How Did "Asexuality Is a Spectrum" become Dominant?

[Guest]

4 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

fuck you

Poor choice of words given the context, the point being that fucking anyone is the last thing an ace really wants to do

 

But yeah all the other terms don't really sum up "I just don't have an innate desire to connect sexually with others, even if I have a positive attitude towards others having sex or have a high libido or whatever else" etc etc. That's what the term asexual was for, but now (because of the whole spectrum idea) it's been hijacked to mean pretty much anything other than "one very specific type of hypersexual". Sigh.

[Diana DeLuna]

On 4/13/2020 at 10:44 PM, GiftedWithSingleness said:

Like, do people not get that when we talk about sexual orientation, we're not talking about Hogwarts houses or spirit animals? This isn't some geeky personality test. This shit actually affects real life.

😄😆😆😁

[Guest]

7 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

I mean, if you want to debunk a false notion, it's important to understand where it's coming from, is it not? And isn't that basically what this thread's about? About why tons of people are becoming convinced that asexuality is a spectrum, leading to it becoming the dominant viewpoint?

Oh and I worded my point poorly there.

 

What I was referring to was more that where it comes from is something that's generally understood here. Like the points you outlined and things that I outlined too: most of us are well aware of what has actually caused this. But what causes it doesn't change anything because the cause would be cut off right at the stem if people arrived here with confused notions like 'I feel anxiety around the idea of sex, I think that means I'm not sexual' and instead of being greeted with the idea of an ace spectrum, they instead were told exactly what asexuality is and also given an outline of the struggles sexual people face etc which would help them make sense of what they're experiencing. We can't change the root cause of why people get confused (because it's very, very common for people to get confused with matters surrounding their sexuality etc) but we CAN offer guiding information on AVEN as to what asexuality is and is not. Many of us do that anyway, but the issue arises when some within the community try to encourage the idea of a spectrum which entails all different kinds of sexual experience and sexual preferences, not just ace experience. If that makes any sense at all? 

 

7 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

so maybe much of what I say just so happens to trigger a memory within you of some particularly nasty debate

No I'm just trying to clarify where I personally am coming from, and I speak for a lot of people here who hold the same viewpoints. I'm not arguing with you (I don't disagree with what you are saying), i'm just trying to clarify my meaning  

[Alejandrogynous]

6 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

I have seen the word "apothisexual" floating around. I'm pretty sure it's just meant to mean "sex-repulsed asexual", but I think I saw it defined somewhere as "not experiencing sexual feelings in any way, shape, or form", which would seem to include the sex-indifferent aces as well. But, like, fuck you, I'm not calling myself "apothisexual". That word is way too obscure. Maybe the new label should be nonsexual? But no, I'm pretty sure that label would get corrupted as well. "Usually I don't feel sexual, but sometimes I do. I must be on the nonsexual spectrum!" And that spectrum's going to be different from the asexual spectrum for some stupid reason, despite both of them including sexual people. Then we'll call ourselves I-don't-want-to-have-sex-uals, and the same thing will happen once again.

This is the stuff that makes my blood boil. I HAVE a label. A damn good one. Asexual. Clear, concise, means what it says on the tin. The fact that our inclusivity has been so abused that asexuals are now the minority in our own community and we feel the need to use new labels to express what "asexual" was meant to express in the first place, is absurd and rage-inducing. 

 

(In case it's not obvious, I'm not ranting at you personally.)

 

11 hours ago, Not Pan Ficto. said:

That idea is harmful to asexuals, because next time an ace person says to a potential date "I'm asexual" the potential date may say "oh I've heard of that and I understand, don't worry"

while thinking asexual means 'aces love sex but don't care about appearance'. Then that person may become angry or feel lied to when the ace clarifies "no it means I don't desire sexual intimacy with anyone!" :c I have been in the horrible position of people being angry when you don't want sex with them, and I hate the idea of aces being pushed into that EVEN THOUGH they were open about being ace, due to the false idea that "asexuals love sex too" .. 

I remember when this used to happen because people had never heard of asexuality and thought it couldn't be a real thing even when I explained it, I had to just be playing hard to get. Now it happens because they HAVE heard of asexuality and still don't think it's a real thing because it means literally nothing and they get to pat themselves on the back for being so knowledgeable while still blaming us for not having sex with them because, "asexuals still have sex, there must be something else wrong with you."

 

Never thought I'd long to go back to the good ol' days of straight-up ignorance but here we are.

[rainbowocollie]

Uhm, I actually first came to the site in 2015 (under a different name), and the spectrum was a thing then too. 

[will123]

51 minutes ago, Alejandrogynous said:

I HAVE a label. A damn good one. Asexual. Clear, concise, means what it says on the tin.

When I've come out to others, my definition of asexuality is that I'm not sexually attracted to others nor feel any need to have sex. "It was never a conscious decision, it's just how I am".

[rainbowocollie]

I think the grey area is legit. However, aside from things like demisexual, I think it would only apply to people who kinda sorta feel some semblance of attraction, but who cannot function in a sexual relationship the same way an allosexual would. So I think a lot of the labels included under greysexuality are actually just allosexuals trying to be ace--if you desire sex and would have sex for the sake of sex, then you're allo.

Demisexual is an exception--however my definition of demisexual is more strict than most people's: attraction needs to develop over time with a deep bond, and that time can take literally years. Most people do not take that long to develop attraction/interest/desire/whatever. 

 

I'm not 100% certain of my sexuality, maybe I'm allo, maybe I'm demisexual, maybe I'm ace. But I'm close to being aromantic, and don't want romance, therefore I don't care about sex either. 

 

I feel ya, OP, on the whole "asexuals can desire sex" thing that's prevalent. While people dissing the grey area gets on my nerves somewhat, people saying that asexuals act just like allosexuals bothers me more.

[rainbowocollie]

On 4/13/2020 at 12:04 AM, Not Pan Ficto. said:

Being gay isn't a spectrum. You're either gay or you're bi or straight. None of those are a spectrum, though the WAY you can be those things can vary (one gay man might be very promiscuous, one may have had the same partner for 20 years, one may date based heavily on looks while one may be more demisexual, etc etc etc).

 

Why do the same rules not apply to asexuality?

Wellllllll
Some people are technically bi, actually likely most people, but are very very strongly attracted to one gender than the other--like, a ratio to 100:1. So in that case, they might not see a point in identifying as bi. (There's also a word for it that's more specific than bi: heterofliexible and homoflexible)

So I would say gay to bi to straight is a spectrum

[Alejandrogynous]

2 minutes ago, questdrivencollie said:

Wellllllll
Some people are technically bi, actually likely most people, but are very very strongly attracted to one gender than the other--like, a ratio to 100:1. So in that case, they might not see a point in identifying as bi. (There's also a word for it that's more specific than bi: heterofliexible and homoflexible)

That's true, but that's kind of the opposite of what we're talking about. If someone feels sexual desire for another person once a decade but otherwise are functionally asexual, then by all means should use the asexual label if they want to. Because in that case, they're using the best label available that expresses what other people should expect from them sexually, which is the whole point. The issue comes in when people's desire and behaviors don't match with the label they're using, but instead of choosing a label that better expresses them, they force the label to include them. And that's where communication (which is the whole point of labels) starts to break down.

 

I disagree with the "actually likely most people" though.

[Gifted With Singleness]

5 hours ago, Diana DeLuna said:

I didn't have to "try on" this identity. I was already wearing it the whole time.

Exactly, and this why I don't like the obsession with labels, especially microlabels. People act like it's a rite of passage or something to have a label for your sexuality, and because human sexuality is so incredibly complex, this naturally leads to a massive glut of labels. It also gives the impression that sexual orientation is a choice, when it's not.

 

I'm not asexual because I call myself asexual. I call myself asexual because I'm asexual. Get it right. But when people get the direction of causation wrong and think that a label you've arbitrarily chosen for yourself is somehow determinative of your sexuality, it makes the spectrum nonsense easier to believe. After all, if there's a word for something, that thing must exist, right?

[AceMissBehaving]

I wonder if it has something to do with how the DSM-V was updated in regards to asexuality.

 

It states that a lack of interest in sex is not a dysfunction if the individual self identifies as asexual. 
 

That leaves people not particularly interested in sex for other reasons as potentially still considered “dysfunctional”. Could the spectrum thing in part be as a way for people not exactly covered by the “asexual” label to identify as asexual, and therefore be covered and not pathologized under  the current DSM-V?

 

 

[rainbowocollie]

1 hour ago, Alejandrogynous said:

That's true, but that's kind of the opposite of what we're talking about. If someone feels sexual desire for another person once a decade but otherwise are functionally asexual, then by all means should use the asexual label if they want to. Because in that case, they're using the best label available that expresses what other people should expect from them sexually, which is the whole point. The issue comes in when people's desire and behaviors don't match with the label they're using, but instead of choosing a label that better expresses them, they force the label to include them. And that's where communication (which is the whole point of labels) starts to break down.

 

I disagree with the "actually likely most people" though.

Well, true.  I guess I just take issue with people being like "well, you only identify as a-sepc bc you want to be special". Like, if I wanted to be special, I could just identify as bi, since what little attraction I have had has been to both sexes. (Like, one instance of attraction for each.)

[Ace_SouthAfrica_87]

Don't let it bother you. Only you know who you truly are. I think labels are overrated. If you want to call a bi-romantic demisexual, bi-sexual who am I to argue or care. Same applies to others in the "spectrum". We all do have something in common. Sex is not important to us. Some of us might want children others don't etc. Each to their own. If a "spectrum" bothers you, then fine let it. I wouldn't get so worked up over such a mynute  issue. Some people think I'm gay. Others think I'm straight. Others think I'm not interested whatsoever. See the common words. "Other think" It doesn't matter what others think. A spectrum can simply help you categorize yourself, yet it could feel like a whole different label. Don't think of it as a label, but rather as a guide to better understand yourself. 

 

WHO CARES WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF YOU.

 

JUST BE YOU AND BE HAPPY ABOUT BEING YOU.

 

Go well and good luck.

[Skipper Valvoline]

21 hours ago, Not Pan Ficto. said:

Where they originate doesn't matter. What matters is that they are often encouraged within the ace community, to the extent that many people in control of writing and enforcing official definitions actively support the idea of an ace spectrum which includes almost any variation of non-hypersexual person. Though even aces can be hypersexual to the extent of desiring sex with 10+ different people a day according to more extreme supporters of the 'ace spectrum', lol.

 

 That's the issue. Not where the ideas originate but the fact that within much of the ace community (it's MUCH worse on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and Fetlife) these misconceptions are enforced and actively encouraged under the idea of an ace spectrum. The idea of an ace spectrum leaves no room for education as to what asexuality is OR what kind of struggles actual sexual people face when it comes to their own sexuality (which are things anyone of any sexuality can experience). The idea of an ace spectrum boxes all sexual people into one very specific category and if your experience is any different than that one experience, then you're some kind of ace!! (Meaning like, 60% of the population is asexual, hah).

 

The answer is for better education within the ace community as to what falls within the bounds of 'average, everyday sexuality'. Many of us have been begging for that for years and the General FAQ has finally been updated to more accurately reflect sexuality though there is still a lot of work to be done. Then there are all the other ace communities outside of AVEN though and they are MUCH more extreme when it comes to pushing the idea of a totally inclusive asexual spectrum.

 

Obviously better sex education for all orientations would be ideal, but right now as asexuals are an extreme minority (I mean, even within the ace community people who don't desire sexual intimacy seem like a minority, ahem), my fight is more for them.

 

That's why I push so hard for accurate representation of average sexuality within this community (and have done for years). Not for the sexuals, but for the aces who are pushed into an even further minority within their own community by the false idea that "asexuals can love and desire sex just as much as sexuals do".

 

That idea is harmful to asexuals, because next time an ace person says to a potential date "I'm asexual" the potential date may say "oh I've heard of that and I understand, don't worry"

while thinking asexual means 'aces love sex but don't care about appearance'. Then that person may become angry or feel lied to when the ace clarifies "no it means I don't desire sexual intimacy with anyone!" :c I have been in the horrible position of people being angry when you don't want sex with them, and I hate the idea of aces being pushed into that EVEN THOUGH they were open about being ace, due to the false idea that "asexuals love sex too" .. 

 

it's just so bloody harmful and I wish the 'powers that be' (ie David Jay et al) would take the risks more seriously. Yet I'm seeing the 'sex loving aces' idea pushed more and more within the media as a direct result of this 'ace spectrum' idea and honestly, yeah..  it's just so concerning to me.

 

Aces shouldn't have to maybe come up with an entirely new label just to be able to distance themselves from sex-loving aces, but it's honestly looking like that may be what needs to happen if this continues 😕 and that would just be such a huge step back for the entire community when it comes to visibility and education.

 

Ps Sorry this is really long and I typed it all on my phone, hopefully there aren't too many typos!

Those are major concerns of mine, as well.

 

Incidentally, is there anyone who's pushing back against this? Any YouTuber or blogger or articles arguing against the spectrum idea? Beyond discussions on AVEN like these, that is 🤭

 

(Thank you everyone for these thoughtful and nuanced replies!)

[Guest]

8 hours ago, questdrivencollie said:

Wellllllll
Some people are technically bi, actually likely most people, but are very very strongly attracted to one gender than the other--like, a ratio to 100:1. So in that case, they might not see a point in identifying as bi. (There's also a word for it that's more specific than bi: heterofliexible and homoflexible)

So I would say gay to bi to straight is a spectrum

I disagree that most people are bi. Most people are very sure of their sexuality and know for a fact whether or not they have interest in connecting sexually with people outside of their preferred gender (plenty of people actually do try those kinds of encounters for experimental reasons and find they do nothing for them. Those that find they really enjoy such an encounter will often re-evaluate their orientation label as a result!)

 

Also yes as @Alejandrogynous said, that's different from what's actually being discussed. For those who do identify as gay, there isn't a 'gay spectrum' even though there are different ways of being gay (with the one similarity being who you actively desire partnered sex with)

 

7 hours ago, questdrivencollie said:

Well, true.  I guess I just take issue with people being like "well, you only identify as a-sepc bc you want to be special". Like, if I wanted to be special, I could just identify as bi, since what little attraction I have had has been to both sexes. (Like, one instance of attraction for each.)

Again, that's a bit different than what we are referring to.

 

We are referring to sexual people, having normal sexual experiences but wanting to find a way to identify as a minority sexual orientation like asexuality. They usually feel they have legitimate reasons for this, but that comes from a misunderstanding that they think what they are experiencing isn't 'normal for sexuals' (ie only wanting sex with people you respect, feeling anxiety about sex, not really liking the way genitals look, etc - all very common for plenty of sexual people). The idea of an ace spec means these people having a very common sexual experience can suddenly identify as asexual, making like 60% of the population asexual (ergo, the label loses all meaning).

 

If you're ace though, even if you're a bit different from that other ace over there (you might have kinky fantasies and they might not, as an example), you're still both 'just asexual'. You don't need a spectrum for you both to share the same label!

 

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, Skipper Valvoline said:

 

Incidentally, is there anyone who's pushing back against this? Any YouTuber or blogger or articles arguing against the spectrum idea? Beyond discussions on AVEN like these, that is 🤭

 

Not publicly, no, because you get torn apart very quickly!! And AVEN is far more open than the rest of the ace communities to even allowing these discussions at all (most of the time you're quickly banned or muted for trying to talk about any of this sort of thing, outside of AVEN)

 

I always intended to try to bring this issue to the public eye, either with a vocal YT channel or a book that would be avail for free on Amazon or something (plus write a free book about 'average sexuality' available for anyone joining the community who was interested in learning more!) but I'm a solo parent with two young kids trying to build my own career and I just don't have time to focus on visibility outside of what I do on AVEN :c if I was already wealthy, I'd totally spend like 6 months fully focussing on bringing awareness to this issue because I could relax and not worry about money. But for now for the sake of my children I need to focus on building a proper future for them so can't focus as much on asexuality as I'd otherwise want to :c

[Ciki]

On 4/13/2020 at 3:35 AM, Skipper Valvoline said:

I'm deeply curious because it's also my understanding that not all aces agree with this. Many still think it's better to clarify that sexuality is a spectrum of which asexuality is one end. Personally, I have concerns about saying "it's a spectrum!" all the time. I think it makes us look particularly snow-flakey, I think it waters down the meaning of being ace, and that it creates unnecessary confusion over what should be a straightforward explanation.

Same here.It took me some time to finally figure out what asexuality even was because of this whole "spectrum" thing.I think that demi and graysexuals are basically the final stages of the sexuality spectrum and then there's asexuality at the very end.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Ace_SouthAfrica_87 said:

If a "spectrum" bothers you, then fine let it. I wouldn't get so worked up over such a mynute  issue.

The things you described there are 'just asexual'. All asexuals are different, with the one thing they have in common being that they don't have an innate drive to connect sexually with others for pleasure. That's not a spectrum, it's just asexual.

 

.. and the idea of a spectrum isn't mynute given the issues it can cause asexuals to face out there in the real world. It's a very harmful idea due to the things outlined in comments above.

 

For example: Someone who is hypersexual pansexual can go around giving interviews for magazines saying things like "I'm asexual and I adore having sex. We asexuals are just like everyone else in that respect. But I don't care about appearance, I'll have sex with anyone of any gender as long as I respect them!! Because of this, I identify as an asexual demisexual slut. Asexuals really aren't so different from everyone else you know but we are given a bad, prudish rap sometimes!"

 

^That's me paraphrasing an actual article that was shared on AVEN a while ago - including the use of the S word which she called herself - and there are many other similar ones circulating on the internet now. Those ones are usually the most prominent on websites etc when one stumbles across an article about asexuality. 

 

That's where the idea of a 'spectrum' gets us. it causes the label of asexuality to lose literally all meaning!! And what if someone who has no innate desire for partnered sex goes and admits they are asexual to a potential partner, and the partner has read many such articles so think it means the ace person wants lots of indiscriminate sex? 😕 Then thinks something must be wrong with the ace when they say "no, it means I don't innately desire sex" ..That potential partner will be like "um, no, I've read about asexuality and asexuals want sex just as much as everyone else so something must be wrong medically. Have you been to a doctor?"

 

..That's a huge step backwards for asexuality awareness :c 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

... and then we end up having to make a new label because our original was stolen from us, which undoubtedly, if allowed to carry on, will also get corrupted.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

... and then we end up having to make a new label because our original was stolen from us, which undoubtedly, if allowed to carry on, will also get corrupted.

Yes exactly. And even a label like "naturally celibate" (as a random example) won't frikken work because many aces do have sex for whatever reason. So they're literally left with like, no fitting label to explain their lack of an innate desire to connect sexually with others (regardless of other factors like whether they have fantasies, whether they actually have sex for whatever reason, whether they have a libido etc- all stuff asexuals can experience!).

 

Sigh. It's just so sad for people who are already in such a small minority to be backed into a corner like this in their own damned community :c

[Anthracite_Impreza]

It's incredibly selfish, frankly, for people who are having no issues fitting into society to take a space and label from those who are. Sadly, as I saw on these forums just today, it's the same sort of watering down that is happening with autism, where people are self-diagnosing as autistic because they're "a little socially awkward". It's leaving those actually struggling in the lurch cos "what's wrong with you? Other autistics can do X!", just like "what's wrong with you? Aces are all basically raging nymphos!". Everyone just seems to want a special label nowadays, without realising, these labels exist for an important reason.

[Gifted With Singleness]

2 hours ago, Not Pan Ficto. said:

Someone who is hypersexual pansexual can go around giving interviews for magazines saying things like "I'm asexual and I adore having sex. We asexuals are just like everyone else in that respect. But I don't care about appearance, I'll have sex with anyone of any gender as long as I respect them!! Because of this, I identify as an asexual demisexual slut. Asexuals really aren't so different from everyone else you know but we are given a bad, prudish rap sometimes!"

 

^That's me paraphrasing an actual article that was shared on AVEN a while ago - including the use of the S word which she called herself - and there are many other similar ones circulating on the internet now. Those ones are usually the most prominent on websites etc when one stumbles across an article about asexuality.

Okay, I think I'm learning something new here. I was under the impression that the "spectrum people" were promoting an inaccurate definition of asexuality, but simultaneously recognizing that some people have no desire for sex at all (and maybe they just conceptualize that as "super asexual" or "sex-repulsed asexual" or something). And I figured the problem was that, although these people recognize that we exist, they don't talk about us, leaving us without adequate representation and having a hard time distinguishing ourselves from the sex-lovers.

 

But it looks like what you're saying is that a lot of these people are explicitly saying that people who don't want sex don't exist. And they say that asexuality is only "wanting sex but not caring about looks" (or something like that). Is this accurate? If so, wow, this problem is way bigger than I realized.

 

2 hours ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Sadly, as I saw on these forums just today, it's the same sort of watering down that is happening with autism, where people are self-diagnosing as autistic because they're "a little socially awkward".

Are you referring to my thread? 

If so, I just want to make something clear. I wasn't trying to diagnose myself with autism (and if I came across that way, I apologize). I would never flat out claim to be autistic without a diagnosis. What I was trying to say was this: Is there such a thing as having something kind of like autism, except, instead of it being a general thing, it only happens in sexual contexts? Looking back, I definitely could have worded that post better. Anyway, based on the replies I got, it looks like I misunderstood autism, and I'm grateful for the clarification I got.

 

By the way, part of the reason I made that post is that I was looking for a better way to explain my asexuality. Saying, "I don't want to have sex" can give the impression that I considered having sex and decided that it wasn't for me. But that's not really the case for me, and I wanted a nice, convenient way of explaining what was actually going on in my head. Autism was just the closest thing I could think of, that's all.

 

Anyway, I hope you don't have any beef with me because of that. I'm aware that autistic people get a lot of shit, and I absolutely do not want to contribute to that.

[will123]

17 hours ago, Diana DeLuna said:

Me too. It was both conscious and unconscious: 

Consciously I was asexual and knew I didn't want to have anything to do with sex. I avoided all relationships too, because I assumed by default they would include sex.

Unconsciously I was refusing to give up the idea that I was merely a het-in-waiting. At 20. At 35. At 40. And at age 48, which is when the delusion boiled away and I fell into a black hole of self-blame.

 

For me, there is no spectrum. I didn't have to "try on" this identity. I was already wearing it the whole time. And at age 49 when I found out asexuality is a valid queer identity, I finally embraced it on all levels of conciousness.

 

(Don't talk to me about being aro, though. I don't like not being able to fall in love with something other than ideas. The romantic spectrum is where I truly pine to be.🥺)

I always thought I was straight because I wanted to have sex with a female, but never did anything about. That sounds like me when I read about asexuality (and Aven). As soon as I finished reading the article, I said, "That's me to a T!" I couldn't have been happier. As they they say, the rest is history. 

[will123]

12 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

Exactly, and this why I don't like the obsession with labels, especially microlabels. People act like it's a rite of passage or something to have a label for your sexuality, and because human sexuality is so incredibly complex, this naturally leads to a massive glut of labels. It also gives the impression that sexual orientation is a choice, when it's not.

 

I'm not asexual because I call myself asexual. I call myself asexual because I'm asexual. Get it right. But when people get the direction of causation wrong and think that a label you've arbitrarily chosen for yourself is somehow determinative of your sexuality, it makes the spectrum nonsense easier to believe. After all, if there's a word for something, that thing must exist, right?

Yes, that's the way I feel about it too. It's coming up 15 years for me and my feelings about being asexual are the same today as they were when I first realized I was ace. 

[will123]

8 hours ago, Ace_SouthAfrica_87 said:

Don't let it bother you. Only you know who you truly are. I think labels are overrated. If you want to call a bi-romantic demisexual, bi-sexual who am I to argue or care. Same applies to others in the "spectrum". We all do have something in common. Sex is not important to us. Some of us might want children others don't etc. Each to their own. If a "spectrum" bothers you, then fine let it. I wouldn't get so worked up over such a mynute  issue. Some people think I'm gay. Others think I'm straight. Others think I'm not interested whatsoever. See the common words. "Other think" It doesn't matter what others think. A spectrum can simply help you categorize yourself, yet it could feel like a whole different label. Don't think of it as a label, but rather as a guide to better understand yourself. 

 

WHO CARES WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF YOU.

 

JUST BE YOU AND BE HAPPY ABOUT BEING YOU.

 

Go well and good luck.

When I came out to one friend (in person) I got a bit TMI in discussing my life experiences up to my discovery of asexuality. I messaged her apologizing about getting a bit too graphic. Her comment was very similar to the bold, "As long as I was happy, that's all that matters!"

[will123]

1 hour ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

Okay, I think I'm learning something new here. I was under the impression that the "spectrum people" were promoting an inaccurate definition of asexuality, but simultaneously recognizing that some people have no desire for sex at all (and maybe they just conceptualize that as "super asexual" or "sex-repulsed asexual" or something). And I figured the problem was that, although these people recognize that we exist, they don't talk about us, leaving us without adequate representation and having a hard time distinguishing ourselves from the sex-lovers.

 

But it looks like what you're saying is that a lot of these people are explicitly saying that people who don't want sex don't exist. And they say that asexuality is only "wanting sex but not caring about looks" (or something like that). Is this accurate? If so, wow, this problem is way bigger than I realized.

 

Are you referring to my thread? 

If so, I just want to make something clear. I wasn't trying to diagnose myself with autism (and if I came across that way, I apologize). I would never flat out claim to be autistic without a diagnosis. What I was trying to say was this: Is there such a thing as having something kind of like autism, except, instead of it being a general thing, it only happens in sexual contexts? Looking back, I definitely could have worded that post better. Anyway, based on the replies I got, it looks like I misunderstood autism, and I'm grateful for the clarification I got.

 

By the way, part of the reason I made that post is that I was looking for a better way to explain my asexuality. Saying, "I don't want to have sex" can give the impression that I considered having sex and decided that it wasn't for me. But that's not really the case for me, and I wanted a nice, convenient way of explaining what was actually going on in my head. Autism was just the closest thing I could think of, that's all.

 

Anyway, I hope you don't have any beef with me because of that. I'm aware that autistic people get a lot of shit, and I absolutely do not want to contribute to that.

In your example that kind of sounds like leading up to celibacy. You decided sex wasn't for you. For myself (and likely most asexuals) there's not even a consideration or attempt at sex.

[deletingthisaccount]

On 4/17/2020 at 11:15 PM, Not Pan Ficto. said:

That idea is harmful to asexuals, because next time an ace person says to a potential date "I'm asexual" the potential date may say "oh I've heard of that and I understand, don't worry"

while thinking asexual means 'aces love sex but don't care about appearance'. Then that person may become angry or feel lied to when the ace clarifies "no it means I don't desire sexual intimacy with anyone!" :c I have been in the horrible position of people being angry when you don't want sex with them, and I hate the idea of aces being pushed into that EVEN THOUGH they were open about being ace, due to the false idea that "asexuals love sex too" .. 

 

it's just so bloody harmful and I wish the 'powers that be' (ie David Jay et al) would take the risks more seriously. Yet I'm seeing the 'sex loving aces' idea pushed more and more within the media as a direct result of this 'ace spectrum' idea and honestly, yeah..  it's just so concerning to me.

I've actually had 6 separate times (in completely separate environments - not just one group of people who share this point of view) where people have thought that asexual means the same thing as "pansexual." A few times, that was friends/colleagues, etc. discussing asexuality without even me saying that I was asexual. A couple other times, I told friends that I am asexual and I had to correct them that it's actually the opposite of pansexual, because that's what they thought it meant before I explained. Many people seem to think it's some sort of either "desire without attraction" or some "not-appearance-based attraction with desire." So if it ever comes up in conversation, I always try to make "no desire" (along with no attraction) very clear.

 

Luckily, I'm also aromantic, so I don't have to worry about attempting to date through all this. But I can imagine for romantic asexuals, that must be really hard. 😔

[Guest]

2 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

Okay, I think I'm learning something new here. I was under the impression that the "spectrum people" were promoting an inaccurate definition of asexuality, but simultaneously recognizing that some people have no desire for sex at all (and maybe they just conceptualize that as "super asexual" or "sex-repulsed asexual" or something). And I figured the problem was that, although these people recognize that we exist, they don't talk about us, leaving us without adequate representation and having a hard time distinguishing ourselves from the sex-lovers.

 

But it looks like what you're saying is that a lot of these people are explicitly saying that people who don't want sex don't exist. And they say that asexuality is only "wanting sex but not caring about looks" (or something like that). Is this accurate? If so, wow, this problem is way bigger than I realized.

Often these people will say things like "there are asexuals who don't want to have sex and that's fine as well, but for me as an asexual I love sex and that's totally normal and fine for an asexual as well, that's why it's a spectrum!" (or something to that effect). They fortunately don't often deny that people who don't want sex exist, although I have seen some say things like "everyone wants sex, it's biological, I just don't care who I have sex with and that's why I'm asexual" (sigh).

 

The problem is with such massively varying definitions, the label loses any real meaning. And a lot of the time what these people actually are is pansexual, not asexual, and are erasing actual asexuals by promoting their hyper-pansexuality as asexual. I even knew one of those people here on AVEN who would say things like "I'm asexual but my vagina gets so hungry, I need 7 husbands to keep my vagina satisfied" and she'd link her Tumblr which would be all kinds of porn gifs etc, her whole page was promoting 'hypersexual asexuality' and she even started saying she and other aces like her are actually perpetual virgins because they don't 'lust' after appearance, they just love sex for 'pure, non-animalistic reasons', URGH.

 

When you have people going around saying that kind of thing and promoting asexuality like that because of the 'spectrum' it's definitely going to lead outsiders to assume asexuality means asexuals desire sex like everyone else, but don't care about appearance.. When that's actually common for sexuals; certainly not all sexuals base their attractions and desire solely around physical appearance!!

 

So yes it's just a complicated issue all around that I think does more harm than good, and erases asexuals (which are a very tiny minority of the population to begin with) in the process :c

 

1 hour ago, will123 said:

In your example that kind of sounds like leading up to celibacy. You decided sex wasn't for you. For myself (and likely most asexuals) there's not even a consideration or attempt at sex.

Many asexuals do actually attempt sex repeatedly (usually before learning about asexuality) because everyone keeps telling them "if you just keep doing it, you'll learn to love it". When you have never heard of asexuality you sometimes don't even know you don't desire sex, but you can't work out why you don't really enjoy it, or why you can't wait for it to be over, or why you find yourself trying to make excuses to get out of it. Some unidentified aces end up going on like this for years, or even decades, before finally finding the label 'asexual' and realizing that's what they may have been all along! 

 

But yes if you desire sex and choose not to have it, that's celibacy. If you just naturally have a preference to not have sex (even if you forced yourself to do it for ages and couldn't enjoy it emotionally etc) then that's very likely to be asexuality.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Skipper Valvoline said:

Those are major concerns of mine, as well.

 

Incidentally, is there anyone who's pushing back against this? Any YouTuber or blogger or articles arguing against the spectrum idea? Beyond discussions on AVEN like these, that is 🤭

 

(Thank you everyone for these thoughtful and nuanced replies!)

I have a Youtube channel currently and I'm saving up to buy Adobe. Once I buy Adobe, I have a major video essay on the ace community that will go over this concept and more. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

3 hours ago, Not Pan Ficto. said:

But yes if you desire sex and choose not to have it, that's celibacy. If you just naturally have a preference to not have sex (even if you forced yourself to do it for ages and couldn't enjoy it emotionally etc) then that's very likely to be asexuality.

I disagree. I believe that celibacy means not having sex for any reason - including desiring sex, but choosing not to have it because of religious views, including politial celibacy, including not having sex because of simply being asexual... And I still insist that "celibate" should be accepted as an orientation-like label.

 

I really wish I had discovered this topic earlier, but now most of what I could have wanted to say has already been said...