Jump to content

Various thoughts and questions


lylet

Recommended Posts

Quote

And it isn't identity policing because I'm not contesting that you're asexual.

That... isn't the only way to police someone's identity.

 

Quote

Everyone has a sexual orientation, even if that sexual orientation is "no, thank you". That's not identity policing, it's a statement of fact.

Disagree, on both counts.  Your insistence that everyone has a sexual orientation is invalidating to the people who identify as not having one, and that IS identity policing.

 

Tell me, do you also tell people that everyone has a gender, including the agender folks?  Because that's another sort of policing remark people make, too.

 

Quote

I'm pointing out an inaccurate understanding of what sexual orientation is. In much the same way that I might tell an atheist who believes that atheism is the rejection of religion that, no, atheism is the non-belief in the existence of a god(s). I am not contesting that they are atheist, I'm pointing out a factual error in their understanding of the subject.

"So what are your religious beliefs?"
"Uhh, I'm atheist"

"... yeah, but what are your religious beliefs?"

 

These sorts of people are such a joy to deal with, let me tell you :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, lylet said:

this discussion is going in a direction that I do not wish to follow

Get it?

 

Honestly I think you set yourself up for derailing with a pretentious refusal to adopt a vocabulary that is well-established (including in scientific literature).

 

"Orientation" in this context is useful in that it refers to an enduring and unchangeable aspect of an individual.

 

Asexuality is not aversion to sex, but the absence of attraction. That said, most heterosexuals are not interested in same-sex activities: while physically capable of it, they are not attracted to it.

 

Whether this individual you profess to care about is, in fact, asexual is largely something she must determine for herself. Therapy might plausibly address aversions or physiological issues (if it is desired), but it will not change attractions or lack thereof -- all evidence to date indicates this cannot be changed. Attempting to do so is as problematic as "conversion therapy" for homosexual orientations. And thus, this is why the word "orientation" is an excellent choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, lylet said:

Please believe that my desire to encourage her to become sexual with me is not purely a result of lust on my end, but motivated largely by true love and a hope for our mutual happiness.

If she doesn't want sex then sex won't make her happy, it'll make her miserable. You can't force her to enjoy something she doesn't want. That's just life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

That... isn't the only way to police someone's identity.

*sigh*

I'm not contesting your identity as an asexual person. Whether or not asexuality is a sexual orientation is a matter of classification, and does nothing to police or gatekeep asexuality. Nobody's identification as asexual would be under threat if everyone agreed that asexuality is/isn't a sexual orientation. So no, it isn't identity policing.

 

1 minute ago, Philip027 said:

Disagree, on both counts.

 

Tell me, do you also tell people that everyone has a gender, including the agender folks?  Because that's another sort of policing remark people make, too.

Gender is not sexual orientation. Do try to stay on topic.

 

5 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

"So what are your religious beliefs?"
"Uhh, I'm atheist"

"... yeah, but what are your religious beliefs?"

 

These sorts of people are such a joy to deal with, let me tell you

Don't put words in my mouth. If I asked someone what their religious beliefs were (which I typically don't), and they said "I'm atheist", then I'd ask them more questions about what they specifically believe. I'm not an obtuse asshole, and I understand that people use colloquial definitions in casual conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Camicon said:

Everyone has a sexual orientation, even if that sexual orientation is "no, thank you". That's not identity policing, it's a statement of fact.

Hmm, there are people who genuinely don't really have an established direction for their sexual desire when it comes to gender though, but not because they're pan or ace.

 

I desire certain kinds of sexual intimacy (which is why I stopped identifying as ace) however only once I have a certain kind of emotional connection to someone. My body isn't drawn to any specific kind of human sexually, it's brains/minds/thoughts I get drawn to and when I interact with the right brain/personality etc, this can make me desire some kinds of sexual intimacy with the body its attached to however the body does still need to meet certain requirements that I can never pre-determine unless a connection becomes evident. However I also place no importance on sex and truly don't care if I never physically have it again, I prefer to have it with words if I'm going to be getting kinky with someone.

 

I just identify as 'sexual', though there isn't any set direction or preference and I live outwardly as an asexual being for the most part.

 

I would be lying if I said I was hetero, homo, bi, or pan because that would imply I'm drawn to specific genders in a specific way and I'm just not. I'm also not ace due to the fact that I do indeed get drawn to certain others sexually.

 

What I'm saying is that sexual orientation isn't so black-and-white for everyone. There are many people who can't identify the direction of their orientation or whether or not they even have an orientation here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nobody's identification as asexual would be under threat if everyone agreed that asexuality is/isn't a sexual orientation.

I never said their identification as asexual was under threat.  I'm saying that their right to identify as not having a sexual orientation is.  You don't get to dictate that for others.

 

Quote

Gender is not sexual orientation. Do try to stay on topic. 

Atheism wasn't never the subject of this thread either, but that sure didn't stop you from bringing it up, now did it?

 

Quote

I'm not an obtuse asshole, and I understand that people use colloquial definitions in casual conversation. 

So far you've not been sounding like you really understand that, so do forgive me for suspecting otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, lylet said:

Sexual male here. I recently entered into a romantic relationship with someone who claims to be asexual. I prefer to use the term "nonsexual" because I see "asexual" as being a biology term for organisms that reproduce by other means; humans reproduce sexually, but may choose not to engage in sexual activity. For that reason, I choose to use the word "nonsexual," and I'll use it for the remainder of this post. I hope you understand that I don't mean to disrespect anyone or disapprove of the words you choose to use to describe this pattern behavior. I just think that this term describes the behavior more accurately and more specifically.

 

When my partner first brought up to me the issue of her sexuality, she did it in tears and with much emotional struggle. I told her that I loved her and that I was okay with the way she is. Every time since that we have discussed it, there have been tears. She has told me that her nonsexuality doesn't bother her and that it's not something she wants to change, but her emotional state during our discussions sort of indicate otherwise to me. She lives her life normally, but any discussion about this topic leaves her quite distressed.

 

From what I've seen about ways to deal with relationships between sexual and nonsexual people, the advice always seems to be that the sexual person is the one that needs to change. And to some extent, I agree. We can't force another person to behave the way we want them to sexually. On the other hand, it's possible that the nonsexual person is nonsexual because of pathology or injury, and there's no advice given on how to find out if that's the case. My (admittedly brief and ignorant) insight into my partner's condition leaves me to believe that her nonsexuality may be the result of spinal injury, and may partially be out of fear. I genuinely believe that she and I would both be happier if I could someday show her this sexual world.

 

I'm a little hesitant to post this here, because the political attitude surrounding issues of sexuality is often quite hostile. It seems often that there can be no discussion about why someone behaves sexually the way that they do. The general trend of advice or comments seem to be something along the lines of, "They are the way they are and they can't change it and to suggest that there might be any possibility of that is bigotry." I hope I don't get anything like that here. I genuinely want to understand. Sexuality is complicated, and surely we can agree that there's a wide, wide range of reasons why people might be the way they are. So let's discuss it honestly. Human beings are biologically equipped for sexual reproduction, and for that reason, I don't think it's discriminatory to say that it might be worth exploring options for developing sexual attraction. Below, I'll use the terms "curable" and "curing", but I by no means wish to express that I believe that nonsexuality is some kind of "disease". My vocabulary just doesn't provide me with better terms right now. They're not quite right, but they get the point across, I hope.

 

All that said, I fully anticipate having an intimate and meaningful romantic relationship with my partner even if she remains nonsexual forever.

 

So, to sum it up:

How can I determine if my partner's nonsexuality is

  1. "curable" (for lack of a better word), and
  2. worth "curing"?

 

 

Thank you.

Let me try to avoid all the politics and ask about this very specific situation:

 

Has she ever desired sex in the past? Is there some identifiable external reason why she is not interested in sex - is she a survivor of sexual assault?   Most importantly does she *want* to desire sex?

 

If not, then this is very likely just naturally who she is and is very unlikely to change.  Nor are you likely to lose your desire for sex.   So you should take the hand you have been dealt and make your choice.  Its a miserable choice but its what you have. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ficto. said:

*snip*

What I'm saying is that sexual orientation isn't so black-and-white for everyone. There are many people who can't identify the direction of their orientation or whether or not they even have an orientation here.

"Uncertain" is still a sexual orientation, because it is simply a description of who you are and are not sexually attracted to. If a person doesn't know then they don't know, but not knowing doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

 

3 hours ago, Philip027 said:

I never said their identification as asexual was under threat.  I'm saying that their right to identify as not having a sexual orientation is.  You don't get to dictate that for others.

Do people have a right to identify as not having ethics? Morals? Sexual orientation is simply one of those things that everyone has, regardless of whether or not they can personally, precisely identify it and explain it to other people.

 

3 hours ago, Philip027 said:

Atheism wasn't never the subject of this thread either, but that sure didn't stop you from bringing it up, now did it?

I didn't bring it up, and have explicitly stated multiple times that it is an invalid comparison. It was your insistence otherwise that landed us here.

 

3 hours ago, Philip027 said:

So far you've not been sounding like you really understand that, so do forgive me for suspecting otherwise.

When the conversation turns to the precise meaning and use of terminology then colloquial usage is no longer acceptable, clearly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sexual orientation is simply one of those things that everyone has, regardless of whether or not they can personally, precisely identify it and explain it to other people. 

Yeah, nope.  You don't get to dictate that for others.

 

By the way, "uncertain" isn't an orientation either, it's just another placeholder term.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Camicon said:

Uncertain" is still a sexual orientation, because it is simply a description of who you are and are not sexually attracted to. 

Well, no, uncertain is not a sexual orientation. That word merely implies you're unsure of what your sexual orientation is.

 

I'm not uncertain, I know exactly what makes me tick.. it just doesn't really count as an actual sexual orientation by the generally accepted definitions (outside of just being sexual) unless I went and tried to claim some special snowflake label and I'm not down for that. 

 

If someone were to ask me right now what my sexual orientation is I could only tell them that sexual orientation is irrelevant to me and irrelevant in defining my sexuality, because it really is irrelevant. I'm sexual enough that I'm not asexual but beyond that, my sexuality doesn't slot neatly into any pre-defined oriention label. I'm cool with that. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Camicon said:

"Uncertain" is still a sexual orientation, because it is simply a description of who you are and are not sexually attracted to. If a person doesn't know then they don't know, but not knowing doesn't mean it ceases to exist. 

"I don't know" does not indicate who you're attracted to, therefore it's not a sexual orientation. Of course, not knowing doesn't mean that it ceases to exist, it just means that you can't point your finger at it. Which is exactly what an orientation as a descriptor is about.

 

Saying "I know there's a mall somewhere around here" is not the same as saying "I don't know where the mall is".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't invalidate other member's opinions and views as to how they identify.

 

Please stay to the main topic rather than a definitions debate

 

iff,

moderator, sexual partners, friends & allies

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Homer said:

"I don't know" does not indicate who you're attracted to, therefore it's not a sexual orientation. Of course, not knowing doesn't mean that it ceases to exist, it just means that you can't point your finger at it. Which is exactly what an orientation as a descriptor is about.

 

Saying "I know there's a mall somewhere around here" is not the same as saying "I don't know where the mall is".

A good point. I should have said that being uncertain of your sexual orientation doesn't mean you don't have one. Not knowing where a compass is pointing doesn't mean the compass is pointing nowhere.

 

13 hours ago, Philip027 said:

Yeah, nope.  You don't get to dictate that for others.

 

By the way, "uncertain" isn't an orientation either, it's just another placeholder term.

Asexuality isn't a "placeholder term", and I don't appreciate your identity policing. You don't get to dictate that for others.

 

Because, you have to realize, if it's "identity policing" to argue that asexuality is a sexual orientation, because some people disagree, then it is also identity policing to argue that asexuality is not a sexual orientation, because other people disagree. Which strikes me as a little bit stupid.

 

Either you identify as asexual or you don't, whether or not asexuality is a sexual orientation should have no bearing on that, so arguing the point doesn't invalidate, explicitly or implicity, anyone's identity. Ficto.'s post above is a perfect example: they know they're not asexual, they know they have a sexual orientation, they just don't have (and don't care to have) a name for it, because it's entirely irrelevant to defining their personal identity.

 

Arguing whether or not asexuality is a sexual orientation questions how it should be externally identified. Questioning how asexuality is externally identified does not invalidate anyone's opinion on how they identify.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Asexuality isn't a "placeholder term", and I don't appreciate your identity policing. You don't get to dictate that for others.

Sexual orientation, as a rule, must state which sexes/genders one is attracted to.  Asexuality technically does this: it says attracted to none.  Not everyone is comfortable with saying they have a "sexual orientation" based on this sort of a technicality though, which is my entire point.

 

"Uncertain" does not.  It doesn't say anything.  It isn't a sexual orientation, period.  So yeah, I can dictate that one.

 

You're certainly allowed to be uncertain about it, but it still isn't an orientation in itself.

 

Quote

Either you identify as asexual or you don't, whether or not asexuality is a sexual orientation should have no bearing on that, so arguing the point doesn't invalidate, explicitly or implicity, anyone's identity.

When an ace (or whoever) says they choose to identify as not having a sexual orientation, and you come along saying "yes you do, everyone does", YES you are invalidating and policing their identity.  I don't see how that can be made any clearer.

 

Quote

Because, you have to realize, if it's "identity policing" to argue that asexuality is a sexual orientation, because some people disagree, then it is also identity policing to argue that asexuality is not a sexual orientation, because other people disagree. Which strikes me as a little bit stupid.

To some people it is.  To some people it isn't.

 

Respect the way they identify, either way.  It isn't actually as difficult as you're making it sound, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

Sexual orientation, as a rule, must state which sexes/genders one is attracted to.  Asexuality technically does this: it says attracted to none.  Not everyone is comfortable with saying they have a "sexual orientation" based on this sort of a technicality though, which is my entire point.

*snip*

When an ace (or whoever) says they choose to identify as not having a sexual orientation, and you come along saying "yes you do, everyone does", YES you are invalidating and policing their identity.  I don't see how that can be made any clearer.

 

To some people it is.  To some people it isn't.

 

Respect the way they identify, either way.  It isn't actually as difficult as you're making it sound, really.

You seem to have missed my point.

 

If it's "identity policing" to argue that asexuality is a sexual orientation, and it's also "identity policing" to argue that asexuality is not a sexual orientation, then any opinion one might have on the matter is necessarily "identity policing". So... what then? Is nobody ever allowed to talk about whether or not asexuality is or is not a sexual orientation, because "identity policing"? Is discussion of a matter that concerns how the asexual community is categorized with regards to other sexual orientations suddenly verboten? And on a site that is supposed to be for the asexual community to come and talk about things, of all places? Excuse me for repeating myself, but that strikes me as a little bit stupid.

 

This isn't Obi Wan telling Luke about his father. Whether or not asexuality is a sexual orientation isn't a matter of opinion; either it is, or it is not. And, because there are people on both sides, some of them must have an opinion that is incorrect.

 

Respecting the way that a person identifies does not necessitate agreeing with an opinion that you argue is incorrect.  You can respect Rachel Dolezal's opinion that she's a black woman without agreeing with her, and while arguing that she is not. I can respect someone's opinion that asexuality is not a sexual orientation while disagreeing with them, and arguing that they are incorrect.

 

Arguing that everyone has a sexual orientation does not disrespect, invalidate or police the identity of people that cannot, or choose not to, identify theirs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If it's "identity policing" to argue that asexuality is a sexual orientation,

No, it's identity policing to tell someone they have a sexual orientation when they just finished telling you they didn't.  Not the same argument.

 

Quote

Arguing that everyone has a sexual orientation does not disrespect, invalidate or police the identity of people that cannot, or choose not to, identify theirs.

Your assumption that the people who claim not to have one actually do have one (and just can't or choose not to identify it) is what's offensive.

 

This is no different from someone trying to tell you they identify as not having any gender, and then you trying to say "yes you do, everyone has gender".  You can try to rationalize it any way you want, but it's still not okay to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Philip027 said:

No, it's identity policing to tell someone they have a sexual orientation when they just finished telling you they didn't.  Not the same argument.

And if that's identity policing then telling someone they don't have a sexual orientation, when they told you that they do, also is. It's exactly the same thing.

 

I argue that asexuality is a sexual orientation. You say that's identity policing because some people disagree, and don't consider themselves as having a sexual orientation. Well, asexuality either is or is not a sexual orientation; it can't be one thing for one person and one thing for another. So, if you argue that asexuality is not a sexual orientation then you're "identity policing" the people that disagree with you. Applying your logic consistently, as one must do, you end up in a situation where both sides are "identity policing" the other. Which, I repeat for the third time, is stupid.

 

2 hours ago, Philip027 said:

Your assumption that the people who claim not to have one actually do have one (and just can't or choose not to identify it) is what's offensive.

 

This is no different from someone trying to tell you they identify as not having any gender, and then you trying to say "yes you do, everyone has gender".  You can try to rationalize it any way you want, but it's still not okay to do.

It's not an assumption to say that everyone has morals and ethics. Nor is it an assumption to say that everyone has a sexual orientation. And it's only disrespectful to people who don't know, or don't care to precisely identify, their sexual orientation if you insist that they do.

 

I can accept that someone doesn't know or want to identify their sexual orientation; no skin off my nose, whatever makes them happy. That doesn't mean they don't have one.

 

But you're wrong to try and compare it to gender. We only associate certain behaviours with specific genders because we are taught to by society ("I am a man, men do these things"), and a rejection of those socially defined rules on what behaviours correspond with which gender means that a person can be genderless. The main thing to take away from this is that gender does not exist without society. 

 

But sexual orientation does.  Sure, we have words and terms which we use to describe the behaviours of certain sexual orientations, but a person's sexual orientation exists independently of our attempts to describe it. A heterosexual person who is raised in complete social isolation is still heterosexual, even if they never meet another person or experience sexual attraction. You don't need society to have a sexual orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this isn't the thread for a definition debate or discussion about how to identify, this was a sexual partner looking for advice about their relationship.

 

because it has gone off topic, I am closing the thread pending review 

 

iff,

moderator, sexual partners, friends & allies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...