Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Beachwalker

I don't think people are either sexual or asexual

Recommended Posts

Beachwalker

I haven't yet found a definition of sexual yet that defines a sexual as someone who feels sexual attraction to people. All the definitions I have found could be applied to asexuals as well. I am not sure if this is already the case but it makes a lot more sense to me to think of the term asexual to describe what type of sexual you are. I don't think it's helpful to think of it as us and them. It now makes more sense to me to say before finding out about asexuality I didn't understand what type of sexual I was, than saying before I found out about asexuality I was a pretend sexual. If we take the perspective all sexuals have the potential capacity to feel sexual attraction but for some sexuals known as asexuals it occurs infrequently if ever, it may lead to more acceptance and less division. I also feel it's important to emphasize that it's possible and normal for the type of sexual you are to change over one's lifetime. I have never felt sexual attraction and I think it's unlikely I ever will but I don't know for a fact it's not going to happen, and if it did it wouldn't mean that I made a mistake and I wasn't really asexual it just means things have changed and shit happens!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027

I don't like being viewed as "sexual" because that's not what I feel like I am. :/

Other than that, I'm not sure I can entirely grasp what you're trying to say here >_> I *think* you're trying to say that you view asexuality itself as a sexual orientation, which I think is a belief that is shared by at least some of the people here. Others view it as the lack of a sexual orientation. Personally, I don't really see the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest member25959

You'll not find a very good definition of 'sexual' anywhere. It's tricky enough finding a good definition of asexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Torraed

It sounds like your suggesting that there's some sort of scale of sexuality along which everyone lies. Perhaps like this?:

0 {Asexual}-----------{Demisexual; Grey-A; Hyposexual * }-----------{Sexual}-----------{Hypersexual?} 1

* I really don't know how one would go about figuring out where these go in relation to one another. It seems like it would vary case by case.

On a scale from zero to one, asexuals would be at zero and the other sexualities would lie somewhere closer to one.

If you're saying that asexuality is like simply having a "zero" sexuality, I don't see how that's much different from saying that it's the lack of sexuality. To me, they sound like the same thing. I suppose if you didn't want to make the "us vs. them" distinction, using this "zero sexuality" explanation would be helpful, but other than that I don't see why one explanation is better than the other. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

I haven't yet found a definition of sexual yet that defines a sexual as someone who feels sexual attraction to people.

Well, you just gave one. :lol:

But I think the reason you haven't is that most people simply asssume that everyone is sexual, so their definition is simply "human".

However, I am definitely not sexual, and I don't think you can claim that everyone is sexual, but just different kinds of sexual. Let us say what we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachwalker

It sounds like your suggesting that there's some sort of scale of sexuality along which everyone lies. Perhaps like this?:

0 {Asexual}-----------{Demisexual; Grey-A; Hyposexual * }-----------{Sexual}-----------{Hypersexual?} 1

* I really don't know how one would go about figuring out where these go in relation to one another. It seems like it would vary case by case.

On a scale from zero to one, asexuals would be at zero and the other sexualities would lie somewhere closer to one.

If you're saying that asexuality is like simply having a "zero" sexuality, I don't see how that's much different from saying that it's the lack of sexuality. To me, they sound like the same thing. I suppose if you didn't want to make the "us vs. them" distinction, using this "zero sexuality" explanation would be helpful, but other than that I don't see why one explanation is better than the other. :/

Yes that's exactly what I mean. I think visibility wise it makes sense to focus on the similarities and not alienate ourselves unnecessarily. For example when explaining what it's like to be asexual to someone who does experience sexual attraction you could get them to pick out someone they don't feel sexually attracted to and say yes I am not sexually attracted to them either the only difference between you and me is I feel that way for everyone.

I think the different types of sexuals are distinct from sexual orientation. For example heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, pansexuals could and do all identify as a different type of sexual distinct from their sexual orientation such as hyper, demi, grey, asexual etc. Anyway this just seemed to make sense to me, I am completely open to other opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

I like the idea of an asexual being another kind of sexual person. In other words, that makes asexuality a sexual orientation, which is how so many on AVEN describe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Safaia

I disagree with this. Personally, I find labels a bit silly and I don't believe there is a need for the term homosexual, bisexual, etc. Why does it matter? You love who you want to, and just because you're say, lesbian, doesn't mean you can't love males.

Asexuality, however, is a term that should be used.

The way I see it, there are sexuals, and there are asexuals. Not just black and white, but you get what I mean.

We're far to different to be included in the other group. Sure, some asexuals have a libido, but then you get people like me who aren't at all sexual, and don't even understand romance. I don't think I should be labeled 'sexual'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Missingpieces

In regards to your last point.

I don't disagree with you in that sexuality can be fluid.

However I think it gets a bit dangerous to emphasise that point.

Some people (many?) would hold the view that if you can change, you should force this change to happen - And as soon as possible, yesterday preferably.

It might lead to more, "you've never tried sex so how can you...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

Calling an Asexual person sexual is like calling bald a hair color, or health a disease.

I do agree with the fluidity of sexuality; personally speaking, I used to be sexual and now I am Asexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachwalker

Calling an Asexual person sexual is like calling bald a hair color, or health a disease.

It depends on what sexual means/implies to an individual, if you see it just as simply meaning anything relating/pertaining to sex or the sexes then I think you can use the word asexual to describe what sort of sexual you are. Similarly a disease could be used to describe someones health status and baldness could be used to describe someones hair status. I understand the word sexual has as many different interpretations and meanings as the word asexual and it does get confusing. If however they think about sex, think about how they don't want sex, think about what it means to them, whether they want sex or not, then the very nature of these thoughts irregardless of any actual sexual actions makes them a type of sexual, in my understanding of what a sexual is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

A sexual is one who experiences sexual attraction, period. Hence why they're called sexuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pamcakes

I really think that whether they feel Ace to be the extreme negative end of sexuality, or something entirely separate, is something that ought to be left up to the individual. I don't think it's an issue that requires an all-encompassing policy, and I think making one is going to alienate whomever doesn't feel it to be true for themselves.

My 5c.

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachwalker

A sexual is one who experiences sexual attraction, period. Hence why they're called sexuals.

I agree the definition of an asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction but the definition of a sexual is not someone who feels sexual attraction, well not that I have come across anywhere else. Going down the path of either or is ok, but I feel it can potentially cause an unhealthy division and alienation, unnecessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

You mean, you've never come across the definition of homosexual as sexually attracted to the same sex? Or the definition of bisexual as sexually attracted to both the same and opposite sex or heterosexual as sexually attracted to the opposite sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachwalker

You mean, you've never come across the definition of homosexual as sexually attracted to the same sex? Or the definition of bisexual as sexually attracted to both the same and opposite sex or heterosexual as sexually attracted to the opposite sex?

Off course I have that's definitions for sexual orientations which is different from a definition of a sexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faelights

You mean, you've never come across the definition of homosexual as sexually attracted to the same sex? Or the definition of bisexual as sexually attracted to both the same and opposite sex or heterosexual as sexually attracted to the opposite sex?

Off course I have that's definitions for sexual orientations which is different from a definition of a sexual.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but many people on AVEN use the word "sexual" informally to refer to people who identify as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc... that is, anyone who doesn't identify as asexual, i.e. anyone who experiences sexual attraction. Because it's an informal definition of "sexual", you're not likely to find it anywhere else that's not an asexual community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

A sexual is one who experiences sexual attraction, period. Hence why they're called sexuals.

I agree the definition of an asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction but the definition of a sexual is not someone who feels sexual attraction, well not that I have come across anywhere else. Going down the path of either or is ok, but I feel it can potentially cause an unhealthy division and alienation, unnecessarily.

None of that makes any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UraNepu

people who are willing to understand asexuality they will

people who are stuck up their nose and living in their wonderful glass bubble will never even try to understand something that doesn't belong to their world

asexual or sexual with 0 sexual attraction are both alien to those who are not willing to understand

people will always deny our existence no matter how hard we try to explain or find other terms to explain (like OP does here in this post)

the definition of asexuality works perfectly for me personally and 90% of the times I came out to someone they where willing to understand and learn. 10% were totally opposed to the idea and showered me with the same old shit: "you haven't found the right person" blah blah blah

what I'm trying to say is, giving a term that shows the difference at once is better than beating around the bush , but that's only my honest opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachwalker

I really think that whether they feel Ace to be the extreme negative end of sexuality, or something entirely separate, is something that ought to be left up to the individual. I don't think it's an issue that requires an all-encompassing policy, and I think making one is going to alienate whomever doesn't feel it to be true for themselves.

My 5c.

P.

But what about the asexuals who do have sex or masturbate they are sexual behaviors. Being sexual encompasses a lot more than merely ones sexual orientation. To say asexuals are not sexuals, but then to say they can have sex, masturbate, think about not having sex as often as nonasexuals do think about it, and want asexuality to be recognized as a sexual orientation is a very difficult concept to grasp. I think visibility wise it's best to keep things as simple as possible, why build bigger walls if a smaller one will suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UraNepu

But what about the asexuals who do have sex or masturbate they are sexual behaviors. Being sexual encompasses a lot more than merely ones sexual orientation. To say asexuals are not sexuals, but then to say they can have sex, masturbate, think about not having sex as often as nonasexuals do think about it, and want asexuality to be recognized as a sexual orientation is a very difficult concept to grasp. I think visibility wise it's best to keep things as simple as possible, why build bigger walls if a smaller one will suffice.

it is not about the action itself but how you feel about it!

for example gays might have sex with the opposite sex for several reasons that doesn't make them less gay nor change their feelings about having sex with someone they are not sexually attracted to

same for asexuals, some might have sex with a partner but still not be sexually attracted to them

that's what makes us asexuals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachwalker

But what about the asexuals who do have sex or masturbate they are sexual behaviors. Being sexual encompasses a lot more than merely ones sexual orientation. To say asexuals are not sexuals, but then to say they can have sex, masturbate, think about not having sex as often as nonasexuals do think about it, and want asexuality to be recognized as a sexual orientation is a very difficult concept to grasp. I think visibility wise it's best to keep things as simple as possible, why build bigger walls if a smaller one will suffice.

it is not about the action itself but how you feel about it!

for example gays might have sex with the opposite sex for several reasons that doesn't make them less gay nor change their feelings about having sex with someone they are not sexually attracted to

same for asexuals, some might have sex with a partner but still not be sexually attracted to them

that's what makes us asexuals

Ones sexual orientation is clearly defined by feelings of, or lack of feelings of sexual attraction. Aven has virtually created a new definition of the word sexual to mean someone who doesn't feel sexual attraction. This isn't a shared understanding anywhere else, and even not necessarily here. Because it is not a shared understanding it can make it more difficult for people to understand the concept of asexuality, not only do people gave to wrap their head around the idea of someone not feeling sexual attraction they also have to grasp the concept of someone not being a 'sexual' which if they don't share Avens shared definition of a 'sexual' can be a very difficult concept to grasp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pamcakes

I really think that whether they feel Ace to be the extreme negative end of sexuality, or something entirely separate, is something that ought to be left up to the individual. I don't think it's an issue that requires an all-encompassing policy, and I think making one is going to alienate whomever doesn't feel it to be true for themselves.

My 5c.

P.

But what about the asexuals who do have sex or masturbate they are sexual behaviors. Being sexual encompasses a lot more than merely ones sexual orientation. To say asexuals are not sexuals, but then to say they can have sex, masturbate, think about not having sex as often as nonasexuals do think about it, and want asexuality to be recognized as a sexual orientation is a very difficult concept to grasp. I think visibility wise it's best to keep things as simple as possible, why build bigger walls if a smaller one will suffice.

That's interesting that you feel that way, because I can't think of a system much simpler than "Sexual = feels sexual attraction, Asexual = does not feel sexual attraction".

Your desire to redefine what the core identity of this community is would in fact further complicate, not simplify, a reasonable and functional existing definition. Sexual preference is not determined by behaviour - there are gay men who sleep with their female "beards" for years, while in denial or in hiding - but by attraction. If one feels sexual attraction, one is on the Sexual continuum. If one does not, one may legitimately be considered Asexual. It's really terribly basic. If it is hard to understand, perhaps that is because it seems too simple.

P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NotAllHere

Oh, Pamcakes, I'm in serious like with you. You've summed it up beautifully.

I think the reason that you don't find the definition of sexual as 'someone who experiences sexual attraction' is because it is, I would think, obvious and expected.

And I'd like to point out that AVEN did not start or invent the term asexual, even in reference to humans. I wish I could find the article that talks about it in the scientific community when referring to humans, but I don't know if it's Internet posted at all (I read it in a library book) and I can't remember the name of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UraNepu

I really do not seem to understand what is the problem with the current definition and why it seems to you so complicated when it's straight to the point.

your argument about asexuals being sexuals with 0 sexual attraction is as an oxymoron as if I would say homosexuals are heterosexuals with 0 sexual attractions to the opposite sex

way too confusing if you ask me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachwalker

That's interesting that you feel that way, because I can't think of a system much simpler than "Sexual = feels sexual attraction, Asexual = does not feel sexual attraction".

Your desire to redefine what the core identity of this community is would in fact further complicate, not simplify, a reasonable and functional existing definition.

I am not trying to redefine the core identity of this community. The core identity is about what we are asexuals, not about what we are not. Aven is a very learned one on the spectrum of knowledge about asexuality, unfortunately the greater the knowledge the more we start to assume knowledge. Yes it might seem simple enough at aven to assume the definition of a sexual is someone who does feel sexual attraction but I haven't been able to find this definition of a 'sexual' anywhere at Aven apart from this thread. Assumed knowledge can and does cause confusion, especially when the communitys shared understanding of a word is not a shared understanding outside the community, and is used to define types of people within and outside the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Shuttershy

But its more confusing to try and define us as sexual:

A lit room has light.

A dark room is dark.

Sexuals at the highest end have most attraction.

Sexuals at the lowest have none.

But its a big misconception;

Darkness is a lack of light. It needs its own name! You don'y say, wel.. Tonight its light outside to the 0 degree! Its confusing!

Humans have an easier time understanding concepts as big, individual, wholes (green, blue, sexual, asexual), not minute details (cool aquamarine, warn pink brown, sexuals on the lowest end of the scale)

Ever try to learn a language similar to your native? And find you get confused on definitions because some words are just too similar? But can easily grasp, say, tuuli being wind? The closer it is, the more you get messed up. So its easier to separate them to explain them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Shuttershy

Or;

Thats my girlfriend. We're only platonic though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faelights

Man, anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this at all, but the development of "sexual" as a term in relation to "asexual" seems similar to the development of the term "cissexual" in relation to "transsexual".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Shuttershy

Man, anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this at all, but the development of "sexual" as a term in relation to "asexual" seems similar to the development of the term "cissexual" in relation to "transsexual".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...