specifically High Functioning Autism. 

[R_1]

9 minutes ago, Ficto. said:

It's a desire to have sex with another person for whatever reason. Anyone who has felt it (as you claim to have in the past?) should be able to identify it very easily. It would be like trying to explain hunger to someone who has never experienced it though which is why it's difficult to explain it to aces. It's a feeling of being drawn to connect with another on a sexual level, and a kind of innate dissatisfaction if you can't have that. Like you know masturbation can't fill the gap even if you masturbated all day because it's not the mere feeling of sexual release you want. You want to connect on a sexual level with someone else, which can be and usually is about a lot more than just an orgasm. 

Yeah, I did felt it, but every single time I remember, I was looking from another different point of view, almost if I was inhabiting another person's body and reading their feelings telepathically. It's quite odd to remember and having feelings that just isn't compatible with yours. Like, wear a different cloth that doesn't feel very comfortable and has very different material to one you worn, but you worn it when you were a much younger person, and that memory vanished for the most part, so remembering it would be odd and to know what it feels like would feel very odd.

 

But the issue of connect kinda has the issue of people who are just looking for sexual release and has no interest into connecting, and sexual release alone wouldn't necessarily define one's orientation. That's actually why I made the census poll involving different definition of sexuality, and different perception.

[Telecaster68]

1 minute ago, ryn2 said:

Maybe UK ladies are more flexible.  

 

I would guess it’s a small number today, with modern access to technology and to confidential means by which to acquire it, but it was not so small years ago.

The numbers comment was about how many were going out to find emotionless sex instead. 

[Snao Cone]

4 hours ago, MichaelTannock said:

5 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

So why not just masturbate instead of initiate sex? It would deal with the arousal.

If he were alone he probably would.

If I became so aroused in the presence of another person that I needed release I would wait until I was alone, because having another person is needless effort with little reward. I think if people can easily get into having sex with another person in the moment, without pushing themselves out of a sense of obligation or commitment, that's a sign they're sexual. Every time I've tried to get into the moment I've felt like I was faking it - because I was. Having sex with other people is a turn-off for me, basically. Asexual people who like sensual activity will basically have a point at which the activity becomes too sexual and they're no longer enjoying it for what it is. (If they're motivated by keeping their partner or getting pregnant or whatever, they're enjoying it for other reasons.) 

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, Snaodolph said:

having another person is needless effort with little reward

And therein the difference, in a nutshell. To sexuals, another person being involved is pretty much the entire point of the exercise. 

[ryn2]

22 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

The numbers comment was about how many were going out to find emotionless sex instead. 

Right, that’s what I meant.  Nowadays it’s easy to know about (and get) self-service options but years ago the choice was more likely to be “go without” or “agree to what someone else wants and get an orgasm in exchange.”

[ryn2]

26 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

And therein the difference, in a nutshell. To sexuals, another person being involved is pretty much the entire point of the exercise. 

The reasons for wanting that involvment vary (e.g., Ficto’s ex discussed above), which may be why some folks find discussions about it confusing or offensive.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, R_1 said:

But the issue of connect kinda has the issue of people who are just looking for sexual release and has no interest into connecting, and sexual release alone wouldn't necessarily define one's orientation. That's actually why I made the census poll involving different definition of sexuality, and different perception.

Well the thing is, if truly all they wanted was sexual release they'd masturbate. I do that most days without it being anything more than just an orgasm  The whole point of needing to find someone else to have that release with though is that there is  a 'connection' of two bodies, even if all that entails is two horny people rubbing their genitals together. It's still a separate activity from masturbation. Just like how hugging yourself and hugging someone else are two completely different activities with entirely different dynamics involved, so too is masturbation alone (sexual release) in comparison to feeling you need someone else to be a part of that sexual release for whatever reason. 

 

But I agree sexual release alone doesn't necessarily define one's sexual orientation in all circumstances. I certainly know when I desire some form of sexual interaction with another person, but wouldn't really be able to put a label on my 'orientation' other than sexual. I'm more drawn to seek sexual activity with brains than I am with the people who house those brains, if that makes any sense at all.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Snaodolph said:

If I became so aroused in the presence of another person that I needed release I would wait until I was alone, because having another person is needless effort with little reward. I think if people can easily get into having sex with another person in the moment, without pushing themselves out of a sense of obligation or commitment, that's a sign they're sexual. Every time I've tried to get into the moment I've felt like I was faking it - because I was. Having sex with other people is a turn-off for me, basically. Asexual people who like sensual activity will basically have a point at which the activity becomes too sexual and they're no longer enjoying it for what it is. (If they're motivated by keeping their partner or getting pregnant or whatever, they're enjoying it for other reasons.) 

This was me EXACTLY until I finally developed those particular 'feelings' for another person that made me able to desire to actively engage in sexual interaction with them. Up until then it was something I always had to push myself into and all I can describe the feeling as is a total turn-off. Like, even if I was aroused, the idea of sex was in instant mood-killer and I'd lose any arousal I may have previously had.. kind of like if you're all horny then someone says 'can you please do this massive pile of smelly, moldy dishes? It's the only way I can get off' and you're like Y_Y but you do the dishes anyway because it's just easier than having them all sad and upset (and that was even before I met my ex so I didn't develop this as a result of how much of an asshole he was. It was already there).

 

Now that I know what 'attraction' feels like, you kind of actively want it to get to the point where you both are engaging in sexual intimacy so you can enjoy it with them. It's a completely different feeling!!

[Light02]

3 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Because the point of sex to sexuals is that it's with another human being and there is interaction, not just a means to orgasm which someone else is helping with. 

Thank you so much, this explains things a lot better. Lol, you'd assume it'd be obvious but I guess it just goes to show how oblivious some of us ace folk can be about what sexual attraction is. I always kind of assumed the main point of sex was the physical pleasure because people always say: "Sex feels great." and stuff like that, I guess the emotionally pleasurable aspect was lost on me.

 

Also, I wanted to clarify, when I said I'd maybe try having sex with a lifelike doll, the reason is because I had a friend who was still a virgin and she identified as lesbian but one day she said she tried masturbating with some kind of object and then said she realized she wanted to try having sex with a man because the sensation was really good. She has since gone on to identify as bisexual and has displayed sexual attraction towards multiple men. She told me that maybe I think I'm asexual because I don't know what sex feels like, so that has always gnawed me in the back of my mind. Was she right? Would I actually like sex if I tried it? I can't really know since literally just the thought of doing it with a real person repulses me.

[Winged Whisperer]

As someone who's just recently discovered asexuality and is trying to figure themselves out, I just wanted to say that these types of deep back-and-forth argumentative discussions are really great and helpful to learn and understand. I want to contribute to the discourse as well, but I have a lack of time at my disposal so I'll give a more detailed explanation of I how feel and my 2 cents about this later when I come back.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Winged Whisperer
last sentence was incomplete.

[Sally]

3 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Agreed, which is why I personally think adding attraction into the definition adds confusion.  Whether one wants partnered sex in general, wants partnered sex with a specific individual, and/or wants partnered sex in general and with a specific individual, that would all fall under sexual.  If one doesn’t want partnered sex at all, that falls under asexual.

 

Yes yes yes yes yes.  

[NickyTannock]

Tangentially related question, but what constitutes a Sex-favourable Asexual?

[Philip027]

As far as I'm concerned, it basically means you're capable of enjoying it when it happens, but you still don't desire it.

[Snao Cone]

13 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

Tangentially related question, but what constitutes a Sex-favourable Asexual?

I agree with what Philip said, plus an open mind to compromise. 

[ryn2]

That’s my understanding as well - willing to have sex if someone else wants to, finds it pleasant enough while it’s happening, but wouldn’t miss it if it never happened again and wouldn’t suggest it solely out of their own personal interest.

 

To me open-mindedness is more along the lines of sex-positivity (opinion on what others do) but I can see how being open-minded about trying new things (suggested by someone else) could fall under sex-favorability.

[Winged Whisperer]

Hey so, here are my actual 2 cents:

 

First off, I see and agree with both perspectives on "gatekeeping". On the one hand asexuality has been the sort of invisible orientation and a bit left out of the larger LGBT+ community and more importantly the more general socially progressive discourse. It makes sense from a perspective of values to thus be as inclusive as possible where others haven't been. And then on the other hand, yeah asexuality and by extension acephobia is also a serious issue that shouldn't be trivialized. Not trying to no-true-scotsman here, but the experiences of a real asexual is very different than that of someone who might just have a very low libido or is going through relationship issues.

 

Second, on the definition debate, the way I see it, there are like 2 fundamentally different types of asexuals, and I say this from both reading different accounts and seeing how generally two types of profiles seem to emerge. There's the asexuals who are basically the opposite equivalent of pansexual; the people who would be in the X category in the Kinsey scale. Then there are people who would fall into the definition more commonly expressed in this thread about the lack of wanting sex. It's clear from the personal accounts of these two groups that there are some real differences. When I see stories of people hitting puberty and waiting for someone to get attracted to, and then that never happening, I'm seeing/reading an account of the first type. Then when I see stories (like my own) where the person thinks they're straight or whatever until they actually get to the act itself and they realize that this wasn't really their cup of tea. The two definitions of asexuality existing basically conform to these two groups too. The "sexual attraction" definition conforms closely to the first type and the "sexual desire" one conforms to the latter. And here's the thing, as someone who almost certainly is asexual by the second definition, I frankly don't feel that shared experience with a lot of people from the former group. I legit could not think I was not straight, for basically ever (even though my first sexual encounter was homosexual, and I kinda liked it...). I still feel an "attraction" to the opposite sex, whatever it is, that's not romantic nor aesthetic, even though I don't want to jump anyone's bones either. I wouldn't describe it as sexual attraction, but then I also don't know what it is either. I just would call it attraction with no adjectives attached. Either way, these two archetypes of asexuals still face pretty much the same practical implications, especially socially, so I do see the value in not breaking asexuality down into two groups. So asexuality is two things: a lack of sexual attraction (visualized through the Kinsey scale) and a lack of sexuality (visualized through the allo-asexuality spectrum).

 

So yeah, while I'm more than delighted at the warm welcome I've received from this community, I also want to be as honest as possible, and have people be honest with me as much as possible. I'm trying to figure myself out, if I am or not asexual actually has important ramifications on what decisions are right for me in facing my problems. And maybe it's possible to be Schrodinger's asexual, being both non-asexual and asexual at the same time depending on the definition.

[ryn2]

8 minutes ago, Winged Whisperer said:

Second, on the definition debate, the way I see it, there are like 2 fundamentally different types of asexuals, and I say this from both reading different accounts and seeing how generally two types of profiles seem to emerge.

This (and your longer subsequent explanation) is an interesting point, one I need to ponder further.

[NickyTannock]

@Winged Whisperer In my case, I feel no attraction, and I've never desired sex with another person.

It sounds like that places me in the first category of Asexual that you described.
Which might explain why I argued for the definition of Asexuality that centres on a lack of Sexual Attraction since as you say that applies to the first category of Asexual.

[Winged Whisperer]

@MichaelTannock

[NickyTannock]

@Winged Whisperer Yes?

[Winged Whisperer]

 

3 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

@Winged Whisperer In my case, I feel no attraction, and I've never desired sex with another person.

It sounds like that places me in the first category of Asexual that you described.
Which might explain why I argued for the definition of Asexuality that centres on a lack of Sexual Attraction since as you say that applies to the first category of Asexual.

Sorry about the tag, can't find the delete button, but yeah that's a difference. Everyone I see, I can mentally drop into those buckets. Despite also personally identifying as asexual, I actually feel like I have experience less in common with someone like you than say an allosexual heterosexual man. AND THIS IS REALLY CONFUSING FOR ME! 🤕

[ryn2]

I fall more into the second bucket/am not sure if I am ace, and I tend to better understand the desire/“want partnered sex” model, so I fit this as well.  I’m older and had attributed it to growing up in a time where asexuality wasn’t even a consideration but maybe that’s not the whole story.

[Winged Whisperer]

I think it's also worth adding there are typological differences between the groups too. Among them, it seems like the first category have asexuality much sooner discovered, typically in the teenage years while the second types usually discovers their asexuality after a sexual encounter. But meh, what do I know, I've gone into my armchair researcher mode now while out of my depth.

[Ceebs]

5 hours ago, Sally said:

 

8 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Agreed, which is why I personally think adding attraction into the definition adds confusion.  Whether one wants partnered sex in general, wants partnered sex with a specific individual, and/or wants partnered sex in general and with a specific individual, that would all fall under sexual.  If one doesn’t want partnered sex at all, that falls under asexual.

 

Yes yes yes yes yes.  

 

Yup.

 

Do you innately want to engage in activities of a sexual nature with another person, for your own enjoyment, either mental/emotional or physical or both? Congrats, you're sexual. Do you have no innate interest in doing sexytime things with others? Congrats, you're asexual. Yes it's still ok to want to make your partner happy or to have children, or sometimes even to wonder what sex might be like if you've never had it, because people can be curious about things they don't really crave, just because we are naturally curious creatures. But ultimately you still need to fall on the side of preferring not to be having it. As in, if there was no partner to be satisfied, no babies to be conceived, or you'd satiated your curiosity about what sex was like and decided it's not your thing, you'd always choose no sex over having sex.

 

It's that simple, guys. It's not a difficult concept, it really isn't. There's nothing wrong with being a sexual person; I see some people clinging to some sort of convoluted asexual identity, and honestly that speaks volumes about underlying issues and how one perceives sexuality. And there's nothing wrong with being asexual either. You're a minority of folks for sure, but we live in a time when there's more awareness and understanding of differing human sexualities. It's alright to be whoever you are. It's alright to not know, too. It's alright to be confused, to wonder if your confusion about sex is due to asexuality or something else. Because sometimes that's the case, and hopefully eventually you'll figure your shit out. It's not a race, either; there's no point at which you need to know definitively. (Been there, done that myself. Anyone who knows my long and messy AVEN history knows that I came here identifying as at least potentially asexual.)

 

Just stop twisting definitions and words, or making up ridiculously specific new ones to describe things that are already easily covered by one term or the other ('sexual' or 'asexual'). It's really not very complicated at all.

[NickyTannock]

3 minutes ago, Winged Whisperer said:

I think it's also worth adding there are typological differences between the groups too. Among them, it seems like the first category have asexuality much sooner discovered, typically in the teenage years while the second types usually discovers their asexuality after a sexual encounter. But meh, what do I know, I've gone into my armchair researcher mode now while out of my depth.

That also fits me, because I realised that I'm Asexual in my early teens, around 14 when I started hearing sexual comments from my peers and found that they bewildered me.

 

I wonder if the second category of Asexual being closer to Sexuals explains why Sexuals seem to favour the second definition of Asexuality too.