What is "asexual elitism" and why does AVEN discourage it?

[PiF]

Using myself as an example tha

I was born asexual, have never and do not experience sexual attraction. However on occasion even saying that has seen elitism titles thrown at myself and so I wondered is the problem being as I have described or... And in relation to the thread .... Is the usage of the elitist term just as dangerous as the act itself given the latter is less likely than the former?

I would personally feel that someone confident as an asexual is not elitist nor is it elitist to be as accurate as possible about what an asexual is and is not but.... Would say it was elitist to say within differences that one group is better than another because(insert reason)... I don't think asexuals are any better than anyone else just because we are asexual.

Instead of correcting behavior it seems to have become a tool to shut others down and beat them into retreat.

[PiF]

I have to be honest and say I'm struggling to find the right words to convey my point, my apologies.

What I'm wondering is the missunderstanding by a few when an asexual declares how they feel and the other party see's it as elitism when in fact it is nothing more than a celebration. I feel that this level of communication that see's the asexual elitism term being thrown about and so wondered if we needed a term that would explain those who feel no sexual attraction at all.

You could say easy... They are called asexual. The confusion arises then when semi Demi and grey are called asexual too.

Now if you are going to call semi, demi and greys.... asexual under the spectrum then it makes perfect sense for there to be a 4th group within that spectrum that encapsulates those who feel no sexual attraction at all so you have a more reflective and accurate spectrum. This would mean no more separate distinctions but see asexuality on a sliding scale of 4 groups. The definition would remain the same but would have been tweaked a little to be more reflective as we learn more about our community

This I feel would remove some of the misunderstandings around elitism and move us forward to a more easily identifiable structure and framework to move forward with.

I'm not sure if that explains my direction for clarity in a way that should remove much of the elitist claims ???? What do you think?

[Janus the Fox]

Never liked the term 100% Asexual. Some in certain communities could consider themselves the Asexual elite, not necessarily elitist. Whom who feel nothing, no libido, absolutely nothing directed to any relational cause, often covers the realms of Aromantisism and also any other attraction.

Some who are elitist who consider themselves 100% believe that's asexuality should only be this and would tell you otherwise. If fortunate that these are extremely rare people, but it happens.

[Heart]

I don't know if this helps, PiF, but the term "asexual spectrum" is usually used to refer to aces, greys, demis, etc, while the term "asexual" refers only to aces. At least, that's how I term it in my posts. It's a nuance, but you're right in that sometimes it is important to distinguish between all the beautiful shades there are of people out there. Does that kinda help?

[PiF]

You've both been helpful.

Tails, I am 100% Asexual but I use that term ... Or terms to show a similar complete asexuality.....only to clarify what my asexuality is because within not just aven.... Asexual forums have generally blurred the lines so much it's easy to see when explaining it to the uninformed... Why there is confusion about who and what we are.

The trouble comes when you use that clarification...... some take it as elitist rather than someone clarifying who they are and why.

That has helped a bit Heart thank you. For clarity of a message and trying to aviod confusing others and nothing more, I have never believed in the spectrum believing you are or you are not. I've always felt that the grey area does not have any asexuals in at all BUT does have some very important and very appreciated sexual allies.

So for me I am struggling with people calling themselves asexual when they are not and asexuals being called elitist when they are just being proud of who they are.

I appreciate that is my perception, it is unlikely to change but I am working on it, it's not easy but I am trying

[Mermaid1966]

Thanks for this post, it was the final answer I needed to know that I identify as asexual...:)

[PiF]

I don't know if this helps, PiF, but the term "asexual spectrum" is usually used to refer to aces, greys, demis, etc, while the term "asexual" refers only to aces.

If your a 100% asexual then the spectrum term is not used nor needed

as to being uncomfortable with the term 100%...I'm not really fussed but I am open to another term...real, born this way, full time, not part time..etc..I would like to add..it is a description of who I am and NOT an exscuse to be an elitist..but it is the wish to be accurate that drives

my point is..how else are you supposed to say as a full time asexual that you are a full time asexual without someone being offended because they are not?

Honestly in Aven sometimes it's so bad with the false elitism card being thrown about..... it's like pescatarians shouting at vegetarians that they can't say they are vegetarians....sometimes those who are not, try to punish those who are..through nothing other than jealousy and spite.

as the the asexual reference heart....look through grey and you will find a shedload of them saying..I just tell people I am asexual...because it's easier

They may wish to lie/hide who and what they feel they are because their definition actually contradicts asexuality......but I do not as my definition is bang on the money...I have pride in my asexuality and as a full time asexual.....see no reason to suddenly be afraid of the p.c. police .....and aven should not become an unwelcoming place for asexuals and remind itself why it was created :P

[Sally]

I must congratulate PiF for introducing me to the word "shedload". I have learned so much interesting terminology from him! :lol:

I confess I'm uncertain how I feel about "demisexual" and "graysexual". It's similar to when I hear Obama described as being black. He's as much white as black; his label of being black to me is a political label, used by rightwingers and liberals for different purposes, none of which are straightforward. To me, I'm not sure why a demisexual is considered to be in the asexual spectrum, when it could just as easily be in the sexual spectrum. If there is a sexual spectrum, but I don't think sexuals consider anything a spectrum. So again, I think politics enters into this whole thing.

[Namnahr]

I just want to say that I really appreciate this post.

It really helped me to understand some important stuff.

This has actually been something I was confused about...

So thanks :D

[TohruBeni]

Read a book about an asexual prostitute, was one of the reasons she was so good at her job, ironically :L

[Frac]

Most "ace elitists" that I've encountered have actually been sexuals, which is pretty ironic. As if they, as a person who isn't asexual, and someone who hasn't ever even looked up the definition, can just make up their mind about what it means to be a "real asexual". What authority can they claim to have on the subject? None! Yet, they're quick to dismiss asexuals as "fakes". Fortunately, I've only encountered these kinds of people on the internet. It's still difficult to fathom why they're so insistent on the fact that their definition of asexuals is the only real one, even though the general consensus is against them. It's not like, say, homosexuals need to prove themselves to anyone, (Edit: as in people don't constantly argue what homosexuality means and whether someone is a "real" one) but people make these weird expectations for aces and get mad when they don't conform to them.

For ace elitists who are ace, I've had some success trolling them by asking them the kinds of questions that uninformed people tend to unwittingly ask us, such as "How can you tell you don't like sex if you haven't tried it?" and "Maybe you just haven't met the right person yet". It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it can produce some entertaining results.

[shockkkk]

Most "ace elitists" that I've encountered have actually been sexuals, which is pretty ironic. As if they, as a person who isn't asexual, and someone who hasn't ever even looked up the definition, can just make up their mind about what it means to be a "real asexual". What authority can they claim to have on the subject? None! Yet, they're quick to dismiss asexuals as "fakes". Fortunately, I've only encountered these kinds of people on the internet. It's still difficult to fathom why they're so insistent on the fact that their definition of asexuals is the only real one, even though the general consensus is against them. It's not like, say, homosexuals need to prove themselves to anyone, (Edit: as in people don't constantly argue what homosexuality means and whether someone is a "real" one) but people make these weird expectations for aces and get mad when they don't conform to them.

For ace elitists who are ace, I've had some success trolling them by asking them the kinds of questions that uninformed people tend to unwittingly ask us, such as "How can you tell you don't like sex if you haven't tried it?" and "Maybe you just haven't met the right person yet". It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but it can produce some entertaining results.

Largely agree with your observation, but I think this is mostly due to their idea of sexual attraction being completely different from AVEN's. Most people are going to look at you like you're crazy when you tell them that you're an asexual - who doesn't feel sexual attraction - but still finds porn arousing or something like that. To be honest, I have to agree with these people as to what sexual attraction is. It's a big reason why I'm strongly in favor of scrapping the current definition.

[CakeLover&Maker]

Asexuality is defined as not experiencing sexual attraction to either (or any) gender. That's all. It has nothing at all to do with libido or with behavior.

Libido could be defined as a type of itch. Some people itch more than others, but the amount doesn't matter. What matters, when determining sexual orientation, is whether the person would prefer for somebody else to help them scratch it when/if it happens. If they would prefer help, and if they prefer it from someone of their own sex, we call them homosexual. If they get the itch, and prefer help from someone of the opposite sex to help them scratch it, we call them heterosexual. If they get the itch and would prefer no help from anybody in scratching it, we call them asexual. (To put it very bluntly, whether or not a person masturbates has no bearing on their sexual orientation.)

I just wanted to thank you for this. I have been confused for a couple years as to what I was. I sometimes have the itch(which I hated) and until I found this site and people like you who cleared things like this up. I was so relieved to finally have an answer to what I am when I found this site. So thank you.

[KAGU143]

An asexual elitist is simply somebody who thinks that asexuality is defined by sexual behavior rather than by sexual attraction.

No, asexual elitism is when you think asexuals are better than sexuals. Keyword: "Elitism", i.e. thinking you're better than others. Better, not more asexual. That's what the word "elitism" means when applied to any other group of people; same goes for asexuals.

Well, to put it as plainly as possible: No. You are wrong. Adjectives modify the meaning of nouns.

Asexual elitism, as I have understood and used the term for well over 10 years (and as I used it in the opening post), is when someone thinks that THEY are better qualified to decide who is, or who is not, a "proper" asexual than is the person who actually IS asexual.

Full stop. That's all.

Granted, since the very beginning there have been, and probably still are, a few asexuals who think that they are superior to sexuals for whatever reason, but that type of "ism" is something else entirely.

That type of bigotry smells more like some sort of moral elitism rather than asexual elitism, at least to me.

No one group of humans is inherently superior to any other group, despite differences in their sexuality, race, religion, political view, sex, gender, etc etc etc.

We're all human, and we're all making mistakes all the time.

[Philip027]

There's more than one variety of asexual elitism and I'm pretty sure they're all discouraged here anyway, so I don't see much point in being all nitpicky about it.

[Kiara_Pyrenei]

I have to say, I identify as asexual because I believe that I don't feel sexual attraction towards other people, but some of the defintions of "not feeling sexual attraction" I've seen here so far just seem too restrictive and simple to include me.

For example, even this thread which is claiming to fight asexual elitism generally describes libido as an "itch" and that "prefering someone to help you scratch it" means that you feel sexual attraction and are therefore not ace. The examples of when an asexual person can have sex are all about doing it not because of an interest in sex for the sake of sex, but because of some outside "extenuating circumstances". To be honest, I found the use of that phrase highly unsettling, and even (ironically) an example of the very elitism they claim to be speaking against? That definition of asexuality is implying that all aces (while they may have a libido and enjoy porn or masturbation) are all either negative/neutral towards actually having sex with another person; that while they might be willing to have it, they never seek it out, and that having sex simply because you want to isn't ever a valid option for an asexual person.

But the thing is, I would consider myself an example of a sex-positive asexual. As in, I have sexual fantasies AND the desire to act out those fantasies in real life. In terms of the itch metaphor, I *DO* want someone to help me scratch it! It really itches, and there are spots I can't reach by myself! However, that doesn't mean I am feeling sexual attraction towards anyone else, and I still consider myself ace. When I look at a person, their body does not inspire any sort of sexual feelings in me. Nothing about them triggers any kind of fantasies. I can feel an aesthetic appreciation, but nothing more; seeing an aesthetically attractive person just does not make me want or think about sex, period. In the past, even with someone I care about and am in a relationship with, the attraction to them physically just isn't there. And for me personally, the act of getting an orgasm from someone else isn't superior (and in fact is almost always inferior) to just doing it myself.

So in my case, my desire to participate in sexual activity generally comes from an interest in a very specific act which may require another person (I am heavily kinky, and nearly all of my sexual desire and libido revolves around a deep appreciation for specific acts of kink). This doesn't have anything to do with being attracted to the person with whom I choose to act out my desires (and if it was possible to get satisfaction from those things by myself, I totally would just do that). Instead, what I look for in a sexual partner is generally based on their willingness and ability to give me what I am hoping to get out the relationship. For example, will they be accepting of the fact that I am simply unable to be turned on by the way they look? Will they be okay with the fact that most vanilla sex acts (including things like kissing/touching) do next to nothing for me, arousal-wise? Do I trust them not to make me feel they are judging me if I do something embarrasing? Do we have compatible kinks? Basically, I still seek out partners because I want to find someone with whom I can have a a satisfying physical relationship, but physical attraction is not the deciding factor in that choice because I am incapable of feeling it. That's why I consider myself ace, and why I really do feel that the label is still an accurate descriptor for me?

It's also complicated in a lot of respects by way my libido is completely dependant on my kink, versus what most people think of when they say sex. By that I mean, when it comes to non-kinky sex acts, my attitude is somewhere between neutral/negative, and much more in line with what most people think of as asexuality, in that I dont feel any need at all for partnered vanilla sex (if I just wanted to have an orgasm, I'd do it myself, I prefer it that way). But most people would consider bdsm and other kink related activities, even ones that dont include sex, to be still sexual in nature, and therefore under the umbrella of sexual activity and included in discussions of sexuality. Regardless, I think its important to distinguish that when i talk about "sex" as it relates to me, I am almost always talking about the particular set of kinks that define my sexual desire (most of which do not involve intercourse or orgasm). This distinction is important because I think a discussion of BDSM as it relates to asexuality might differ slightly, in that many kinks basically require a partner to get enjoyment, and that enjoyment is not neccesarily physical in nature, unlike sexual acitvities where the goal is physical pleasure or an orgasm which are achievable alone (and where it therefore shows a preference for partnered activities over unpartnered ones if you value sex with another person over masturbation).

Overall, I guess it just seems to me that this thread's (and by extension AVEN's) definition of asexuality is too strict and leaves no room for people like me who feel no attraction to other people but still WANT to act on whatever kind of libido they have by participating in partnered activites of some sort. That seems wrong to me. Is that really the consensus as far as defining asexuality? Is it jsut a difference in how I am defining sex as including purely non-physical forms of sexual gratification? I had seen some great posts on sex-positive asexuality lately that seemed much more willing to include someone in my situation, which is part of what made me feel I had finally found a label that fit me, so seeing how it's talked about here is a bit disheartening. It feels like exactly what this thread is supposed to be against, telling me i'm not asexual "enough".

(also dear lord I know this was long, it started out as a lot shorter and i kept adding to it trying to make it get across how I think abotu sex. It's a complicated topic for me!)

[Frigid Pink]

I have to say, I identify as asexual because I believe that I don't feel sexual attraction towards other people, but some of the defintions of "not feeling sexual attraction" I've seen here so far just seem too restrictive and simple to include me.

Basically, I still seek out partners because I want to find someone with whom I can have a a satisfying physical relationship, but physical attraction is not the deciding factor in that choice because I am incapable of feeling it. That's why I consider myself ace, and why I really do feel that the label is still an accurate descriptor for me?

Overall, I guess it just seems to me that this thread's (and by extension AVEN's) definition of asexuality is too strict and leaves no room for people like me who feel no attraction to other people but still WANT to act on whatever kind of libido they have by participating in partnered activites of some sort. That seems wrong to me. Is that really the consensus as far as defining asexuality? Is it jsut a difference in how I am defining sex as including purely non-physical forms of sexual gratification? I had seen some great posts on sex-positive asexuality lately that seemed much more willing to include someone in my situation, which is part of what made me feel I had finally found a label that fit me, so seeing how it's talked about here is a bit disheartening. It feels like exactly what this thread is supposed to be against, telling me i'm not asexual "enough".

I identify as "asexual" because I don't have an "innate desire for partnered sex" and I also identify as "sex positive" because I think it's okay for anyone to have sex as long as it's "safe, sane, and consensual." Basically, I don't seek out sex, it's something I'm absolutely okay without, and I'm not "anti-sexual" or against sex. I also view "want" and "innately desire" as two very different things, the former of which may have many different motivations.

I don't use the phrase "sexual attraction" at all to describe my (a)sexuality because it has so many different meanings to so many different people that I feel it's useless as a way to define a sexual orientation.

Apart from all of that, I'd say I experience "physical attraction" in the sense that I do innately desire physical contact (cuddles/kisses/etc as well as some more sensual type things like massages and caresses) with a romantic partner and I'm generally more appreciative of someone's appearance once I've emotionally bonded with them.

[Kiara_Pyrenei]

I have to say, I identify as asexual because I believe that I don't feel sexual attraction towards other people, but some of the defintions of "not feeling sexual attraction" I've seen here so far just seem too restrictive and simple to include me.

Basically, I still seek out partners because I want to find someone with whom I can have a a satisfying physical relationship, but physical attraction is not the deciding factor in that choice because I am incapable of feeling it. That's why I consider myself ace, and why I really do feel that the label is still an accurate descriptor for me?

Overall, I guess it just seems to me that this thread's (and by extension AVEN's) definition of asexuality is too strict and leaves no room for people like me who feel no attraction to other people but still WANT to act on whatever kind of libido they have by participating in partnered activites of some sort. That seems wrong to me. Is that really the consensus as far as defining asexuality? Is it jsut a difference in how I am defining sex as including purely non-physical forms of sexual gratification? I had seen some great posts on sex-positive asexuality lately that seemed much more willing to include someone in my situation, which is part of what made me feel I had finally found a label that fit me, so seeing how it's talked about here is a bit disheartening. It feels like exactly what this thread is supposed to be against, telling me i'm not asexual "enough".

I identify as "asexual" because I don't have an "innate desire for partnered sex" and I also identify as "sex positive" because I think it's okay for anyone to have sex as long as it's "safe, sane, and consensual." Basically, I don't seek out sex, it's something I'm absolutely okay without, and I'm not "anti-sexual" or against sex. I also view "want" and innately desire" as two very different things, the former of which may have many different motivations.

I don't use the phrase "sexual attraction" at all to describe my (a)sexuality because it has so many different meanings to so many different people that I feel it's useless as a way to define a sexual orientation.

Apart from all of that, I'd say I experience "physical attraction" in the sense that I do innately desire physical contact (cuddles/kisses/etc as well as some more sensual type things like massages and caresses) with a romantic partner and I'm generally more appreciative of someone's appearance once I've emotionally bonded with them.

Hm that is true that physical attraction can be used to describe a desire for platonic physical contact, I admit I had forgotten that (Probably because i am not at all a physical person in that respect) I meant it in a sexual way in my post but that's prolly not the most accurate term.

For me when I say sex positive, I am referring to the idea that sex-negative asexuals are those who are actively sex repulsed, while sex-neutral asexuals are those who dont have an opinion either way, who aren't bothered by sex but dont seek it out either, and sex-positive asexuals are people who dont experience attraction, per se, but may enjoy sexual activities for other reasons.

And yeah I think my main problem is that like you said, "sexual attraction" is a very nebulous term in general, I think in part because there's not a set definition for what they even mean by "sex". I think that would be a place to start.

[Frigid Pink]

For me when I say sex positive, I am referring to the idea that sex-negative asexuals are those who are actively sex repulsed, while sex-neutral asexuals are those who dont have an opinion either way, who aren't bothered by sex but dont seek it out either, and sex-positive asexuals are people who dont experience attraction, per se, but may enjoy sexual activities for other reasons.

And yeah I think my main problem is that like you said, "sexual attraction" is a very nebulous term in general, I think in part because there's not a set definition for what they even mean by "sex". I think that would be a place to start.

I don't view "sex positive" in that way at all. I consider myself "sex positive" because I view "safe, sane, and consensual" sex as positive regardless of whether or not I enjoy or have sex.

I define "partnered sex" as sharing one's sexuality with someone. Basically, I view "sex" (or "sexual activity") as any activity with a motivation for sexual gratification, which doesn't necessarily require that the people involved even physically touch one another (mutual masturbation, for example).

[WünderBâhr]

I don't view "sex positive" in that way at all. I consider myself "sex positive" because I view "safe, sane, and consensual" sex as positive regardless of whether or not I enjoy or have sex.

I view sex-positivity this way. It doesn't hold exclusively to the idea that the one with the sex-positive view is also the one experiencing sex or participating in sexual activities/behaviors. It just means "live and let live" while recognizing sex/sexual activity as a positive for those who enjoy the consensual act, whether or not that person participating/experiencing it is you. Well, that is my interpretation of it, anyway.

Edited April 5, 2015 by bipolar bear

[Alistra]

WOW! I'm glad I read this :D I've encountered a lot of opposition to me iding as asexual because I did have a libido when I was younger and I have had sex under pressure but this example makes sense! I actually have a gay cousin who knew he was gay as a teen but married a woman and had kids - that's just what men did in his time, being gay wasn't an option. Now he's wholly out and proud, married to a man and happy. His marriage to a woman and his kids don't make him any less homosexual and I'd never suggest he was actually straight or bi. That means the time in my life when I was questioning and had sex under a lot of the circumstances mentioned don't make me any less asexual.

Thanks for this topic!

[SilverPin]

Yeah, I totally agree. I hate it when you try to tell someone you're asexual but they say someyhing like "You had a crush on so and so" or "You said you may want to have kids of your own". Most people don't understand that having a crush and wanting to have has nothing to do with sexual attraction or desire. They don't know that being asexual doesn't prevent asexual couples from loving each other or having kids (adopted or not). There are many different types of asexuals out there and each and everybone of them are unique in each and everyone of their way.

[WreckerChick]

I often find myself exhibiting the behaviors of asexual elitism (the improper definition) because I am sex-repulsed and wish sexuals would contain themselves in social situations without always bringing sex up somehow. I hate being judgmental because I don't like it when people judge me, but I can't help feeling superior to those who can't seem to hold a normal conversation without talking about sex at some point. I know everyone is wired different and has different desires. I also believe everyone has a right to live their lives however they want. I would say this feeling of superiority usually pops up when sexual interest is aimed in my direction and I get irritated. I wish I could create a forcefield around myself that would let people know I'm not into sex and keep them from bringing it up around me.

[Qloshae]

This is asexual purism, not asexual elitism.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Elitism would be "asexuals are superior to sexuals".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism

[Frigid Pink]

This is asexual purism, not asexual elitism.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Elitism would be "asexuals are superior to sexuals".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism

Why would anyone care about "purism" unless they thought that those who are "pure" (or more "pure") are superior to those who aren't "pure" (or who are less "pure")?

[Qloshae]

This is asexual purism, not asexual elitism.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

Elitism would be "asexuals are superior to sexuals".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism

Why would anyone care about "purism" unless they thought that those who are "pure" (or more "pure") are superior to those who aren't "pure" (or who are less "pure")?

Because purists are the people saying "you're not a real X unless you fit Y".

Tho purism and elitism tends to go hand in hand.

[The_Verse]

Overall, I guess it just seems to me that this thread's (and by extension AVEN's) definition of asexuality is too strict and leaves no room for people like me who feel no attraction to other people but still WANT to act on whatever kind of libido they have by participating in partnered activites of some sort. That seems wrong to me. Is that really the consensus as far as defining asexuality? Is it jsut a difference in how I am defining sex as including purely non-physical forms of sexual gratification? I had seen some great posts on sex-positive asexuality lately that seemed much more willing to include someone in my situation, which is part of what made me feel I had finally found a label that fit me, so seeing how it's talked about here is a bit disheartening. It feels like exactly what this thread is supposed to be against, telling me i'm not asexual "enough".

I am pretty much the same as you, but I don't think I have any particular kinks.

I thought I was demi until recently, because I have enjoyed having sex with the 2 partners I have had in my life. I still enjoy it. But I am 99% there is no sexual attraction involved. I just really enjoy the activity! And sometimes it's better with someone else! I also enjoy the emotional connection. But I never look at someone and want to have sex with them. I don't find people arousing at all. I just have a libido.

[LoveLifeCoach]

Thank you for putting it in simple terms.

[Koriander]

I think my asexuality is very easy, only like females and don't want sex with anyone, just like romantic attraction to females, that's all.. but no elitism for me :D I support all types of asexuality.

but I've noticed that it fits me cause "lack of sexual attraction" and that's exactly how it is for me.

[SkyWorld]

Unpinned this thread, mentioned here under "About the forum".

SkyWorld

Asexual Q&A Co-Mod