Poll: Proposed New Definition (Demographics)

[Alienated Asexual]

Hey everyone,

So I was just reading through the topics on the proposed definition change again (what can I say, I'm a masochist), and I was actually quite insulted by the accusations made by certain supporters of the change, that they were more "in touch" than AVEN members; they're activists and leaders in contact with "real" asexuals in the wild (what are we, adult human chickens?), whilst we're all apparently just a bunch of hermits who live in the AVEN walled garden: we never leave this website, don't go on social media, and don't venture out much into the real world, so we don't know anything, really.  Hence why we're all "different" to aces elsewhere.

They might be right.  They may be wrong. 

They're not right about me, I know that.  But are they right about the rest of us here?

They make out AVEN members all interact with each other on AVEN and nowhere else.  That all activists and leaders agree with them.  That we don't represent people on Twitter/Facebook/etc. because we're not from there; nor do we interact with anyone asexual outside of this website, so we're not aware of outside views, and this is why they've never seen opposition to the definition change except on  AVEN.  We just don't exist "out there."

I have a different view.  I think almost everyone here uses a variety of websites and social media platforms, because we're NO DIFFERENT to anyone else in that sense.  I use Twitter and Facebook regularly.  I think pretty much everyone has Twitter & Facebook these days.  But I think we feel SAFER giving our opinions here, and so we express them here.  I certainly do.  Also, because AVEN is a major gateway for visibility and education about asexuality, a go-to site for those seeking information, the definition on the front page matters a great deal more than some random dude on Twitter with 1,000 followers.  Hence why people started to register real opposition when AVEN itself proposed to make this change which, at the end of teh day, I believe is being pushed by out-of-touch activists; it is they, not we, who are out of touch.

I'd be super grateful if you could answer the questions in this poll, and then we can get a better sense of who's right here!

 

[TheCrow]

I dislike the idea that we don't associate with anyone asexual outside of AVEN. It makes it sound like that's the most important thing. I've only met 4 people IRL who identify as asexual, and it's not like we were talking about our views on the definition. We were talking about what we'd done that day, or helping a mutual friend move out, or watching a show together. One of the benefits of an online platform is that it's very easy to start a thread about a topic and interact with people who want to talk about that topic that might not naturally come up in conversation.

 

As for other social media platforms, I agree with what you said about people being more comfortable talking about these issues on AVEN. I've never been much into social media (a shocker for a college student, I know) so I don't have that many accounts, but they pretty much all have specific purposes for me. AVEN is for my LGBT+ stuff, Discord is for D&D, Instagram is for pictures of aquascapes, and Facebook is for my college's stuff. That might not be true for everyone, but for me it doesn't make sense to post about these issues elsewhere.

[Sam Spade]

I'm not comfortable saying that I am asexual on platforms outside of Aven, never mind sharing my views on the definition.

[Karret]

Throughout the years, I've actually most often been on this other forum, but like.. nothing to do with asexuality.

As soon as I found out about asexuality, I added that to my profile on the site, and I talk about it when it's relevant and have met a bunch of aces on that site.

I also talk about asexuality on Youtube in the comments sections of various channels mentioning it.

 

Now, for the latter two questions... I feel like... the answers didn't quite encapsulate my entire view - asexual can have 2 meanings; it can be specifically asexual people who feel no attraction, but also be the umbrella term for folks of even lesser known identities like graysexual or demisexual and things on the general end that's closer to asexual than allo. I don't mind a grey or demi just using ace because it's simpler than being so specific with identities that currently mostly only people within the ace community are aware of.

[Guest]

I think that the biggest issue I have with any of this is the legitimacy issues I see arising from a porous definition. Orientation labels have definitions for the same reason that neighboring countries have borders, because there are limits to what falls into one versus the other.

 

Go walk a step over the Canadian border and try to tell people that you're geographically on the American Spectrum, you'll get laughed out of the room. You're in Canada...or you're not, which means you're in America. Some things are a binary option between "this" and "not this", and I think asexuality has to be viewed as such to be a legitimate orientation in the eyes of others.

 

 

The experiences and feelings of the "little but not actually no" desire/attraction people are real and meaningful, but they aren't the same as the experiences and feelings of the "none at all" people. At some point people need to realize that you can be "valid" (I hate that concept) in your experiences and desires without being whatever orientation you don't fit the definition for. My attraction to women and NB folks is valid, but it doesn't make me gay. I am a "valid" polysexual, though I wouldn't be a "valid" homosexual.  Either way, my feelings that the orientation label stem from are valid. That's the only validation that should matter.

[Janus the Fox]

I’ve kept to AVEN almost entirely, while I’m on Discord in a few Servers including the AVEN Unofficial, a Facebook group, follow the avenpt Tumblr and the odd few follows on Twitter for a few asexual things.  I’d rather abstain for question 4.  The definition is up to individual choice and a persons choice will be much more complicated then these 2 listed definitions to me. 

[Gray Watcher]

I guess I'm one of the handful that think inclusivity is a good thing.

[TheCrow]

19 minutes ago, Gray Watcher said:

I guess I'm one of the handful that think inclusivity is a good thing.

Inclusivity is important, yes. Personally, I think the definition change to "little or no" just makes there be more confusion. I think something along the lines of "no or no significant attraction" would make more sense. "Little or no" places emphasis on the "little" part of it, and I think would lead to more confusion, both by people who experience no attraction, and people who are grayace, whereas "no or no significant" puts the emphasis on no. Because we are describing asexual as a singular identity, instead of the umbrella term, I think that would make more sense. If you want to describe the umbrella term asexual as "little or no" than that's fine, just make the fact that it's for the ace community and not the singular identity asexual clear.

[Alienated Asexual]

11 hours ago, Karret said:

Now, for the latter two questions... I feel like... the answers didn't quite encapsulate my entire view - asexual can have 2 meanings; it can be specifically asexual people who feel no attraction, but also be the umbrella term for folks of even lesser known identities like graysexual or demisexual and things on the general end that's closer to asexual than allo. I don't mind a grey or demi just using ace because it's simpler than being so specific with identities that currently mostly only people within the ace community are aware of.

It'd probably help if I clarified that I was referring to changing the definition of the specific sub-identity/orientation known as "asexual." The asexual umbrella would still exist if we kept the old definition--and that term encompasses everyone.  "Ace" has been the preferred umbrella identity term since 2011.  The "asexual umbrella" definition (little to no attraction) doesn't work very well under the new "asexual identity" definition (which would be identical), sicne there is no meaningful difference between "asexual the umbrella" and "asexual the sub-identity" any longer, and no longer any meaningful way to differentiate between "someone who is somewhere on the ace spectrum" and "someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction at all."

The lines between "asexual" and "grey-asexual" also are incredibly blurred under the new definition, since both include a little attraction.  Grey-asexual was always defined as being different from asexual because of one experiencing a little attraction, or rarely, and teh other not experiencing any at all. That difference would disappear, and yet it is important to a lot of people.

 

54 minutes ago, Gray Watcher said:

I guess I'm one of the handful that think inclusivity is a good thing.

How is having two separate definitions of asexual--one for the spectrum as a whole ("little to no attraction") and one for a sub-group ("no sexual attraction") in any way exclusionary? We can have two meanings for a term.  Eliminating one of these definitions from use completely would be far more exclusionary, IMO.   Who has the right to "delete" a particular use like that--then call it more inclusive?

I really cannot understand why people who support the change believe that the existing "asexual spectrum" model is exclusionary.  Or why they believe that erasing an orientation/spot on the spectrum is somehow a more inclusive approach.  The existing model allows for a specific identity for those who don't experience sexual attraction ("asexual"), and another couple for those who experience it a little ("grey-asexual," "demisexual," each slightly different). 

Then there is the "asexual umbrella" (acespec) which exists to be a wrapper for these three separate, distinct, identities.

The proposed change conflates the definition of the whole spectrum with the asexual identity itself--essentially merging them/erasing the existing, individual asexual identity completely.  There would be no way to differentiate "the spectrum as a whole" from "the spot on the spectrum" currently marked as "asexual."

A lot of people want to be able to have a word that specifically means "no sexual attraction," and refusing to allow them such a term is de facto exclusionary. 

I could understand if there was no term for "all of us" yet.  If there was no term for "the whole spectrum," but we do already have terms for these.  Ace was suggested by David Jay himself to be that umbrella term for all of us back in 2011.  People also use acespec.  These have been in use since that time.  A few do use "asexual as in umbrella," yes, but I don't think it is necessary, helpful or particularly friendly to impose a new, singular definition of asexuality on all the ace advocacy groups in a way that violates that social understanding we all reached together and has been operating fairly successfully since 2011.   A model that assigns terms for each of us and  still has terms for all of us together.

Having a word  for "no sexual attraction," (asexual) doesn't stop demis or greys referring to themselves as being "ace" or "on the ace spectrum." If a few greys/demis still want to ID as asexual then I don't even think that's a problem.  Nobody is stopping them.  But I think for the purposes of advocacy, education, and having clear differentiation, it matters a great deal to a lot of people that we continue to educate that there is both an asexual spectrum and an individual identity/spot on the spectrum called asexual.  Deleting one of these usages, erasing one of these definitons, conflating the umbrella term with the identity term, or erasing that identity under the spectrum, or conflating different identity terms with other identities on the spectrum is not helpful and just upsets people.

Lots of greys and demis don't want to be forcibly re-designated as asexual, too.  The new definition of asexual would have it encompassing grey-asexuals and demisexuals, and many demis and greys have expressed opposition to this idea.  The differences in definition aren't about being exclusionary, they're about differentiation, and it's important to a lot of people that their identities have a clear meaning and can't just be voted away or abolished by others.  People will still call themselves whatever they want, and we shouldn't stop that.  I actually think it's good that people use terms in a variety of ways. 

But what I fear most are attempts to forcibly impose a singular definition everywhere, one that is exclusionary, by virtue of erasing a group of people and essentially deleting a common usage of the term.

Inclusivity is about having more choice, not less IMO and I don't appreciate certain pushy activists who've tried to impose their singular exclusionary definition upon everyone else for a while now.

[Gray Watcher]

I just don't want to go back to the turf guarding days that drove me away from this site 5 years ago.

[SilenceRadio]

14 hours ago, Spectral Asexual said:

they're activists and leaders in contact with "real" asexuals in the wild (what are we, adult human chickens?), whilst we're all apparently just a bunch of hermits who live in the AVEN walled garden: we never leave this website, don't go on social media, and don't venture out much into the real world, so we don't know anything, really.  Hence why we're all "different" to aces elsewhere.

It's probably got to do with the spaces I frequent, but the aces I "follow" so far haven't said anything regarding the new AVEN definition. Maybe that's why they're the "real" aces: because they "don't give a fuck" about it. Frankly, there's a general... lack of apathy toward AVEN, or straight up resentment/mistrust for it in the ace communities outside of AVEN, from what I've seen (I don't go on Twitter much ace-stuff-wise). Since they don't highly regard it, they probably don't care (also because they're less likely to be essentialists, I presume).

 

I've only lurked in ace communities for a year, and I've only talked to like... one ace outside AVEN. It's not like I have any other active accounts either. Even then, it's not because some aces agree with the definition that others... can't? Everyone's going to prefer their own definition. Some aces don't even make any contact with the ace community so what would they know about their opinions?

 

It's interesting since the whole "orientation and umbrella term at the same time" thing is something that... already exists in aro communities. On AUREA homepage, you can see "little to no" being used, and it's only in the FAQ that we can see that "aromantic" has two definitions. (It's something I mentionned in the BoD thread but find relevant to bring up here)

 

50 minutes ago, Spectral Asexual said:

A few do use "asexual as in umbrella," yes, but I don't think it is necessary, helpful or particularly friendly to impose a new, singular definition of asexuality on all the ace advocacy groups in a way that violates that social understanding we all reached together and has been operating fairly successfully since 2011.

I wouldn't necessarily call it "fairly successfully" when it seemed that no one on here used "ace" as an umbrella term. I only found out about it when a gray-A outside of AVEN pointed it out.

 

1 hour ago, Spectral Asexual said:

Lots of greys and demis don't want to be forcibly re-designated as asexual, too. The new definition of asexual would have it encompassing grey-asexuals and demisexuals, and many demis and greys have expressed opposition to this idea.

Something we discussed in this thread was that the reason why the definition change was seen differently by different people is due to them having different identity paradigms. If the paradigm that is more familiar to the BoD is the Collective Identity Model/utility paradigm, then that means that the definition change was operated with it in mind. In the CIM, there is no such thing as "forcibly re-designated as asexual": you either ID as asexual, or you don't, and since the gray/demi people against it were definitely not interested in being considered "asexual", then that simply means they were not asexual, regardless of whether they fit the new definition or not. So the BoD probably didn't see that as an issue since, as you said, anyone can use and not use terms in any way they wish.

 

11 hours ago, Karret said:

I don't mind a grey or demi just using ace because it's simpler than being so specific with identities that currently mostly only people within the ace community are aware of.

I don't mind gray-As and demisexuals using "asexual" when they're talking to people outside the ace community either (and it's not something I'd have a right to mind about anyway). But that doesn't make them asexual, only ace.

 

7 hours ago, Diabolical Diatribe said:

Orientation labels have definitions for the same reason that neighboring countries have borders, because there are limits to what falls into one versus the other.

What is your opinion on the "bi lesbian" identity? Or on the asexual people who also ID as gray-A because they felt some insignificant attraction two decades ago and now they're essentially like asexuals? Or on the people who ID as both bi and pan? 

 

7 hours ago, Diabolical Diatribe said:

The experiences and feelings of the "little but not actually no" desire/attraction people are real and meaningful, but they aren't the same as the experiences and feelings of the "none at all" people.

And what about the experience of the "very insignificant" desire/attraction people using "asexual" to describe themselves? No two experiences is the same anyway. A teenager that doesn't feel attraction will have a different experience from an adult that has never felt attraction. Some people fit the "no sexual attraction" definition but since they have some desire, they call themselves "gray-A", showing that it's not because you fit one definition that the word will necessarily fit you. People with similar experiences can (and will) call themselves different things (or maybe not use any label at all).

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SilenceRadio said:

 

 

What is your opinion on the "bi lesbian" identity? Or on the asexual people who also ID as gray-A because they felt some insignificant attraction two decades ago and now they're essentially like asexuals? Or on the people who ID as both bi and pan? 

 

And what about the experience of the "very insignificant" desire/attraction people using "asexual" to describe themselves? No two experiences is the same anyway. A teenager that doesn't feel attraction will have a different experience from an adult that has never felt attraction. Some people fit the "no sexual attraction" definition but since they have some desire, they call themselves "gray-A", showing that it's not because you fit one definition that the word will necessarily fit you. People with similar experiences can (and will) call themselves different things (or maybe not use any label at all).

Depends on what they define "lesbian" to be, as well as what they are using the short form bi- for. Are they referencing lesbian sexuality or lesbian romanticality, and likewise are they shortening biromantic or bisexual to "bi"? That's a rhetorical question, but it would have to be answered for me to give you an answer,

As an aside, before I continue. There is an argument to be made for the usage of "omnisexuality" vs "pansexuality". I will be discussing these terms within the definition of pansexuality, which I am defining here as "attraction to all genders". Some would argue that pansexuality is "attraction without regard to gender", but I do not think that distinction is necessary here. In common parlance these terms are often used seemingly synonymously.

One can ID as both bi- and pan- (sexual or romantic) because they are not mutually exclusive terms. Bi is the prefix for "two", pan is the prefix for "all". If you believe that bi- is attraction to two sexes, then pansexuality may be argued likewise to be an attraction to all sexes. Since there is no "third sex" and everyone is male, female, or intersex (that is to say "in-between"), we've yet to hit an issue. Perhaps you would say instead that bisexual attraction is attraction to two genders. Whether there are only two genders or more than two (for the sake of brevity I will state that I accept there to be more than two genders and ignore the opposing views there), a person who is attracted to all genders is by definition attracted to two genders, just not necessarily only two genders. You can be bi without being pan if there are two genders to which you are attracted but other genders to which you are not. Another school of thought is that the bisexual label is antiquated in light of the expansion beyond the gender binary, which I will not endeavor to address here. 


If you experienced (past tense) sexual attraction/desire but no longer do, then that has nothing to do with your orientation now...in my opinion. Orientations are, in my mind, a reflection on who we are in the present. Past feelings and experiences no more invalidate a person's orientation label in the present than newly discovered/developed feelings and experiences in the future would one day. Orientation is not a "done deal", it's a state of being.

Tangential and generally off topic, but perhaps of interest to anyone intrigued by alternative models of human sexuality...
 

Spoiler

I do not believe that asexuality is a sexual orientation per se. I believe that asexuality (and by associate, asexual as a descriptor) reference a state of being, namely the absence of a sexual orientation. Why a person is that way is not of importance to me, and as such I tend to draw rather trivial (if any) distinctions between "born" asexuals and "made" asexuals". Whether you are born without a sexual orientation or lose yours over time due to external factors (trauma, medical issues, choosing permanent celibacy, etc), I view you as asexual, Having had a sexuality in the past does not prevent one from being asexual now. Anyone who experiences sexual attraction/desire (note: desire for sex for reasons other than sex for its own sake does not fall under the definition of desire here) is sexual, but that includes a vast umbrella of people spanning all intensities and gender-directions of sexual orientation. What is presently referred to as "grey asexuality" is what I would model as the lowest levels of sexual orientation intensity, Anything above "none at all" is sexual to me, but that's an enormous range above zero. "How intense" and "towards whom" are the relevant questions of human sexuality to me.

[SilenceRadio]

1 hour ago, Diabolical Diatribe said:

Depends on what they define "lesbian" to be, as well as what they are using the short form bi- for. Are they referencing lesbian sexuality or lesbian romanticality, and likewise are they shortening biromantic or bisexual to "bi"? That's a rhetorical question, but it would have to be answered for me to give you an answer,

While that's true some bi lesbians define themselves as such, some do not. Nowadays, when I see "bi lesbians", it doesn't conjure up any varioriented orientations to me. I've seen it used by people to mean "potentially bi, but mainly emphasizing the lesbian part", or to mean that they've been attracted to multiple genders in the past but that they want to currently focus on their own/one similar to theirs. Kind of similar to "bi with a preference", it seems. But even in the case of a -romantic -sexual distinction, it seems that there is an overlap between bi identity and lesbian identity.

 

1 hour ago, Diabolical Diatribe said:

If you experienced (past tense) sexual attraction/desire but no longer do, then that has nothing to do with your orientation now...in my opinion. Orientations are, in my mind, a reflection on who we are in the present. Past feelings and experiences no more invalidate a person's orientation label in the present than newly discovered/developed feelings and experiences in the future would one day. Orientation is not a "done deal", it's a state of being.

That's a perfectly fine way to see it, but I assume that some people might want to encapsulate the past (perhaps due to previous relationships, or just because it's personal) and therefore use multiple labels, such as both gray-A and asexual at the same time or even bi lesbian as I mentioned before. Orientations can be multi-dimensional: focusing on the now (the "lesbian" part in bi lesbian; "asexual") and also looking at the entire pattern of attractions (the "bi" part in bi lesbian; "gray-A").

 

It didn't come to mind that some people advocating for the "no sexual attraction" definition were using it as a in-the-moment description. Meaning that the people who felt some insignificant attraction in the past could ID as such, not because it was the closest thing that they were but because they were effectively asexual in the moment. I saw a similar reasoning once but I guess it just slipped my mind. To me, "asexual" has often represented the entire pattern of sexual attraction, so if you felt it twice significantly in the past or whatever you "couldn't be" asexual, even if you never felt it again. Or at least that's what I thought some of the people advocating against the "little or no sexual attraction" definition thought, like there was a "huge" difference between "never experienced attraction" and "okay I might have known what it felt like once or twice but it's totally irrelevant now". It's still odd to think that I might've been harder than the hard essentialists out there (or experientialists?), willing to invalidate myself over a past I faintly remember (a fake childhood crush story my parents kept joking about and I just wondered if it was fact) as well as the future's potential possibilities. Because to me, "asexual" had always meant "(probably) never", and so I just... never embraced the label... because I thought it was kind of disrespectful toward those who were always asexual... while I was just a teen who was probably going to grow out of it... essentially feeding into the "it's a phase" stereotype... But of course, I know it goes deeper than merely being "too young to know".

 

1 hour ago, Diabolical Diatribe said:

One can ID as both bi- and pan- (sexual or romantic) because they are not mutually exclusive terms. Bi is the prefix for "two", pan is the prefix for "all". If you believe that bi- is attraction to two sexes, then pansexuality may be argued likewise to be an attraction to all sexes. Since there is no "third sex" and everyone is male, female, or intersex (that is to say "in-between"), we've yet to hit an issue. Perhaps you would say instead that bisexual attraction is attraction to two genders. Whether there are only two genders or more than two (for the sake of brevity I will state that I accept there to be more than two genders and ignore the opposing views there), a person who is attracted to all genders is by definition attracted to two genders, just not necessarily only two genders. You can be bi without being pan if there are two genders to which you are attracted but other genders to which you are not. Another school of thought is that the bisexual label is antiquated in light of the expansion beyond the gender binary, which I will not endeavor to address here. 

Another option is that bi means "attraction to all genders", just like pan, and so the two words are essentially synonymous. Which means orientation labels don't always have neat borders or limits.

 

1 hour ago, Diabolical Diatribe said:

I do not believe that asexuality is a sexual orientation per se. I believe that asexuality (and by associate, asexual as a descriptor) reference a state of being, namely the absence of a sexual orientation. Why a person is that way is not of importance to me, and as such I tend to draw rather trivial (if any) distinctions between "born" asexuals and "made" asexuals". Whether you are born without a sexual orientation or lose yours over time due to external factors (trauma, medical issues, choosing permanent celibacy, etc), I view you as asexual, Having had a sexuality in the past does not prevent one from being asexual now.

Ah, so something closer to experientialism?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, SilenceRadio said:

While that's true some bi lesbians define themselves as such, some do not. Nowadays, when I see "bi lesbians", it doesn't conjure up any varioriented orientations to me. I've seen it used by people to mean "potentially bi, but mainly emphasizing the lesbian part", or to mean that they've been attracted to multiple genders in the past but that they want to currently focus on their own/one similar to theirs. Kind of similar to "bi with a preference", it seems. But even in the case of a -romantic -sexual distinction, it seems that there is an overlap between bi identity and lesbian identity.

I've known people who use that, often because they're bisexual women in committed relationships with another woman. "Functional Lesbian" could probably be another good way to word that. 

 

5 minutes ago, SilenceRadio said:

It didn't come to mind that some people advocating for the "no sexual attraction" definition were using it as a in-the-moment description. Meaning that the people who felt some insignificant attraction in the past could ID as such, not because it was the closest thing that they were but because they were effectively asexual in the moment. I saw a similar reasoning once but I guess it just slipped my mind. To me, "asexual" has often represented the entire pattern of sexual attraction, so if you felt it twice significantly in the past or whatever you "couldn't be" asexual, even if you never felt it again. Or at least that's what I thought some of the people advocating against the "little or no sexual attraction" definition thought, like there was a "huge" difference between "never experienced attraction" and "okay I might have known what it felt like once or twice but it's totally irrelevant now". It's still odd to think that I might've been harder than the hard essentialists out there (or experientialists?), willing to invalidate myself over a past I faintly remember (a fake childhood crush story my parents kept joking about and I just wondered if it was fact) as well as the future's potential possibilities. Because to me, "asexual" had always meant "(probably) never", and so I just... never embraced the label... because I thought it was kind of disrespectful toward those who were always asexual... while I was just a teen who was probably going to grow out of it... essentially feeding into the "it's a phase" stereotype... But of course, I know it goes deeper than merely being "too young to know".
 

Ah, so something closer to experimentialism?

 

Does me wanting dick enough to actually desire to act on it maybe three times in my life make me gay when I am very consistently not attracted to men in between?  Same kind of question in my mind....

I see you use the words "essentialist", "experientialist", and later on "experimentalist"...what do you mean by these? I have my suspicions, but I think I may be learning three new words today. 

[SilenceRadio]

3 minutes ago, Diabolical Diatribe said:

I see you use the words "essentialist", "experientialist", and later on "experimentalist"...what do you mean by these? I have my suspicions, but I think I may be learning three new words today.

Damn, I meant "experientialism" at the end, not "experimentalist".

Those are concepts @Rynn created in the thread where we discussed the various paradigms that the ace community use.

"Essentialism" is believing that one has an essence which determines what their orientation is or will be. I don't think essentialism believes in the "made asexuals" and would say they either have a fluid orientation which changed to "asexual" or that they're not asexual due to having experienced attraction in the past. Whereas "experientialism" doesn't really care why someone does not feel sexual attraction anymore: as long as they don't, they're asexual, the cause matters not, which seems to be closer to your point of view.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, SilenceRadio said:

Damn, I meant "experientialism" at the end, not "experimentalist".

Those are concepts @Rynn created in the thread where we discussed the various paradigms that the ace community use.

"Essentialism" is believing that one has an essence which determines what their orientation is or will be. I don't think essentialism believes in the "made asexuals" and would say they either have a fluid orientation which changed to "asexual" or that they're not asexual due to having experienced attraction in the past. Whereas "experientialism" doesn't really care why someone does not feel sexual attraction anymore: as long as they don't, they're asexual, the cause matters not, which seems to be closer to your point of view.

Interesting. I'd actually like to throw my hat in the ring for an "experimentalist" asexuality definition, although I personally don't know that I fully subscribe to such a position. It would be a sort of "experientialist" model variant.

I've seen it been posited that people are "asexual by default" rather than "straight by default", and that through "experimentation" (not in the sense of explicitly wanting to experiment, but rather in the abstract sense) determine whether they are attracted to the other sex/gender (heterosexual), the same sex/gender (homosexual), or both (bisexual or similar term). In that manner, I'd argue that an "experimentalist" model could exist on the basis of trial and error, with the caveat that a "failed" experiment would not render an asexual person to be something else. Such a model would actually be interesting to see in practice, because it does away with the presupposition that one can predict one's orientation and focuses not only on behavior, but on one's subsequent perception of one's behavior. 


This is rather similar to how I approach labels. I don't identify with a label that I have not personally tested the "accuracy" of. In my case, I only appended genders to my sexuality and romantically once I was confident that I had experienced at least one instance of true attraction towards a person of that gender. As such, I did not implicitly or explicitly identify with the term "skoliosexual" until I dated a person who wasn't binary gendered, and I didn't identify with the term "gynesexual" until I was attracted to a feminine person. These are what I imply by my usage of "polysexual". I would not entertain the notion of seriously identifying as pansexual or omnisexual until I had demonstrable grounds to do so, even though I strongly suspect myself to be such,

[SilenceRadio]

5 minutes ago, Diabolical Diatribe said:

Interesting. I'd actually like to throw my hat in the ring for an "experimentalist" asexuality definition, although I personally don't subscribe to such a position. It would be a sort of "experientialist" model variant.

I've seen it been posited that people are "asexual by default" rather than "straight by default", and that through "experimentation" (not in the sense of explicitly wanting to experiment, but rather in the abstract sense) determine whether they are attracted to the other sex/gender (heterosexual), the same sex/gender (homosexual), or both (bisexual or similar term). In that manner, I'd argue that an "experimentalist" model could exist on the basis of trial and error, with the caveat that a "failed" experiment would not render an asexual person to be something else. Such a model would actually be interesting to see in practice, because it does away with the presupposition that one can predict one's orientation and focuses not only on behavior, but on one's subsequent perception of one's behavior. 

So what would "experimentations" encompass? Fantasies, dating, attractions...? What if someone never experiment, or can't experiment although they would like to: what would that make them?

[Guest]

Just now, SilenceRadio said:

So what would "experimentations" encompass? Fantasies, dating, attractions...? What if someone never experiment, or can't experiment although they would like to: what would that make them?

Logically that would depend on the question being addressed...
In my case...
Am I sexually attracted to all genders? I don't know. I'd have to try to sleep with a few more kinds of people to find out.
Am I romantically attracted to all genders? I don't know. I'd have to date some more types of people to find out,
Am I aesthetically attracted to all genders? Yes, I know that. If I didn't know, I'd have to evaluate my perception of people's aesthetic to find out.
....and so on and so forth.

I don't think it's necessarily the most desirable or practical methodology, especially in situations that don't make it easy to experiment. I'm able to, so it works in my case. This would fall under "experientialism" in my mind, as a variant. I could just as easily say that I identify in an experientialist way, because that would also be true, The only major difference is that I treat my "maybe" (in the sense of "I feel this to possibly be the case, but haven't tried it to prove that") as a "no until proven yes", whereas baseline experientialism seems to treat "maybe" as a "yes until proven no".

[Ceebs]

On 11/1/2021 at 5:03 AM, Diabolical Diatribe said:

Go walk a step over the Canadian border and try to tell people that you're geographically on the American Spectrum, you'll get laughed out of the room. You're in Canada...or you're not, which means you're in America.

I'd probably laugh and get angry. I like to make it clear that we are not USA Lite™ at every possible opportunity. 

[Phantasmal Fingers]

Fyi for questions 2. and 3. I chose the final option as an answer. That's because options like "at ace meetups" and "irl" were not included. 

[The French Unicorn]

For the last two questions, I missed the option : I just don't care.

[Karret]

18 hours ago, SilenceRadio said:

I don't mind gray-As and demisexuals using "asexual" when they're talking to people outside the ace community either (and it's not something I'd have a right to mind about anyway). But that doesn't make them asexual, only ace.

Yep, exactly. They aren't asexual because there are times when they CAN experience sexual attraction/desire, but I can understand that compared to other sexualities, it's often easier to just quickly say ace/asexual than go into some long monologue about the specific nuances of "well usually I don't feel anything, but if X or Y happens, I might" and shit like that; it's just easier to say ace/asexual generally, and I have no problem with that.

 

But if people are trying to change the definition of asexual the orientation specifically, that's supposed to mean "NO sexual attraction/desire" into "LITTLE OR NO sexual attraction/desire" THAT I'd have a problem with, because I don't want people assuming I'd be one of the ones with little attraction or that they might have a shot with me.. I want something to be stark and clear that I'm absolutely 100% this way, not like 80-95% this way. Yes there are many shades of grey, but white and black are hues in their own right and colors that are kind of white or mostly black don't count as purely "black" or "white," they count as "eggshell" "offwhite" "cream" "offblack" "soot" "onyx" etc.

[Karret]

20 hours ago, Spectral Asexual said:

It'd probably help if I clarified that I was referring to changing the definition of the specific sub-identity/orientation known as "asexual." The asexual umbrella would still exist if we kept the old definition--and that term encompasses everyone.  "Ace" has been the preferred umbrella identity term since 2011.  The "asexual umbrella" definition (little to no attraction) doesn't work very well under the new "asexual identity" definition (which would be identical), sicne there is no meaningful difference between "asexual the umbrella" and "asexual the sub-identity" any longer, and no longer any meaningful way to differentiate between "someone who is somewhere on the ace spectrum" and "someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction at all."

The lines between "asexual" and "grey-asexual" also are incredibly blurred under the new definition, since both include a little attraction.  Grey-asexual was always defined as being different from asexual because of one experiencing a little attraction, or rarely, and teh other not experiencing any at all. That difference would disappear, and yet it is important to a lot of people.

Ah! Okay, yeah, no, the asexual orientation should stay as no sexual attraction at all, not no or little... that's dumb. the definition for straight isn't "little or no attraction to the same sex" if you're usually straight but occasionally like someone of the same gender [and same for gay folks occasionally liking someone of the opposite gender] that'd be heteroflexible or homoflexible. So if an ace person rarely has attraction to anyone, that would be aceflexible or just the tried and true greysexual, not asexual. Why not use acespec? Why do people who experience sexual attraction gotta hone in on shit that they don't fit into when there's already terms to accommodate them that are close-but-not-the-same as asexual? "This circle doesn't fit in this triangle-shaped hole.... let's bust the triangle-shaped hole until the circle can fit through it; then it's more inclusive because the triangle AND the circle can fit through it now!" This is what that idea sounds like. Fucking moronic.

[nanogretchen4]

I don't even care that much about the "little to no" part compared to a marketing campaign whose main goal is to make asexuality as sexy as possible. Young asexuals are getting the message that their destiny is to seek out mixed orientation relationships and have whatever unwanted sex their partner desires. Mentioning the idea that asexuals might want to find and date each other, and just not have the unwanted sex, is apparently offensive and "allonormative". It seems this is like saying that asexuals only "deserve" to date other asexuals. Because everyone knows that incompatible partners are just better than compatible ones, and you should make any sacrifice to win and hold on to that heterosexual who is the only one who can validate you. And the asexiest, most empowered thing you can do is pass as heterosexual while in a relationship with an actual heterosexual having all of the sex you've just accepted that you don't want. Except the activists also want to gaslight you about whether you actually want sex by pretending attraction has nothing to do with an innate desire for partnered sex. "Asexuals can want sex," is the very first thing they want to tell the world about asexuality. It's just gross.

[SilenceRadio]

1 hour ago, Karret said:

if you're usually straight but occasionally like someone of the same gender [and same for gay folks occasionally liking someone of the opposite gender] that'd be heteroflexible or homoflexible.

Or, if it's one person and you feel it doesn't change your life enough, then it could still be straight/gay, or straight up bi. So similarly, if someone feels closest to asexual except for one person (insignificant attraction), then they can still use asexual.

 

1 hour ago, Karret said:

Why not use acespec? Why do people who experience sexual attraction gotta hone in on shit that they don't fit into when there's already terms to accommodate them that are close-but-not-the-same as asexual?

I think @Spectral Asexual once mentionned that some aces explicitly rejected the "ace umbrella" way of grouping ace identities, and would prefer everyone be just "asexual", kind of like back in the days. Some people feel like since gray-asexuality and demisexuality need an understanding of asexuality in order to themselves be understood ("asexual with exceptions", stuff like that), maybe they feel that somehow makes them asexual? Perhaps it's just a prioritization of the absence of sexual feelings over the presence of a few ones as a way to combat sexnormativity? If you're mostly straight, it's best to call yourself straight, and maybe that's the same thinking with asexuality: if you're mostly asexual, best to call yourself asexual. Maybe it's a form of antisexual denial and thinking one would be less "pure" if they were gray-A rather than asexual? That their boundaries would somehow matter less if they were gray-A/demi? Since their identity is often assumed to mean "there is a chance for me to date you since I feel some attraction", because it's often put in contrast with asexuality which is supposed to mean "there is no chance for me to ever develop feelings for you", considering that seemed to be one of the main reasons why everyone was mad at the "little or no" redefinition.

 

I'm only giving some ideas.

 

1 hour ago, Karret said:

"This circle doesn't fit in this triangle-shaped hole.... let's bust the triangle-shaped hole until the circle can fit through it; then it's more inclusive because the triangle AND the circle can fit through it now!" This is what that idea sounds like. Fucking moronic.

Asexuality is slowly becoming the square hole.

[nanogretchen4]

I was on Twitter today and someone was trying to refute the "harmful stereotype" that asexuals don't want sex. They said that asexuality is a spectrum that includes "allosexuality." So I'm not that concerned about people who think eggshell is white right now because I'm a little distracted by the people yelling that onyx is white.

[Karret]

5 minutes ago, SilenceRadio said:

Or, if it's one person and you feel it doesn't change your life enough, then it could still be straight/gay, or straight up bi. So similarly, if someone feels closest to asexual except for one person (insignificant attraction), then they can still use asexual.

 

I think @Spectral Asexual once mentioned that some aces explicitly rejected the "ace umbrella" way of grouping ace identities, and would prefer everyone be just "asexual", kind of like back in the days. Some people feel like since gray-asexuality and demisexuality need an understanding of asexuality in order to themselves be understood ("asexual with exceptions", stuff like that), maybe they feel that somehow makes them asexual? Perhaps it's just a prioritization of the absence of sexual feelings over the presence of a few ones as a way to combat sexnormativity? If you're mostly straight, it's best to call yourself straight, and maybe that's the same thinking with asexuality: if you're mostly asexual, best to call yourself asexual. Maybe it's a form of antisexual denial and thinking one would be less "pure" if they were gray-A rather than asexual? That their boundaries would somehow matter less if they were gray-A/demi? Since their identity is often assumed to mean "there is a chance for me to date you since I feel some attraction", because it's often put in contrast with asexuality which is supposed to mean "there is no chance for me to ever develop feelings for you", considering that seemed to be one of the main reasons why everyone was mad at the "little or no" redefinition.

 

I'm only giving some ideas.

 

Asexuality is slowly becoming the square hole.

Sure, I guess if it was just one person, but I still think that the -flexible term would TECHNICALLY be more accurate, but I agree it'd be easier to just say whatever is most commonly applicable to them. Kinda just seems like all those jokes about whether something's gay or not and they get closer and closer and closer to doing something "gay" until basically they're having gay sex, but saying "no homo" while doing it, so it doesn't count or something. Or like how ancient Romans made an exception that like the tops in gay sex are actually still straight and it's just the bottoms who are gay... like... lol... bottoms can't be gay unless they're having gay sex, and it takes two to have gay sex...??? But if that "occasionally" feeling something for the gender you normally wouldn't have happens often enough, it does make sense to just go with bi instead of -flexible; the flexible qualifiers seem like the overwhelming majority of the time, they're gay/straight, but very rarely [like graces] can fall for someone of the other gender they normally aren't attracted to. If someone is technically grace, but feels attraction so infrequently, they feel like it'd be more expedient to use ace, then I totally get that though; same with the example of the homo/heteroflexible folks if they just wanna use plain gay or straight; but if they've had a romantic or sexual connection with someone [of their own volition, because THEY felt that desire/pull themselves], I feel like the -flexible/grace term would be more accurate; just not necessary in a casual setting.

 

I disagree with the rejection of the umbrella. It was never just asexual "back in the day". Even when I joined like 10+ years ago, graces and demis were around and it was known as an umbrella. And yes, people need to be in the ace communities to hear about graces and demis, and they shouldn't be made to feel like they don't belong or are lesser than, but the fact remains that their experiences ARE NOT like full-blown asexual experiences and that distinction shouldn't be erased; that's fucked up; asexuals are already erased everywhere else, why should we be erased in our own communities?

Anyone who's got some purity bullshit perspective about how many sexual thoughts people have is stupid. I don't consider myself more pure than even people who would be deemed "sluts" or "whores" by common society - I'm no more pure than a sex worker, or someone who just loves having lots of sex with lots of people. Purity shouldn't be based on sex. Anyone who thinks it is is dumb, there's nothing more to it. So, if I don't consider myself "more pure" than an allo or hypersexual allo, it should be obvious I feel equally so for a grace or demi. If they have internalized bigotry against having sexual thoughts, desires or actions, that's on them to sort out, not for me to placate and enable. Also, I don't think allos want their boundaries violated, either, even though, with them being allo, there's DEFINITELY a chance for them to fall for the aggressor. Doesn't mean we should include allos who want to be free of that behavior; they don't fit because they don't have the same experiences. Graces and demis SHOULDN'T have their boundaries pushed like that, and that sucks, but the solution isn't to broaden asexuality the orientation, but to work on culturally reshaping the dating world. Instead of trying to hone in on asexuals definition where there really is no chance, don't fucking try, and trying to turn THAT into "well maybe there's a chance because even though I'm using ace, I might still be open to it. ;D" Like.. no. If graces and demis want to use asexual to give people the impression of "not interested go away please" since that's the most common mode of existence they'll know, that's totally fine... but it shouldn't work in the reverse where those folks are dismantling what asexuality is so that the pervs will come for us because we might actually be a demi or grace or "one of those aces who actually wants to fuck"..... like.. no. Stop. Legit, they can gtfo if that's what they're going to do. That's unacceptable; I don't want people harassing me and saying "I'm ace" won't be enough to stop them because some ditz had the "bright" idea to make it unclear whether or not asexuals desire sex or not. It's been bad enough for aces trying to find each other, now there's these other folks in here trying to make it harder on aces... that's fucked up. That's not cool at all.

 

LMAO YES. It's feeling EXACTLY like that!!! So fucking annoying.

[nanogretchen4]

I like the "ace umbrella" concept as a type of coalition movement comparable to the LGBT movement in that there are different identity groups under the umbrella but they are all different from the normative culture in related ways. The identities within the LGBT movement are linked because they don't fully conform to normative expectations for the gender they were assigned at birth, in terms of partner preference and/or in other ways. The ace umbrella identities would be linked by being less sexual and/or less romantic than the normative culture. Less could mean not at all, or very rarely and under very specific circumstances, or to a very limited degree, or whatever. But just as not everyone in the LGBT movement is gay or trans, not everyone under the ace umbrella movement is asexual.

[Karret]

25 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

I was on Twitter today and someone was trying to refute the "harmful stereotype" that asexuals don't want sex. They said that asexuality is a spectrum that includes "allosexuality." So I'm not that concerned about people who think eggshell is white right now because I'm a little distracted by the people yelling that onyx is white.

 ಠ_ಠ ...... Fair enough. See, THIS is what I DON'T want to happen to asexuality. If this thought process gets normalized, asexuality will mean nothing. As an asexual who didn't have a word for what I was until I was 19, that's so fucking offensive for that dumb ass to dare say. Unless they were trolling.... Hopefully they were trolling - like.. to get across how ridiculous some of this "inclusivity" has been getting around asexuality. This very clearly demonstrates the harm in trying to be too inclusive about an orientation. Some real denial of reality shit.

It's not even a harmful stereotype - most asexuals DON'T WANT SEX. The original memes about asexuality were all like "my sexual preference is no" THAT'S asexuality.

[Karret]

6 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

I like the "ace umbrella" concept as a type of coalition movement comparable to the LGBT movement in that there are different identity groups under the umbrella but they are all different from the normative culture in related ways. The identities within the LGBT movement are linked because they don't fully conform to normative expectations for the gender they were assigned at birth, in terms of partner preference and/or in other ways. The ace umbrella identities would be linked by being less sexual and/or less romantic than the normative culture. Less could mean not at all, or very rarely and under very specific circumstances, or to a very limited degree, or whatever. But just as not everyone in the LGBT movement is gay or trans, not everyone under the ace umbrella movement is asexual.

100% agreed!