Media Misrepresentation of Asexuality

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

It really wouldn't, cos no one agrees on what it means and just twists it to suit their agenda

That's very true. Perhaps simplifying the definition is not the way to go, and instead of a catch-all definition with what would probably be hundreds of exception clauses, defining asexuality on a case-by-case basis would work better because then there would be no need to define exceptions beforehand. By "exceptions", I mean sex-related things that aces might do that aren't sexual attraction.

[Expedition]

How can 'no innate desire to have sex with anyone else' be made simpler?

[Guest]

Before any answers come in, would it be beneficial to move this discussion over to a different thread? We seem to have gotten a bit off the topic of the thread  

[Anthracite_Impreza]

1 minute ago, cAROlyn said:

That's very true. Perhaps simplifying the definition is not the way to go, and instead of a catch-all definition with what would probably be hundreds of exception clauses, defining asexuality on a case-by-case basis would work better because then there would be no need to define exceptions beforehand. By "exceptions", I mean sex-related things that aces might do that aren't sexual attraction.

It's really very simple. "If there were no external forces or pressures on you, would you still want sex? Yes: sexual. No: asexual. It's complicated (by which I mean, something like what @Pan Ficto. told me about a guy who only wanted sex if someone sneezed, or can only tell after an abnormally long time): grey/demi-sexual".

[Phantasmal Fingers]

I like what you have to say @cAROlynexcept that, for me, defining asexuality as a lack is still problematic as it's still on the terms of the other, so to speak.

 

A vegetarian doesn't lack the ability or the desire to eat meat: not having this desire/ability doesn't really equate to a lack. I used to say that asexuality is a 'non-pejorative lack' but on reflection even that now seems problematic. 

[Expedition]

Surely it's your own lack?

 

I don't think saying a characteristic is somehow less valid for involving other people.

[deletingthisaccount]

On 3/1/2020 at 9:47 AM, cAROlyn said:

Before any answers come in, would it be beneficial to move this discussion over to a different thread? We seem to have gotten a bit off the topic of the thread  

I think it's still relevant, since the definition of asexuality is relevant to media representation. I'm not sure under AVEN's policy how much "off topic" a discussion has to be for removal though, so you all may know better than me on that. If so, I would be fine with moving to a different thread.

 

On 3/1/2020 at 9:40 AM, Anthracite_Impreza said:

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.

 

On 3/1/2020 at 9:44 AM, cAROlyn said:

That's very true. Perhaps simplifying the definition is not the way to go, and instead of a catch-all definition with what would probably be hundreds of exception clauses, defining asexuality on a case-by-case basis would work better because then there would be no need to define exceptions beforehand. By "exceptions", I mean sex-related things that aces might do that aren't sexual attraction.

Yeah, I think these are good points.  Even when I've tried to explain asexuality to others, as "doesn't feel sexual attraction or desire", people misunderstand it. They think lack of attraction means "doesn't care who you have sex with" instead of "doesn't want sex with anyone." But similarly, with "no desire", I run into misunderstandings with medical conditions, celibacy, sex-repulsion, etc.

 

I think having a definition that encompasses both innate lack of sexual attraction/desire toward people/objects would work best. That seems to best get the point across, in my experience. And I do think a lot of the misunderstandings stem from multitude of "exceptions." So maybe case-by-case basis would be better, but I would have to see more how that would work to have a definite opinion.

 

[Expedition]

42 minutes ago, Ace_of_Spades07 said:

I think it's still relevant, since the definition of asexuality is relevant to media representation. I'm not sure under AVEN's policy how much "off topic" a discussion has to be for removal though, so you all may know better than me on that. If so, I would be fine with moving to a different thread.

 

 

Yeah, I think these are good points.  Even when I've tried to explain asexuality to others, as "doesn't feel sexual attraction or desire", people misunderstand it. They think lack of attraction means "doesn't care who you have sex with" instead of "doesn't want sex with anyone." But similarly, with "no desire", I run into misunderstandings with low libido, just a personal choice, sex-repulsion, etc.

 

I think having a definition that encompasses both innate lack of sexual attraction/desire toward people/objects would work best. That seems to best get the point across, in my experience. And I do think a lot of the misunderstandings stem from multitude of "exceptions." So maybe case-by-case basis would be better, but I would have to see more how that would work to have a definite opinion.

 

Would they have understood 'I never want to have sex with anyone, in the same way that straight people never want to have sex with their own gender' better do you think?

[deletingthisaccount]

22 minutes ago, Expedition said:

Would they have understood 'I never want to have sex with anyone, in the same way that straight people never want to have sex with their own gender' better do you think?

Yes, I think so actually! Once I start explaining it from the perspective of other orientations, they do seem to understand it more. Maybe we need to define it like that - making the orientation aspect clear in the definition. I think  "attraction" and "desire" are often vague, so people interpret those words in a bunch of different ways.

[Expedition]

4 minutes ago, Ace_of_Spades07 said:

I think  "attraction" and "desire" are often vague, so people interpret those words in a bunch of different ways.

I agree - that's why a lot of us go to the 'not innately wanting to have sex' definition. It doesn't include any words that are tricky to define.

[deletingthisaccount]

4 hours ago, CBC said:

I could most definitely take this another direction right now... why not have a wee sub-debate on how we define 'orientation'... but I'm trying to be a good person. Mostly. I mean, sort of. A little bit.

Hahaha actually, now that you mention it, I can see how defining orientation would also be debatable. What are your thoughts?

[HikaruBG]

1 hour ago, Ace_of_Spades07 said:

Yeah, I think these are good points.  Even when I've tried to explain asexuality to others, as "doesn't feel sexual attraction or desire", people misunderstand it. They think lack of attraction means "doesn't care who you have sex with" instead of "doesn't want sex with anyone." But similarly, with "no desire", I run into misunderstandings with low libido, just a personal choice, sex-repulsion, etc.

Yeah, this is the whole issue with Asexuality. Damn if you do, damn if you don't... it's that kind of situation. Sometimes it feels like trying to explain Asexuality is a waste of time and pointless, really, because at that point you will have a better luck explaining it to a wall than to a person.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, CBC said:

Um. You sure you wanna ask that? 😅

Isn't orientation as simple as which gender/s you desire intimacy and/or romance with? Sure some people's orientations can be complicated to define (I still wouldn't know how to define the gender/s I'm attracted to) but 'orientation' is just one way that many people can openly identify who they are attracted to, for the purpose especially of seeking compatible partners! Does it need to be more complicated than that?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, HikaruBG said:

Yeah, this is the whole issue with Asexuality. Damn if you do, damn if you don't... it's that kind of situation. Sometimes it feels like tring to explain Asexuality a waste of time and pointless, really, because at that point you will have a better luck explaining it to a wall than to a person.

Just say "asexuals don't have a desire to connect sexually with other people, the same way a straight guy doesn't desire sex with men". If the person you're talking to can't understand that, then they are a brick wall. Haha.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, CBC said:

Oh I agree, of course. Orientation is who you're attracted to, non-platonically, based on their sex/gender. Having sex is one way that most people desire to express that attraction, but asexuals don't. Thus asexuality is not an orientation, it's more... a (still completely legitimate) way of experiencing one's sexuality. 
 

People don't like to be told it's not an orientation, so.

Ooooh haha, I thought you were going SJW on it, saying there's no such thing as orientation or something LOL.

[Phantasmal Fingers]

5 minutes ago, CBC said:

People don't like to be told it's not an orientation, so.

If by orientation you mean sexual and/or romantic orientation I agree that it isn't an orientation. But I also recognise it can be controversial to say so on AVEN. 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Orientation is the direction, sexuality/romanticism is what you wanna do about it.

[HikaruBG]

On 3/1/2020 at 9:08 PM, Pan Ficto. said:

Just say "asexuals don't have a desire to connect sexually with other people, the same way a straight guy doesn't desire sex with men". If the person you're talking to can't understand that, then they are a brick wall. Haha.

But the thing is that using the phrase "asexuals doesn't desire sex with anyone" (as @Ace_of_Spades07 said it... and I use that too) is already supposed to convey a similar message that "straight guys doesn't desire sex with men" has.

There is like... 2 words difference in these phrases (sematics) and yet, they think that the first one is a result of low libido, personal choice or whatever, while the second one - apparently implies none of that at all. Two completely different responses.

Spoiler

Maybe, you are right here. Maybe they are a brick of wall if they couldn't understand what was it said.

 

Anyway, there are two ways to interpret this - there is seems to be bias towards asexuality (or at least, towards the idea that there are people who genuinely doesn't desire sex with anyone) specifically.... or the assumption that sexuality/sexual orientation is a choice is still being present in some vaguely way (edit: or that your sexuality is apparently dictated on how high your libido is???)

 

Edit: P.S.: For some reason, I can't tag AceOfSpades in mobile. I know how to do it but it doesn't work and the the little list with names doesn't show up. Eh...

[deletingthisaccount]

On 3/1/2020 at 2:02 PM, CBC said:

Oh I agree, of course. Orientation is who you're attracted to, non-platonically, based on their sex/gender. Having sex is one way that most people desire to express that attraction, but asexuals don't. Thus asexuality is not an orientation, it's more... a (still completely legitimate) way of experiencing one's sexuality. 
 

People don't like to be told it's not an orientation, so.

I see your point. I do agree that orientation is who you're attracted to. But I think of asexuality as no sexual attraction and no sexual desire, so I still consider it an orientation (attraction to no one, being the direction). Although my aromanticism might contribute to my viewpoint on that - since not experiencing romantic nor sexual attraction has always made "no attraction" very noticeable to me. Of course, I don't experience any innate sexual desire either. So that's why think asexuality encompasses both an orientation, and, as you said, also the way someone experiences (non)-sexuality. 

 

But I do see for romantic aces, who do experience non-platonic attraction, how considering it an "orientation" might be more complex. I do think under split attraction concept of romantic vs. sexual orientation that asexuality would still be a sexual orientation, but I understand your perspective on that. I hadn't considered that aspect.

 

I like hearing different viewpoints and having legitimate discussions about this. I'm not offended 😂 

 

 

On 3/1/2020 at 3:09 PM, HikaruBG said:

But the thing is that using the phrase "asexuals doesn't desire sex with anyone" (as @Ace_of_Spades07 said it... and I use that too) is already supposed to convey a similar message that "straight guys doesn't desire sex with men" has.

There is like... 2 words difference in these phrases (sematics) and yet, they think that the first one is a result of low libido, personal choice or whatever, while the second one - apparently implies none of that at all. Two completely different responses.

  Reveal hidden contents

Maybe, you are right here. Maybe they are a brick of wall if they couldn't understand what was it said.

 

Anyway, there are two ways to interpret this - there is seems to be bias towards asexuality (or at least, towards the idea that they are people who genuinely doesn't desire sex with anyone) specifically.... or the assumption that sexuality/sexual orientation is a choice is still being present in some vaguely way (edit: or that your sexuality is apparently dictated on how high your libido is???)

 

Edit: P.S.: For some reason, I can't tag AceOfSpades in mobile. I know how to do it but it doesn't work and the the little list with names doesn't show up. Eh...

Haha honestly, you would be surprised. I've tried to explain the concept to a decent amount of people. Most of the time, it takes a long conversation before they do understand it, if at all. It genuinely shocks me. I've gotten all three of those interpretations at some point - bias, vague choice, and libido.

[deletingthisaccount]

5 hours ago, Pan Ficto. said:

Just say "asexuals don't have a desire to connect sexually with other people, the same way a straight guy doesn't desire sex with men". If the person you're talking to can't understand that, then they are a brick wall. Haha.

Honestly, you would be surprised lol

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Ace_of_Spades07 said:

Haha honestly, you would be surprised. I've tried to explain the concept to a decent amount of people. Most of the time, it takes a long conversation before they do understand it, if at all. It genuinely shocks me. I've gotten all three of those interpretations at some point - bias, vague choice, and libido.

 

5 hours ago, Ace_of_Spades07 said:

Honestly, you would be surprised lol

I just wonder if maybe it's something to do with the wording you're using or maybe the crowd you're trying to explain it to? Because as a female-bodied person, even on dating sites with guys actively trying to get with me, they have still almost always understood very quickly when I say stuff like "I just prefer other intimate acts to sex". I don't ID as ace anymore but even when I did, I almost never got strongly negative reactions when I explained asexuality. For the most part, people understood and accepted once I explained.

 

The few times someone refused to understand was because they themselves were assholes of clearly low intelligence. They were rude, obnoxious, and said stuff like "just go to a doctor because you clearly are incapable of love" etc. That's maybe 4% of all the responses I have received to explaining asexuality, even on dating sites and Fetlife (which kind of by default have a huge percentage of very sexual people all gathered in one place).

[deletingthisaccount]

On 3/2/2020 at 12:53 AM, Pan Ficto. said:

 

I just wonder if maybe it's something to do with the wording you're using or maybe the crowd you're trying to explain it to? Because as a female-bodied person, even on dating sites with guys actively trying to get with me, they have still almost always understood very quickly when I say stuff like "I just prefer other intimate acts to sex". I don't ID as ace anymore but even when I did, I almost never got strongly negative reactions when I explained asexuality. For the most part, people understood and accepted once I explained.

 

The few times someone refused to understand was because they themselves were assholes of clearly low intelligence. They were rude, obnoxious, and said stuff like "just go to a doctor because you clearly are incapable of love" etc. That's maybe 4% of all the responses I have received to explaining asexuality, even on dating sites and Fetlife (which kind of by default have a huge percentage of very sexual people all gathered in one place).

It's possible. Mostly, I've tried to explain it to college peers, so college hookup culture might factor heavily into the disbelief. I would characterize their reactions as mostly disbelieving/misunderstanding, but not necessarily strongly negative as in demeaning, you know? Also, my aromanticism might make it even harder for people to understand me. (Although when I explain it to others, I always make sure to mention that many other asexuals still do experience romantic attraction/desire!)

[Guest]

On 3/9/2020 at 11:33 PM, Ace_of_Spades07 said:

(Although when I explain it to others, I always make sure to mention that many other asexuals still do experience romantic attraction/desire!)

That is crucial, especially when your goal is to debunk the assumption that all aces have no interest in any kind of relationship. At least a few people whom I've come out to have been confused about the ace/aro split.

[deletingthisaccount]

On 3/11/2020 at 7:36 PM, cAROlyn said:

That is crucial, especially when your goal is to debunk the assumption that all aces have no interest in any kind of relationship. At least a few people whom I've come out to have been confused about the ace/aro split.

Exactly. Especially because the majority of the people that I've told have never known another ace besides me, I don't want only aro-ace to become "the" representation for all asexuals. I always make sure to mention romantic aces because I know how important debunking that assumption is to the ace community as a whole.

 

Do you ever feel like people have a hard time understanding when you explain asexuality, just in general? And with the aromantic component too?

[Low End Things]

Not who to best quote so I'll just mention it generally: as a sex favorable ace with many sex-positive friends, I've found it very hard to explain asexuality to others. If anything, stating I'm still engaging in sex and have romantic feelings makes it even harder to understand, because someone who feels attraction doesn't get why someone who doesn't would do this at all. I think people in general suck at empathy, though, which leads to these issues. 

[Low End Things]

On 3/1/2020 at 2:02 PM, CBC said:

Oh I agree, of course. Orientation is who you're attracted to, non-platonically, based on their sex/gender. Having sex is one way that most people desire to express that attraction, but asexuals don't. Thus asexuality is not an orientation, it's more... a (still completely legitimate) way of experiencing one's sexuality. 
 

People don't like to be told it's not an orientation, so.

I've been trying to wrap my brain around a good way to counter this, but the more I think about it the more I find myself agreeing. I look at it like atheism, which is similarly defined by a lack of sometime but would absolutely not be called a religion.

[Low End Things]

Yup yup. And that goes back to the heart of the thread. Which is unfortunate since the concept behind having so many labels has noble intentions.

 

I think the labels are a direct reaction to having your experiences de-legitimized by your peers. So creating your own label for yourself is a way to claim your sexuality "back" from those that believe it doesn't or can't exist.

 

I suspect most of this will die out when asexuality is more universally accepted in the western world. At that point, these specific labels (and possibly asexuality itself) will just be conversation points between partners and not a part of the larger discussion on sexuality, similar to the other orientations. 

[AceMissBehaving]

2 minutes ago, CBC said:

I have no problem with it still being called 'asexuality' of course, btw. Seems like a logical term for a lack of innate sexual desire. But whether it fits the criteria of an orientation is at the very least debatable.

After I publicly came out as ace last year,  a lot of less publicly and closeted aces came out to me personally, which opened my eyes up to a large enough group of asexual people as to constitute a possible dating pool. I will say that I have found my attraction radar is very much set and targeted at this point to other asexual people. 
 

It wonder what would happen if asexuals were more open about their sexuality, and there were ace spaces the same way there are for other orientations, Would there be a similar pattern for other ace folks? 
 

Right now we are individuals wondering around largely hidden from each other so there isn’t a noticeable asexual population for attraction to settle on organically for the most part. I do wonder how things would look if we were collectively more visible.

[AceMissBehaving]

3 minutes ago, Low End Things said:

Yup yup. And that goes back to the heart of the thread. Which is unfortunate since the concept behind having so many labels has noble intentions.

 

I think the labels are a direct reaction to having your experiences de-legitimized by your peers. So creating your own label for yourself is a way to claim your sexuality "back" from those that believe it doesn't or can't exist.

 

I suspect most of this will die out when asexuality is more universally accepted in the western world. At that point, these specific labels (and possibly asexuality itself) will just be conversation points between partners and not a part of the larger discussion on sexuality, similar to the other orientations. 

My ideal future would be the opposite. I think asexual people are generally best suited to dating other asexual people. Keeping it a conversation between partners seems more in line with making mixed relationships the main path for romantic aces. Where as I feel increased accessibility to asexual dating would be something I’d like to see.

[AceMissBehaving]

22 minutes ago, CBC said:

(Edit: re: visibility)

 

Yeah... don't know, can't answer that. That's supposedly one of the aims of AVEN, the 'V' part. I imagine that's one benefit of calling it an orientation for sure. Can certainly understand why. I guess you've gotta call it... something.

I think there is a lot of progress on creating visibility of the fact asexuality exists, and maybe the first step is to end stigma around asexuality so people are more comfortable being out in the open.

 

While it’s true that the only person anyone needs to disclose their asexuality to is potential partners, I do feel that this general closeting does hamper our ability to grow and thrive as an actual real world community. No one is going to cater to a group they can’t see, so by keeping ourselves hidden we do largely close ourselves off to the possibility of creating in person resources and services, and I say this as someone who is both asexual and an event organizer.

If I, an asexual who is aware of more local asexuals than most seem to be, feels gun shy financially about setting up some kind of space for us, why would anyone else care to?