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

[Rising Sun]

Yes, that's true, but once people are convinced something is bad, their mind can fight their instincts so much that these instincts become unconscious (repression becomes effective), where they can make huge mental damage.

[Sally]

Yes, that's true, but once people are convinced something is bad, their mind can fight their instincts so much that these instincts become unconscious (repression becomes effective), where they can make huge mental damage.

That's a theory develoed by some sychologists years ago; it's not a fact.

[Rising Sun]

The fact is that there are people who were told by their parents that sex is bad, who after that can't feel sexual attraction anymore, and who will be unhappy their whole life because of it, and for a variety of reasons. It can even go so far that they can develop a deep phobia of sex.

On the other hand, some of these people can become hateful or full of despise for sexual people, who are seen as impure / disgusting / inferior, and this is another unhealthy consequence of trying to "erase" a natural instinct.

[Sally]

The fact is that there are people who were told by their parents that sex is bad, who after that can't feel sexual attraction anymore, and who will be unhappy their whole life because of it, and for a variety of reasons. It can even go so far that they can develop a deep phobia of sex.

On the other hand, some of these people can become hateful or full of despise for sexual people, who are seen as impure / disgusting / inferior, and this is another unhealthy consequence of trying to "erase" a natural instinct.

That's true, some can be affected that way. I've known friends who've been forever affected by their families' attitudes, and friends who have grown free of those attitudes.

What I don't agree with is the "reression" end of it -- I think if someone is affected by an exerience, they know it. I really doubt the existence of an "unconscious", which is also a sychological theory, not something that can be roven to exist.

[Rising Sun]

Personally, I believe that there is an unconscious part in ourselves. I experienced it during psychoanalysis, using meditation, in order to know the origins of my social phobia and PTSD. During meditation, I was able to discover things I didn't consciously know about myself, and it was a very useful thing. I felt a great relief when I discovered most of the reasons which make me act this way or that way. But that's just my own experience. Or maybe some people have a strong unconscious part in their thoughts while some don't, who knows... The truth is maybe even much more complicated than that.

I'll stop there before my posts start being truly off topic.

[Member54880]

x

[Rising Sun]

Yes, it would be interesting. I have some examples of that in my past and in my family to tell, and I'm curious to know how it affected other people too.

[WhenSummersGone]

I don't think it matters really. Isn't asexual just a word we use that fits us best right now? I hear this all the time on here. It's just a label and whether some asexuals are repressed or were abused doesn't matter. If we are comfortable using it, like me and whatever could have happened to me growing up, then there's no harm in it.

[Rising Sun]

I consider that it matters for 3 reasons :

- one, if the "asexual" label was used mostly by repressed or abused people, psychiatrists would have a good reason to consider asexuality as a mental disorder again ;

- two, repressed or abused people can be in a very distressing situation and sometimes deny it by saying they're asexual, then not sick, but they still need help from a therapist (I don't say that the situation is common, but I would be surprised if it didn't exist) ;

- three, appropriation of the word "asexual" by anti-sex hate groups would be likely, and this situation would be very dangerous.

Edit : of course, I don't think that excluding people would be good though (except hateful anti-sex people). I just fear that asexuality could be considered as a mental disorder again, or as some kind of intolerant ideology that people choose.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Rising Sun

[WhenSummersGone]

I consider that it matters for 3 reasons :

- one, if the "asexual" label was used mostly by repressed or abused people, psychiatrists would have a good reason to consider asexuality as a mental disorder again ;

- two, repressed or abused people can be in a very distressing situation and sometimes deny it by saying they're asexual, then not sick, but they still need help from a therapist (I don't say that the situation is common, but I would be surprised if it didn't exist) ;

- three, appropriation of the word "asexual" by anti-sex hate groups would be likely, and this situation would be very dangerous.

Edit : of course, I don't think that excluding people would be good though (except hateful anti-sex people). I just fear that asexuality could be considered as a mental disorder again, or as some kind of intolerant ideology that people choose.

I thought about what I said after posting my post and realized the same thing. It doesn't help "true" asexuals and the asexual label if others aren't using it correctly. Like calling yourself bi/gay to be different or special.

So I agree.

[Sally]

Rising Sun, on 06 Dec 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

I consider that it matters for 3 reasons :

- one, if the "asexual" label was used mostly by repressed or abused people, psychiatrists would have a good reason to consider asexuality as a mental disorder again ;

- two, repressed or abused people can be in a very distressing situation and sometimes deny it by saying they're asexual, then not sick, but they still need help from a therapist (I don't say that the situation is common, but I would be surprised if it didn't exist) ;

- three, appropriation of the word "asexual" by anti-sex hate groups would be likely, and this situation would be very dangerous.

Edit : of course, I don't think that excluding people would be good though (except hateful anti-sex people). I just fear that asexuality could be considered as a mental disorder again, or as some kind of intolerant ideology that people choose.

Well, anyone who sees a counselor should make it clear that they are asexual, but whatever roblem they have for which they're seeing the counselor, they are fine with their asexuality, so the counselor shouldn't try to fix it. Because it's not a mental disorder.

We have to do this for ourselves, because counselors often don't know anything about it.

[Rising Sun]

I agree, Sally, it's something necessary.

I fear that despite the fact that asexuality isn't a mental disorder, therapists continue to see it as HSDD. And if one day a therapist saw somebody who is phobic of sex or has HSDD (and then who obviously suffers) but claims that they're asexual and don't suffer (despite the proof of the contrary for this person), the therapist can generalize and think that asexuality doesn't exist and is just a way to deny a mental disorder.

So we need to show that both HSDD and asexuality exist but are different, and to be able to explain the difference if we come out to a mental health professional.

[ToHellWithAsexuality]

...

Edited December 29, 2013 by Loop-Doctor

[Lenika]

I totally agree with the asexual attraction and satisfying the feeling your self.

But what do you call us who do not itch? I think this deserves some recognition as I'm Ace and have no itch, so the definition is self defeating for me when I say I do not experience sexual feelings so I'm ace. Peeps can throw it back in my face and say an ace still feels the itch, but I don't feel one.

I think this needs a definition for those who can't understand what not having an itch is.

And secondly, sexual attraction is feelings for sex whether or not you satisfy it alone or with a person. That turned. According to the op an ace can still be attracted to a person sexualy and just lack the desire for actual sex, they still have atraction. But then to top of the website says its a lack of attraction that defines ace. See the conflict. I believe this is the confusing part for people. This is my hang up.

A sexual can still be sex repulsed and not want sex but become turned on by a person. The op lumps this into ace where they say lack of attraction. So how can you have sexual feelings and lack sexual feelings?

As for calling an ace sexual because they had sex, well that's just stupid. I agree with the op 100%

[Member54880]

x

[gub]

It seems to me that I have always been someone that is totally honest and in the here and now, and that when another person wants sex it seems that a line gets crossed that breaches a contract of friendship that was previously unspoken. I feel lied to, and it's obvious that this person just wants me for that, and there is no REAL friendship. I can only liken it to the idea that "a person who never needs to eat (like a robot), yet has to feed other people and sit with them as they eat and pretend to eat with them so they don't feel alone eating." I don't seem to NEED sex and it is always me that has to act the part of needing it for my husband. Have I been shown the wrong attitudes to sex because my parents were not happy, or I was raped or abused very young? Whatever the cause, I can't seem to feel comfortable about sex and always get disappointed when someone wants that from me. I am extremely caring and emotional. I have kids who I adore, and I truly love my husband and wish the best for him, but I also wish he would get sex from someone else.

I do have sexual attraction to certain qualities I see in PEOPLE which moves me physically, not just men, but I am usually afraid of those feelings and would run a mile from that person. I don't know if I am living in denial of my sexuality by choosing a SAFE man who I am not attracted to to live with, or hiding from my feelings if they arise because I fear the lack of control I have over myself at those times.

This affects my social life outside home too, because many people expect you to either flirt with them (men) or clash with them (women), and if they can't figure out where you are oriented, they sometimes fear or dislike you. Even lesbian women don't seem to like me. It is a lonely way to be, which is why I am glad to see this forum exists.

[not here]

It seems to me that I have always been someone that is totally honest and in the here and now, and that when another person wants sex it seems that a line gets crossed that breaches a contract of friendship that was previously unspoken, but obvious. I feel that I have been lied to, and that now it's obvious that this person just wants me for that, and there is no REAL friendship. Have I been shown the wrong attitudes to sex because my parents were not happy, or I was raped or abused very young? Whatever the cause, I can not seem to feel comfortable about sex and always get disappointed when someone wants that from me.

I can relate to this. It kind of feels that way to me, too. Anyway, welcome, gub. :)

[Shadow Conqueror]

Great post :)

[PaintedDoll]

I'd also add that asexual elitism is the idea that asexuals are more intelligent or evolved than sexuals.

This stance is also discouraged by AVEN.

[Janus the Fox]

I'd also add that asexual elitism is the idea that asexuals are more intelligent or evolved than sexuals.

yep, I find that intellect and evolution sentiment is common for anything not perceived the norm. Its important to discourage sexist, racist, mentality, religious and political elitism or any elitist commentary anywhere.

Elitism in general I find horrendous.

[TheBioNerd]

I'd also add that asexual elitism is the idea that asexuals are more intelligent or evolved than sexuals.

yep, I find that intellect and evolution sentiment is common for anything not perceived the norm. Its important to discourage sexist, racist, mentality, religious and political elitism or any elitist commentary anywhere.

Elitism in general I find horrendous.

BUT, it's also important that we are able to recognize when someone actually is being elitist. Whenever someone comes on here and says something that could be construed as elitist, we shouldn't be so quick to jump on the "you're a bigot, get off this forum!" gun. A lot of times, people don't even realize that what they're saying is bad and calling them elitist certainly isn't going to help them see differently. Also, there are a lot of people on here with Asperger's who say insensitive stuff without realizing, so that's another reason to be extra careful in getting upset at people you see as "elitist". The best thing to do is calmly explain why what they said might have been inappropriate (essentially the opposite of what I see happening on here a lot of the time). Just my two cents.

[Janus the Fox]

I'd also add that asexual elitism is the idea that asexuals are more intelligent or evolved than sexuals.

yep, I find that intellect and evolution sentiment is common for anything not perceived the norm. Its important to discourage sexist, racist, mentality, religious and political elitism or any elitist commentary anywhere.

Elitism in general I find horrendous.

BUT, it's also important that we are able to recognize when someone actually is being elitist. Whenever someone comes on here and says something that could be construed as elitist, we shouldn't be so quick to jump on the "you're a bigot, get off this forum!" gun. A lot of times, people don't even realize that what they're saying is bad and calling them elitist certainly isn't going to help them see differently. Also, there are a lot of people on here with Asperger's who say insensitive stuff without realizing, so that's another reason to be extra careful in getting upset at people you see as "elitist". The best thing to do is calmly explain why what they said might have been inappropriate (essentially the opposite of what I see happening on here a lot of the time). Just my two cents.

Yes, often people on the spectrum may often get warned of even banned from communities without realising. Even me, I'm on the spectrum and been banned for elitism, trolling, vigilantism, causing drama an even just giving criticism. Many on the spectrum are often left confused for any reason being warned or banned, rule braking even if its been explained. There has to be some consideration for any intellectual or learning disability but there's a fine between this and legitimate trolls.

[TheBioNerd]

I'd also add that asexual elitism is the idea that asexuals are more intelligent or evolved than sexuals.

yep, I find that intellect and evolution sentiment is common for anything not perceived the norm. Its important to discourage sexist, racist, mentality, religious and political elitism or any elitist commentary anywhere.

Elitism in general I find horrendous.

BUT, it's also important that we are able to recognize when someone actually is being elitist. Whenever someone comes on here and says something that could be construed as elitist, we shouldn't be so quick to jump on the "you're a bigot, get off this forum!" gun. A lot of times, people don't even realize that what they're saying is bad and calling them elitist certainly isn't going to help them see differently. Also, there are a lot of people on here with Asperger's who say insensitive stuff without realizing, so that's another reason to be extra careful in getting upset at people you see as "elitist". The best thing to do is calmly explain why what they said might have been inappropriate (essentially the opposite of what I see happening on here a lot of the time). Just my two cents.

Yes, often people on the spectrum may often get warned of even banned from communities without realising. Even me, I'm on the spectrum and been banned for elitism, trolling, vigilantism, causing drama an even just giving criticism. Many on the spectrum are often left confused for any reason being warned or banned, rule braking even if its been explained. There has to be some consideration for any intellectual or learning disability but there's a fine between this and legitimate trolls.

I agree, and like I said, I think the best way to prevent such an occurrence is to simply state that what the person said might have been offensive and give a reason why. There's no need to be harsh or give warnings right off the bat. I see way too many people on here getting angry over something someone said which I wouldn't even have construed as offensive. Then again, I'm used to taking things in the manner they were intended (both of my parents and my brother have Asperger's). I think that's something we all need to consider on this site. We should take things in the manner they were intended and base our responses to people off of that.

[Vampyremage]

I'd also add that asexual elitism is the idea that asexuals are more intelligent or evolved than sexuals.

yep, I find that intellect and evolution sentiment is common for anything not perceived the norm. Its important to discourage sexist, racist, mentality, religious and political elitism or any elitist commentary anywhere.

Elitism in general I find horrendous.

BUT, it's also important that we are able to recognize when someone actually is being elitist. Whenever someone comes on here and says something that could be construed as elitist, we shouldn't be so quick to jump on the "you're a bigot, get off this forum!" gun. A lot of times, people don't even realize that what they're saying is bad and calling them elitist certainly isn't going to help them see differently. Also, there are a lot of people on here with Asperger's who say insensitive stuff without realizing, so that's another reason to be extra careful in getting upset at people you see as "elitist". The best thing to do is calmly explain why what they said might have been inappropriate (essentially the opposite of what I see happening on here a lot of the time). Just my two cents.

Calling them elitist may not always be the best course of action. However, I do believe its important to clarify when a given view or opinion has elitist threads in it. To say X opinion comes across as elitist for X, Y and Z reasons is important both to discourage elitism and to help further understanding and knowledge.

[TheBioNerd]

I'd also add that asexual elitism is the idea that asexuals are more intelligent or evolved than sexuals.

yep, I find that intellect and evolution sentiment is common for anything not perceived the norm. Its important to discourage sexist, racist, mentality, religious and political elitism or any elitist commentary anywhere.

Elitism in general I find horrendous.

BUT, it's also important that we are able to recognize when someone actually is being elitist. Whenever someone comes on here and says something that could be construed as elitist, we shouldn't be so quick to jump on the "you're a bigot, get off this forum!" gun. A lot of times, people don't even realize that what they're saying is bad and calling them elitist certainly isn't going to help them see differently. Also, there are a lot of people on here with Asperger's who say insensitive stuff without realizing, so that's another reason to be extra careful in getting upset at people you see as "elitist". The best thing to do is calmly explain why what they said might have been inappropriate (essentially the opposite of what I see happening on here a lot of the time). Just my two cents.

Calling them elitist may not always be the best course of action. However, I do believe its important to clarify when a given view or opinion has elitist threads in it. To say X opinion comes across as elitist for X, Y and Z reasons is important both to discourage elitism and to help further understanding and knowledge.

I agree, but one must be very careful how they word it so as not to come off as being angry or harsh. That ends up causing unnecessary arguments that could very easily have been avoided had assumptions not been made about the offending post. On this site and elsewhere, I've seen many arguments started not because someone posted something negative, but because someone got upset at a post they took to be negative.

The part in your post I bolded is the reason why I think it's so important to be kind to posters who have come off as being elitist. By calling them elitist and getting upset with them, you're essentially shutting up some very good conversation that really has to happen. I'm not sure that even throwing around the word "elitist" is helpful at all, even if you're just saying the post might have come off that way. I personally find it annoying when people are even implying I might have said something elitist because I have never said anything with that intention in my life. Tell me you disagree and why. Don't say that my thoughts and opinions sound elitist because that makes me feel like a bad person just for thinking.

Sorry that got a little "rant-y" but I have very strong opinions when it comes to free expression. This site can get a little too PC for my taste at times and I think it's important for all of us to keep our heads about us.

[PiF]

I agree bio in that some use "elitist" as a shut down term and it rarely helps, erasure is another one.

I see some Asexuals in a really happy place sharing their happiness but then have some throw elitist at them. Do we have a term for a 100% Asexual? It would appear the terms "real" or True" offend some.

So would a better term be 100% or complete? I do feel we need a term. We have terms for those who feel partial asexuality but non who are full time Asexuals.

This would then allow those who are 100% to feel an equal part of the Asexual community without having The misunderstanding of elitism thrown at them.

Or perhaps we need to educate our own community to understand that it's okay to celebrate our own asexuality. I'd hate to think we would walk down a path where 100% Asexuals felt they could not interact within Asexual communities. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this in a term correct way but hope my direction is understandable as I do not wish to cause offense.

[ThaHoward]

What is 100% Asexuals? That alone imply that some are "better", "purer" or "more" asexual than others. And that is basically the root in the problem of elitism; that some claim to be the "perfect" version of a thing or because some are "more complete" they are somehow better than others.

I agree that the asexual elitist label is thrown around a little too much, and many times when it do not to be so, but when you at the same time argue that some are "100%" asexual, as opposed to most of AVEN, you're indeed having asexual elitist values and arguments, and it is therefore difficult to see your post objectviely as it clearly are arguing that a few asexuals are more "pure" than the rest "quasi-asexuals".

And if two persons don't experience sexual attraction, how is one of them i.e 90% asexualk while the other is 70%? How do we measure this? Do we measure this with homosexuals too? Do a homosexual need to follow all the stereotypes to be 100% homosexual? Is a masculine homosexual oly 50% homosexual, while a feminime heterosexual is 45% homosexual? I find it difficult to measure degree of sexualityin percentage, especially when the defining factor is simply who one get sexually attracted to, if at all, and not what one decide to do with their lives. Actions don't define sexual orientation, it might define sexual identity, but it do not define sexual orientation.

So I'm curios, could you please give me a complete list of the various degrees of asexuality? I want every percentage and what define that specific percentage, and what contrast it to the percentage up and down. For me at least, everyone who don't experience sexual attraction is asexual. Unfortunately, those who do not think so and that others are "more" asexual than others (whatever that means) is what, intentionally or not, creates asexual elitism and friction.

[PiF]

Hi tha

I don't believe in percentages either and when giving the 100% as a term it was more to find a better explanation/term for a full time asexual.

My point was an enquiring one more than anything which has largely been raised by the over use of the elitist term and I wondered about others opinions and points of view.

[ThaHoward]

Hi tha

I don't believe in percentages either and when giving the 100% as a term it was more to find a better explanation/term for a full time asexual.

My point was an enquiring one more than anything which has largely been raised by the over use of the elitist term and I wondered about others opinions and points of view.

So then we're back to the same issue then, what is a full time asexual? How do full time asexuals contrast part time (whatever that is?) asexuals?

Don't get me wrong, I actually think most here are using the "asexual elitism" card too much and when it is not elitism. And I also have many concerns with for example sexual elitism (in lack of a better word, but basically that sexals are always favored and are made "holy", but asexuals can be critised as much as we please to), but I still don't see how some can be more asexual than others.

[conchyjoe]

I feel romantic attraction to men but not physical/sexual attraction. I do feel physical/sexual attraction to women, but then not romantic. I don't want to have sex with either men or women.. so I feel very confused!