Jump to content

Misconceptions about allosexuals


Guest

Recommended Posts

That their feelings about sex are all the same.  There is a huge range in the way sexual people view sex and in what it means to them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
42 minutes ago, CBC said:

being sexual -- which approximately 99% of the population is

I doubt. My guess is rather ~5%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
brbdogsonfire
2 hours ago, CBC said:

Oooh, as a sexual person... following. :ph34r:

 

Here's one: that it's about people who look 'hot'. I don't give a shit if people are hot, I've never formed a serious connection with anyone based on physical attraction. Sure, I can be like, "Ooh, they're good-looking!"... but also, so what? I develop crushes and fall in love based on who a person is, not what they look like. Provided there's nothing about their appearance that I find downright repulsive, once I'm attracted to their personality, I'll probably be just fine with their appearance.

 

Which isn't to say that there aren't some sexual people who obsess over 'hotness'. That just ain't me (or lots of others I know). And it's not like I don't find anyone beautiful, handsome, hot, whatever; it's just that that's not going to make me actually want sex with the

+1  I'd rather deal with built up frustration from lack of sex than sleep with randos that I'll never have a connection with. Sex with a lack of a connection can fix the short term hornyness but leaves me feeling empty long term. It's not the attraction but the connection that matters.

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

I doubt. My guess is rather ~5%.

Don't we have some statistical data showing its about 1% of the population? I've seen you claim it's over 1% but it does seem to be nothing more than an assertion. 

 

I could definitely be wrong just I've never seen the data to back up your claim (and if you do have it I'd actually enjoy reading it!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
5 hours ago, brbdogsonfire said:

Don't we have some statistical data showing its about 1% of the population? I've seen you claim it's over 1% but it does seem to be nothing more than an assertion. 

 

I could definitely be wrong just I've never seen the data to back up your claim (and if you do have it I'd actually enjoy reading it!)

For example this: How many asexuals are there? Indeed an interesting read.

There are also, although I won't be able to find it now - I have just seen about two cases - people writing that they have seen surveys - usually based on self-identification, not strict studies of sexual orientation, and usually done mostly among younger people, particularly students - where the number of asexuals was aroung 5-6%. It seems remarkable for me insofar as exactly younger people are more likely to have heard of asexuality before they decide once and for all what is their orientation (not that nobody can change their mind once they realise that their previous self-identification didn't fit well and was based on incomplete data).

I doubt the 1% statistic particularly because, as far as I know, 1% was exactly the number of people who, in one of Bogaert's studies, I think, responded "I agree" to the point "I have never felt sexual attraction to anyone". Which brings us back to the attraction/desire conflict... Many people misunderstand what sexual attraction is. They might confuse esthetic attraction, romantic attraction, sensual attraction, sexual curiousity, or even just appreciation of someone's attractiveness for sexual attraction. Formulating the question in this way reduces the number of people likely to respond "yes". I'm quite sure that if the point was, for example, "I would be glad to never have sex ('again' if applicable)", significantly more people would have responded "yes". And this is a question sometimes cited as one which people might ask themselves if questioning whether they are asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
brbdogsonfire
3 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

For example this: How many asexuals are there? Indeed an interesting read.

There are also, although I won't be able to find it now - I have just seen about two cases - people writing that they have seen surveys - usually based on self-identification, not strict studies of sexual orientation, and usually done mostly among younger people, particularly students - where the number of asexuals was aroung 5-6%. It seems remarkable for me insofar as exactly younger people are more likely to have heard of asexuality before they decide once and for all what is their orientation (not that nobody can change their mind once they realise that their previous self-identification didn't fit well and was based on incomplete data).

I doubt the 1% statistic particularly because, as far as I know, 1% was exactly the number of people who, in one of Bogaert's studies, I think, responded "I agree" to the point "I have never felt sexual attraction to anyone". Which brings us back to the attraction/desire conflict... Many people misunderstand what sexual attraction is. They might confuse esthetic attraction, romantic attraction, sensual attraction, sexual curiousity, or even just appreciation of someone's attractiveness for sexual attraction. Formulating the question in this way reduces the number of people likely to respond "yes". I'm quite sure that if the point was, for example, "I would be glad to never have sex ('again' if applicable)", significantly more people would have responded "yes". And this is a question sometimes cited as one which people might ask themselves if questioning whether they are asexual.

The blog was interesting to read. There are a couple major problems I have with the blog that I feel anyone should immediately realize though. Bogart's survey finding 1% is written off in the blog due to being over a decade old, but then pulls information that the blog treats as fact from a survey over 50 years old. The survey done on a college campus would be an amazing read if only the blog cited it or named the survey, but it doesn't. The math they used to calculate the I think it was 5.8% of the population also makes several large assumptions. First it assumed 25% of women were unmarried at the time and it says they decided on that number because the options were single (never married), married, divorced, or widowed which pulling 25% from that is legit just making a number up, and then it attributed the 25% of unmarried women being 5% asexual and applied it to the entire population men included which you have pointed out multiple times women asexuals massively outnumber men asexuals. Taking a stat from a population you know outnumbers the stat from another and applying it to the whole population comes off as dishonesty to me.

 

The number likely is over 1% but did you stop and consider issues with your source before providing it as evidence? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere

Anyway, the Polish asexual association Asfera is planning exactly what this blog post proposed: administering the Asexual Identification Scale to a large random sample. I hope the plan works out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

For example this: How many asexuals are there? Indeed an interesting read.

OOoooo controversial opinion! 

 

First and foremost, she claims asexual as a spectrum identity, which many disagree with. She also defines it as not experiencing sexual attraction ("An asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction."), and then changes her definition in order to fit the "asexual umbrella" definition ("Many asexuals do experience sexual attraction, but extremely rarely") which is horrible if you want to be scientifically valid at all. Science is something a bit more nit-picky and changing your own definition is not a good sign. 

 

She's also siting sources from other places that site them. She admits to never reading Kinsey's stuff herself, but sites his information from the Asexuality Wiki. They give percentages that are vaguely clarified. ALSO which she dismisses the sources as being old, she does not talk about the sociological pressures for women to fill out the survey. It is already a very common problem of women under-reporting sex and men over-reporting it, and you can see that in the responses where 0% of married men report having no sex or arousal (my paraphrasing) vs 1-2% of married women. The category basically excludes anyone asexual but sexually active, as well. But we're talking about the 1950s, when unmarried women were still expected to keep their knees together at all times, so try adjusting for that problem.

 

"Self identification is hard, behavior is a little more straightforward." And all those Catholic priests now fall into the asexuality spectrum I guess. She wants people to ask based on behavior, but I do not believe she specifies that she wants people to survey based on both. Again, this would confuse the issue because her demisexuals and grey-asexuals (who, again, she refers to as just asexuals despite acknowledging grey-asexuals as a thing) might fall into either the "asexual" or "non-asexual" category on a whim. 

 

Her number comes out of her ass. She cites some sources, not others, she takes some sources secondarily and admits to not reading them herself, and admits to not being able to find one online therefore being unable to clarify something. She explains ways for people to better conduct surveys but obviously doesn't care enough to actually conduct those surveys herself. Her number is entirely unscientific. 

 

While I'm fine with someone claiming the number might be higher than 1%, I'm unwilling to use her higher estimate of 8%. 

Want to know why? 

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/visualization/lgbt-stats/?topic=LGBT&sortBy=percentage&sortDirection=descending#ranking This says that the population of LGBT individuals per state is generally around 4-5% (with DC being an outlier of over 9%). With the question asked "Do you identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender?" That is all the people they surveyed across the country, and of the people who reported lesbian, gay and bisexual with the inflated number of transgender that they regularly reported around 4-5% of the population. 

Her 8% number far outweighs that without any actual proof.

 

I'm looking for more sources, but I keep finding people who go back and site that statistic, so it seems others generally agree. An NPR interview with one of the guys from the Williams Institute (the above cited) says Kinsey's 10% number was likely overly inflated for political motivations. https://www.npr.org/2011/06/08/137057974/-institute-of-medicine-finds-lgbt-health-research-gaps-in-us To get people to take the Pride movements more seriously because there were more LGBT people than previously thought. 

 

So if the homosexual, bisexual AND transgender populations combined make up between 4-10% of the population, how in the heck do you expect me to believe asexuals make up 4-8% of the population? Unless of course you're diluting the asexual definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

Anyway, the Polish asexual association Asfera is planning exactly what this blog post proposed: administering the Asexual Identification Scale to a large random sample. I hope the plan works out.

If they do, I hope they do it having a scale. So asexuals and grey-asexuals don't get forced into the same category (demis and other ace-spec identities also fall into grey- here, just abbreviating). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CBC said:

Lol I regret mentioning the 1% thing. 

But you gave me hours of research ahead of me! 

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

Haha, fair enough. Thread's taken a bit of a detour, though.

True. Then I'll pose a misconception about sexuals that some asexuals have.

 

Hmmm...

That they talk about nothing but sex all the time? That their brains get distracted by sex whenever it's brought up. That none of them consume any form of media that doesn't have sex in it, or are at least unable to enjoy something entirely non-sexual. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since people here started talking about percentages of population being asexuals... A bit of off-topic.

Spoiler

My hypothesis is that the LGBT+ people and the asexuals in total are probably around 10% of the population max (like, this is really high), with asexuals being the rarest one.

However what the ratio would be, really depends on the statics

I have seen some statements on Reddit saying  that homosexuality consists of only 1%-1.5% which is kind of ridiculous. There is no way for it to be as rare as Asexuality. It really feels a lot more. Frankly, this is probably because of overrepresentation but still...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

Due to the age of these percentiles and studies, there will be no accurate proportion of population who are asexual, regardless of what definition the studies use.  Since there’s a bit of a double meaning with ‘Asexual Spectrum’ one meaning ‘experiencing sexual attraction on some level’. The other containing all other components of orientation without sexual attraction and/or desire.  I can only see that future research professionals find and use a description that fits that is academically and pier reviewed well.
 

This is an area that Project Team perhaps likes to see happen but finding an accurate proportion goes beyond AVENs scope, it’ll be interesting to see proportions with accuracy.  I don’t think there’s even accurate LGBT+ proportions in populations studies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this thread is off-topic .. here's me hoping to see some fun misconceptions about sexual people and not another debate about percentages and spectrums

Link to post
Share on other sites
Skycaptain
20 minutes ago, CBC said:

Same.

 

But, this is AVEN. Anything can become a debate even if you don't want it to. 🙃

Fixed that 😋😋

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, CBC said:

Same.

 

But, this is AVEN. Anything can become a debate if you want it to. 🙃

I disagree, vehemently for some reason! 🦆

Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season

A misconception, which some aces seem to have: That sexual partners don't have incompatibility in their sexual lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

While population percentages are a big asexual misconception I can see that as it’s said it’s gone a bit off topic.

 

So can advise to drop the population percentages theme to get back to topic or if there’s more of this, can split in future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Autumn Season said:

A misconception, which some aces seem to have: That sexual partners don't have incompatibility in their sexual lives.

I don't this that this is really a misconception that aces specifically have. I think that potential  incompatibilities are not taken into consideration by the general population as well, because people are looking for very specific things when it comes to their potential partners/relationship.

It's just that in the case of asexual, these tend to be sex incompatibility because the other person's needs, so to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
colorblind_sunset

yeah, I mean, since I have no frame of reference.... I have no idea to what extent allos just want to fuck everything that moves....does my partner want to fuck every time he sees me bend over? every time I hug/kiss him? does the dude that works at the grocery store that looks at me all the time wanna fuck? the person in the next car over at the red light? I have no idea cause I don't get it. from my partner's mannerisms it seems like allos are just DTF every minute of every day. I mean... I can do it cause I'm physically capable I guess... but the wanting to? I don't understand it... my natural go- to is gtf away from me so I can just drink in peace :(

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

yeah, I mean, since I have no frame of reference.... I have no idea to what extent allos just want to fuck everything that moves....does my partner want to fuck every time he sees me bend over? every time I hug/kiss him? does the dude that works at the grocery store that looks at me all the time wanna fuck? the person in the next car over at the red light? I have no idea cause I don't get it. from my partner's mannerisms it seems like allos are just DTF every minute of every day. I mean... I can do it cause I'm physically capable I guess... but the wanting to? I don't understand it... my natural go- to is gtf away from me so I can just drink in peace :(

We are constantly looking to bone everything we can see

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

We are constantly looking to bone everything we can see

I appreciate your honesty....I so wish I could relate to it.... I saw my dude check out so many chicks today and it made me feel horrible on so many levels....mostly cause I know it's "spring fever" and people wanna fuck...and I don't relate 😭 I feel so alone. like I can't even communicate how much I just wanna sit here and binge drink cause I feel so alone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I was joking, I'm celibate.

 

You can't help sexual attraction, its also hard to avoid looking because of it, but it doesnt mean you want to shag everything that moves. It varies vastly among sexual people depending on their age, gender, circumstances etc. There are horny teenagers who act like dogs, I've never really been that way myself but I've seen it. More than anything, its nice to just be able to relate at some level to what it all means, it sounds tough to not have that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2020 at 3:42 AM, MaggieB said:

We all know misconceptions that allos have about asexuals, but are there some misconceptions about (allo)sexual people that aces have?

I haven't had time to read the rest of this thread, but I feel like labelling us 'allos' is a misconception unto itself :P it's a weird term that was initially meant to be the opposite of autosexual. So like, autosexuals want sex with themselves, allosexuals want sex with things other than themselves. It's.. just a really weird term!!!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2020 at 10:10 AM, colorblind_sunset said:

I appreciate your honesty....I so wish I could relate to it.... I saw my dude check out so many chicks today and it made me feel horrible on so many levels....mostly cause I know it's "spring fever" and people wanna fuck...and I don't relate 😭 I feel so alone. like I can't even communicate how much I just wanna sit here and binge drink cause I feel so alone

I want to binge drink alone too and I'm not asexual. Many sexual people find hypersexuality annoying and frustrating as well. We just kind of sut back and shake our heads. It's not just asexuals that can't stand that kind of behaviour!!! :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...