Jump to content
crazy ace

What is you stance on Sex favourability?

How do you feel about sex favourability in Asexuals?  

92 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you feel about sex favourability in Asexuals?

    • Indifferent: Why should I care how they identify? It doesn't really affect me.
      34
    • Anti: No, if you're sex-favourable, you're just sexual. An asexual does not want or inherently desire sex by definition
      21
    • Pro: Of course there are sex-favorable aces, as this is entirely possible.. Stop invalidating them and accept them
      37
  2. 2. How do you feel about it if the given definition is to enjoy sex, but not have it tied to attraction?

    • indifferent
      14
    • anti
      3
    • pro
      13
    • I disagree with the definition
      9
  3. 3. If sex favourable means not minding having sex:

    • indifferent
      16
    • anti
      2
    • pro
      18
    • I disagree with this definition
      3


Recommended Posts

crazy ace

I just think it would be interesting to see people opinions on the subject.

 

NOTE: Please let's stay civil. No definition debates.

 

NOTE: None of these options reflect my exact opinions, and I am just trying to show what each opinion on the topic is. If you want me to edit something, just let me know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Anti, of course.

 

Though wording it as "want" in your poll options is not a good option.

 

(If this neccessary clarfication already equals turning it into a definition debate... well just delete the thread then. Common sense can't win on AVEN, anyway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crazy ace

@Mysticus Insanus

I'll go ahead and edit it. What would you like me to replace "want" with?

1 minute ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

If this neccessary clarfication already equals turning it into a definition debate... well just delete the thread then.

This is not a definition debate. It's only a definition debate when people go around in circles getting angry at each other over a pedantic definition difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

Just now, crazy ace said:

@Mysticus Insanus

I'll go ahead and edit it. What would you like me to replace "want" with?

Inherently desire - unlike "want", that could not be construed to be synonymous to "freely choose to agree to have sex".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Galactic Turtle

I know you don't want it to turn into a definition debate, but people use sex favorable to mean a whole range of things.

 

The way some people use it to me seems like the experiences of a non-asexual person... they seek out and enjoy sex with people because it makes them feel physically and/or emotionally close with them.

 

The way others use it seems like the experiences of an asexual person who has sex to please a partner or whatever and doesn't view it as the end of the world to do so. Might even get a kick out of their partner's crazy orgasm face. Idk.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grimalkin

Firstly, we must remember that everyone keeps getting "sex positive" and "sex favorable" mixed up. Sex positive is what all good young people claim to be: "Having or promoting an open, tolerant, or progressive attitude towards sex and sexuality." Basically, letting other consenting adults do what they want. I expect most asexual people here are sex positive, they just don't want to partake in it themselves. 

 

Then we have the asexual people, like me, who will have sex for the sake of their partner. (I call myself sex-indifferent, but other people may have other terms.) There's an interesting line here, because some asexual people who do this will enjoy the physical sensations of sex, even if they don't desire it. Like masturbation, but with another person involved. It's like, they don't really want to have sex, but once it gets started it's fine. I personally have never found sex to be particularly pleasing, but I do not begrudge other asexual people who have sex for the partners and sometimes physically enjoy it. That's still not the same thing as being sexually attracted to another person. 

 

I guess where it all gets confusing is when we get to people who say they're asexual, but still get the itch to go out and have sex with a person. And... I don't know. I think it varies wildly from person to person. Maybe they're actually aromantic but sexual? Maybe they just use the other person as a tool to get off? Maybe they are asexual and have a libido, and are very lonely, so they have sex because they know they can be held close to the person? 

 

Could somebody not experience sexual attraction, but still want to go and have sex with another person, and enjoy it the whole while? ...Possibly? But I don't know. I guess the question is, if you seek out sex and enjoy sex, why is it important to you to identify as asexual? I'm not saying you can't-- just why?

 

But yeah, I guess at the end of the day I don't care all that much. You do you. 

 

Edited to add: I also think there's a difference between desiring sex with someone and a kink/festish. Sometimes asexual people may enjoy sex because they experience a kink or fetish that arouses them. That's still not the same thing as the innate biological drive most humans have to have sex. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jade Cross

The problem so to speak with identifying as ace while these circumstances play out is that its no different than how other orientations work. For instance, there are many gay men who will be furious and say that being gay is only about desiring same sex interaction and not be feminine or affeminate (is that how its written) while other men who identify as gay say its perfectly fine.

 

 

The issue in itself is centered and steams from definitions so I think it would be increadibly difficult, if not.impossible for it not to turn into a definitions battle.

 

 

As for me, I dont seek sex. I dont feel any desire to be with anyone and I dont feel the infamous itch. That would be the textbook definition of an asexual. Am I ace? I believe so but at the end of the day, its a title and nothing more. If you call me a celibate asocial misanthrope, which would also encompass similar traits as an ace, in terms of not seeking another for sexual gratification, then I would be that as well because again, they are all titles or terms used. 

 

Do I have a problem with people having sex? Well, its not my cup of tea but so long as Im not made to hear about others sexual escapades (like some unfortunately deem neccesary to voice) and Im not hounded with personal questions regarding it (like it has unfortunately happened as well), I say let people do their thing.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MichaelTannock

Voted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl
1 hour ago, Grimalkin said:

Firstly, we must remember that everyone keeps getting "sex positive" and "sex favorable" mixed up. Sex positive is what all good young people claim to be: "Having or promoting an open, tolerant, or progressive attitude towards sex and sexuality." Basically, letting other consenting adults do what they want. I expect most asexual people here are sex positive, they just don't want to partake in it themselves. 

I have recently written about pretty much the same as in the first sentence (that "sex-positive" shouldn't be used to mean "sex-favourable", because personal and political opinions about sex are two different things), but are you suggesting that someone who isn't sex-positive is not a good person?

Then I'm not a good person because I'm not sex-positive. First: I just don't agree with the most basic assumption that "sex is good". No it isn't, sex is morally meaningless outside of an individual context. By itself it has no moral value.

Second, more pragmatically: I also believe that a "sex is good!" rhetoric offers too little protection against unwanted sex. Even if it clarifies that only fully consensual sex is good, it still has the potential of being used against asexuals or, generally, people who don't want to have sex for any reason - "But sex is good, how can you not want it? You are denying yourself something good!".

And third... I'm not interested in telling others what their sexual life should look like (except in cases when someone clearly sex-averse is trying to force themself to have sex), but I also don't like the assumption that we should accept everything. I reserve myself the right to believe that sex without committment is not a good thing, that 15- or 16-year-olds shouldn't have sex, that "sex work" is not "a work like any other", but a horrifying exploitation of women.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grimalkin
38 minutes ago, Nowhere Girl said:

I have recently written about pretty much the same as in the first sentence (that "sex-positive" shouldn't be used to mean "sex-favourable", because personal and political opinions about sex are two different things), but are you suggesting that someone who isn't sex-positive is not a good person?

Then I'm not a good person because I'm not sex-positive. First: I just don't agree with the most basic assumption that "sex is good". No it isn't, sex is morally meaningless outside of an individual context. By itself it has no moral value.

Second, more pragmatically: I also believe that a "sex is good!" rhetoric offers too little protection against unwanted sex. Even if it clarifies that only fully consensual sex is good, it still has the potential of being used against asexuals or, generally, people who don't want to have sex for any reason - "But sex is good, how can you not want it? You are denying yourself something good!".

And third... I'm not interested in telling others what their sexual life should look like (except in cases when someone clearly sex-averse is trying to force themself to have sex), but I also don't like the assumption that we should accept everything. I reserve myself the right to believe that sex without committment is not a good thing, that 15- or 16-year-olds shouldn't have sex, that "sex work" is not "a work like any other", but a horrifying exploitation of women.

I think in this case, "sex positivity" is getting the wrong meaning applied to it. Think about it like "feminism."

 

Is it true that there are "feminists" who are exclusionary, transphobic, push an agenda against men, and generally make the movement look bad? Absolutely. But we try to demonstrate the positives of feminism, and call out poor behavior. A poor feminist, for instance, would be someone who hates on a woman for choosing to be a stay-at-home mother. The point of feminism is that we get to choose, not that we have to be career women. Feminism gives us the freedom to make our own decisions. 

 

Likewise, sex positivity is not a movement telling everyone that they should all be having sex-- it's giving you the choice. Sex positivity is about removing the cultural stigma around sex, particularly in America and other countries with puritanical roots. It emphasizes consent (yes, real actual consent), attempts to make rape and sexual assault easier to talk about, attempts to spread awareness of protection, STDs and birth control, etc. 

 

It's the difference between having a very puritanical environment where only abstinence is taught, where sex ed is unheard of, where people are shamed for being curious or having sex, and where women are demonized for getting pregnant out of wedlock... and an environment where we've opened up all of these things for discussion, and removed the idea that sex is a shameful thing if it's not being used to make babies in hetero marriages.

 

Of course, when they're trying to fight the idea that sex is "bad" and something to be ashamed of, they often say instead that sex is "good," but they don't mean sex is morally right and that you're supposed to have it. Part of sex posivitity emphasizes "the importance of personal sovereignty." 

 

Is it true that there's weird "sex positive" people out there who shame everyone who doesn't have a fuckton of sex with everyone they meet? Sure. I wouldn't call them very sex positive for shaming, though, just like I wouldn't say that someone who hates stay-at-home moms is a good feminist, or someone who is cruel and judgmental is a good Christian.

 

Theoretically, sex positivity is just what you said-- not telling someone what their sex life (or lack thereof) should look like.

 

Sure, the sex-positive movement doesn't often feel like "our" movement. But even though I've always dreamed of being a stay-at-home mom and a housewife, I still fully support feminism (and because I get to choose, as above); it's a movement that's brought a lot of good overall. Likewise, even though I'm not a sexual person, I can appreciate what good sex-positivity has brought to the modern world, and how it's made life considerably easier for a huge percentage of the population. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FaerieFate

None of the above. I understand that sex-favourable has a definition, but it's still too complicated to assume what people are thinking. Which is why we're strict on our no judgement rule.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crazy ace

@FaerieFate

I would see that as indifferent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FaerieFate
2 minutes ago, crazy ace said:

@FaerieFate

I would see that as indifferent.

Nah, I can see both sides. I've a post somewhere listing why asexuals might be sexually active. So I guess the question is why are they sex favorable? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 hours ago, FaerieFate said:

Nah, I can see both sides. I've a post somewhere listing why asexuals might be sexually active. So I guess the question is why are they sex favorable? 

Just because someone is asexual and sexually active, doesn't mean they're sex-favorable.

 

Jesus H. Christ on a motherhonking bicycle.

 

These misrepresentations from staff members need to end, stat. And they need to be consistently called out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crazy ace

@Mysticus Insanus

Could you maybe try to be a little more polite about this? If I see people posting directly against another person's opinion, I will request that this thread is deleted.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, crazy ace said:

@Mysticus Insanus

Could you maybe try to be a little more polite about this? If I see people posting directly against another person's opinion, I will request that this thread is deleted.

Misinformation spread by staff members is not just a difference in opinion. So, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lichley
1 hour ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Misinformation spread by staff members is not just a difference in opinion. So, no.

They were just asking you to at the very least say it in a less hostile way. The point of this thread is to non-threateningly determine how many people see sex-favourable as an asexual thing or not. We know that not all sexually active aces are sex favourable, the OP was simply stating that many of them are and using it to bring to light a topic that was previously discussed on a similar subject.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, Lichley said:

They were just asking you to at the very least say it in a less hostile way. The point of this thread is to non-threateningly determine how many people see sex-favourable as an asexual thing or not. We know that not all sexually active aces are sex favourable, the OP was simply stating that many of them are and using it to bring to light a topic that was previously discussed on a similar subject.

The OP is not what's in question here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lichley
1 minute ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

The OP is not what's in question here.

*The OP Whom  you quoted first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Just now, Lichley said:

*The OP Whom  you quoted first.

Faeriefate is not the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lichley
Just now, Mysticus Insanus said:

Faeriefate is not the OP.

No but they were the original person who you quoted, which is what I as trying to say, but I couldn’t think of the word. I. Sorry if that’s made you confused.

Share this post


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

I guess the question is, if you seek out sex and enjoy sex, why is it important to you to identify as asexual? I'm not saying you can't-- just why?

 

Edited to add: I also think there's a difference between desiring sex with someone and a kink/festish. Sometimes asexual people may enjoy sex because they experience a kink or fetish that arouses them. That's still not the same thing as the innate biological drive most humans have to have sex. 

To answer the question, one possibility may be that they do this very, very rarely...?

I also believe that there's a distinction between desired sex and kink, in that a kink is a subclass of desiring sex. Like, the two overlap, but not completely, so that you can have one without the other, or even both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

It makes about as much sense as a turkey voting for christmas.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crazy ace

3edzhr.jpg

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skycaptain

Pro. 

 

Sex-favourable doesn't mean you want sex, just that things such as a sex scene in a movie don't make you squeamish, unlike someone who is sex-repulsed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Artear
28 minutes ago, SkyenAutowegCaptain said:

Pro. 

 

Sex-favourable doesn't mean you want sex, just that things such as a sex scene in a movie don't make you squeamish, unlike someone who is sex-repulsed 

Um, what? I'm repulsed to the act of sex involving me but have no problems watching a sex scene. I'm also pretty sure no sex-favorable people define it like that.

Edited by Artear
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SithEmpress

I agree with most people here. I think "sex-favorable asexuals", with certain definitions and meanings, is perfectly fine, but I think there are some who use it to basically mean "sexual but doesn't want to use that label" who do disservice to the asexual definition be forcing it to fit them. 

 

So I said indifferent, because I've found many I'm okay with and a couple who make me want to scream.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
5 hours ago, SkyenAutowegCaptain said:

Sex-favourable doesn't mean you want sex, just that things such as a sex scene in a movie don't make you squeamish, unlike someone who is sex-repulsed 

I have seen literally nobody use sex-favorable in this way, Sky. Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Artear
34 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

I have seen literally nobody use sex-favorable in this way, Sky. Ever.

Well, technically you've seen it once. I feel like that's kinda the main problem with the term "sex favorable" though. It can mean anything from not a prude to sex-positive to i'll gladly fuck anybody with a pulse, but it's not sexual since i don't see them as specific people to be attracted to (yes, this idea exists). 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...