Turunah Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 "Sexual attraction" is itself a problematic term, which I think deserves to be further problematized. While it's a good try, I don't find the AVENwiki's definition very instructive and have a feeling it may even be inaccurate. Unfortunately I don't have a better one in mind. Bingo! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 If they get the itch and would prefer no help from anybody in scratching it, we call them asexual. Is "prefer" the right word here? It's ambiguous as to whether what is meant is "would choose no help from anybody in scratching it" or "have no desire for help from anybody in scratching it." "Sexual attraction" is itself a problematic term, which I think deserves to be further problematized. While it's a good try, I don't find the AVENwiki's definition very instructive and have a feeling it may even be inaccurate. Unfortunately I don't have a better one in mind. If a person is: heteroromantic heterosensual heteroaesthetic heterolibinous heteropornovoyeuristic heterofantasistic Might it perhaps be fair to define heterosexual broadly enough to incorporate such a person, rather than define it narrowly and broaden the definition of asexuality? Given a pair of such people who are a couple, they might both prefer to ignore their itches or to address them alone, but why? The questions might seem to imply it, but actually I'm not an asexual definitional inclusionist or exclusionist: I'm agnostic, undecided or questioning on the matter. Good heavens. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Member33070 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Interesting argument, Toff. I don't have any suggestions, myself... I do think a lot of people get confused by the term "sexual attraction". Seriously! I've been kicking around this forum for six years, on and off, and I get confused about it sometimes still. *shrug* But I still agree that being asexual (or not) doesn't make me any better than anyone else (or not), I just am... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Toff Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 "Sexual attraction" is itself a problematic term, which I think deserves to be further problematized. While it's a good try, I don't find the AVENwiki's definition very instructive and have a feeling it may even be inaccurate. Unfortunately I don't have a better one in mind. Bingo! Bingo that nobody here has come up with a better one? One place to start, and maybe it's been done before(?), would be to review the definitions that appear in general and specialist dictionaries. The Oxford English Dictionary, for example, has "sexual attraction n. sexual allure; (an) attraction based on sexual instinct or sexual desire." It appears under special use 2 "S2. With the sense ‘relating to sexual contact or activity’." under the definition of sexual. Much as I admire the OED, that definition isn't all that instructive either! It leaves one asking what "sexual allure," "sexual instinct" or "sexual desire" are, precisely. The OED is pretty authoritative as far as English dictionaries go, so there may be little use in consulting other general use dictionaries. If specialist dictionaries (ones of sexology, psychology, etc.) don't have a definition of "sexual attraction," that in itself would be interesting to note. Then move to general and specialist encyclopedias, etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
S.. Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 *reads title* ASEXUAL ELITISM! WOOOOOO! *tosses fist into the air* *reads the rest of the title* *lowers fist* Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Turunah Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I also think we have neither the precise definition of what constitutes "sexual." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
S.. Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 When I hear sexual, I hear the definition: "Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Turunah Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 When I hear sexual, I hear the definition: "Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity." Only changing sexual for erotic. Definitions are useful maintenance releases, but always go in a circle Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Toff Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 When I hear sexual, I hear the definition: "Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity." Only changing sexual for erotic. Definitions are useful maintenance releases, but always go in a circle "Maintenance releases"? Howso? Eroticism doesn't necessary involve sex, e.g. "Of or pertaining to the passion of love; concerned with or treating of love; amatory" (OED), so that word might foster more confusion rather than reduce it. There's an entry for "sexual attraction" in the Encyclopedia of Human Relationships from Sage Publications, 2009. It employs a number of terms in the course of defining that: passionate love, companionate love, sexual desire, sexual behavior, sexual feelings, sexual compliance/consensual unwanted sex, sexual motives, and more. While they don't appear to address asexuals, some people who have identified as asexuals have said they have passionate love, sexual desire (e.g. masturbation), sexual behavior (e.g. kissing, petting), sexual compliance.... "Sexual feelings" is not defined very clearly, so I don't know about that. Aesthetic components are noted, and cultural influence on those. People might find it an interesting article, even if they might disagree with it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Turunah Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 "Maintenance releases"? Howso? Wikipedia: A maintenance release (also minor release) is a release of a product that does not add new features or content. Definitions are mere makeup. A definition pulls another, it pulls another, etc ... an endless cycle. Never a word conveys the idea. Only direct experience. If the brazilian builds a catalog of experiences he would classify as sex, a chinese could build a different, an Arab another. What was sex in a century may be only half of what is sex in other century. And the difference between sexual and erotic is lost in it too. Let's be clear? Sex is just penetration and erotic is the left? What are the limits between what is foreplay to sex and sex itself? And where the line between sex and "love"? Eroticism doesn't necessary involve sex, Love (romanticism) doesn't necessary involve erotism. Etc... Etc... This language game is how that buch of Windows updates, you have to wait a long time and then realize that nothing has changed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Turunah Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Sorry for the double posts. Before there sexology (recent discipline), the discussion about the difference between the romantic, erotic and sex was a matter of literary criticism. There was a time when the limit of the romantic in terms of the human body, was only the face, eyes, hair, feet and (gently), mouth and hands. The erotic lay ankles, forearms and chest covered, for insinuating something more intimate and spicy. Outside there was pornographic literature. After the legs and bust won the public space and could no longer fulfill that function merely suggestive. The boundary between the romantic and the erotic was blurring, as well as the erotic and the pornographic. I had not even old enough to watch the movie "Ai no korida" ("In the Realm of the Senses," 1976). It was concluded, in that time and here in Brazil, as a pornographic movie. But the wikipedia describes it today as an "erotic drama" and also says that the controversy generated by this movie was due to scenes of "non-simulated sex" (explicit sex), rather than just eroticism. I suggest reading what Wikipedia says about "erotic": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Toff Posted June 30, 2011 Share Posted June 30, 2011 Wikipedia: A maintenance release (also minor release) is a release of a product that does not add new features or content. Definitions are mere makeup. A definition pulls another, it pulls another, etc ... an endless cycle. Never a word conveys the idea. Only direct experience. If the brazilian builds a catalog of experiences he would classify as sex, a chinese could build a different, an Arab another. What was sex in a century may be only half of what is sex in other century. And the difference between sexual and erotic is lost in it too. Let's be clear? Sex is just penetration and erotic is the left? What are the limits between what is foreplay to sex and sex itself? And where the line between sex and "love"? Eroticism doesn't necessary involve sex, Love (romanticism) doesn't necessary involve erotism. Etc... Etc... This language game is how that buch of Windows updates, you have to wait a long time and then realize that nothing has changed. I think I understand what you wrote about different cultural definitions of sexual behavior and I think I agree. I'm unfortunately still not quite sure what you mean about definitions being maintenance releases. I don't have much regard for Wikipedia. An encyclopedia ought to be more selective about who can write and edit it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
1Eleven1 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I don't think that could have been said better! Nice post and I agree completely. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sommer Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I believe asexuality can be defined as lack of sexual attraction AND/OR no libido. I, myself, do experience attraction at times but I never want/desire sex or think about it. Am I considered an elitist? I don't think so. I classify myself a non-libidoist asexual. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PiF Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 see i understand two versions of asexual elitism 1st one..and something that happens far to often in aven..is when some who claim to be asexual say stuff like..them damm sexuals...fuckin sexuals piss me right off...why do sexuals do that etc the other..of which I am a bit partial too on occasion... is like when some try and manipulate the meaning of an asexuality to suit thier own version because it does not fit with the true definition of not feeling sexual attraction yes some of us who do practice that..on occasion..can be seen as elitist..but i care not as it generally turns out that those saying it..aren't true asexuals after all..which although annoying is okay by me Quote Link to post Share on other sites
S.. Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 "True" asexuals? That sounds like pure-blood vs mud-blood to me :lol: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PiF Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 more confirmed and assured ..than halfway confused dipping your toe in the pool types Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RandomDent Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I don't think PiF means 'true asexual ' in the sense of "You can't even look at your own body because that's not asexual enough for us". I think they mean the people transitioning through sexualities (being fluid, if you will) and there are differing opinions of it. Whilst we at AVEN are more understanding, in general, of sexuality fluidity and spectrums, the average person isn't. To them it can look like someone 'grew out of asexuality', a diagnosis we're constantly fighting against. But we can't blame the people changing, just the people unwilling to understand. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I believe asexuality can be defined as lack of sexual attraction AND/OR no libido. Some people on antidepressants experience complete lack of libido. That doesn't make them asexual. Some asexuals experience libido, masturbate, and enjoy porn. That doesn't make them sexual. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
S.. Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I believe asexuality can be defined as lack of sexual attraction AND/OR no libido. Some people on antidepressants experience complete lack of libido. That doesn't make them asexual. Some asexuals experience libido, masturbate, and enjoy porn. That doesn't make them sexual. I find this to be well stated. Also, Sommer, I understand what you mean, but I was just wanting to point out that there is no need to talk if someone is a "true" asexual, since anyone is free to use the label if they feel it applies to them. All we can do is decide on the overall meaning of the label. People who are fluid may be asexual at some point, and then not asexual. I do not see any need to say that they were not true asexuals, when in fact they might have been quite that provided that they were honest about their feelings and thoughts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Alizarin Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I would say that AVEN is far more sexualy elitist than any single person, because as an organisation it seeks to define my sexuality for me, which it has no business doing. It has no mandate...I haven't voted for anything.... I identified as asexual 20 years before AVEN existed, so I find it a bit rich for AVEN to wander along as a johnny-come-lately to the whole scene and say "asexuality is "this" and if you don't agree, we will label you with the passive/aggressive title of "Sexually Elitist" No-one is the boss of me and my sexuality is mine and mine alone to define, however important AVEN might wish to believe that it is. My spelling is truly awful, by the way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GirlDreamer Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I'm sorry you feel that way, but AVEN will never label anyone as anything. Only the person it concerns can label themselves. If you don't agree with the definitions used here, that's fine, no one will make you use them. And I believe it's important to have a definition of asexuality so we can make it more visible and more accepted. Far from everyone will fit neatly into a label, myself included. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I would say that AVEN is far more sexualy elitist than any single person, because as an organisation it seeks to define my sexuality for me, which it has no business doing. It has no mandate...I haven't voted for anything.... I identified as asexual 20 years before AVEN existed, so I find it a bit rich for AVEN to wander along as a johnny-come-lately to the whole scene and say "asexuality is "this" and if you don't agree, we will label you with the passive/aggressive title of "Sexually Elitist" No-one is the boss of me and my sexuality is mine and mine alone to define, however important AVEN might wish to believe that it is. My spelling is truly awful, by the way. Your spelling is fine but your logic isn't. AVEN as a website defines asexuality, generally, as a lack of sexual attraction to other people. You may define yourself however you choose. I identified as asexual (although I didn't know there was a name for it) many more than 20 years before AVEN existed, and I have no problem with AVEN's definition just because I am older than AVEN. That's pretty irrelevant. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pandoren Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 I think the problem with pre-AVEN definitions is that it was pretty much "pick your own". "Asexual" could mean so many things based on the opinion of the person using it and those definitions (and the exclusivity of them, for example some believed you had to be entirely sexless, romanticless, libidoless etc) often conflicted with each other, so there wasn't really room for more than one definition. While not all people may agree with the current AVEN definition, it has chosen one definition and become a central hub whereby that definition can be well known. Technically speaking, AVEN only became popular because people agreed with AVEN- they could just as easily have joined one of the several other sites around at the time AVEN was created and made one of those the central hub with their definition, but they didn't. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JustLunar Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Thank you. Just seeing that this topic is being addressed makes me feel 100 times more comfortable. During my initial identity search, I turned away from this site due to asexual elitism. As a borderline gray-A, I'm glad to see there is a motion towards greater acceptance. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PiF Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 the site is..and should always be..nothing other than an information site for those searching for a yes or no answer to asexuality sometimes people are wrapped up in thier own must haves they forget to think a year down the line to promote asexuality as a whole rather than just...i am important and no one else is today to be fair all forums suffer from this and it is not just aven Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Marrs Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 All of humanity and every group that is comprised of human beings (and those not) suffers from elitism. Elitism occurs because of the egotism PiF mentions above. Elitism will never be absent but measures to minimize it are always commendable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bambie111 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 An asexual elitist is simply somebody who thinks that asexuality is defined by sexual behavior rather that by sexual attraction. Definitions of Asexuality are: Aven: An asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction. Oxford dictionary: a person who has no sexual feelings or desires. Wikipedia: is the lack of sexual attraction and the lack of interest in and desire for sex. I tend to agree with gbrd143 but I can also see why an elitist would make such a statement. If we look at the definitions of homosexuality and heterosexuality they are defined in terms of attraction also. But the problem here is, we can never prove our desire or attraction to another person, we can make a statement about it, but can never prove it true. On the other hand. A sexual act can be proven to exist. We can see it, hear it, smell it, feel it and taste it. Therefore, if you tell me you have no sexual attraction towards another person but if I then see you having sex with another person, what am I to think? If you tell me you are heterosexual and I see you having sex with somebody of your own sex, what am I to think about your original statement? The only reference point I have in regards to this is myself. I have no sexual attraction towards others. And I can't remember when I last had sex. I can actually, but it was years and years ago, and I didn't want to do it, I just felt obliged to do it, because the girl basically threw herself at me and I didn't want to hurt her feelings. I'm beginning to think asexuality is a disease. I wish I could fall in love and have sexual desires for somebody, that would be great. But I just don't have it. Jokingly I thought if I took viagra it would solve my problem. But I don't think viagra would give me desire. Instead I would just be some guy walking around, in a pretty dress, with an erection and not really wanting to do anything about it or even knowing what to do. Bambie111 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest member25959 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 An asexual elitist is simply somebody who thinks that asexuality is defined by sexual behavior rather that by sexual attraction. Definitions of Asexuality are: Aven: An asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction. Oxford dictionary: a person who has no sexual feelings or desires. Wikipedia: is the lack of sexual attraction and the lack of interest in and desire for sex. I tend to agree with gbrd143 but I can also see why an elitist would make such a statement. I can also see why newbies would make such statements. My only issue is that, even after being repeatedly told what the correct definition is, on the forums and in the chatroom. More often than not, they're still reluctant to adopt the actual, official definition of Asexuality. Anyways, it's probably not a good idea for me to cut into the thread discussion right in the middle, stating the oblivious :lol: *sneaks into back JFF* Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Therefore, if you tell me you have no sexual attraction towards another person but if I then see you having sex with another person, what am I to think? You are to think that I am not sexually attracted to other people, but for other reasons you may not know or understand, I am having sex with a person. In other words, you are to take me at my word that I am asexual, and not challenge me about it. If you tell me you are heterosexual and I see you having sex with somebody of your own sex, what am I to think about your original statement? You may think what you wish, but the answer's the same: you have no right to challenge anyone's statement about themselves. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.