ryn2 Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Dreamsexual said: I understand. Yes, we disagree about this. It's not the 'taking part' bit that defines the sexual element, it's the 'enjoy' bit. Edit (addition): Sexually enjoying sexual imagery, regardless of one's real or imaginary participation, is a sexual activity, in my POV. A better way for me to explain my POV might be this: I make the division between asexuality and sexuality not at the line between physiological urge and pleasure, but at the line between self and other. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 On 5/21/2019 at 3:33 PM, ryn2 said: I make the division between asexuality and sexuality not at the line between physiological urge and pleasure, but at the line between self and other. . Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said: But it's cool for us to simply disagree It’s cool for us personally, in the sense of still being able to engage in civil discussion without anyone storming off in a huff, but it would ultimately be good to get to one definition that everyone agrees is the actual definition. Otherwise we (collectively, not you and I) waste a lot of time arguing fruitlessly over definitions and over who is gatekeeping and invalidating versus educating. Like, people can debate all they want about whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit, but there is an actual, official answer that stops debates from taking on lives of their own. I’m personally willing to concede on the pleasure v. urge issue if that gets everyone to consensus, but it’s one that (at least from what I’ve seen posted on AVEN in the past year and a half) will move a much larger group from asexual to sexual-but-effectively-asexual than some of the other issues (e.g., ficto, mecha) do. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 On 5/21/2019 at 4:02 PM, ryn2 said: it would ultimately be good to get to one definition that everyone agrees is the actual definition. . Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 I’m interested in consensus so people can move on to discussions on how to apply that learning. Not that there isn’t a role for pure philosophy in the world (there is) but for many people practical application is more useful. Link to post Share on other sites
CelesteAdAstra Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 I love the separation of psyche- vs objectum-, I think it's a very useful definition! That would make me ficto-psycheromantic, because while I know that fictional characters aren't real in this world (please don't think I'm delusional), I still like to challenge that belief on a philosophical scale (think multiverse-theory and the debate about what actually constitutes "reality"), and I see them as a full person anyway. Would I say that makes them "real", in the strict sense of the word? To me they are, and that's really all that matters. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 On 5/21/2019 at 4:46 PM, ryn2 said: I’m interested in consensus so people can move on to discussions on how to apply that learning. Not that there isn’t a role for pure philosophy in the world (there is) but for many people practical application is more useful. . Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 On 5/21/2019 at 5:40 PM, CelesteAdAstra said: because while I know that fictional characters aren't real in this world (please don't think I'm delusional), I still like to challenge that belief on a philosophical scale (think multiverse-theory and the debate about what actually constitutes "reality"), and I see them as a full person anyway. Would I say that makes them "real", in the strict sense of the word? To me they are, and that's really all that matters. I . Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 11 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said: But getting the philosophy right to begin with will prevent unforeseen issues arising when jumping straight into the practical application. Theory before practice in these things, IMHO. Agreed. I just meant that’s why I don’t think stopping at “it’s not possible to reach a definition” works. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 On 5/21/2019 at 6:06 PM, ryn2 said: Agreed. I just meant that’s why I don’t think stopping at “it’s not possible to reach a definition” works. . Link to post Share on other sites
secrethamster Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 Waaaaay to complicated for everyday life, but otherwise it makes sense. Nice explanations 😄 Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 19 hours ago, Dreamsexual said: The overarching label that makes sense to me is ‘Functional Asexuality’, which I define as: ‘the lack of desire for sexual activity, for its own intrinsic pleasure, with any human person’. This definition allows for asexuals who have sex for ‘reasons’, and temporarily side-steps the animist objectum issue. Why can't we just call that "asexual"? It's just as complete as your "complete asexual". Since I fit both, I call myself asexual without any qualifier. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 On 5/22/2019 at 4:47 AM, Sally said: Why can't we just call that "asexual"? It's just as complete as your "complete asexual". Since I fit both, I call myself asexual without any qualifier. . Link to post Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 16 hours ago, Dreamsexual said: Interestingly, the way I view Ocean's reality (my exact POV varies, but would still always fall under the psychesexuals definition in the OP) also draws upon ideas of multi-verses of all logical possibilities realised, or upon divine omnipotence (effectively accomplishing the same thing), or both. I suspect there might be a really large number of Dreamsexuals with their Oceans 'out there' with tiny variances ... For me the idea that in an alternate universe there "must" be "another me" is a failure to accept diversity. People are not all alike. Their experiences are not all alike. If there are alternate universes, the inhabitants and their experiences could be just yet more infinitely diverse. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 On 5/22/2019 at 10:06 AM, Nowhere Girl said: For me the idea that in an alternate universe there "must" be "another me" is a failure to accept diversity. People are not all alike. Their experiences are not all alike. If there are alternate universes, the inhabitants and their experiences could be just yet more infinitely diverse. . Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 I’m still stuck on the idea that people who masturbate for pleasure are, based on that alone, not completely asexual under your definition. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 On 5/22/2019 at 2:02 PM, ryn2 said: I’m still stuck on the idea that people who masturbate for pleasure are, based on that alone, not completely asexual under your definition. . Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 8 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said: That's not my definition. Maybe I've poorly expressed it. People who masturbate for sexual pleasure, or who masturbate to sexual images (whether internal or external) because it helps them do it better, have some sort of sexual life. If they masturbate for the kind of pleasure that comes from relief, like emptying a full bladder, that isn't sexual imho. No, I knew what you meant and I am still stuck on it. I guess I’m stuck on the idea of asexuality meaning “completely devoid of any sexual anything.” That was the old definition I had in my head that left me thinking I was sexual all these years. It doesn’t seem to fit what a lot of asexual-identifying people experience. Basically, making the definition so narrow just moves the “but does it count as ace or not?” issue out into “effectively asexual” rather than addressing it. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 On 5/22/2019 at 2:30 PM, ryn2 said: I guess I’m stuck on the idea of asexuality meaning “completely devoid of any sexual anything.” . . Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Dreamsexual said: So all effective asexuals are also X-sexuals What I meant by “moving it” is that it moves the debate over whether there’s a difference between experiencing any sort of sexual attraction/desire for partnered sex and experiencing neither out into the “effective asexual” area. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 On 5/22/2019 at 6:17 PM, ryn2 said: What I meant by “moving it” is that it moves the debate over whether there’s a difference between experiencing any sort of sexual attraction/desire for partnered sex and experiencing neither out into the “effective asexual” area. . Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 14 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said: Ok. I think we should agree to disagree then, as we seem to see differing issues being at play, I think. I'm not sure where we can go, really? We look it somewhat differently. I’m not so much interested in you and me personally reaching agreement as I am in hearing from the rest of the group where they think the line should be drawn (and what defense they offer). But that’s because I would ultimately like to see commitment to a definition. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 On 5/22/2019 at 7:19 PM, ryn2 said: I’m not so much interested in you and me personally reaching agreement as I am in hearing from the rest of the group where they think the line should be drawn (and what defense they offer). But that’s because I would ultimately like to see commitment to a definition. . Link to post Share on other sites
Aimeendfire Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 I’m in the boat of asexuality = not wanting sex...period. But maybe asexuality is evolving and as everything in life...changing, and effective asexuality (like @Dreamsexual has used) will be a thing now. Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 On 5/22/2019 at 7:26 PM, Aimeendfire said: I’m in the boat of asexuality = not wanting sex...period. But maybe asexuality is evolving and as everything in life...changing, and effective asexuality (like @Dreamsexual has used) will be a thing now. I . Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 I don't think asexuality is evolving; I think many people have become dissatisfied with the simple definition and want to expand explanations (to ourselves, not the general public) so that every possible category is named. Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 12 minutes ago, Aimeendfire said: asexuality = not wanting sex...period. I thought I was in this boat, but I didn’t realize “wanting sex” includes masturbation for pleasure. That’s the specific aspect I’m curious about. Link to post Share on other sites
Aimeendfire Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 So we are becoming more nitpicky. Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 17 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said: Maybe you could set up a census thread with my OP, if you want, to see what response it gets? Since I have no power to change the actual definition I’m not sure I want to commit the time... Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 On 5/22/2019 at 7:41 PM, Aimeendfire said: So we are becoming more nitpicky. . Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.