Jump to content
KAGU143

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

Recommended Posts

sips

never felt superior. Why should I? Only reason I could find is the churches wiew and I don't agree with that at all. Also I can't stop eating chocolate so it's not like I have controle over myself or anything like that :rolleyes:

can't see any reason at all to be proud or emberrassed over things we can't controle anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sommer

Here is the exact definition for asexuality: "Asexuality (also known as nonsexuality), in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction or the lack of interest and desire for sex. Sometimes, it is considered a lack of a sexual orientation. One commonly cited study placed the incidence rate of asexuality at 1%. So, yes, lack of desire and interest also defines an asexual. ~ I find some men and women attractive, yet have NO sexual urges within me. If one has NO libido, doesn't that account for being asexual? According to that definition, it sure does!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
w-w-e

I am really happy this subject will not die. First of all because if it was dead way back, you would not be writing this. Second, I would not be reading it. And third I would not have had such a quick understanding of who I am and why it's totally ok.

The itch metaphore was what cleared it all up for me. I do experience that from time to time, but I have no desire to be intimate/have sex with someone to "fix it". For now, I am perfectly ok with being alone. Relizing that my asexuality is actually hurting to some sexuals, I prefer to be just me for a while now. What will happen in the future, I have no idea. But I know I will not be pressured to try to live as a sexual just because it is the "right thing in life" og not to be hurtful. I'd rather be alone forever and answer to nobody.

That insight made me feel just marvellous :-)

Maybe because I also really like a lot of alone time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
articvibe

Haha yay for this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nameless123

I have the feeling asexual elitism has begun to include not just people who think that asexuals aren't asexual when they have sex, but people who think that asexuals should possibly be repulsed by sex personally, hate sex in general and/or hate all other people for having sex. Also being romantic seems to disqualify a person's asexuality in some people's minds. I don't get it.

This sort of trench warfare about who is the most asexual and thereby gets the most marginalized among all the other not-really-true-asexuals who are romantic and/or don't hate sex and/or even have it is really tiring.

Just my two cents. Maybe I've just read all the wrong threads.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatrix

Frankly, I tend to think that "asexual elitism" covers broadly the entire range of people challenging other people's asexuality as somehow more or less valid for various reasons. And for the record, have totally seen people argue that all asexuals should be indifferent--there was a thread implying that last week--and have also seen people say pretty shitty things about aromantics. Hang around here long enough, you'll see people try to place whatever their specific flavor of asexuality is as the only "real" asexuality. Which, you know, is shitty.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nameless123

Frankly, I tend to think that "asexual elitism" covers broadly the entire range of people challenging other people's asexuality as somehow more or less valid for various reasons. And for the record, have totally seen people argue that all asexuals should be indifferent--there was a thread implying that last week--and have also seen people say pretty shitty things about aromantics. Hang around here long enough, you'll see people try to place whatever their specific flavor of asexuality is as the only "real" asexuality. Which, you know, is shitty.

Agreed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

I think this kind of internecine battling happened to gays/lesbians during the early days when they were trying to gain visibility/respect, but I'm not sure. If so, we could count it as a way station to public acceptance. Maybe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blitzentan

I think there are almost as many 'definitions' of asexuality as we have members. It has become worse over the years, but I suppose it's the 'nature of the beast' as it grows and evolves. There have been times when I thought that it was 'one change too much' and I was about to leave - but AVEN has meant too much to me for too long. I still believe in AVEN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

I think there are almost as many 'definitions' of asexuality as we have members. It has become worse over the years, but I suppose it's the 'nature of the beast' as it grows and evolves. There have been times when I thought that it was 'one change too much' and I was about to leave - but AVEN has meant too much to me for too long. I still believe in AVEN.

You cannot leave, Tan. Sit Stay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sciatrix

Oh, for fuck's sake. There's only one AVEN definition of asexuality: the failure to experience sexual attraction. I see Rabger's model once in a blue moon, but it means very close to the same thing.

Sally: If I remember correctly, there was and is infighting about gender performance and campness making gay people look bad, and also some factions seeing trans people as playing straight into the stereotypes that gay people "really" wanted to be a member of the opposite sex. Also, the mess about bisexual people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

Oh, for fuck's sake. There's only one AVEN definition of asexuality: the failure to experience sexual attraction. I see Rabger's model once in a blue moon, but it means very close to the same thing.

Sally: If I remember correctly, there was and is infighting about gender performance and campness making gay people look bad, and also some factions seeing trans people as playing straight into the stereotypes that gay people "really" wanted to be a member of the opposite sex. Also, the mess about bisexual people.

Ah yes, now I remember in the early 90s when I worked with ActUp, no one seemed to believe there was such a thing as bisexuality; they thought bisexuals were just gutless closet gays. That was the guys; the women didn't feel that way. And some of the "straight" gay guys were disgusted with campy guys and vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ace of Swords

Oh, for fuck's sake. There's only one AVEN definition of asexuality: the failure to experience sexual attraction. I see Rabger's model once in a blue moon, but it means very close to the same thing.

Sally: If I remember correctly, there was and is infighting about gender performance and campness making gay people look bad, and also some factions seeing trans people as playing straight into the stereotypes that gay people "really" wanted to be a member of the opposite sex. Also, the mess about bisexual people.

Ah yes, now I remember in the early 90s when I worked with ActUp, no one seemed to believe there was such a thing as bisexuality; they thought bisexuals were just gutless closet gays. That was the guys; the women didn't feel that way. And some of the "straight" gay guys were disgusted with campy guys and vice versa.

:blink: Some people are very stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

Oh, for fuck's sake. There's only one AVEN definition of asexuality: the failure to experience sexual attraction. I see Rabger's model once in a blue moon, but it means very close to the same thing.

Sally: If I remember correctly, there was and is infighting about gender performance and campness making gay people look bad, and also some factions seeing trans people as playing straight into the stereotypes that gay people "really" wanted to be a member of the opposite sex. Also, the mess about bisexual people.

Ah yes, now I remember in the early 90s when I worked with ActUp, no one seemed to believe there was such a thing as bisexuality; they thought bisexuals were just gutless closet gays. That was the guys; the women didn't feel that way. And some of the "straight" gay guys were disgusted with campy guys and vice versa.

:blink: Some people are very stupid.

Most of them weren't stupid -- some were simply ignorant (just because you're part of a minority doesn't mean you understand other minorities) and others were just human beings trying to protect some visibility ground that they'd worked very hard to stand on, and they didn't want other people messing around with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hermathena

I totally agree with this post.

I loved the piece with the itch. Its exactly how I feel about this issue although I would have never found the correct wording myself to describe it

I hope the post will be pinned and stay here for a long time.

clap-hands.jpg?psid=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_scientist

Here is the exact definition for asexuality: "Asexuality (also known as nonsexuality), in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction or the lack of interest and desire for sex. Sometimes, it is considered a lack of a sexual orientation. One commonly cited study placed the incidence rate of asexuality at 1%. So, yes, lack of desire and interest also defines an asexual. ~ I find some men and women attractive, yet have NO sexual urges within me. If one has NO libido, doesn't that account for being asexual? According to that definition, it sure does!

Nonlibidoists are asexual but not all asexuals are nonlibidoists. If an asexual (libido or not) has sex, they're still asexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sommer

Here is the exact definition for asexuality: "Asexuality (also known as nonsexuality), in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction or the lack of interest and desire for sex. Sometimes, it is considered a lack of a sexual orientation. One commonly cited study placed the incidence rate of asexuality at 1%. So, yes, lack of desire and interest also defines an asexual. ~ I find some men and women attractive, yet have NO sexual urges within me. If one has NO libido, doesn't that account for being asexual? According to that definition, it sure does!

Nonlibidoists are asexual but not all asexuals are nonlibidoists. If an asexual (libido or not) has sex, they're still asexual.

Exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pandoren

I recognise that definition. You got it off wikipedia. That's hardly the epitome of solid truth. One person could have written that. Hell, I could go over there, edit it, and write in my own definition of asexuality. I think the collective opinion of AVEN is more reliable (well, I know it seems to have evolved...) than one citation off an easily changed website. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if it was put on wikipedia by someone from AVEN in the first place.

I probably am guilty of asexual elitism to a degree (and have been accused of it before) because I do put people in neat little boxes and someone who says they experience sexual attraction but have a low libido I would put in the box of "low libido [prefix]sexual" or, if it was really disassociating them from society, grey-a. I am a staunch believer in the definition of "doesn't experience sexual attraction" and within that the ranges of non-libidoist to libidoist, aromantic to romantic. It think it depends on how you view asexuality. I view it as a sexual orientation, therefore it makes the most sense to me to use the above definition because that is an orientation. Someone who experiences sexual attraction but has a low libido has, by that, a different orientation. As we've taken great pains to say on the forum, sexual attraction and libido are two different things and we don't just have libido problems when we say we are ace. I still say that sexual attraction and libido are two different things.

And now I'm probably going to get shouted at.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

I recognise that definition. You got it off wikipedia. That's hardly the epitome of solid truth. One person could have written that. Hell, I could go over there, edit it, and write in my own definition of asexuality. I think the collective opinion of AVEN is more reliable (well, I know it seems to have evolved...) than one citation off an easily changed website. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if it was put on wikipedia by someone from AVEN in the first place.

I probably am guilty of asexual elitism to a degree (and have been accused of it before) because I do put people in neat little boxes and someone who says they experience sexual attraction but have a low libido I would put in the box of "low libido [prefix]sexual" or, if it was really disassociating them from society, grey-a. I am a staunch believer in the definition of "doesn't experience sexual attraction" and within that the ranges of non-libidoist to libidoist, aromantic to romantic. It think it depends on how you view asexuality. I view it as a sexual orientation, therefore it makes the most sense to me to use the above definition because that is an orientation. Someone who experiences sexual attraction but has a low libido has, by that, a different orientation. As we've taken great pains to say on the forum, sexual attraction and libido are two different things and we don't just have libido problems when we say we are ace. I still say that sexual attraction and libido are two different things.

And now I'm probably going to get shouted at.

Not by me; I agree. Attraction to another person and libido are very different.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

I agree. I have a very high libido but lack any sort of sexual attraction towards others

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Housecat Jaguar

Sorry for being new and dumb, but if you're still attracted to people on occasion but don't want to do anything with them (like me), what does that count as? :huh:

Again, sorry, I'm just plenty confused about myself and how/if I fit in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Housecat Jaguar

I agree. I have a very high libido but lack any sort of sexual attraction towards others

I think I'm vaguely similar. Do you find anyone "pretty" or is it flat-out DGAF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pandoren

It depends on what kind of attraction you are talking about. If it's sexual attraction, look up "grey-A" and see if you relate to any of that. If it is just that you find people nice to look at, we call that "aesthetic" attraction and that doesn't stop you from qualifying as asexual.

(PS I like that avatar... someone else on the site already has it ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Sorry for being new and dumb, but if you're still attracted to people on occasion but don't want to do anything with them (like me), what does that count as? :huh:

Again, sorry, I'm just plenty confused about myself and how/if I fit in here.

Ya I think that's just aesthetic attraction. Even as a romantic asexual I'm still pretty picky on looks and who I want to date

I agree. I have a very high libido but lack any sort of sexual attraction towards others

I think I'm vaguely similar. Do you find anyone "pretty" or is it flat-out DGAF?

Well I can tell when someone is attractive, good looking, or pretty for girls. If I'm romantically attracted to a guy I will use the word cute or adorable. I'll never use sexy to describe someone. I have said hot before but even that feels weird to say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you*hear*but*do*you*listen

I recognise that definition. You got it off wikipedia. That's hardly the epitome of solid truth. One person could have written that. Hell, I could go over there, edit it, and write in my own definition of asexuality. I think the collective opinion of AVEN is more reliable (well, I know it seems to have evolved...) than one citation off an easily changed website. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if it was put on wikipedia by someone from AVEN in the first place.

I probably am guilty of asexual elitism to a degree (and have been accused of it before) because I do put people in neat little boxes and someone who says they experience sexual attraction but have a low libido I would put in the box of "low libido [prefix]sexual" or, if it was really disassociating them from society, grey-a. I am a staunch believer in the definition of "doesn't experience sexual attraction" and within that the ranges of non-libidoist to libidoist, aromantic to romantic. It think it depends on how you view asexuality. I view it as a sexual orientation, therefore it makes the most sense to me to use the above definition because that is an orientation. Someone who experiences sexual attraction but has a low libido has, by that, a different orientation. As we've taken great pains to say on the forum, sexual attraction and libido are two different things and we don't just have libido problems when we say we are ace. I still say that sexual attraction and libido are two different things.

And now I'm probably going to get shouted at.

Not by me; I agree. Attraction to another person and libido are very different.

I also agree completely. How does the experience of the body's base, emotionless desire for sexual gratification make a person who doesn't experience sexual attraction not asexual??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alexoiknine

I've definitely seen this a lot in online forums. Where your actions mean that regardless of your lack of sexual attraction, you must be sexual in order to do anything sexual, which just isn't true.

My problem with people using the "no libido but sexually attracted" situation is that sexual drive can often be altered by a variety of things.

I have, admittedly, told someone that their thoughts didn't make them asexual once. However, that's because they were admittedly being sexually avoidant of one person, whereas they said with everyone else they'd probably be fine. Basically, "That person turns me off of sex."

But obviously, that's a bit different, because people in that situation are sort of pushing some stereotypes sexual people have of asexuality than really representing a realistic factor of asexuality. I also dislike when people do that sort of thing because then they sit there and talk about "becoming" asexual as a result of hormone replacement therapy, birth control medication, antidepressants, and a variety of other things psychological, physiological, medical, etc. that are all well known for causing a change in sex drive.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pamcakes

Sorry for being new and dumb, but if you're still attracted to people on occasion but don't want to do anything with them (like me), what does that count as? :huh:

Again, sorry, I'm just plenty confused about myself and how/if I fit in here.

Oooh, he has my avatar!

Hooray for the proliferation of Spock's Milkshake!

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_scientist

Sorry for being new and dumb, but if you're still attracted to people on occasion but don't want to do anything with them (like me), what does that count as? :huh:

Again, sorry, I'm just plenty confused about myself and how/if I fit in here.

Ya I think that's just aesthetic attraction. Even as a romantic asexual I'm still pretty picky on looks and who I want to date

It does sound like aesthetic attraction, but it's hard to tell from so little information. It's something you have to figure out yourself, I'm afraid.

(Also remember that even if it is sexual attraction, you might share many of the same issues as asexuals and find AVEN a valuable resource anyway. AVEN isn't sexual-exclusive.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
under_the_radar

So glad this topic is up, erases TONS of confusion! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blankblankblank

Oh. I thought that "asexual elitism" meant feeling you are more mature/better than everybody else because you are more concerned with saving the world or improving yourself or some other worthy pursuit than with sex [which seems to me to be out of proportion priority-wise in the world].

[...]

Though having learned what an acer is in the last day or two and joining AVEN I'm starting to realize that asexuality is just an orientation like other people have orientations, not ... some feature that makes me unique and wiser than [other people]. I guess [non-acer] people don't have a "problem" after all. Funny, isn't it, that being in this oddball minority it's me that has to work on understanding the sexually oriented people and not putting down the "normal" folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...