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

[Cage]

I get the elitist treatment from non-asexuals. A close friend of mine asked me how I can be asexual since I masturbate like it's my last day on earth.

My simple answer is that actions do not dictate how I identify. Sometimes they reflect who I am, but I do things all the time I don't think prove me to be one thing, or another.

(sorry, just had to add my two-cents in)

[Pasithea]

I see this is a super old post but omg you said it. Sexuality is generally defined by one's attractions (or lack thereof), NOT their actions! I have been to plenty of debate forums for a long time and have participated quite frequently in GLBT rights and gay marriage rights debates. One issue that always seems to stand out to me is that the opposition (those who oppose equal rights for certain groups) seem to believe that our actions only define our sexuality and that before all that we were just magically asexual. This is so wrong and it drives me crazy! It often leads me to point out, "So you never felt attracted to the opposite sex then? Ever? And then one day you just decided, 'Hey I'm going to be heterosexual *sleeps with opposite sex*, there we go, I did it, now I am officially hetero.'"

It's just so absurd to me that people can think like this! Wonderful post. =)

[Sally]

People have a lot of misinformation about asexuality, but that isn't really elitism. Elitism is when you say, "Because I am X, I am better than you." Asexual elitism is thinking that asexuals are better than sexuals because they are more "pure" or "asexuals can get more done because they don't waste their time on sex", etc.

[Member54880]

x

[RedSpiderLily]

Thanks for making it clear. Something like this needs to be in the public spotlight because asexuality isn't so black and white and everyone is asexual in different ways and society might become judgmental when really, it's not their business. As for myself, I'm still attracted to women, find breasts and bum attractive, still masturbate but my sexual exploits end their because ultimately, I'm fine pleasing myself and when it came down to it, I still wouldn't care about sex if I were in a relationship. Quite truthfully, if I were in a relationship and we would never have sex it wouldn't bother me at all, and that's OK.

I don't think I'm better than anyone else, smarter for my decisions, purer or anything else. I'm simply a person who values relationships for my partner and don't see the importance of sex in that equation. I admit that this is an interesting topic for conversation though.

[Shankie]

People have a lot of misinformation about asexuality, but that isn't really elitism. Elitism is when you say, "Because I am X, I am better than you." Asexual elitism is thinking that asexuals are better than sexuals because they are more "pure" or "asexuals can get more done because they don't waste their time on sex", etc.

That is one form of asexual elitism. Another form, that happens within the asexual community and pits asexuals against each other, is tying sexual behavior to orientation, because it suggests that those who have sex (or have a libido, etc.) aren't 'real' or 'pure' asexuals.

I suppose I'm not really judging anyone, but I don't understand why anybody who has sex would think to identify themselves as asexual. It doesn't seem apt, by definition, I suppose it would be akin to people that refer to themselves as vegetarians but only sometimes. If you still only occasionally eat meat, you are still not a vegetarian, there are no special food requirements that you have that would need special arrangement by friends and others you would dine with, you just have a preference. If you still have a desire to have sex and then do so, you are not asexual, there is no conversation you need to have before a date that says no sex will happen in the relationship. Because if it goes far enough until both parties are suitably prepared, it will, with varying levels of frequency, and that's just normal human behaviour.

If you want to have sex, what is the purpose of calling yourself asexual?

[Frigid Pink]

It seems like you're making an assumption that everyone who has sex desires or wants sex.

[Rising Sun]

People have a lot of misinformation about asexuality, but that isn't really elitism. Elitism is when you say, "Because I am X, I am better than you." Asexual elitism is thinking that asexuals are better than sexuals because they are more "pure" or "asexuals can get more done because they don't waste their time on sex", etc.

That is one form of asexual elitism. Another form, that happens within the asexual community and pits asexuals against each other, is tying sexual behavior to orientation, because it suggests that those who have sex (or have a libido, etc.) aren't 'real' or 'pure' asexuals.

I suppose I'm not really judging anyone, but I don't understand why anybody who has sex would think to identify themselves as asexual. It doesn't seem apt, by definition, I suppose it would be akin to people that refer to themselves as vegetarians but only sometimes. If you still only occasionally eat meat, you are still not a vegetarian, there are no special food requirements that you have that would need special arrangement by friends and others you would dine with, you just have a preference. If you still have a desire to have sex and then do so, you are not asexual, there is no conversation you need to have before a date that says no sex will happen in the relationship. Because if it goes far enough until both parties are suitably prepared, it will, with varying levels of frequency, and that's just normal human behaviour.

If you want to have sex, what is the purpose of calling yourself asexual?

Not having sex, refusing to have sex, it's not asexuality. It's celibacy.

[WhenSummersGone]

People have a lot of misinformation about asexuality, but that isn't really elitism. Elitism is when you say, "Because I am X, I am better than you." Asexual elitism is thinking that asexuals are better than sexuals because they are more "pure" or "asexuals can get more done because they don't waste their time on sex", etc.

That is one form of asexual elitism. Another form, that happens within the asexual community and pits asexuals against each other, is tying sexual behavior to orientation, because it suggests that those who have sex (or have a libido, etc.) aren't 'real' or 'pure' asexuals.

I suppose I'm not really judging anyone, but I don't understand why anybody who has sex would think to identify themselves as asexual. It doesn't seem apt, by definition, I suppose it would be akin to people that refer to themselves as vegetarians but only sometimes. If you still only occasionally eat meat, you are still not a vegetarian, there are no special food requirements that you have that would need special arrangement by friends and others you would dine with, you just have a preference. If you still have a desire to have sex and then do so, you are not asexual, there is no conversation you need to have before a date that says no sex will happen in the relationship. Because if it goes far enough until both parties are suitably prepared, it will, with varying levels of frequency, and that's just normal human behaviour.

If you want to have sex, what is the purpose of calling yourself asexual?

You don't have to desire or even want sex to have sex. Much like a gay man in a marriage to his wife doesn't make him straight if he's having sex with her. Not having sex is Celibacy or just not having sex, and lack of sexual attraction is Asexuality.

[Lucinda]

Is the example of a gay man married to a woman an extreme one or a common one? Why are gay folks pushing for same sex marriage? Should we just tell them that behavior is not tied to orientation and they could just have sex with women even if they don't want or desire sex with women? Would they agree with you?

If you have sex even if you don't want or desire it, then what is the point of having wants and desires in the first place? If you are going to subsume someone else's desire to direct your behavior, then why "come out" as having differing desires?

On the other hand, if you are participating in a sexual relationship, then you want to be participating in a sexual relationship, am I right?

Lucinda

[Vampyremage]

People have a lot of misinformation about asexuality, but that isn't really elitism. Elitism is when you say, "Because I am X, I am better than you." Asexual elitism is thinking that asexuals are better than sexuals because they are more "pure" or "asexuals can get more done because they don't waste their time on sex", etc.

That is one form of asexual elitism. Another form, that happens within the asexual community and pits asexuals against each other, is tying sexual behavior to orientation, because it suggests that those who have sex (or have a libido, etc.) aren't 'real' or 'pure' asexuals.

I suppose I'm not really judging anyone, but I don't understand why anybody who has sex would think to identify themselves as asexual. It doesn't seem apt, by definition, I suppose it would be akin to people that refer to themselves as vegetarians but only sometimes. If you still only occasionally eat meat, you are still not a vegetarian, there are no special food requirements that you have that would need special arrangement by friends and others you would dine with, you just have a preference. If you still have a desire to have sex and then do so, you are not asexual, there is no conversation you need to have before a date that says no sex will happen in the relationship. Because if it goes far enough until both parties are suitably prepared, it will, with varying levels of frequency, and that's just normal human behaviour.

If you want to have sex, what is the purpose of calling yourself asexual?

You are mixing up action with feeling or motivation. Being a vegetarian or not is based upon what you do or do not eat. If you eat meat you are not a vegetarian whether or not you actually want to eat meat. Being asexual is based upon whether or not you feel sexual attraction and/or have a desire for partnered sex. There are many reasons one might decide to have sex that have nothing to do with either attraction or internal desire. For example, one might decide to have sex with one's partner because they love their partner and want to see them happy. That doesn't change their internal state of being; the fact that they have no innate desire to have that sex nor do they feel any sort of sexual attraction. They would not longer be considered celibate, of course, because that is another definition based upon action, but they would still be considered asexual.

[Shankie]

People have a lot of misinformation about asexuality, but that isn't really elitism. Elitism is when you say, "Because I am X, I am better than you." Asexual elitism is thinking that asexuals are better than sexuals because they are more "pure" or "asexuals can get more done because they don't waste their time on sex", etc.

That is one form of asexual elitism. Another form, that happens within the asexual community and pits asexuals against each other, is tying sexual behavior to orientation, because it suggests that those who have sex (or have a libido, etc.) aren't 'real' or 'pure' asexuals.

I suppose I'm not really judging anyone, but I don't understand why anybody who has sex would think to identify themselves as asexual. It doesn't seem apt, by definition, I suppose it would be akin to people that refer to themselves as vegetarians but only sometimes. If you still only occasionally eat meat, you are still not a vegetarian, there are no special food requirements that you have that would need special arrangement by friends and others you would dine with, you just have a preference. If you still have a desire to have sex and then do so, you are not asexual, there is no conversation you need to have before a date that says no sex will happen in the relationship. Because if it goes far enough until both parties are suitably prepared, it will, with varying levels of frequency, and that's just normal human behaviour.

If you want to have sex, what is the purpose of calling yourself asexual?

You are mixing up action with feeling or motivation. Being a vegetarian or not is based upon what you do or do not eat. If you eat meat you are not a vegetarian whether or not you actually want to eat meat. Being asexual is based upon whether or not you feel sexual attraction and/or have a desire for partnered sex. There are many reasons one might decide to have sex that have nothing to do with either attraction or internal desire. For example, one might decide to have sex with one's partner because they love their partner and want to see them happy. That doesn't change their internal state of being; the fact that they have no innate desire to have that sex nor do they feel any sort of sexual attraction. They would not longer be considered celibate, of course, because that is another definition based upon action, but they would still be considered asexual.

I agree! The comparison of vegetarianism is not perfect, I admit, but it's what I came up with off the top of my head. Celibacy and asexuality certainly aren't the same thing, but also, if an asexual is having sex for other reasons as brought up earlier here, well that's another discussion. That's why I tried to be clear that it was wanting to and then having sex, not merely participating in the act in some way shape or form, was what I was getting at.

That desire is really the crux of it, but I'm asking based on the comment I quoted, in which having a libido is specifically pointed out as not being something that makes someone less asexual. I'm really asking about that.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but if you have a sex drive, you're a sexual person. Even if it's a low sex drive. If I'm just reading into things or something, also stop me, hah, but I was just curious.

[Sally]

On the other hand, if you are participating in a sexual relationship, then you want to be participating in a sexual relationship, am I right?

Lucinda

If you mean that we who participate or have participated in a sexual relationship want to have sex, no, that isn't necessarily true. There are several reasons why we did/do such, and they've been discussed ad infinitum on AVEN for the 6 years I've been here. There's really no need to challenge us, as though we need to check with strangers before we live our lives.

[Rising Sun]

Stop me if I'm wrong, but if you have a sex drive, you're a sexual person. Even if it's a low sex drive. If I'm just reading into things or something, also stop me, hah, but I was just curious.

Sex drive and sexual attraction aren't the same thing at all. If that sex drive was directed to specific persons, then it would be linked to sexual attraction and the person would be sexual. But for asexual people, this sex drive has no direction. And there are sexual people who don't really have a sex drive but still feel sexually attracted to others.

Studies have shown no difference between asexual persons' and sexual persons' sex drive.

[Shankie]

Stop me if I'm wrong, but if you have a sex drive, you're a sexual person. Even if it's a low sex drive. If I'm just reading into things or something, also stop me, hah, but I was just curious.

Sex drive and sexual attraction aren't the same thing at all. If that sex drive was directed to specific persons, then it would be linked to sexual attraction and the person would be sexual. But for asexual people, this sex drive has no direction. And there are sexual people who don't really have a sex drive but still feel sexually attracted to others.

Studies have shown no difference between asexual persons' and sexual persons' sex drive.

I take your point! Although, whenever someone mentions studies without links there's never much to take from that. XD I suppose I've looked at the sex drive of an asexual as not aimed at all, that it never goes anywhere and stays with the individual simmering down instead of going out and latching on to people and getting steamy; no "drive".

[Vampyremage]

That desire is really the crux of it, but I'm asking based on the comment I quoted, in which having a libido is specifically pointed out as not being something that makes someone less asexual. I'm really asking about that.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but if you have a sex drive, you're a sexual person. Even if it's a low sex drive. If I'm just reading into things or something, also stop me, hah, but I was just curious.

Even that's not necessarily true. Its having a sex drive that's pointed in a specific direction that makes one sexual. For example, one might have a libido but that libido is very convent being satisfied solo through masturbation and the like. In that case, one certainly wouldn't be sexual.

[DepressedLPfan]

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.)

This was an awesome explanation. I might have to steal this one day if i need to explain it to someone.

[anon_anonymous]

i feel like people are questioning my sexuality more than i am doing so of myself - which considering i am quite the thinker, seems a little off-putting. just saying...

[alli.efeelink]

It's quite right! I am very excited when I read this article. That makes sense so much! Thanks, that makes me much easier to face to sexuality!

[alli.efeelink]

Libido is just like eating, drinking, I think. It's a type of nature physically.

[LadyNobody]

I like this explanation. I personally have a strong "itch" (to use the current metaphor) but identify as asexual because I'm quite certain I don't want anyone helping me scratch it because... just no. Just the idea makes me itch less.

That actually tripped me up in my identification for a while, until I heard that it was attraction that counted.

Sorry for being a little gross but I figured I'd add a bit of personal experience to the definitions.:)

[artsolace]

I actually wasn't sure what to expect from such a site. I really don't see the need to define something by its negative space, but we do have words like illiterate, asymmetrical, undone, etc, so maybe "asexual" works to explain the endless possibilities of what one could be doing while others are screwing. I dunno. For me, it's art.

[alli.efeelink]

Great topics and I fully agree. Thank you for writing this!

[Sally]

I actually wasn't sure what to expect from such a site. I really don't see the need to define something by its negative space, but we do have words like illiterate, asymmetrical, undone, etc, so maybe "asexual" works to explain the endless possibilities of what one could be doing while others are screwing. I dunno. For me, it's art.

But asexuality isn't really "negative space", since it defines how someone feels. And it doesn't explain anything except how someone feels about having sex with other people. It has nothing to do with what else we might be doing. Some incredibly behaviorally-sexual people pursue/pursued art -- Picasso, for instance.

[Silencer]

Actually some antisexuals on antisex.info, are saying that some of them managed to become asexual (and I mean a true one), so you can't be an asexual by your actions, but you can become one if you are lucky enough.

And yes, I think asexuals are better, why should someone tell me what to think ? Everyone here loves someone more than the other, why I can't do the same ? If I like some asexuals more than other asexuals, it's because of my personal taste in people, and it's my right to do it. So this asexual elitism is kind of a lame excuse to shut people mouths.

[Rising Sun]

These persons are actually sexually repressed (their sexuality remains at an unconscious level in their mind) and this is very unhealthy.

[Member54880]

x

[Sally]

These persons are actually sexually repressed (their sexuality remains at an unconscious level in their mind) and this is very unhealthy.

That's a dicey statement to make, since you don't know the individuals, and you certainly don't have the ability to diagnose the "unconscious" elements of anyone's mind, or decide what is or is not unhealthy for that individual. .

[Rising Sun]

I know people who fight their sexual attraction because they're disgusted or terrified by it and they think that sex is disgusting / impure / whatever (often for religious reasons or because a parent told them during their childhood that sex is bad, so these persons are repressed by the person who told them that sex is bad). Trying to "become asexual" in order to be "pure", that's what I consider unhealthy.

[Sally]

I know people who fight their sexual attraction because they're disgusted or terrified by it and they think that sex is disgusting / impure / whatever (often for religious reasons or because a parent told them during their childhood that sex is bad, so these persons are repressed by the person who told them that sex is bad). Trying to "become asexual" in order to be "pure", that's what I consider unhealthy.

When reression was an imortant sychological concet (sorry for the missing letter), the individual was not consciously aware of that reression. Obviously, if someone knows they're disgusted or terrified by something, they are aware.