Jump to content

Attraction vs Desire. Shouldn't it have it's own thing?


Recommended Posts

So.. I've been thinking about this for a while. Asexual, as the orientation, not the umbrella (or both, I guess) is very clear that its about lacking a sexual attraction, and that desire is a separate thing. An asexual may or may not have a sexual desire, but I feel like these two things are so different they kind of need something to separate the two... In the same way how people who didn't feel a sexual attraction needed a separation from allosexuals.

 

I remember seeing an explanation of sexuality like looking in a fridge for food.

 

Allos will crave food, look into the fridge, and pick what looks appetizing.

Asexuals might get hungry will look into the fridge and go "there's nothing here to eat/nothing in particular looks appetizing." Either they're hungry but don't want anything they find or they'll just eat something for the sake of eating.

This was a weird example for me at first, as I didn't see the relatability of "looking into the fridge" in the first place.

Like, y'all eat food? I've been drinking universe juice this whole time, and I'm fine.

 

I've been feeling a disconnect between the Asexual orientation, not because it doesn't fit me, because I absolutely have next to no sexual attraction, if any at all. But because I still feel quite starkly different from the asexuals who do have a desire for a sexual interactions or relationship. Not as much as allos, but still just a bit too different to feel like we're meant to be in the same category. There's a really good article explaining the complications between desiring asexuals and asexuals with none.

To shorten it, someone wrote to explain how asexuality was like Schrodinger's cat, where a cat is inside a box filled with poison. Until you open the box, you don't know whether the cat is alive or dead. And someone wrote that until you find out, you should assume it's both/could be either. Some asexuals don't want you to automatically assume that they're not interested in partaking in sexual activity (or that the cat is definitely dead). But then us other asexuals DO want you to think that, or to be very prepared for that to be the case (the cat is almost absolutely dead and you'd be lucky if it's not quite). I feel like asexuals without a desire could be more neutral on the case, like willing to partake on occassion for the sake of their partner, but will never look for that themselves. Even with something like that, I feel like you'll need to expect a very different situation as opposed to someone who might be more into s*x.

 

You can read the full article here. It's pretty good.

https://asexualagenda.wordpress.com/2018/09/15/asexuality-as-a-hard-limit-or-the-cat-is-dead/

 

A little while ago I was looking around micro terms to see if there was something that more closely resembled people with this situation. I found apothisexual: people who are sex repulsed. I thought maybe this was the answer, but it doesn't feel quite right either... Though, that word does feel more correct when I want to say "is this film apothi friendly?" as opposed to "is this film ace friend?" because technically plenty of aces wouldn't care if there's sex scenes in it so technically speaking that means basically nothing... Which is partially the problem? I mean, you'll have an asexual and you'll think "cool, a mutual!" and then they'll "highly recommend watching bojack horseman for the ace rep!" and then you turn it on and imitatively turn it off less than two minutes later and scream into a pillow from your frustration of betrayal.

 

Anyway, went on a little tangent there. Ultimately, it didn't matter so much if I'm repulsed or neutral. Plus technically anyone of any sexuality can adopt this micro label. I feel like that.. "preference" isn't quite what's needed here as a new sexuality (though understandable if you want that micro label anyway. Do what makes you most comfortable. Forget what other people think.)

What mattered was that I was: lacking sexual attraction, AND lacking sexual desire. And I feel that that is fundamentally different enough from: lacking sexual attraction, unrelated to sexual desire which may or may not be there. And I feel like the two needs their own thing.

 

Not that I want to be "making up new sexualities," but... Asexual was a "made up new sexuality" from just a few decades ago. It was merely a new word for something that's existed for a long time, and needed a divide from allosexual terms. And now I feel like we need a word for this. 
 

Actually, I've read on the same website that I linked to, that in Japan their "asexuality" has nothing to do with attraction, but desire. Though rather, they refer to this as "nonsexual." And asexual there means more akin to aroace. This information is just going off the top of my head from an article I read. Don't take it as absolute, I might have gotten something inaccurate. I don't know.

 

Maybe I'm just talking BS, but I feel like this is somewhat important and it's been bothering me.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Desire isn't necessarily a separate thing though. Since sexual attraction includes desire in it. It'd be nice that either both be acknowledged as part of it, or pointed out in different labels.

Typically if someone desires sex for itself (not for pleasing a partner, etc), then that's going towards the sexual side. But some who only look at it in terms of attraction might not identify with that, so yeah it can create some confusion sometimes.
Like, if someone desires sex with the same gender, then it would be hard to say well they're straight but still desire sex with the same gender. Why that instead of opposite? just like why sex instead of masturbation? But all this can turn into debate too. Maybe wouldn't have to if we did have clear ways of talking about it. I'm not sure how important attraction really is though, when it comes to what someone really wants. But  if we think of attraction as a pull for something with someone, then it comes almost to the same.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're a guy crushing on a girl and she tells you she's gay, you should assume that it means the cat is dead. If you then still pursue her, you're a weirdo. That would amount to homophobia and lack of acceptance of her orientation. 

 

That doesn't mean that no gay girl has ever slept with a guy or that sleeping with a guy would make her less gay, it just means that if a girl tells you she's gay, you can safely assume she's probably not interested in guys that way. She could do it, just because it feels good, but you should assume she won't.

 

Why would it have to be any different for asexuality? If I tell someone I'm ace and they go 'yeah but you're still into sex though right', to me that's blatantly acephobic. It means they're not taking my orientation seriously, dismissing it, erasing it. So yeah, it's been bothering me too. The cat being dead is kind of the point of asexuality for me.

 

Anyways, the people who still look into the fridge for stuff to eat even though nothing looks appetizing (sexual desire, but no attraction) would be called cupiosexual. The opposite of that is orchidsexual. In that analogy, I don't even own a fridge and I'm constantly surprised that people actually eat and it's not all just a big Hollywood hoax.

 

Maybe we do need to make a new word for 'no sexual attraction AND no sexual desire'. The word for that used to just be 'asexual' but it does look like the attraction based definition of asexuality is winning out. Any suggestions?

 

Words I've been toying around in my head are 'ineffable ace' and 'nopesexual', both meant to emphasize that the cat is well and truly dead. There isn't even a box around it. There's just a dead cat, in your face.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

AVEN has a desire based definition of attraction. The difference between sexual attraction and other forms of attraction is that it makes you want to have sex with the person you are attracted to. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, thanks for the link. I see 'nopesexual' is already taken. Guess we can eliminate that one then.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sarah-Sylvia

Oh, I haven't seen that one before... I might have dismissed it since the name looks so similar to omnisexual. That actually seems to very closely explain what I was after. Thanks for sharing!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

If in fact it is the case that you aren't interested in discussions about sex even in an academic context, maybe that label works for you. In my opinion a person's academic interests are entirely unrelated to their sexual orientation. 

 

You share a lack of desire for partnered sex with 97% of self-identified asexuals. It's really unfortunate if the 97% have to look for a microlabel rather than the 3%. Wanting sex but not caring who you have it with is not the typical asexual experience, at all.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about desire is that it's easier to explain than attraction. People can be romantically, aesthetically, or platonically attracted to others without being sexually attracted, but it gets really hard to differentiate for some. So the desire definition came from explaining the "I do not want to have sex with you even if I want to cuddle and kiss you" over and over again. Also you have all sorts of people confused by what attraction is and what it feels like, so saying "desiring sex with another person" made sense to a lot of them, myself included. 

 

You seem to be equating libido with sexual desire, which is valid though not how many on AVEN choose to use it, to my knowledge. That's the idea of being hungry so looking for food and nothing looking good. In my opinion, a closer metaphor would be an asexual likely feels hungry, but has no desire to actually eat at all and would rather drink a smoothie or something, and the idea of eating may have never occurred to them at all.

 

As for the Schrödinger's cat metaphor, I feel it fits relatively well with the "little to no" definition. You don't know if they're "little" or "no" until you open the box. But being optimistically hopeful for the "little" when most of us assume the odds are 90% "no" is very damaging for asexuals looking for partners. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere

If even the attraction-based definition (at least without what AVEN BoD recently did to it :angry:) boils down to not desiring sex, why does the idea of sex-desiring asexuals still keep returning?

For me "desire without attraction" is more about confusion: confusing "sexual attraction" with "finding someone sexually attractive" - and despite the verbal similarity, it's not the same and either one is possible without the other.

I am very much interested in people's inner experiences, this is why I'm addicted to literature and proud of my habit ;), this is why I once wrote "It's not possible to grasp the vastness of life within a single aphorism" during a trip, this is why I keep writing about as extreme concepts as "omnisensation" in my diary... But nevertheless, I don't think that this is what the definition of asexuality should be about. What we feel in our thoughts (I couldn't come up with a better phrasing, but it's not that bad, given that I reject the idea of "thoughts" and "feelings" being opposites) when we look at other people, or when we think about them, and so on, is not as important as what lifestyle preferences do these feelings result in. For asexuals this preference is "no partnered sex" - for some it is still not as strong as the desire for something else (for example keeping a relationship), but for some, such as myself, it's a strict hard boundary - my body is off-limits to others. I'm not "omniasexual", thought, because this definition is astonishingly strict! - come on, while I am a person who openly and strictly desires never to have sex, I am absolutely fine with theoretic discussions of sex! In fact, I even can't give them up, because I want to promote critical thinking about sexuality as something which, in my opinion, can protect asexuals from the influence of sex normativity.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I.... feel very sad that anyone thinks they need a new label for "don't desire partnered sexual activities" cause asexual was meant to fit you guys. 

 

But, as for movies, even some of us sexuals don't want to see sex scenes so I just go to IMDB and look, personally. I like sex with my wife, I don't care to have anyone else's sex life in my view. But, you can't trust anyone really as those who don't care don't notice them and they'll say none in it when it's full of it. IMDB parents guide is wonderful. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2021 at 9:04 AM, BoredLord said:

But because I still feel quite starkly different from the asexuals who do have a desire for a sexual interactions or relationship. Not as much as allos, but still just a bit too different to feel like we're meant to be in the same category. There's a really good article explaining the complications between desiring asexuals and asexuals with none.

This is so offensive to us 'allos' (not that you said it, but that people believe it).

 

Do these 'sex desiring asexuals' think us allos just run around with our genitals out hoping to squish them against something 24/7? :P 

 

I am 'allo' (I just use the term 'sexual') - I haven't physically had partnered sex in 10 years, but sometimes I desire it.. not enough to act on that desire though. I am not asexual because that desire exists within me, that's all.

 

I hate the way people who say 'asexuals can desire partnered sex too' then go on to describe 'allos' in extremely derogatory ways. It's like ''well they look at attractive people and want to sex them instantly'' or ''well they cannot control their sexual urges'' or even ''well they base their sexual desire around looks. I only want sex with people I respect which is why I'm asexual''

 

it's sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo freaking offensive!!!

 

In short: If you don't desire sexual intimacy, you're asexual.

 

If you do desire partnered sexual intimacy yet still identify as ace, you probably have horribly bigoted and stereotyped views of what makes someone 'sexual' even if you don't realize they're bigoted and stereotyped. (just general you here, not you in particular as I know you are not saying that).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous

The Schrodinger's cat comparison makes zero sense. What use is any label if it can mean two completely different things? "I'm a book lover, which either means I love reading books or that I love setting books on fire -- make sure you ask because assuming is rude!"

 

You could say that sexual orientation itself is Schrodinger's cat (well, not really since that's a "one of two options" thing, but I mean as a general "the contents of this box is unknown" idea), but that's literally why we have these labels. To tell people what's in the box so they can make accurate assumptions about us. Otherwise, what's the point??

 

If someone says they're gay, that means they're exclusively same-gender attracted or close enough that that's the assumption they want people to operate under. Not "maybe exclusively same-gender attracted, maybe not same-gender attracted at all, further investigation needed." Why on earth should asexuality be different?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh I'm so confused.

So, was I wrong to be lead to believe that asexual means little to no sexual attraction, unrelated to dire, as opposed to little to no of both?
I've been told before that I've been inaccurate when describing asexuality as "not wanting to do the do"

Quote

"asexuality is a measure of sexual attraction not sex drive. you can not experience sexual attraction and still desire to have sex. similarly, there are people who do experience sexual attraction but do not desire sex. i mean this to educate people who equate being asexual to having zero sex drive because it's not true and also because it's harmful to sex favourable aces."

Which, maybe I misunderstood, but they seem to be claiming that desire has nothing to do with asexuality. And then there's this article that's referenced in the other article I linked to: https://asexualagenda.wordpress.com/2018/06/20/we-dont-know-if-asexuals-do-or-dont-want-to-have-sex-because-they-are-all-queer-cats/

 

Quote

 

"A while back I mentioned I don’t identify myself as asexual on dating sites. [...] it’s very uncomfortable for me to talk to allosexual people about my asexuality because I know they think I never want to have sex. When I mention that isn’t true some people thank me for teaching them more about asexuality. It’s awkward but nice. Others tell me I’m not asexual."

[...] "Until you ask someone how they experience asexuality, they simultaneously want to have sex and don’t. They also simultaneously have a sex drive and don’t. And so on. However most of the time it’s none of your business so be cautious and respectful about how or if you ask."

Quote

Although sex-favorable/sex-indifferent/sex-repulsion is often set up as a trichotomy, it can be misleading if you think of those terms as parallel in meaning. I’m old enough to recall back when it used to be a dichotomy, with only sex-indifferent and sex-averse/repulsed. At the time it was assumed that nobody wanted to have sex, and the dichotomy was more about one’s comfort level with sex and visceral reaction to it.

I think the addition of “sex-favorable” was necessary, but it also cast the terms in a new light, and now it’s easy to forget that there’s a difference between “willingness to have sex” and “comfort with the idea of sex”.

I mean, SHOULDN'T it be parallel? Or close to?

 

And then there's other little things, such as the joke "yeah sex is good but have you tried X?" I thought it was just a joke but at times it seems like they actually mean it. Sex IS good. Like, is it??? (in the view point of an asexual. Obviously most non asexuals will agree it's good.)

 

I understand asexuals who may participate for the sake of their partner, or perhaps just because they're curious but don't actually feel driven physically to do so. 

Then there's a "you're still asexual if" meme thing where they add you can still be ace if you "enjoy sex"

which, as I understand it, means you have some sort of desire to have sex. Its the looking in the fridge when you're hungry, not finding anything that looks appetizing but when you eat it, you still enjoy it. Which, while may still create a divide from the general population who may all agree that food looks appetizing and is enjoyable to eat, but another divide to indifferent and repulsed people who don't want to eat food, or if they do eat it, then it's very "meh".
Perhaps I misunderstood this as a desire, and should be seen more as "yeah that was alright. I could still happily live without it though and it's not something I'd look for (aka, desire to have)." But I don't know, considering other things I've heard (like the first quote)

 

 

I guess I'm the one trying to find something else because I don't want to exclude these kinds of people since they're deserving of their own thing, I'm sure. It feels almost rude to say that they're in the wrong and need their own thing, rather than going "well, this no longer accurately includes me, so I should find something else that does more accurately do so."

 

So, were they in the wrong in thinking so? Or did I do the misunderstanding? Or maybe I'm just being an non inclusive bitch..?

This thread has kinda turned more into a "questions of sexuality" rather than musings and rantings..
And also this is a really long post. I'm sorry ;;

 

 

3 hours ago, Serran said:

IMDB parents guide is wonderful. :D

Yeah, i often check IMDB too, but unfortunately sometimes they kind of down play the "sex and nudity" section a bit. There's been times where I'll check and go "ok, that doesn't sound too bad, I can handle that," and then watch the movie and go "my day has been ruined." That wasn't "light/moderate" that was a straight up sex scene. I don't care if they still had their clothes on. It still counts. Or perhaps it was my fault for not understanding what "light petting" really entailed. It sounds relatively innocent.....

 

Also what is it with official parental warnings going "[M] contains violence and some course language" and its like "cool, we're safe." And then there's a sex scene in it >:'|

Link to post
Share on other sites

@BoredLord

 

When we are talking about 'asexuals who claim they actively desire partnered sex' (edit: often) those people are basing their definition of asexual around incorrect stereotypes of sexual people. They are free to identify however they wish, but that doesn't mean everyone else should have to change the definition of asexuality, or come up with some whole new identity, just to make them feel validated in their (edit: often) bigoted views of sexual folks.

 

On 9/7/2021 at 6:29 PM, BoredLord said:

I understand asexuals who may participate for the sake of their partner, or perhaps just because they're curious but don't actually feel driven physically to do so. 

Then there's a "you're still asexual if" meme thing where they add you can still be ace if you "enjoy sex"

which, as I understand it, means you have some sort of desire to have sex

Technically, there are some asexuals who can actually orgasm from partnered sex. So, they don't hate sex, and aren't repulsed by it, but they (edit: those asexuals) still have no innate desire to have sexual intimacy for their own pleasure even if they're able to enjoy the physical sensations. 

 

It's only 'desire' if you actively desire it for your own sexual and emotional pleasure. If you're only doing it for a partner, or to 'test' yourself to see if you're asexual or whatever, and possibly enjoy the sensations in the process, that doesn't stop one from being ace!

 

On 9/7/2021 at 6:29 PM, BoredLord said:

Or maybe I'm just being an non inclusive bitch..?

I think the issue is that you're trying to be so inclusive that you ended up being 'exclusive' (of yourself anyway) for not desiring partnered sexual intimacy! There is no need for some other label to define those people (edit: the people who have no desire for partnered sexual intimacy), because 'sexual attraction' (when it comes to the difference between sexuality and asexuality) is the desire for partnered sexual intimacy. If you have that innate desire, you're experiencing sexual attraction. If you do not have that desire, you do not have sexual attraction.

 

On 9/7/2021 at 4:04 AM, BoredLord said:

Maybe I'm just talking BS

You aren't, but some of the people in the articles you quoted are holding some pretty negative views about 'typical allosexuality' which is causing them to define asexuality differently than how it's (edit: usually) intended.

 

It would be like if I tried to say 'hunger means you want to eat anything you can see and if you're not experiencing that then you're not actually hungry'. That's pretty much how these 'sex desiring asexuals' (edit: the ones in the articles) define allosexuality. They are using one rigid definition that isn't really accurate to the vast majority of allosexuals, and say that if you desire sex for any reason other than that, or experience it in any other way, you must be some kind of ace. or in other words, BS, lol. (Edit: By that I mean, a lot of what the people in the articles are saying is BS because it comes from a place of negatively stereotyping sexual people).

 

 

(I edited the parts I assumed were deemed as flaggable, but I added the edits in brackets rather than deleting them. I just want to clarify I'm not saying they can't ID as ace, just that the way they identify should never invalidate some else's asexuality just for not desiring partnered sexual intimacy!!! Especially when the people in the articles hold a lot of negative views about 'average sexual folks' which don't truly reflect how sexuals actually experience sexual attraction)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Pan said, you're being inclusive of sex desiring aces to the point of excluding who the label was meant for in the beginning- people who do not desire sex. 

 

This is the issue with people throwing everything under the sun under "asexual". Technically, their label is "cupiosexual" if they desire sex but say no sexual attraction. But, they didn't like that so there was a push for cupio to be under the asexual label so they went for "sex favorable asexual". 

 

And you're right that two polar opposites (desires sex and doesn't) aren't  a good fit under the same label. But, why should you give up asexual (not sexual, literal meaning, lacking sexuality) ? 

 

They can use whatever label they like. But, the label was originated for people like you. You shouldn't be pushed out of it because they want in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to remind everyone of AVEN's policy on invalidation, which you can read here:

Asexuals who define asexuality by attraction rather than by desire, and who do not experience these two things as interchangeable, are free to do so. You may give your reasons for disagreeing with them as long as your disagreement is stated in terms of opinions rather than in terms of objective fact. No-one is the arbiter of what is and isn't asexuality. Assigning people labels on any basis other than self-identification is not permitted on AVEN.

Some posts were hidden.

Unlocking

Ryn, moderator

Edited by Rynn
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've pointed out before that the two types of asexual have very little in common. I hope it doesn't lead to recriminations and hate between the two, the way trans people are split between essentialists and social constructionists.

 

(Because the pattern is always the same. The more accepted a minority is in society, the more divided they are internally.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ace-Cel said:

I've pointed out before that the two types of asexual have very little in common. I hope it doesn't lead to recriminations and hate between the two, the way trans people are split between essentialists and social constructionists.

 

(Because the pattern is always the same. The more accepted a minority is in society, the more divided they are internally.)

Yeah that's the issue with the label being so broad... 

 

When two sides of the same label have no common ground, one or the other will always feel left out of the label. Then no one feels at home. 

 

Which is why the "umbrella" term just being asexual is such an issue. Asexuals that don't ever want sex and asexuals who love sex don't have a common battle, no common ground. The only thing they have in common is they both use the label asexual. Which, then leaves... this situation. "I don't feel sexual enough to be asexual" and the other situation "I feel too sexual to be asexual". 

 

One label encompassing two polar opposites is never going to be at peace. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't like the discourse surrounding attraction versus desire. To me, having sexual attraction without sexual desire is like trying to say that one can drive without a vehicle. One can certainly have a vehicle (which I'm comparing to sexual desire) without driving it, but one can't drive a vehicle if they have no vehicle. (comparing driving the vehicle to sexual attraction). A person could certainly have a vehicle for reasons other than driving it, such as bartering with it, appreciating it as a status symbol, using it as an investment, and other possible motivations for having possession of it. Likewise, one could desire sex without any attraction involved.  As an aside for clarity purposes, I'm going to refer to sex desired instrumentally as "Type A" and sex desired intrinsically as "Type B".)

Prostitution is a reason to desire sex (type A), at least instrumentally as a means of bartering for money. Procreation is a reason for desiring sex (type A), because without sex (or now due to science, without an alternative method of impregnation) there would be no procreation. One could want sex (type A) as a way to make people happy, which like prostitution is purely the "means to an end". In all three of these examples, there is clearly sex without a desire for sex in and of itself. Prostitutes, people wanting to become pregnant, and those who use sex instrumentally (type A) as a means of furthering interpersonal relationships need not necessarily find the other participant sexually attractive to desire sex with them(type B). Desiring sex for the sake of sex (Type B) would arguably require attraction, but even then it's possibly that the person simply wants the physical gratification and is using the other person as an instrument to obtain it with no attraction to them(which would once again be type A).

Sexual behavior is not always rooted in sexual desire (Type B), and likewise sexual desire (Type A) is not universally rooted in sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like BoredLord's analogy of being hungry but unable to find anything appetizing to eat as an analogy for desire without attraction. It seems like people are assuming that those who experience desire without attraction are willing to have sex with just anyone, purely for physical gratification. I don't think that's necessarily true. I have never met anyone with whom I wanted to have sex, but our metaphorical fridge has 7.9 billion people in it and I've never really looked. I do like the idea of sex within a loving relationship to build intimacy and trust. I think desire without attraction could just be a case of someone not having found the right person yet (or not having the right context).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to identify as asexual, but at some point, I decided I shouldn't identify as asexual anymore. Even though I still have a lot in common with asexuals, I don't think "asexual" accurately communicates my feelings about sex. I also know a lot of asexual people have a hard time getting other people to understand that they simply don't inherently want sex. To me, it's more important to preserve that message than to continue calling myself "asexual" when I don't share in that common experience. I also feel like there are plenty of ways to communicate being similar to asexuals in some ways without using the asexual label itself (like grey, demi, etc.).

 

So... I find it confusing that someone would want to identify as asexual even though they desire partnered sexual activity on an innate level (meaning, not just for reasons like curiosity or wanting to have a biological child - they actively desire sex in their relationships for their own satisfaction). I understand usage of terms often changes over time, but it's shocking to me that nowadays people who identify as asexual due to lack of desire are feeling like they need a new term to communicate that. I wasn't a huge fan when "cupiosexual" started becoming more popular, but at least it was distinct from what "sex-favorable asexual" meant at the time. It's been jarring to come back to the community and see the way some things have changed - I can see why many people are feeling frustrated and pushed out.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

People can identify as they wish. If someone actively desires partnered sex in a relationship and feel that they would be very compatible with an average sexual person, but they don't experience sexual attraction according to their own understanding of that term, great. They are like 3% of self-identified asexuals and unlike the other 97%. I think it's pretty important to spread the word that if someone tells you they are asexual there is a 97% chance that means they will never, ever want to have sex with you. The 3% of asexuals who are actively seeking sexual partners may then find that the label is a sexual repellant and is not really helping them to achieve their relationship goals. But, they are still welcome to the label if they want it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arctangent said:

So... I find it confusing that someone would want to identify as asexual even though they desire partnered sexual activity on an innate level (meaning, not just for reasons like curiosity or wanting to have a biological child - they actively desire sex in their relationships for their own satisfaction). I understand usage of terms often changes over time, but it's shocking to me that nowadays people who identify as asexual due to lack of desire are feeling like they need a new term to communicate that. I wasn't a huge fan when "cupiosexual" started becoming more popular, but at least it was distinct from what "sex-favorable asexual" meant at the time. It's been jarring to come back to the community and see the way some things have changed - I can see why many people are feeling frustrated and pushed out.

On an unrelated note: that's exactly how I feel about several words I use to identify myself. People take very useful words and dilute or trivialize the original meanings so much that I start to resent myself for using them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rynn said:

Locked under admod review.

Ryn, moderator

How long will it take to review my comment? I was merely noting that the OP themselves is absolutely valid as an asexual, and just because the people on those other websites who hold negative stereotypes about sexual people have controversial views on what sexual attraction actually is, that doesn't automatically discredit anyone who doesn't desire partnered sex from being asexual, or mean they need to find a new label.

 

I do not believe my comment broke ToS as I still said those other people are free to identify as asexual if they wish, but that doesn't somehow make the OP 'less asexual' and doesn't mean I will give the negative stereotypes against 'allo'sexual people (by the people in those articles) a free pass.

 

The OP was not being 'exclusionary' which they expressed worry about. the only person the OP was 'excluding' was themselves by being concerned they need another label! (I did not mean that in a bad way, I was just pointing out that the OP shouldn't need to find another label just because of how some fringe people explain 'allosexuality' in a very negative light and base their views about asexuality around those negative stereotypes.) That doesn't mean the OP is somehow not allowed to seek another label though, I was not implying that. I was merely trying to clarify that the OP is 100% valid as an asexual.

 

I said that it's the people who the OP quoted (from the articles) who were talking BS, but that was in relation to how they were defining 'allosexuals' which was very stereotyped and condescending, which is a repeated pattern for many people who identify at that end of the spectrum (where they identify as 'an asexual who actively desires sex'). It is not against ToS to point out where someone is being cruel by negatively stereotyping 'allo'sexual people, and that's exactly what I did in my previous comment in this thread which was not locked or hidden. 

 

I just think, if it turns out my comment isn't breaking ToS, then it seems like censorship to keep it hidden until after the discussion has moved on?? Because it could take like weeks to 'review' it, and if it's not breaking ToS then it shouldn't be hidden (this doesn't just apply to me, but to anyone in this boat). Maybe only the part deemed as 'breaking ToS' should be hidden?

 

I can't even see my post anymore to try to identify exactly which part I must have misworded for it to be deemed bad enough to be hidden, especially as I deemed it quite tame compared to a lot of what I say and a lot of other comments I've seen on AVEN lately.

 

I go to a lot of effort never to say 'people who identify as ace who say they actively desire partnered sex are not asexual', but I will actively call out negative stereotypes against 'allo'sexual people which I noticed those people doing when I went back and read those articles and other articles by the same people,

 

I am just reiterating everything I said in my previous comment in case it is not restored.

 

8 hours ago, Comrade Contrarian said:

Prostitution is a reason to desire sex (type A), at least instrumentally as a means of bartering for money. Procreation is a reason for desiring sex (type A), because without sex (or now due to science, without an alternative method of impregnation) there would be no procreation. One could want sex (type A) as a way to make people happy, which like prostitution is purely the "means to an end".

Those are not an innate desire for partnered sexual intimacy for the sex itself, which is where the difference lies. Desiring sex for the sexual and/or emotional pleasure derived from the sex itself is an innate desire for sexual intimacy, regardless of whatever else triggered that desire (be it attraction to appearance, a desire for a sexual connection, feelings of romantic attraction leading to sexual desire, etc).

 

Many prostitutes absolutely do not 'desire' the sex, just as someone who has to gut fish for a living does not 'desire the act of gutting fish'. Desiring/needing an outcome is not desiring the act that leads to that outcome. Whereas if someone absolutely loves gutting fish, so gets a job gutting fish, that means they have an innate desire to gut fish.

 

(if a mod is going to hide this, could you please at least keep my response to Comrade Contrarian up as it does not violate ToS and is relevant to the discussion.. well, my whole comment is relevant to the discussion but somehow the stuff in the previous part, the way I worded it last time, has been deemed worthy of being hidden. I am hoping @Rynn can email me at least with a copy of what I said that has been hidden, so I can identify the wording used which has been deemed invalidation and not do it again)

 

Edit: thanks for restoring my post @Rynn - I've had other stuff hidden recently and normally don't make a fuss, but I just feel very passionately about this topic and believe it's EXTREMELY important that asexuals don't become too afraid to use the ace label, or feel it doesn't apply to them or they need another label, just because they do not have an innate desire for partnered sex! Though they can still have another label if that's what they want, I just feel the need to make it very clear they are already valid as an asexual and the current defintion does already perfectly define their asexuality) :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PanFicto. said:

Many prostitutes absolutely do not 'desire' the sex, just as someone who has to gut fish for a living does not 'desire the act of gutting fish'. Desiring/needing an outcome is not desiring the act that leads to that outcome. Whereas if someone absolutely loves gutting fish, so gets a job gutting fish, that means they have an innate desire to gut fish.

Perhaps I got to caught in the weeds on the semantics, but I see it as wanting something indirectly solely for its instrumental value as a way of obtaining what one actually wants. Most of us (if not all of us) don't particularly enjoy the act of kissing up to the boss at work to try to get a promotion and a raise. What we value and desire is the raise and promotion, so I'm saying that we "want" to kiss up to the boss because it gets us what we actually want. I will concede that I'm possibly playing a little bit too loosely with the word "desire" here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means the same to me, only that attraction comes from the person, and desire to the person (it makes sense in my native language). I just see it as a distinction between the direction of the feeling. A person attracts you, so you desire that person. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

I think part of the problem here comes from the fact that asexual is just as broad of a term as allosexual. However, society doesn’t expect anyone to identify just as allosexual. I would expect for their to be as much diversity among the asexual community as there is among the allosexual community. The term asexual is really a product of a sex normative society. That said, identity is a very personal experience. And, if identifying with a specific term makes you feel right and valued, that’s the term you should use, regardless of what others may think that term means. 
 

The other issue is that asexual is a term that is defined by an absence or lack. Anytime we define something in terms of what it isn’t, it becomes very difficult to define what it actually IS. Personally, I’ve been able to reconcile that through my romantic identity, which is a way for me to define what I am as opposed to what I am not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

There's no point comparing asexual and allosexual. Asexual is a self chosen label and a real orientation. Allosexual is not a self chosen label and not an orientation. Allosexual is a label nonconsensually slapped onto straight people and people with a variety of queer orientations. Furthermore, the definition of allosexuality is an ever moving target. People who do not want to be called allosexual can redraw the boundaries of allosexuality however they want to so that they are outside those boundaries. Allosexuality can mean anything from having felt a desire for partnered sex at least once to the most bizarre stereotypes a middle school student who has been deprived of basic sex education could imagine. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...