Should only innate asexuals use the label?

[Dreamsexual]

.

[Star Bit]

I haven't heard of the second option, but I've been off for 2years 😆

But for me, if you replace it with anything else it wouldn't fly. If someone mentally desires sex with men but only IRL with women then that person's bi not straight, and the latter is what this new definition is saying. Wanting sex mentally but not IRL has always been under Gray-asexual (which doesn't refer to the person actually being asexual just like Heteroflexible doesn't refer to the person being straight, but rather very close to it). To which some people go "what's the harm in letting the aforementioned person identify as straight." And I reply with "it has two sides". On one hand no one would know so why bother with the differentiation that leads into TMI. On the other, it changes the definition of straight.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 8:11 AM, Star Bit said:

the latter is what this new definition is saying. 

.

[Comrade F&F]

Uuuuh. Well, the human brain is weird and the rainbow is broad.

 

I honestly got no clue. I didn't even think it was possible to have sexual desire for anything outside your species, so I have no idea.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 8:26 AM, Feys&Florets said:

didn't even think it was possible to have sexual desire for anything outside your species

.

[Star Bit]

Yes, someone can turn asexual. Same for other orientations; e.g. always straight/gay and then suddenly bi.

[A. Sterling]

I would say that having sexual desire for something outside your own species is it's own thing, not asexual because it still involves sexual feelings that are directed towards something which doesn't strike me as very ace. 

 

As for people being born ace or becoming ace. I feel like it is difficult to say. Honestly, if you really want to be technical (or just weird) one could argue that everyone is born ace but that most develop a different sexual orientation around puberty, which would be in favor of orientations changing after birth. For me, I've always seemed to be ace, but didn't always think/know I would be ace, so I'm not sure how to interpret that. 

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 8:43 AM, A. Sterling said:

I would say that having sexual desire for something outside your own species is it's own thing

.

[A. Sterling]

2 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

So on the first debate you side with: an asexual has no desire for sex with anyone whatsoever

 

But on the second it seems you lean towards the second definition which allows change.

 

Is that fair?

Yes, I'd say so.

I'd say I lean strongly towards an asexual has no desire for sex with anyone whatsoever. 

And lean slightly to the side of orientation being able to change, but am a bit more in the middle of the fence on that one.

[SithLord]

For your second option, born with the lack of attraction vs arriving at it, I think we should just allow the label to be those who currently express no desire. It doesn't matter how they arrived to it.

 

As for the first one, I'm a bit more in the grey area. I sometimes flirt with the idea of fictosexuality but it's difficult to define such impossibility as actual desire since, as someone else mentioned, I would have no desire IRL. If I were teleported to the realm of these characters, I would want sex with them as much as I do someone from our realm. So for this, I would classify as a grey-sexuality under the ace umbrella because it's complicated. However, I would also like to mention that I acknowledge most terms as they're used to define people as umbrella terms anyway since someone who is 99% hetero and 1% homo is technically bi or pan, but it would be a lot closer to saying they're "straight". So, umbrella terms.

 

But for objectums or those attracted to objects, I'm a bit less grey since to me it's different if you are attracted to something and engage in sex with that thing. Or even if you believe that thing has a soul and are in a relationship with that thing. This wouldn't be asexuality because replace "thing" with "person" and it's not asexuality. Fictosexuality is an attraction to something completely in one's mind, but those attracted to objects are less mental and hypothetical and sometimes actively engage in sexual acts with the objects of their desires. To me, this wouldn't classify as asexuality. I'd be willing to hear a counter argument, of course.

[Dreamsexual]

.

[Kharina]

Quote

 

The second is: an asexual is born hardwired vs an asexual can arrive at asexuality in time 

 

(the second definition here allows for those who no longer desire sex because of trauma or brain damage or illness or psychological issues etc)

 

Are the second definitions valid uses of the term asexual, in your opinion?  

 

If someone, such as myself, seems to better fit the second definition in both cases - I'm someone who effectively unconsciously transferred their innate sexual desires from organic people to inorganic non-human idealisations because of life experiences - is that so far removed from what asexuality 'normally' means to be classed under the asexual umbrella?

 

Apologies if this seems self indulgent.

 

I suppose for me the question would be how would you tell, and do we know if anyone is asexual from birth (or perhaps as another poster pointed out sexual from birth- most babies as far as I know/hope are effectively asexual)?  I don't know much about the research on sexual orientation, but until we're at a point we're sure these two groups exist and it's possible for someone to tell if they fit into one or the other it seems to make sense to me for anyone who feels they fit asexual as a label and wants to use it to be able to, if it provides some meaning for them and others they interact with.  So if you feel it fits you I think feel free to use it!   I guess the question is if you are happy being and identifying as asexual and if the label makes sense for you and others (if you were regularly desiring, having and enjoying sex in real life and wanted to call yourself asexual it might be a bit confusing for what the label means!) 

 

For me though the question of whether I personally was born this way (or became this way during a critical period in development that I can't undo, like adolescence) or just am because I've never experienced a romantic relationship beyond the first couple of dates, and never experienced sex (or because it's an anxiety issue) is important, because if it's the latter maybe it's not the right label for me as it would prevent me giving a romantic relationship 'a go' (or perhaps getting help to get over the anxiety, which although I'm a worrier in general it is specifically this where anxiety may be acting as any kind of barrier, not anything else).  In that case, I might have limited myself from experiencing that by taking on the label, if sex/romance is something it turns out that once I've experienced it I want.  I feel it would make things a lot easier for me if I was sexual/romantic but I'm not sure whether this is something I can change or not.

 

Quote

The first is: an asexual has no desire for sex with anyone whatsoever vs an asexual has no desire for sex with any organic person whatsoever

I guess again there are no hard and fast definitions, and probably part of it depends on how you define sex - is masturbation with fantasy (with or without objects) sex or does sex require another real person's involvement?  I think there are many sexuals who would take the latter definition, they might masturbate regularly but still be frustrated about 'not getting any' because they desire sex with a real person, and I think that's what most people would understand by the term too - if you told someone 'I had sex yesterday' they would probably expect you meant with a real person (they might ask with who).  AVEN's definitions pretty clearly seem to include masturbation as within the asexual label, though many asexuals don't do it, many do.

 

It's a very helpful question though to clarify definitions.  I think ultimately though your label (if you want one at all) is your decision, though best to make sure as you're doing that it makes some sense to others and what you mean by it is understood!

[SithLord]

20 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

One problem is that, as you note, for some the thing is a person - if I'm sexually attracted to a teacup and consider it a person then on the one hand I'm clearly sexual towards this specific teacup person.  But that person would also have, presumably, no desire at all for organic beings (like humans), and according to some definitions of asexuality floating around it seems that merely lacking the desire to have sex with other humans is asexuality.

 

Another complicating factor is the blurred line between fictosexuality and sexuality - aren't fictosexuals desiring a sexual relationship (still physical so long as it generates any kind of physical response in their bodies) with a mental construct (non-organic) rather than a material construct?  Other than the origin and ontic status, it seems exactly the same as the teacupphile - both have sexual desires, that lead to physical responses, for something other than an organic being and have no desire at all to have sex with humans - both seem the same to me on that level.  So either objectums and ficto are both asexuals, or they are both 'something else'.

 

To make matters worse, what if someone was, say, sexually attracted to an immaterial person (ghost, spirit, whatever) and used objects merely as a medium of sexual activity (like two humans would use a sex toy) because they had no other way?

Personally, I find asexuality to be lack of desire to engage in partnered sexual activity. So if the person is attracted to Johnny Depp but wouldn't actually have sex with him, only fantasizes, I'd still say that's asexuality in a way, though on the grey-spectrum as I identify ficto-sexuals as being. Hence why I believe Ficto-sexuality is different. Just because my libido is triggered by fictional characters doesn't mean I want to engage that fictional character in sex. It's not "absolute asexuality" so I will give you that.

 

If the person's partner is an object or something else, it's still partnered sexual activity. I got into a discussions (I made them dislike me) on a thread on object sexuality and would classify that as something separate from using a sex toy for example. There's a difference between using a dildo to feel pleasure and actually desiring to have sex with a car, for example. If there's something being used as a medium to engage in sexuality between two partners, for example a double-sided dildo, then it's still engaging in partnered sexual activity. 

 

I don't personally believe in ghosts or whatever, but if I were to tip my hat in that direction, I'd say if it's seen as partnered sexual activity then it counts.

 

As for asexuality only being defined as sexual attraction limited to strictly humans, that's insane in my eyes. I'm trying to be more open-minded to the realm of possibilities that is the perversion of human kind and trying to compare having sex with dogs as being classified as "gay" or "straight" simply because one only engages with dogs of "their sex" or "the opposite sex". And it gets even more complicated when one opens the realm up to everything having a spirit and all that... creative thinking. Personally, I would classify them as separate things. While I may be able to conclude that the normal definition should classify asexuality only being relative to attraction between humans, I would also extend that to mean attraction towards non-humans is completely different. I wouldn't classify a "straight" zoophiliac the same as my boyfriend, for example. 

Or, if one would like to keep them all on the generalize "attraction" scale, then asexuality would be the ultimate attraction towards nothing. You want to have sex with your "male" car and are a male? Then you're gay for cars, not ace. 

[Dreamsexual]

.

[Kharina]

7 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

I tend to agree with much of what you say, @sithgirlix.

 

But I wonder if 'not full ace' is basically 'not asexual'.  It strikes me that fictos are possibly more accurately described as a form of autosexuals rather than asexuals because they do desire and respond to some sexualised object (albeit an abstract object rather than a material object or immaterial person).

 

So that the fictosexual who desires sex with a mental construct, but genuinely wouldn't have sex with that construct if it was perfectly concretised (not simply made flesh, but exactly the same as the imaginary object but just externalised), might still be sexual towards an X (a form of auto sexuality, since they desire a product of their own thinking).  

 

I'm not sure how many fictos would truly not desire the perfect objective realisation of their fictional lover if nothing else changed (they were still under the mental control of the ficto and were encountered via the mind's eye, yet had the capacity to be truly felt physically, at least to some degree).  There might be asexual fictos and sexual fictos even when operating under the definition of asexuality as a desire for partnered sex, assuming we even allow for non-partnered sexual activity to fall under asexuality.

 

It also seems that a fictosexual is more of a true objectum than most objectums since they recognise their 'lover' as having no objective personhood, whereas an animistic teacupphile is in a relationship with an objectively existing non-human person.  Objectum seems wholly the wrong label here.

 

Edit:

If asexuality is simply lacking the desire to actually have partnered sex, even with the subject of a partnered fantasy, how then is asexuality as an orientation distinguished from being scared or repulsed of/by sex due to a psychological or physical issue?

 

 

It sounds like you feel you don't fully fit with the asexual label, but prefer fictosexual/autosexual?

 

Regarding the difference between asexuality and being scared of/repulsed by sex: many asexuals are not at all scared or repulsed by sex but just not interested in it.  Many will have sex for the sake of pleasing sexual partners etc. but wouldn't have any interest in doing so, say, with another asexual partner.  There are others who are sex-repulsed but still identify as asexual: I guess the difference between these people and sexuals would be if you took the repulsion away, would they have any interest in having sex?  Are they interested in getting over the repulsion/fear for the sake of sex itself (as opposed to, say, for the sake of pleasing a partner or finding a partner)?  For me, I am quite anxious about the idea of sex but I feel even taking that anxiety away I still wouldn't be interested in it.  I don't feel I know for sure as I haven't tried it, but most sexuals as far as I can tell do experience desire for/interest in having sex with real people usually before they actually do so, so I don't feel typically sexual but 'just' anxious, I feel there is something more going on than that (it's not like I ever see someone and go 'ooh they're really hot, I really want to go out with/have sex with them' but am then too scared to do anything about it - it's more I carry on with my life not really noticing people in that way, and get nervous if someone shows that interest in me, or if I force myself to go on online dating as I have in the past because I felt 'it was about time I tried to meet someone' and maybe if I just went out with enough people I'd find someone I was interested in).

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 10:22 AM, Kharina said:

It sounds like you feel you don't fully fit with the asexual label, but prefer fictosexual/autosexual?

.

[everywhere and nowhere]

21 minutes ago, Kharina said:

There are others who are sex-repulsed but still identify as asexual: I guess the difference between these people and sexuals would be if you took the repulsion away, would they have any interest in having sex?  Are they interested in getting over the repulsion/fear for the sake of sex itself (as opposed to, say, for the sake of pleasing a partner or finding a partner)?  For me, I am quite anxious about the idea of sex but I feel even taking that anxiety away I still wouldn't be interested in it.

I'm not sure what I would feel in the absence of my sex aversion and nudity aversion - however, I deeply know that I wouldn't want to stop feeling them. I wouldn't want to become capable of having sex because even the hypothetical sex I could perhaps have if I wasn't sex-averse feels violating to me. I feel that my sex aversion protects me. I feel that sex is just not worth the torture involved in possibly trying to overcome my deep fear of sex and nudity.

And I wouldn't try to become sex-indifferent even for a partner. I'd rather be single forever than have sex.

43 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

I'm not sure how many fictos would truly not desire the perfect objective realisation of their fictional lover if nothing else changed (they were still under the mental control of the ficto and were encountered via the mind's eye, yet had the capacity to be truly felt physically, at least to some degree).

I don't think of myself as fictosexual, rather autochorissexual, but the line between the two can be blurry. And I can say with certainty: as I am, I wouldn't desire sex with any sentient partner. I couldn't, because the distress involved in having to be naked with another person, of having to let someone do something to one's body is just too great.

 

As for the core of the issue: I think a lot depends on how we perceive sexual orientations. I doubt if there's a point in labelling our innermost experience: it will never be identical to anyone else's experience, life is always much larger than labels. If we want to talk about it with someone else, it should rather be expressed than pigeonholed. However, sexual orientation labels are important as social categories. They designate with whom we may want to form relationships and have sex. If the answer to the latter is "with no one", it's fully reasonable for such a person to declare being asexual if asked. After all, the effect is just that: someone doesn't desire sex, regardless of whether it's inborn or due to illness, trauma or other factors. If it's unlikely to change, if someone wouldn't even like it to change and refuses to try changing it - then the lifestyle choices made by an "acquired asexual" are essentially the same as for someone who never had any potential for sexual desire to begin with.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 11:04 AM, Nowhere Girl said:

As for the core of the issue: I think a lot depends on how we perceive sexual orientations. I doubt if there's a point in labelling our innermost experience: it will never be identical to anyone else's experience, life is always much larger than labels. If we want to talk about it with someone else, it should rather be expressed than pigeonholed. However, sexual orientation labels are important as social categories. 

.

[ryn2]

1 hour ago, Dreamsexual said:

But I wonder if 'not full ace' is basically 'not asexual'.

This is a subject of extensive ongoing debate here that I haven’t seen resolved.  Some people believe asexuality is a (very limited, even) spectrum and others believe it is a single, defined point.

 

There’s also still extensive debate over what (dis)qualifies people as ace - whether someone must experience no sexual attraction, or no desire for sex - and over exactly what the terms mean.

 

Personally, I think someone who is OS or fictosexual is not ace, although their feelings and behaviors towards other people may make them “effectively ace” in that they may choose to avoid “real live” human partnership and/or face similar relationship issues with their “real live” human partners as ace people do.

 

However, I do also find the split attraction model useful and I think it applies here as well.  For example, someone who is romantically and aesthetically drawn to these partners - objects, fictional constructs, etc. -  but is not sexually attracted to them and has no interest in engaging sexually with them would meet the full definition of asexuality.

[everywhere and nowhere]

16 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

But does no one mean no human, or no person, or no thing?

Does it matter what I do in the privacy of my home? The meaning of my "sexual orientation as a social category" is: I'm not sexually available to anyone.

[letusdeleteouraccounts]

From what I’ve learned, asexuality being solely for people who have never experienced sexual attraction in their life doesn’t work out very well. I think of sexuality now as like the weight scale. It doesn’t show how much weight we’ve gained our entire lives because that would be impractical, it shows our current weight. I don’t think the sexuality scale should be based off of how many times we’ve experienced sexual attraction in our entire lives. I think the scale or your place on the spectrum fluctuates from hypersexual (sexual attraction to many people of your orientational gender preference usually) to asexual (likely won’t experience sexual attraction in the future). There’s also questions like ‘should a person not be able to call themselves gay if they’ve experienced attraction to the opposite gender once?’ and ‘are human labels meant to make experiences easily explainable or create rigid definitions?’ I also think it’s a lot more practical for “graysexual” to be for people who recognize that they will experience sexual attraction in the future but at a much lower frequency compared to the general population rather than the ones who are like 30 and have experienced sexual attraction twice in their life. That way, we can stop the confusion with people using the graysexual label also trying to call themselves asexual and things are much easier to explain for people on both sides of that. Lastly, I watched a video recently where the founder, David jay, himself said that the asexual label is meant for anyone who finds it useful 

[ryn2]

25 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

But does no one mean no human, or no person, or no thing?

As a broad social construct it would mean “no human.”  If the person still wants to engage in (nonsexual, or sexual) romantic relationships with other humans it will probably still require additional discussion, because one’s human partner might be quite distressed by one’s non-human feelings and potential relationships and should be given the opportunity to make an educated choice whether or not to continue a relationship anyway.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 11:35 AM, ryn2 said:

Personally, I think someone who is OS or fictosexual is not ace, although their feelings and behaviors towards other people may make them “effectively ace” in that they may choose to avoid “real live” human partnership and/or face similar relationship issues with their “real live” human partners as ace people do.

..

[Anthracite_Impreza]

To me, if you would want sex with anyone, in RL (as in if you could physically do the deed), that would be a sexual label. I don't think human-human relationships should be the only ones that count.

 

I also think if someone becomes ace in later life (injury/illness/whatevs), they can be labelled ace or effectively ace. Labels should be practical to me, not 'idealised'.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 12:55 PM, CBC said:

What Anthra said on both counts, more or less.

 

If you want to fuck someone or something, that's sexual. I admit I have some difficulty with the idea of "I want to have sex with park benches" being the same as "I want to have sex with my girlfriend/FWB/husband/someone I met at the bar/whatever", and also with "I don't ever want sex with real people but I shag my imaginary boyfriend all the time"... however if those things are significant drives for someone, I'd have a difficult time categorising them as completely asexual as well. Obviously it's important for such individuals to be open with any real people they're involved with, though. That may be one area of sexuality that truly falls under a "grey" category.

.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 1:21 PM, CBC said:

Well, here's the AVENwiki page for 'grey-a' -- although personally I don't fully agree with the definition. When it comes down to it, I'm not even sure it matters if someone who experiences their sexuality the way you do identifies as asexual or not. What does matter is that the human beings with whom you're romantically involved know what to expect. That's the main point of labels, after all -- to have a way of communicating information about ourselves to others so that they understand us. If no particular label works completely, we have to explain with more words.

..

[ryn2]

I don’t care what definition people collectively settle on... I just wish we (the greater we) would collectively settle on one.  Having multiple, conflicting definitions is confusing, both to me personally and when it comes to building awareness.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 1:31 PM, ryn2 said:

I don’t care what definition people collectively settle on... I just wish we (the greater we) would collectively settle on one.  Having multiple, conflicting definitions is confusing, both to me personally and when it comes to building awareness.

.

[Dreamsexual]

On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 1:36 PM, CBC said:

@Dreamsexual Understood, however in regards to your last point, even having a recognised label may be no guarantee of acceptance, particularly if it's not well-known.

.

[Guest]

For me asexuality is just the lack of sexual attraction. Sometimes I feel the community does not find you valid if you are not disgusted by sex or that you have an interest in it. 

Sometimes I feel that they want it to just mean someone who does not desire sex at all. That is one of the many definitions. 

I call myself an asexual because I lack sexual attraction but I have no issues with sex, I talk about it, I write about it and I would like to explore it one day but to others, they don't like my way and don't think I am valid. They say sexual attraction is the desire for partnered sex but to me its a desire for partnered sex with a specific person you are sexually attracted to, not just sexual desire. I think the term for me that would be spot on is cupiosexual but I also do not like delving deep into to many labels unless I feel the need to explain where I am more in the spectrum and that would be with someone close.  

 

Everyone has their own definitions, which is okay, but then they start to think this or that person isn't valid. I stick to it being lack of sexual attraction because I feel like that creates a broad enough term of peoples desires. 

 

I would like an accurate label so that way I can know if I should take my leave or not. Also when I explain to my friends what it is but then they like but some people say this or that. Lol sorry if this is also a bit out of context as well.