Jump to content

Definition Debates


firewallflower

Attraction or desire? (Which is the deciding factor in whether someone is/is not asexual?)  

108 members have voted

  1. 1. Attraction or desire? (Which is the deciding factor in whether someone is/is not asexual?)

    • Sexual attraction
      35
    • Sexual desire
      15
    • Both
      18
    • Neither
      0
    • Could be either
      11
    • They're synonyms
      21
    • Unsure
      3
    • Answer not represented above
      0
    • Prefer not to answer this question; just checking a box so I can submit the poll!
      5
  2. 2. Spectrum: Sexual or asexual? (Where would you categorize "in between" identities such as grey, demi, etc.?)

    • Sexual spectrum
      33
    • Asexual spectrum
      33
    • Greysexual spectrum
      10
    • Another spectrum
      1
    • Two or more of the above
      9
    • Could be either
      7
    • No spectrum
      5
    • Unsure
      3
    • Answer not represented above
      2
    • Prefer not to answer this question; just checking a box so I can submit the poll!
      5
  3. 3. How do you feel about definition debates in general? (Yes, this is intentionally a multiple-choice question.)

    • Love 'em!
      15
    • Hate 'em!
      11
    • Neutral
      26
    • They're pointless
      25
    • They're constructive
      28
    • They're hilarious
      13
    • They're frustrating
      44
    • They're interesting
      40
    • All of the above
      7
    • Wait, what's a definition debate?
      4
    • Answer not represented above
      2
    • Prefer not to answer this question; just checking a box so I can submit the poll!
      6

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Alejandrogynous

1) They're synonyms, but desire is less confusing and cuts out the middle man of defining sexual attraction through desire in the first place.

 

2) Sexual spectrum (but no less welcome in the asexual community)

 

3) They're frustrating but necessary. Even if it feels pointless to have the same arguments over and over for years, every time it happens, there are new people who are hearing it for the first time and that makes it important.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gifted With Singleness

I guess the question is, what would you call someone who has a strong intrinsic desire for partnered sex, but that desire is completely undirected? That seems to be the entire basis of the definition debate.

 

I've been reflecting on this question today, and I have a new perspective. If any of you have any disagreements with it, I'd be curious to know your thoughts.

 

A person with a strong but completely undirected intrinsic desire for partnered sex is best described as bi/pansexual.

 

Here's why I say that.

 

Sexual attraction is based on appealing characteristics of a person. It might be their appearance, fragrance, personality, etc. Now, let's examine a man who has a strong intrinsic desire for partnered sex with a woman that isn't directed at any woman in particular. Imagine this man is in a room with two different women. These women can be as different as you would like. Maybe one's a skinny supermodel and the other is a morbidly obese person who hasn't showered in 30 years. Maybe one of them is a close relative and the other is a complete stranger. Maybe one of them is a genius and the other is a bumbling idiot. Whatever characteristics you want.

 

Now, if this man has even the slightest intrinsic feeling that one of the women would be more sexually desirable than the other, then his desire is directed at that woman to some degree, and he therefore experiences sexual attraction. If all women are equally sexually desirable to him, does that make him asexual?

 

Still no. Put this man in room with a man and a woman. If it truly does not matter to him (at least intrinsically) which woman he would want to have sex with, but he does have an intrinsic desire to have sex with a woman, then he is inevitably going to have an intrinsic feeling that the woman is more sexually desirable than the man, even if this feeling is very minor. Being female is a characteristic the woman has that he is sexually drawn to, which means his desire is directed at her to some degree. Therefore, he experiences sexual attraction of some form, so he's not asexual. He's a heterosexual man. Sure, he might technically be sexually attracted to every single woman on the entire planet simultaneously in a way that is very atypical, but he's still straight.

 

The same logic applies to homosexuality. If you have an intrinsic desire to have sex with someone of the same sex (and not with someone of the opposite sex), then you're gay, even if you couldn't care less which person in particular you would most want to have sex with.

 

So, let's see what we have here:

  • If you have no intrinsic desire for partnered sex with anyone, you're asexual.
  • If you have an intrinsic desire for partnered sex with someone of the opposite sex (but not the same sex), you're heterosexual/straight.
  • If you have an intrinsic desire for partnered sex with someone of the same sex (but not the opposite sex), you're homosexual/gay.

If we follow this pattern, it stands to reason that if you have an intrinsic desire for partnered sex, and it could be with either a man or a woman, you're bisexual. Some people call themselves pansexual to emphasize their gender blindness. Since a completely undirected sexual desire implies gender blindness, "pansexual" would be the most accurate label for the person in question. They're effectively sexually attracted to everyone at the same time. Yes, this attraction has a very atypical nature to it, but it's sexual attraction nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@GiftedWithSingleness This raises a question. What do you mean by desire? Do you mean by potential or the likelihood or objectively? If it is the last, then in most case this applies, but what if that heterosexual man was stuck in a room with a choice of very handsome man that do shower, but the woman in question doesn't look healthy and don't shower? Objectively, I can't see why that man would think the woman is in any way desirable, but I can emphasize with the idea of perceiving the man as sexually attractive in a conventional sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gifted With Singleness
1 hour ago, R_1 said:

What do you mean by desire?

Desire really isn't that difficult of a concept to understand. If you're hungry, you desire food. If you're thirsty, you desire something to drink. If you're sleepy, you desire sleep. These are intrinsic desires, as opposed to extrinsic desires that might override them, such as wanting to go on a diet or stay up late finishing that homework you put off.

 

Most people have an intrinsic desire to have sex with another person. This is the underlying desire behind sexual attraction. It is entirely possible to find someone aesthetically pleasing without there being any sexual feelings involved, so

 

1 hour ago, R_1 said:

perceiving the man as sexually attractive in a conventional sense

doesn't really count.

 

I understand if you find it hard to believe that people actually desire sex. I often find that hard to believe myself. But it's true. I heard a sermon fairly recently where the pastor compared sexual desire to the anticipation of going on vacation, or eating a delicious meal.

 

Think about what happens when you ask kids if they want to go to Disney World. How do they react? They don't react like, "Ah, yes, I acknowledge that Disney World is quite a conventionally appealing place for most people to go to." No, it's more like, "Oh my God, yes! I can't wait to go to Disney World!"

 

A lot of people feel very similarly about sex. There's a lot of excitement and anticipation involved. People will often dream about having sex and devise fantasies in their head as they look forward to the intense feelings of ecstasy they hope to gain from the experience.

 

Of course, people have varying degrees of sexual desire, and the desire typically isn't as immediate as it's often portrayed in the media. It tends to grow over time as a relationship develops. But that desire is still very real. It's not just an acknowledgement of someone's conventionally attractive appearance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

No, it's more like, "Oh my God, yes! I can't wait to go to Disney World!"

I'm A-Disney World. My response would be 'feck no, I'd rather stay in my room and play Skyrim' haha. Though yes I understand that many are attracted to the conventionally appealing idea of that place. Just count me out. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As other people have covered better than I would, I feel strongly that the "no innate desire to have sex with anyone" definition is the correct one, and to define it otherwise is to muddy the waters at best and further marginalize people who are actually asexual worse. I get really frustrated with the continued debates because I feel that this should be settled and simply part of the accepted definition. I'm not sure why it's still left up to debate.

 

I also find it upsetting whenever I see articles assuring people that hey, asexuals sometimes like to have sex too, because that makes me feel like maybe I don't even fit that definition. (Me being me, I quickly snap out of that and scoff at the article as being uninformed, but I know that's not the reaction a lot of people would have.) And I'm aro; it must be even worse for people who are actually looking for a relationship with somebody else who doesn't want to have sex with anyone, only to find that a bunch of people saying that they're asexual actually still want that.

 

So yeah. It's frustrating, but I think so long as there is any doubt about the definition, it's an argument that needs to be had now and again. It seems the alternative is to allow the definition to become meaningless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Remmirath said:

As other people have covered better than I would, I feel strongly that the "no innate desire to have sex with anyone" definition is the correct one, and to define it otherwise is to muddy the waters at best and further marginalize people who are actually asexual worse. I get really frustrated with the continued debates because I feel that this should be settled and simply part of the accepted definition. I'm not sure why it's still left up to debate.

 

This!  ^^^

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Remmirath said:

I also find it upsetting whenever I see articles assuring people that hey, asexuals sometimes like to have sex too, because that makes me feel like maybe I don't even fit that definition. (Me being me, I quickly snap out of that and scoff at the article as being uninformed, but I know that's not the reaction a lot of people would have.)

Yeah, I feel the same way when I see that. I think that there's a lot of jumping ahead in chapters before mainstream society has caught up. We're trying to tell them that having had sex or having sex within certain circumstances doesn't make them not asexual, but they haven't fully absorbed what "asexual" is to begin with. A huge chunk of the problem is that sex sells, so headlines about people having sex are going to be more appealing for media to publish. That puts more responsibility on AVEN as a community to keep promoting positive and helpful information about all the reasons asexuals are likely not having sex, and that it's totally natural and healthy for us to be like that.

 

Scoffing at articles is fairly simple, and if I'm not too terribly strained in other ways all it takes is rolling my eyes. Having to see these discussions persistently pop up on AVEN, which is both my home and family in digital form, with accusations of discrimination against the sex-favourable crowd is much harder to deal with. But we have to keep healthy discussions up, and we have to keep supporting the people who come here wanting to not feel broken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand referring to sex as a desire but food/drinks? no. I get hungry or thirsty, I don't desire those exactly.

 

I can also understand that some or many people want sex, I don't. I also never wanted to go to Disney World or other amusement park. I find them boring. I couldnt' understand why people would want some big vacation instead of spending time at home in the yard/garden/whatever, unless it was to be near water, or comfier climate or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a big difference between having sex and wanting sex.   Sexuals do both;  some asexuals have sex for the sake of their partners' wishes, but they don't want sex.   To avoid confusing people very new to the idea that they are asexual, we should be careful to explain that difference.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've almost broken the Internet here :P:P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is there an asexual spectrum and a separate sexual spectrum?  Aren't they two poles of a single spectrum?

Link to post
Share on other sites
AceMissBehaving
4 minutes ago, Ferocious Cub said:

Why is there an asexual spectrum and a separate sexual spectrum?  Aren't they two poles of a single spectrum?

I would agree with you, I can see there being an asexual end of the spectrum, but for whatever reason this seems to be oddly controversial amongst some.

can_of_worms.png?w=912

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ferocious Cub said:

Why is there an asexual spectrum and a separate sexual spectrum?  Aren't they two poles of a single spectrum?

No. Asexuality is one extreme endpoint of the sexuality spectrum. Asexuality as a separate spectrum doesn't make logical sense. There's nothing spectrum-like to "no".

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Homer said:

No. Asexuality is one extreme endpoint of the sexuality spectrum. Asexuality as a separate spectrum doesn't make logical sense. There's nothing spectrum-like to "no".

You said no, and then proceed to agree with me.  ???

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ferocious Cub said:

You said no, and then proceed to agree with me.  ???

No, I didn't. You asked why there would be a sexual spectrum and an asexual spectrum. I said that an "asexual spectrum" doesn't make sense. "Sexual" is not a "pole" of the sexual spectrum - it is everything but the asexual pole of the sexuality spectrum.

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

No, I didn't. You asked why there would be a sexual spectrum and an asexual spectrum. I said that an "asexual spectrum" doesn't make sense. "Sexual" is not a "pole" of the sexual spectrum - it is everything but the asexual pole of the sexuality spectrum.

I think you're really overanalyzing what this person said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere

I don't mind definition debates. Certainly not "frustrating".

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Snao van der Cone said:

I think you're really overanalyzing what this person said.

I don't think he was -- he was just trying to indicate that the SEXUALITY spectrum contains asexuality as a standalone category, and then the sexual spectrum, which includes all  sorts of variations.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gifted With Singleness
23 hours ago, Homer said:

No. Asexuality is one extreme endpoint of the sexuality spectrum. Asexuality as a separate spectrum doesn't make logical sense. There's nothing spectrum-like to "no".

I mean, there is a difference between "Meh, I'd rather not," and "Hell no, I'd rather kill myself!" They both reflect a lack of desire, so they're both "no". But there is a spectrum between them. Not all asexuals are sex repulsed.

 

Of course, that spectrum still doesn't include people who have even a little bit of innate sexual desire, so it's not the "asexual spectrum" you're talking about. But I do think this clarification is important.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

I mean, there is a difference between "Meh, I'd rather not," and "Hell no, I'd rather kill myself!" They both reflect a lack of desire, so they're both "no". But there is a spectrum between them. Not all asexuals are sex repulsed.

 

Of course, that spectrum still doesn't include people who have even a little bit of innate sexual desire, so it's not the "asexual spectrum" you're talking about. But I do think this clarification is important.

Of course.  But I haven't seen too many people-- in fact, I can't remember any -- say they'd rather kill themselves than have sex.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

I mean, there is a difference between "Meh, I'd rather not," and "Hell no, I'd rather kill myself!" They both reflect a lack of desire, so they're both "no". But there is a spectrum between them. Not all asexuals are sex repulsed.

I'd like to point out that 'attitudes to sex' is a different, and separate, spectrum from 'desire to have sex.' After all, there are sex-indifferent and even sex-repulsed sexuals, and sex-favorable asexuals (people who can enjoy sex if it comes along, but would be perfectly happy never having it again). So attitude to sex is a separate factor, and it doesn't necessarily indicate asexuality.

So 'no desire' is still just a single point on the sexual spectrum, like Homer said.

And "sex-repulsed -> sex-averse -> sex-indifferent -> sex-favorable" is the second spectrum that everyone falls somewhere on.

 

30 minutes ago, Sally said:

Of course.  But I haven't seen too many people-- in fact, I can't remember any -- say they'd rather kill themselves than have sex. 

Eh, it'd be close for me. Don't know which I'd choose.

No I'm not kidding.

That may sound extreme, but for me having sex automatically means rape, because I can't consent. I just do not want it, ever, at all. I'm repulsed to an irrationally extreme, panic-attack inducing, degree. If I say 'yes', all that is is a lie on my part, not consent. 

And then afterwards I'd have to live with those images haunting me for the rest of my life. I don't know if I could deal with that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
7 hours ago, Sally said:

Of course.  But I haven't seen too many people-- in fact, I can't remember any -- say they'd rather kill themselves than have sex.  

Even if it's an exaggeration, it's important to point out that there is a spectrum of attitudes to sex. I used to have a hypothesis: that sex-indifferent asexuals may be more likely to define asexuality as "not feeling sexually attracted to anyone" and sex-averse aces as "not wanting to have sex". Only later I realised that even the latter can mean different things to different people - because I'm myself on the sex-averse side of the spectrum and so for me "not wanting to have sex" is not a lack, an absence of desire, but an active, visceral rejection - I don't just lack willingness or interest, I feel actively distressed at the idea of having to undergo somewhich which feels so intensely frightening to me as sex.

7 hours ago, Laurann said:

Eh, it'd be close for me. Don't know which I'd choose.

That's it. I would still tend to put it in a milder way, but for me it's obvious: I simply don't want to be doing terrifying things at all.

This is a childish way of coaxing people to admit that they could possibly still consent to something they actively don't want. No, really, I recall such stuff from the level of third grade, when sex was not yet explicitly mentioned, rather implied: "Would you rather (insert something very physically painful and dangerous) or kiss (insert name of a very unsympathetic guy)?". Obviously, almost anyone would prefer neither and this is the only good answer.

TW: rape relativisation.

Spoiler

I remember a user at the Polish asexual forum, in a discussion about sexual violence, who wrote that a woman can still "prepare herself" that rape is something which "might happen", so she would "suffer less" if it actually happened. Obviously, I absolutely reject this kind of rhetoric - it is just Wrong to "accept" rape as "a fact of life". But still, he accused people who expressed such views of being naive, unrealistic and so on.

There's nothing wrong with refusing to consider in advance that some things which make our skin crawl could happen to us - such as sexual assault, war, natural disaster, life-threatening illness... We don't have to torture ourselves with such thoughts. For someone for which, as @Laurann wrote, "sex automatically means rape", such a list also includes sex and so the only good answer is "No, I don't want to ever have sex and I don't have to prove my sex aversion by listing what extreme things I would be willing to do to avoid sex - because I have a right to expect none of these to happen to me".

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I look at it is supportive of almost everyone. Asexuals don't want to have sex, attraction is a moot point. Demis/grays are in the middle somewhere, and can identify as more asexual leaning or more sexual leaning, doesn't matter, their choice. I don't think that demis/grays take away from people understanding asexuality because they have their own names with accurate definitions. They choose to identify this way to tell other people something they feel is important for them to know. Maybe some people consider this hair-splitting, but it may be more useful than you think. If I were going to date someone, I'd be much more willing to consider a gray over a sexual, for example. Brings down the amount of sex they will want from me. This is why I have no problem with the "spectrum."

 

But as for people who identify as asexual but still want to have sex, I am totally against. There's not only no point in identifying as asexual if you're like this, but it does hurt asexuals because it makes the identity useless. Telling someone you're an asexual won't get across that you don't want to have sex, which is the whole point. It also destroys the community, as asexuals can't expect to share the most basic point of the identity together.

 

If you have extremely low sexual desire, identify as gray. If you have extremely conditional sexual desire, identify as demi or something else. Why are people identifying as asexual when they want to have sex? I can't understand, for the LIFE OF ME, WHY they would do this.

 

However, I think that the definition debate is much less important than acceptance and support in the community. So much so, that despite my bewilderment at "asexuals who want to have sex," I don't care enough to focus on it. I guess I expect this problem to work itself out in these individual's hearts and minds on its own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rainbowocollie

My thoughts are that desire is the definition.

I actually more or less agree that asexual is an absolute and it's sexuality that is the spectrum, howeverrrrr, properly defined, grey-aces are "almost asexual" and still have differences with the regular allosexual population, so I don't have a problem saying the "asexual spectrum" because at that point you just might as well call it that. If that makes any sense.

 

I find definitions debates frustrating, mostly because to me that stuff has been hashed and rehashed so much I no longer care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/14/2019 at 2:23 AM, AceMissBehaving said:

I would agree with you, I can see there being an asexual end of the spectrum, but for whatever reason this seems to be oddly controversial amongst some.

can_of_worms.png?w=912

*Peeks in* Totally going to open that can...

Zero isn't a spectrum, but there's an infinite number of reals that are so close to zero that they are zero to all practical purposes. Right? This is more of a musing though, it's nothing I feel awfully passionate about to be honest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What in the world does "almost asexual" mean?   If asexual means someone who doesn't want to have sex with anyone, there's no "almost" in there.   There's asexual, and then there's the sexual spectrum.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gifted With Singleness
2 minutes ago, Sally said:

What in the world does "almost asexual" mean?   If asexual means someone who doesn't want to have sex with anyone, there's no "almost" in there.   There's asexual, and then there's the sexual spectrum.  

I would think of "almost asexual" as being when your sexual desires are so incredibly low that they're basically negligible. For example, if you only ever feel like having sex once a decade (and even then, the feeling is very easy to ignore), you're not technically asexual, but for all intents and purposes you are, so you might as well use the label.

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

I would think of "almost asexual" as being when your sexual desires are so incredibly low that they're basically negligible. For example, if you only ever feel like having sex once a decade (and even then, the feeling is very easy to ignore), you're not technically asexual, but for all intents and purposes you are, so you might as well use the label.

I just wonder if anyone ever fit that label -- i.e., once a decade/whatever. It just doesn't sound like it's needed.  

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...