deletingthisaccount Posted February 24, 2020 Author Share Posted February 24, 2020 5 hours ago, Hanas said: Ohh. No, nevermind, I get where you come from now that you mention these examples. I still think, again, that because there are so many factors into play on anyone's psyche, it's always hard to draw a line even on a psychologically intimate level/upon closer inspection, where asexual ends and aspec begins or where allo ends and aspec begins etc. So I tend to relativize how much say others have on that. But yes, surely there is a difference between "I am not interested in having sex" or "I only ever want to have sex with that person" vs "I am interested in having sex but there are obvious medical/psychological conditions that make me unable to do so". Thanks for explaining that kindly and patiently! I think, too, that precisely because of some generic allo political agenda things tend to get messy and that's why I believe there shouldn't be a "default" option between ace and allo, etc. But that's for another topic! Yes, I agree that a blurry line exists between asexual/aspec or aspec/lower allo. I understand what you meant now too. And when an individual is actually somewhere on that blurry line, I also agree that's definitely more for the individual to figure out. We're just frustrated at the situations like I described above ^ where someone is so blatantly not ace or a-spec but identifies that way due to misconceptions, many of which are media-fueled, yet we can't correct them. You're welcome. Thank you for taking the time to understand my perspective as well. It's nice being able to have a legitimate discussion about these issues! Link to post Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount Posted February 24, 2020 Author Share Posted February 24, 2020 3 hours ago, CBC said: You can never be truly ready anyway, if that makes you feel any better. 😂 I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse 😂 Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 2 hours ago, CBC said: There's a "generic allo political agenda"...? To me, there is one, definitely. Because every (open, cultured, young) person nowadays seem to be keen in so comfortably trying to fit some obscure label when it comes to romantic affection and/or sexuality, but of course that only applies to people who are allo and pretty sure of whatever it is they're seeking in a sexual partner and happy about going after it. For everyone else that way of socializing or identifying is simply uncomfortable IMO. Just now, paytonk07 said: Yes, I agree that a blurry line exists between asexual/aspec or aspec/lower allo. I understand what you meant now too. And when an individual is actually somewhere on that blurry line, I also agree that's definitely more for the individual to figure out. We're just frustrated at the situations like I described above ^ where someone is so blatantly not ace or a-spec but identifies that way due to misconceptions, many of which are media-fueled, yet we can't correct them. You're welcome. Thank you for taking the time to understand my perspective as well. It's nice being able to have a legitimate discussion about these issues! I understand. Yes, really, for the media it's a great way of saying "see! You're not 'asexual' after all, you're just *sick* and *probably needs treatment* just like that person!" which ... nuh uh ... . Link to post Share on other sites
anisotrophic Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 40 minutes ago, Hanas said: Because every (open, cultured, young) person nowadays seem to be keen in so comfortably trying to fit some obscure label when it comes to romantic affection and/or sexuality, but of course that only applies to people who are allo and pretty sure of whatever it is they're seeking in a sexual partner and happy about going after it. For everyone else that way of socializing or identifying is simply uncomfortable IMO. *Allos* are the ones engaging in obscure microlabels?? Maybe I'm just too old for this stuff. (I thought old folks got to dictate the "agendas" though... who's in charge here?) Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 Just now, anisotrophic said: *Allos* are the ones engaging in obscure microlabels?? Maybe I'm just too old for this stuff. (I thought old folks got to dictate the "agendas" though... who's in charge here?) I dunno, I've seen it happen a lot among allos. No idea if it happens a lot among aces too because, as I said, I don't normally see many people who id as ace outside of AVEN but hmm. I feel that the younger generation is definitely in charge of this at least, lol. Link to post Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount Posted February 24, 2020 Author Share Posted February 24, 2020 42 minutes ago, Hanas said: I understand. Yes, really, for the media it's a great way of saying "see! You're not 'asexual' after all, you're just *sick* and *probably needs treatment* just like that person!" which ... nuh uh ... . That, and painting asexuals/aspecs as just "different forms" of allosexuals. Sometimes even unintentionally, but I've seen it a lot. Link to post Share on other sites
Skipper Valvoline Posted February 24, 2020 Share Posted February 24, 2020 On 2/21/2020 at 1:48 PM, paytonk07 said: Agreed. Without clear definition, our identity becomes meaningless. I understand that all asexuals experience asexuality a bit differently - just like all allosexual orientations do - but a line has to be drawn somewhere. That's simply how all identity works. PREACH. One of the most annoying things I've seen in recent years is this "asexuality is a spectrum" bullshit. Like... YES? BECAUSE OF ALL OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE IS A SPECTRUM! But we don't call heterosexuality a spectrum, we don't talk about being gay-spec... because it's generally understood that hey, individuals will experience life (gasp!) individually. I freaking hate this new rhetoric of "I identify as a-spec" like, no, just no. If you're ace, you're ace. I am asexual. I could identify as straight but that wouldn't change the truth. Saying 'identify'... waters it down, in my opinion. And trying to explain to people who have literally never heard of asexuality by starting off with "it's a SPECTRUM" is a huge cue for them to stop listening, because we're the only sexuality trying to say that. It really does come across more snow-flakey. We need clear boundaries while we're still trying to educate people. It should not be any more complicated than "straight=like opposite sex, gay=like same sex, bi=like both sexes, and ace=like neither sex." That's it. Simple, straightforward, bite-sized info. People are new to all this; if we rush them with a deluge of vocabulary words they're not going to understand. Link to post Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount Posted February 24, 2020 Author Share Posted February 24, 2020 On 2/24/2020 at 1:00 AM, Skipper Valvoline said: PREACH. One of the most annoying things I've seen in recent years is this "asexuality is a spectrum" bullshit. Like... YES? BECAUSE OF ALL OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE IS A SPECTRUM! But we don't call heterosexuality a spectrum, we don't talk about being gay-spec... because it's generally understood that hey, individuals will experience life (gasp!) individually. I freaking hate this new rhetoric of "I identify as a-spec" like, no, just no. If you're ace, you're ace. I am asexual. I could identify as straight but that wouldn't change the truth. Saying 'identify'... waters it down, in my opinion. And trying to explain to people who have literally never heard of asexuality by starting off with "it's a SPECTRUM" is a huge cue for them to stop listening, because we're the only sexuality trying to say that. It really does come across more snow-flakey. We need clear boundaries while we're still trying to educate people. It should not be any more complicated than "straight=like opposite sex, gay=like same sex, bi=like both sexes, and ace=like neither sex." That's it. Simple, straightforward, bite-sized info. People are new to all this; if we rush them with a deluge of vocabulary words they're not going to understand. I've actually seen the hetero/homosexuality being talked about in terms of a spectrum recently too. At least in the college/professional school environment, not sure where else. That may be attributed to young adult curiosity. Yes, agreed - actual identity is who you really are and has legitimate purpose; it's more than just a label. Before realizing I was ace at 19, I "identified" as straight, even through seven years of confusion unable to understand the romance- and sex-obsessed world around me, just because I had no idea what else to call myself. That doesn't mean I was straight, I just didn't know I was an aro-ace. I also agree that the complicated rhetoric is causing a lot of the issue. I do think that the concept of an asexual spectrum is valid for very rare instances of attraction, but the spectrum is being horribly misconstrued into what's not the asexual spectrum. So many allosexuals, surrounded by hookup culture, misunderstood the spectrum as meaning things like, "I like this person but I don't want to have sex with them until we're in a relationship and I'm comfortable with it." Then started "identifying" as graysexual. As you said, watered down the meaning, you know? But that goes back to what you said, and I completely agree with -- most of the world still hasn't grasped what "asexuality" is to begin with. Introducing the spectrum concept before the world legitimately understands the basis of asexuality is really hard. And leads to misrepresentation, which then leads to more misunderstanding/misuse of all the terms, etc. So yeah, we need to clearly-defined boundaries. And if we're discussing the asexual spectrum (gray-asexuality spectrum would maybe be a better word?? Or just outright using the words gray-asexuality and demisexuality), we need to really, really, reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally stress how rarely a gray-ace/demi would actually experience that attraction. I think too many allos, who cdon't understand the meaning asexuality or its spectrum of rare attraction, have started "identifying" as such, and are destroying their meanings. Link to post Share on other sites
Nylocke Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 On 2/23/2020 at 11:38 AM, paytonk07 said: The same happens to me. Even when I tell most people that I’m asexual, they have such a hard time understanding what I mean. I could make a phenomenally long list of all the misunderstandings I’ve gotten trying to explain it to people over the years. Yea its very annoying. I don't even like to talk to people about it because they generally don't understand or don't want to understand. Link to post Share on other sites
HikaruBG Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 This, to me, looks like a really weird narrative where if people and the media (via the articles) are trying to represent asexuality/asexuals like "we don't experience sexual attraction but still desire sex", society (and LGBT+ community as an extension) is far more likely to accept it as a legitimate sexual minority. Spoiler And then, you have the whole shtick with the Asexual Spectrum. Of course, many people don't buy into it (although a lot of them also misunderstand Asexuality) but there are those who do buy into it. Mainly young people, especially when they are in college (because apparently hooking up is prevalent there.... but this seems to be an issue unique to USA because colleges/universities in other countries doesn't seem have this). People actually hypothesised that reason why that is, is the raise of the hook up culture - ONS, FWB, Tinder, ect. Anyway.... the reason why they might be doing that is, well... It's not like people didn't try to represent Asexuality as "doesn't experience inherent sexual desire for partnered sex for personal gratification" or something like that (that happened like 2 decades ago, I believe) and that backfired. People, especially LGBT+ didn't buy into that saying things like "who cares if you don't want sex, it's not like your parents are disowning you or people are killing you because of your lack of desire" ....or outright choosing to belive that it's an low libido issue (makes sense because back then, non-libidonists were a large part of the Ace community, or at least, AVEN), trauma or something. It's seems like this problem is impossible to solve and any damage that is done by now is completely irreversible because people has already started to accept the statements of "we don't experience sexual attraction but still desire sex" and "Asexual Specturum" to be true. Spoiler IMHO, all of this leads to the conclusion that people and society is simply not ready to accept Asexuality... and they never are going to be ready. People now at large really love to cling to phrases like "everyone wants and likes sex, even animals", 'if you are saying otherwise, you are lying to yourself", "the meaning of life is sex and passing genes", "it's in our DNA, it's what makes us human" and so on. They won't listen to you and it's impossible for them to accept the contrary, which is why the problem with representation of asexuality is a thing in the first place. If anything else, society would rather accept pedophilia (it's kind of happening now, as even the medias and Hollywood are blatantly sexualizing minors) and zoophilia, out of spite, than to accept the idea that there are people out there who never want sex for personal pleasure and that this is not a result of a physical, mental or hormonal issue. And all of this really pisses me off. Link to post Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 On 2/23/2020 at 7:56 AM, paytonk07 said: However, asexuality is NOT hyposexuality. The hyposexual misconception has already caused asexuals so much pain as is, and failing to distinguish the two will only cause more. Hyposexuality IS asexuality minus the opportunity to call oneself asexual. There are no "disorders of sexual desire", there is a large spectrum and being "hyposexual" is normal too. It means being in a minority part of the spectrum, not within the area of Pathology. Everyone has a right to not have and not desire sex, not just asexuals. Link to post Share on other sites
Expedition Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 27 minutes ago, Nowhere Girl said: Hyposexuality IS asexuality minus the opportunity to call oneself asexual. There are no "disorders of sexual desire", there is a large spectrum and being "hyposexual" is normal too. It means being in a minority part of the spectrum, not within the area of Pathology. Everyone has a right to not have and not desire sex, not just asexuals. DSM differentiates hyposexuality from asexuality (which it explicitly says isn't a disorder) by specifying that a disorder means it's causing significant long term problems for the person with the condition. If there's no problem, it's not a disorder. Link to post Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 4 hours ago, Expedition said: DSM differentiates hyposexuality from asexuality (which it explicitly says isn't a disorder) by specifying that a disorder means it's causing significant long term problems for the person with the condition. If there's no problem, it's not a disorder. The DSM is not definitive for me, I prefer questioning the classification from a sociocultural point of view in such cases. Particularly since it's hard to differentiate whether distress is "genuine" (whatever it means, because all our thoughtfeeling is intermediated by culture) and socioculturally conditioned ditress. To quote from an article: Quote For some people, a low libido causes actual dysphoria. But I feel that there are many for whom the dysphoria is more social. They're not sad they're not having that much sex, they're only worried that other people think it's wrong. If they didn't feel that social pressure, they might not have any stress about their low or non-libidos at all. And this is my view as well. First try to create conditions in which there is no pressure to have and enjoy sex, in which celibacy is considered an equally valuable choice compared to sexual activity - and then see how many people are distressed about their lack of desire. Link to post Share on other sites
Expedition Posted February 27, 2020 Share Posted February 27, 2020 If most people are using the DSM definition (and they are), the point of arguing based on your own definition is a bit moot. Link to post Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount Posted February 28, 2020 Author Share Posted February 28, 2020 On 2/27/2020 at 6:08 AM, HikaruBG said: This, to me, looks like a really weird narrative where if people and the media (via the articles) are trying to represent asexuality/asexuals like "we don't experience sexual attraction but still desire sex", society (and LGBT+ community as an extension) is far more likely to accept it as a legitimate sexual minority. Hide contents And then, you have the whole shtick with the Asexual Spectrum. Of course, many people don't buy into it (although a lot of them also misunderstand Asexuality) but there are those who do buy into it. Mainly young people, especially when they are in college (because apparently hooking up is prevalent there.... but this seems to be an issue unique to USA because colleges/universities in other countries doesn't seem have this). People actually hypothesised that reason why that is, is the raise of the hook up culture - ONS, FWB, Tinder, ect. Anyway.... the reason why they might be doing that is, well... It's not like people didn't try to represent Asexuality as "doesn't experience inherent sexual desire for partnered sex for personal gratification" or something like that (that happened like 2 decades ago, I believe) and that backfired. People, especially LGBT+ didn't buy into that saying things like "who cares if you don't want sex, it's not like your parents are disowning you or people are killing you because of your lack of desire" ....or outright choosing to belive that it's an low libido issue (makes sense because back then, non-libidonists were a large part of the Ace community, or at least, AVEN), trauma or something. It's seems like this problem is impossible to solve and any damage that is done by now is completely irreversible because people has already started to accept the statements of "we don't experience sexual attraction but still desire sex" and "Asexual Specturum" to be true. Hide contents IMHO, all of this leads to the conclusion that people and society is simply not ready to accept Asexuality... and they never are going to be ready. People now at large really love to cling to phrases like "everyone wants and likes sex, even animals", 'if you are saying otherwise, you are lying to yourself", "the meaning of life is sex and passing genes", "it's in our DNA, it's what makes us human" and so on. They won't listen to you and it's impossible for them to accept the contrary, which is why the problem with representation of asexuality is a thing in the first place. If anything else, society would rather accept pedophilia (it's kind of happening now, as even the medias and Hollywood are blatantly sexualizing minors) and zoophilia, out of spite, than to accept the idea that there are people out there who never wanted sex for personal pleasure and that this is not a result of a physical, mental or hormonal issue. And all of this really pisses me off. I agree. I had actually never thought of the possibility that representation shifted to inaccurate portrayal because of people refusing to accept more accurate representation. I think you're right about that also having an effect. Considering how most people to which I've tried to explain asexuality can't seem to grasp it at all. Unfortunately, the damage probably is irreversible. Which makes me so sad. I was so relieved when I discovered asexuality after years of unexplained confusion and alienation. Had I read an article like that ^ back when I first heard of asexuality, to this day I would've still had no idea that I'm asexual. I don't understand why every deviation outside of standard allosexuality is being considered asexual. If a person actively and constantly desires and seeks out partnered sex as personal need, but without attraction, then that seems like a sub-type of allosexuality. And is different from, for example, an asexual that doesn't experience sexual attraction/desire toward anyone, but say, may still have a libido, where they could feel pleasure if having sex as compromise, even though they don't really need/desire sex, and wouldn't seek it out otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount Posted February 28, 2020 Author Share Posted February 28, 2020 On 2/27/2020 at 8:02 AM, Nowhere Girl said: Hyposexuality IS asexuality minus the opportunity to call oneself asexual. There are no "disorders of sexual desire", there is a large spectrum and being "hyposexual" is normal too. It means being in a minority part of the spectrum, not within the area of Pathology. Everyone has a right to not have and not desire sex, not just asexuals. Actually, it isn't: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/hyposexuality-what-causes-symptoms-asexuality-difference-meaning-types-a8355786.html Hyposexuality encompasses more than just the DSM hyposexual disorder - which, as others have pointed out, is already distinguished from asexuality to begin with. On 2/27/2020 at 12:56 PM, Nowhere Girl said: The DSM is not definitive for me, I prefer questioning the classification from a sociocultural point of view in such cases. Particularly since it's hard to differentiate whether distress is "genuine" (whatever it means, because all our thoughtfeeling is intermediated by culture) and socioculturally conditioned ditress. To quote from an article: And this is my view as well. First try to create conditions in which there is no pressure to have and enjoy sex, in which celibacy is considered an equally valuable choice compared to sexual activity - and then see how many people are distressed about their lack of desire. On 2/27/2020 at 1:01 PM, CBC said: I suspect probably still the majority of them... I agree with CBC. The majority still will. Allosexuals do have a legitimate want for sex, which a low libido inhibits them from achieving. That article you quoted is an interview with an asexual person, from an asexual person's point of view. As an asexual myself, obviously I can't comprehend the concept of sexual attraction/desire (like many allosexuals can't comprehend that I don't feel that). So yes, for an asexual, any distress would be based on the social aspect - but that's because we're asexual. Regardless of our inability to understand the concept, we do have to recognize that for allosexuals, the distress really does stem from a sexual need/desire that isn't being met because of the low libido. Although I agree that some asexual people probably are wrongfully diagnosed as having as hyposexual because they can't articulate that their distress is more social, we can't attribute all distress about a low libido as being cultural distress. Link to post Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 I still don't think of "hyposexuality" as a "disorder". It's a state of being. Some people have high libido. Some have low libido. Both are fine and perhaps could be accepted rather than tried to change. Link to post Share on other sites
Expedition Posted February 28, 2020 Share Posted February 28, 2020 12 minutes ago, Nowhere Girl said: I still don't think of "hyposexuality" as a "disorder". It's a state of being. Some people have high libido. Some have low libido. Both are fine and perhaps could be accepted rather than tried to change ... and AVEN posters' mission to redefine words to mean their precise opposite continues.... Link to post Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount Posted February 29, 2020 Author Share Posted February 29, 2020 15 hours ago, Expedition said: ... and AVEN posters' mission to redefine words to mean their precise opposite continues.... Lolol yup Link to post Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount Posted February 29, 2020 Author Share Posted February 29, 2020 3 hours ago, CBC said: You're a fast learner. Yup. You're right, I'm definitely not ready for this 😂 Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 It's been pretty quiet on the definition debate front for a while, but eventually they will come in force like artillery fire. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 On 2/21/2020 at 8:07 PM, Anthracite_Impreza said: @paytonk07 You are such a breath of fresh air, honest to gods. Far too many "everyone can be ace!!" types nowadays. Call me an invalidating knobhead all you like but I will not back down from this, it's fucking ridiculous. 200% agree with this. To put it bluntly, to say that everyone can be ace is equivalent to showing off one's misunderstanding and ignorance, not to mention insulting to aces. This next part is not intended to be elitist or anything, but aces are a special fraction of people whose shared lack of sexual attraction sets us apart. (I only mean to say 'sets us apart', not 'makes us better than everyone else'.) Claiming that anyone can partake in our distinctive identity invalidates the distinctiveness. Finally, I don't want to get involved in any definition debates, but my personal definition of asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to living or once-alive entities. If someone experiences sexual attraction to anything that is or was animate, they aren't ace according to this definition, which I'm fairly sure matches up with most definitions. If anyone would like to argue with me about the definition, I will most likely be unresponsive. Finally2 , where does objectophilia fit into all of this? I added the "living or once-alive entities" clause because I am not sure about whether sexual attraction to objects disqualifies someone from the possibility of being ace. At this point, I will refrain from having an opinion on the subject. I would appreciate feedback on this question, so thanks in advance to whoever enlightens me first Link to post Share on other sites
deletingthisaccount Posted March 1, 2020 Author Share Posted March 1, 2020 2 hours ago, cAROlyn said: 200% agree with this. To put it bluntly, to say that everyone can be ace is equivalent to showing off one's misunderstanding and ignorance, not to mention insulting to aces. This next part is not intended to be elitist or anything, but aces are a special fraction of people whose shared lack of sexual attraction sets us apart. (I only mean to say 'sets us apart', not 'makes us better than everyone else'.) Claiming that anyone can partake in our distinctive identity invalidates the distinctiveness. Finally, I don't want to get involved in any definition debates, but my personal definition of asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to living or once-alive entities. If someone experiences sexual attraction to anything that is or was animate, they aren't ace according to this definition, which I'm fairly sure matches up with most definitions. If anyone would like to argue with me about the definition, I will most likely be unresponsive. Exactly. All the progress we've made is lost when we basically allow asexuality to become everything we've fought to show the world that asexuality isn't. Then those who are ace will return to feeling invalidated, alienated, and ostracized, as we did before this community. And yes, I agree, that's a good base definition. Then the community could just try to be more specific explaining the definition. Like, x is what this means, but y is not. Then there's less confusion. No definition debate! And @cAROlyn, I've actually never thought about how objectophilia would fit in 🤔 Based on the examples what I'm reading, I would say not. Because it seems like attraction to and desire for the object, in the same way that someone would have a preference toward a person. That's just my impression based on a 5-minute google search. Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 5 hours ago, cAROlyn said: Finally2 , where does objectophilia fit into all of this? I added the "living or once-alive entities" clause because I am not sure about whether sexual attraction to objects disqualifies someone from the possibility of being ace. At this point, I will refrain from having an opinion on the subject. I would appreciate feedback on this question, so thanks in advance to whoever enlightens me first I'm glad you added this because I couldn't be arsed when I first read it, but first "objectophilia" is a fetish, not an orientation. Objectum sexuality/romanticism is the orientation. The difference is we OS/Rs see the objects (lol) of our affection as independent beings/entities just like bios are typically accepted as being, so yes to me it absolutely disqualifies someone from being ace/aro because I don't see why anthros should get the sole rights to sexuality and romance. I'm not aro just cos I feel romantically to a car and not a human; that would be ridiculous considering he has given me genuine joy, desires and heartbreak in the same way an anthro would feel. 4 hours ago, Ace_of_Spades07 said: Because it seems like attraction to and desire for the object, in the same way that someone would have a preference toward a person. That's just my impression based on a 5-minute google search. Yes, we do. Source: is objectum romantic. Link to post Share on other sites
Phantasmal Fingers Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 But surely the point that @Anthracite_Impreza often makes is that for him cars are not just objects? In this respect Lyall Watson's viewpoint, i. e. that there is no such thing as an inanimate object, is very interesting. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 On 2/28/2020 at 11:55 PM, Nowhere Girl said: I still don't think of "hyposexuality" as a "disorder". It's a state of being. Some people have high libido. Some have low libido. Both are fine and perhaps could be accepted rather than tried to change. Hey there I don't wish to sound crass, but how you personally define it isn't really relevant. The fact is, for sexual people who are struggling with hyposexuality (as with hypersexuality) it's most definitely a disorder that a doctor will diagnose IF it's causing them significant and genuine distress. If distress isn't being experienced, then you just have someone with a low libido (or a high libido on the opposite end of the spectrum) which is totally fine and accepted. Asexuality is different in that an asexual doesn't desire to connect sexually with others regardless of whether their libido is high or low. Whereas a low libido sexual person does still desire sexual contact, just more rarely. There was an article about a hypersexual woman a few years ago (I have no idea if I could find it again, it may even have been in a magazine) who was begging for help as she needed to orgasm like over a hundred times a day or something. Sadly she ended up taking her own life. These things (a libido that's too low or too high) can genuinely cause sexual people HUGE amounts of distress when not taken seriously, hence why they are considered disorders by doctors but only if distress is being caused. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 5 hours ago, cAROlyn said: Finally2 , where does objectophilia fit into all of this? I added the "living or once-alive entities" clause because I am not sure about whether sexual attraction to objects disqualifies someone from the possibility of being ace. At this point, I will refrain from having an opinion on the subject. I would appreciate feedback on this question, so thanks in advance to whoever enlightens me first I saw a documentary not than long ago about objectum-sexual people, and the two who were interviewed still classified themselves as sexual because they 1) saw the objects as living entities with personalities and desires and emotions etc, and 2) actively desired sex with those objects as an act of intimacy between the two of them. For them, the 'object' desired sex with them back, so it was a mutual exchange of sexual pleasure. Someone would be an ace objectum if they still felt all those same emotions etc (love, companionship), but didn't actually desire to have sexual intimacy with the being they are in love with. Would you agree with that @Anthracite_Impreza? Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 @Pan Ficto. Yes, entirely. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 8 hours ago, Ace_of_Spades07 said: And @cAROlyn, I've actually never thought about how objectophilia would fit in 🤔 Based on the examples what I'm reading, I would say not. Because it seems like attraction to and desire for the object, in the same way that someone would have a preference toward a person. That's just my impression based on a 5-minute google search. 3 hours ago, Anthracite_Impreza said: I'm glad you added this because I couldn't be arsed when I first read it, but first "objectophilia" is a fetish, not an orientation. Objectum sexuality/romanticism is the orientation. The difference is we OS/Rs see the objects (lol) of our affection as independent beings/entities just like bios are typically accepted as being, so yes to me it absolutely disqualifies someone from being ace/aro because I don't see why anthros should get the sole rights to sexuality and romance. 3 hours ago, Pan Ficto. said: I saw a documentary not than long ago about objectum-sexual people, and the two who were interviewed still classified themselves as sexual because they 1) saw the objects as living entities with personalities and desires and emotions etc, and 2) actively desired sex with those objects as an act of intimacy between the two of them. For them, the 'object' desired sex with them back, so it was a mutual exchange of sexual pleasure. 3 hours ago, Moderne Jazzhanden said: In this respect Lyall Watson's viewpoint, i. e. that there is no such thing as an inanimate object, is very interesting. Thank y'all for your answers. I especially like the distinction between objects as "independent beings/entities" like people, with emotions and desires and such, vs. non-independent entities, because such a distinction makes it clear what asexuality is and isn't. The term "objectum sexuality/romanticism" serves to further the distinction because objectum is its own orientation. So, perhaps it would be better to take away the "living or once-alive entities" clause since, like @Moderne Jazzhanden said, there may be no inanimate objects. Also, being sexually attracted to an inanimate object or fictional character is still sexual attraction, so classifying people with this kind of attraction as ace makes zero sense. Therefore, it would probably be better to define asexuality exactly how it is defined on the front page of AVEN: as a lack of sexual attraction. This definition clearly separates aces from non-aces, but not in a 'We're better than you' kind of way. Also, this might be borderline TMI, but it's relevant to this discussion. On the other hand, putting it in a spoiler might make me look overly cautious. Anyway, here we go. Spoiler When I first figured out that calculus turns me on, I thought the only way that that could be true was if calculus were an independent being. (When I later learned about fetishes and the fact that aces can have them, everything became clear.) Thinking of calculus as an entity in and of itself (1) doesn't make sense to me and (2) is insulting to its status as an academic discipline, which I see as something intangible, so therefore not a being. (It is not calculus that is insulted, it is I who is insulted on its behalf, because it is not a being.) Also, classifying something as a 'being' requires the assignment to the thing of semi-human traits such as consciousness (real or metaphorical), existence in a body, and the ability to interact with other beings. I can't even let myself think about assigning these characteristics to calculus because thinking about that would be too painful, not to mention painfully incorrect. To make an imperfect analogy, telling me that calculus is its own being is like telling a religious person that heaven is just a slightly better version of Earth. Additionally, if calculus were an entity similar to a person or object, it would not turn me on because part of what makes calculus sexy is the very fact that it is an intangible and inaccessible academic subject. Counterintuitive, I'm sure, but it makes perfect sense to my brain. P. S. This part was hard to write because there is seemingly no way to avoid referring to calculus as if it were its own being. It's not! Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 14 minutes ago, cAROlyn said: it would probably be better to define asexuality exactly how it is defined on the front page of AVEN: as a lack of sexual attraction. This definition clearly separates aces from non-aces, but not in a 'We're better than you' kind of way. It really wouldn't, cos no one agrees on what it means and just twists it to suit their agenda ("I want loads of sex but don't get turned on by appearance, therefore I'm ace"). "Not desiring sex with anyone", and including non-human/fictional/abstract beings in that, is the way to go, because the only thing all sexuals have in common is that they sometimes want sex. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.