Jump to content

Rewording the definition of Asexuality to Increase Clarity


Guest

  

  1. 1. Do you feel the current definition of asexuality is adequate?

    • Yes. It is very clear and needs not be redefined
      18
    • Yes, but it could be improved upon
      16
    • Unsure, it seems to have some issues but it also seems to work fine
      13
    • No, it is problematic
      11
    • No. It does not work at all and must be changed.
      0
  2. 2. Would you prefer Asexuality were defined as "the lack of an inherrent inclination to engage in sexual relations "

    • Yes
      10
    • I prefer the current definition, but would not mind.
      9
    • I do not care.
      5
    • I prefer it, but the current definition is fine as well.
      5
    • No.
      29
  3. 3. If you believe the current definition needs revision, do you have any sugestions or edits you would like made to the proposed one?

    • Yes (please comment)
      9
    • no, the suggested is fine.
      13
    • no. the current is fine
      30
    • no, I do not care
      6


Recommended Posts

I also prefer the current definition.

Mostly, I want to ask -- if someone has a preference for partnered sex, but it's because they enjoy it as a matter of social interaction (e.g. they're doing it for purely selfish reasons of enjoying sexual attention from another individual, though they don't experience any sexual attraction), where does that put them exactly?

I think, when defining sexual orientations, we shouldn't be using any language that would encourage any reliance on making assumptions about people based on their apparent behaviour.

This. Really, this.

Plus, what I said in the other thread, let me reword it and pick some pieces from there:

- All the people I talked to IRL understood what I meant when I told them that I am not sexually attracted towards any gender.

- If "sexual attraction" is clear enough to define homosexuality or heterosexuality, it's clear enough for asexuality too.

The thing about the other orientations is that there is a largely unstated understanding about what sexual attraction is and that understanding has to do with the fact that eventually, one wants to actually do something with the sexual attraction they experience. Thus, there is an innate desire to actually find a partner to engage in sexual acts with. Its not everyone they are sexually attracted to that they would act upon with and there are some that actively choose to be celebit, but there is that inherent drive towards partnered sex.

With asexuality, that assumption seems to have been completely forgotten about, gone in a puff of smoke. Thus, I feel that the current definition does need to be added upon to clarify what is meant by this mystical term that is sexual attraction. Of course, I've gone on about this repeatedly in the other thread, but my opinion hasn't changed on the matter. Not only because what some asexuals describe as their experiences would be considered sexual attraction by most people but still experience no inherent desire for partnered sex, but also because of the confusion regarding what sexual attraction is anyway, I think it is important to add to the current definition.

Whenever this debate comes up, it feels like people are saying that asexuality and pansexuality are two sides of the same coin, since both indicate no particular direction for sexual attraction based on gender, and that the only difference between them is how driven the individual is to pursue sexual relations with other individuals.

Honestly, this is exactly how I feel, that this proposed addition fits asexuality under the category of pansexuality.

EDIT: That is to say, I can totally see people saying "I'm asexual -- that means I'm pansexual but I don't seek out sex with other people." x_X

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about the partnered sex thing. But AVEN needs to stop using sexual attraction to mean "only to people". It's going to be done for you if it's not done by you... meaning that, if and when asexuality finally reaches a tipping point where people involved in sexuality theory start picking it up and dealing with it, they're going to toss out the whole "sexual attraction only means toward people" thing, since that's not true. and then they'll rework it into something that actually makes sense. So the way I see it, AVEN can stubbornly dig in their heels and refuse to budge until they're forced to budge, OR we can all be proactive and try to solve this problem. What I'm seeing is an extremely stubborn streak by a few members to make any adjustments to something that is obviously factually incorrect, and I don't see any justification for it other than pure stubbornness. If you can give me a good reason why you're refusing to acknowledge that sexual attraction is not limited to people, fine. But "cuz it's working for now" isn't a good enough reason. For one thing, it's NOT working for now. The gazillion questions and confusion about sexual attraction is evidence that it's not working. Also, it's incorrect, so the fact that you've managed to convince a few hundred people on AVEN that wanting to fuck horses isn't sexual attraction doesn't mean that your definition works in a global sense. Personally, I don't understand the insistence on holding onto something that is patently false. Since I can show you other sexualities that experience sexual attraction to things other than people, what is your justification for sticking your fingers in your ears, humming to yourself, and pretending it isn't true?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, now that I think about it... wouldn't the difference between the definitions be sort of like the difference between aromantic and lithromantic? (Not quite, but... hm.) There are apparently even people who identify as "lithsexual", though I have to admit I can only find people talking about them when looking the word up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nameless123

Is it going to be "no sexual attraction AND no desire for sexual relations" or "no sexual attraction OR no desire for sexual relations"? Because if I remember correctly from the other thread there were people who argued that they felt attraction but not the need to act upon it and that they would definitely consider themselves asexual.

And @SkulleryMaid: Naturally, it is people's professed goal to personally annoy you with their stubbornness :rolleyes:. How about they actually think of their own ideas as valid, same as you do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

I also prefer the current definition.

Mostly, I want to ask -- if someone has a preference for partnered sex, but it's because they enjoy it as a matter of social interaction (e.g. they're doing it for purely selfish reasons of enjoying sexual attention from another individual, though they don't experience any sexual attraction), where does that put them exactly?

I think, when defining sexual orientations, we shouldn't be using any language that would encourage any reliance on making assumptions about people based on their apparent behaviour.

This. Really, this.

Plus, what I said in the other thread, let me reword it and pick some pieces from there:

- All the people I talked to IRL understood what I meant when I told them that I am not sexually attracted towards any gender.

- If "sexual attraction" is clear enough to define homosexuality or heterosexuality, it's clear enough for asexuality too.

The thing about the other orientations is that there is a largely unstated understanding about what sexual attraction is and that understanding has to do with the fact that eventually, one wants to actually do something with the sexual attraction they experience. Thus, there is an innate desire to actually find a partner to engage in sexual acts with. Its not everyone they are sexually attracted to that they would act upon with and there are some that actively choose to be celebit, but there is that inherent drive towards partnered sex.

With asexuality, that assumption seems to have been completely forgotten about, gone in a puff of smoke. Thus, I feel that the current definition does need to be added upon to clarify what is meant by this mystical term that is sexual attraction. Of course, I've gone on about this repeatedly in the other thread, but my opinion hasn't changed on the matter. Not only because what some asexuals describe as their experiences would be considered sexual attraction by most people but still experience no inherent desire for partnered sex, but also because of the confusion regarding what sexual attraction is anyway, I think it is important to add to the current definition.

Whenever this debate comes up, it feels like people are saying that asexuality and pansexuality are two sides of the same coin, since both indicate no particular direction for sexual attraction based on gender, and that the only difference between them is how driven the individual is to pursue sexual relations with other individuals.

Honestly, this is exactly how I feel, that this proposed addition fits asexuality under the category of pansexuality.

EDIT: That is to say, I can totally see people saying "I'm asexual -- that means I'm pansexual but I don't seek out sex with other people." x_X

In a way, I think this is relatively accurate. In both cases, one's gender has no bearing on one's ability to be sexually attracted to people. In essence, pansexuality and asexuality are opposites of one another. For neither does gender matter, sexually speaking, but one has the potential to feel sexual attraction to anyone and one has the potential to feel sexual attraction to no one. One could potentially feel a drive to have sex with someone of any gender and one doesn't feel any drive to have sex with anyone of any gender.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

but.... its not about sex. Its about sexual attraction. As in, arousal. It is sometimes possible to have sex with people you're not attracted to, but that doesn't make you sexual.

I don't think anyone is arguing that having sex makes one not asexual (or at least that's certainly not what I'm arguing). I, and many other asexuals have had sex in the past, continue to have sex in the present and may have sex in the future. Its not about the act of sex, its about where the drive to have sex is coming from. It is a very different thing to say I am having sex because my partner desires it and I want to please my partner than it is to say, I am having sex because I like to have sex. One is an external motivation and one is an innate internal motivation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care about the partnered sex thing. But AVEN needs to stop using sexual attraction to mean "only to people". It's going to be done for you if it's not done by you... meaning that, if and when asexuality finally reaches a tipping point where people involved in sexuality theory start picking it up and dealing with it, they're going to toss out the whole "sexual attraction only means toward people" thing, since that's not true.

You know what? I think you need to understand that people who are asexual -- actual asexuals -- deserve the right to define themselves.

Love you dearly, Skullery, but really, you're one toke over the line on this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachwalker

Personally I would have liked to have seen an option in this poll for the addition to the current definition of 'and/or does not desire partnered sex', as this is what has mainly been discussed in the other thread, adding to the current definition rather than changing it completely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of think it would be nice to have a behavioral scientist around...if a fetishist is experiencing sexual attraction to an object that is not normally sexual in nature what does this say about sexual attraction? I think Skullery actually has something of a point. A fair amount of people on AVEN talk about participating in activities that are sexual in nature...not asexual in nature. Period.

I don't think this makes you not asexual, but I do think it means you experience sexual attraction. I think not wanting to have partnered sex in these instances makes you asexual.

It really is kinda simple, almost ridiculously so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem with the proposed definition is that you'd get a fair number of sexual religious people thinking their asexual - the ones that practice abstinence. They may say that they have a lack of desire for sex, because they desire to do what their religion tells them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Great WTF

Another problem with the proposed definition is that you'd get a fair number of sexual religious people thinking their asexual - the ones that practice abstinence. They may say that they have a lack of desire for sex, because they desire to do what their religion tells them.

We already have that problem, though. We get abstinent people coming through all the time that clearly think asexuality=abstinence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you WTF. We need to all realize it's not so much about who wins as it is about what's real. To have so much sexual activity and say its asexual is bizarre unless you clearly state why this is so...and what makes it asexual. It's not a lack of sexual attraction as the definition of fetish demonstrates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Skulls: Enough with this 'sexual attraction to animals/cars/what have you'. I mean, you have said time and time again that the current definition of Asexuality is too confusing for the world at large to understand. Yet, although the world at large acknowledges that some people have sex with animals or cars or whatever, I think the world at large also understands sexual attraction as meaning towards people, not animals or cars.

I mean, if you asked 20 people what they thought of sexual attraction is, you'd likely get mostly answers in regards to human-human sexual relations. (Unless a lot of the hyopthetical people were objectophiles or what not).

Sexual fetishism: sexual attraction to objects, body parts, or situations not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature.

If asexuality refuses to acknowledge this, asexuality is wrong. Period. I really couldn't care less if 20 random people stop to consider fetishes when they are asked a question on the street about sexual attraction. If asexuality needs to deny other sexualities in order to exist, then asexuality has a major problem.

1) Half of America thinks Iraq was responsible for 9/11, but that doesn't make it acceptable to call yourself an education and visibility network and spread that misinformation.

2) Most people when asked to describe Dark Matter will describe it inaccurately, yet that's no reason for a physics professor to teach his class information based on a layman's understanding rather than it's actual properties.

3) If you ask most people what the number of Pi is, the best most people can probably give you is 3.14... but that doesn't mean that when you're doing actual calculations it's acceptable to truncate the number.

4) If you ask most people about the divorce rate, they'll tell you that half of all marriages end in divorce. This is inaccurate, however... in actuality, there are twice as many marriages filed in a year as divorces. That is not the same thing as half of all marriages ending in divorce. This is a nuance missed on the layman, but it doesn't mean it's acceptable for a statistician to misrepresent the stats just because your average joe is wrong about them.

5) Many people think "asexual" means "can reproduce without a partner", but I don't see anyone using that as a basis for the claim that we should change the definition of asexual to "can reproduce without a partner".

Need I go on, or are we starting to grasp the fact that something called an EDUCATION AND VISIBILITY NETWORK should probably not say "eh, most people kinda get the gist of what I'm saying" and think that constitutes appropriately rigorous definitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, I'm sort of confused by this "the actual definition of sexual attraction" stuff, because I usually only hear people use the term when talking about being attracted to people, and when I look it up on the net, that's also most of what I find. I'd say it depends on the context what exactly "sexual attraction" means, but without context, people will assume you're talking about orientations. That could be seen as problematic, but as someone who experiences at least some "attraction" along those lines to things like certain written scenarios, I don't feel the current definition fo asexuality erases my experiences at all. For example, I've not seen anyone attack someone's asexuality on the basis that being attracted to, say, porn, is a form of sexual attraction, though I do have seen people claim that if you're attracted to porn you must be sexually attracted to people, too. At least up to a point, people seem to know what we're talking about.

And for the record, I don't think being attracted to a car makes anyone automatically not asexual, no matter how they act out that attraction.

Edit: I really don't see how this could be about "asexuality being wrong", unless you're saying other orientations are also wrong, because it's not just AVEN and asexuality assuming that everyone is clear on what kind of "sexual attraction" we're talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know...if you want to make sexual attraction be only about people and asexuality only about sexual attraction then why isn't it as simple as...does not want to have sexual relations. Why make it so complicated?

And how many times does one need to ask why it's not as simple as understanding gay, bi, or straight? Orientation should be that simple...it really should. You're headed in a specific direction right? Like north or south? Who cares how many zigzags to get there or not get there (as the asexual case may be)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clouded_Leopard

Lack of an inherent inclination to have such a precise definition as it will always mean something different to someone else anyway. :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've largely stayed out of this debate as I'm bad at articulating my thoughts on asexuality, but I do think the current definition is lacking and needs to be, if nothing else, added to as vampyremage suggested. There's a very clear problem within AVEN itself with our definition because we get people asking on a daily basis what sexual attraction is/if this thing or that thing makes them or excludes them from being asexual.

While others have said they have no problem with the "lack of sexual attraction" definition in the outside world, I have not been so lucky. Many understood it, but others did not or were confused by my having a boyfriend when I'm not "attracted" to him. There's something there that is still being missed. I think "a lack of desire for partnered sex" or some similar variant would be a very useful addendum to alleviate the confusion I encounter as well as some of the confusion new members have. There's always going to be a certain amount of misunderstanding and confusion, but we can at least try to head some of it off.

If there was a way to turn "Y'know that burning desire most people have to have sex with the person they love? We don't have that. Ever." into a legitimate definition, I totally would, because that is one of the most effective explinations I've used.

This is great...it says a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

Look Skulls: You keep going on and on about making Asexuality simple enough for the average person to understand, yet you also seem to be forgetting that that same average person thinks of sexual attraction in terms of human-human relations. I was just pointing that out, is all. I don't deny that there people sexually attracted to objects and animals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading through everything, what it seems like is that we need to clarify "sexual attraction" rather than change the definition. Both "desire for partnered sex" and " inclination to engage in sexual relations" work in that respect. For some the meaning of sexual attraction is obvious and doesnt need clarification. I think it might be good to have a place where sexuals can describe what sexual attraction feels like to them to help aces understand what they are feeling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Great WTF

Reading through everything, what it seems like is that we need to clarify "sexual attraction" rather than change the definition. Both "desire for partnered sex" and " inclination to engage in sexual relations" work in that respect. For some the meaning of sexual attraction is obvious and doesnt need clarification. I think it might be good to have a place where sexuals can describe what sexual attraction feels like to them to help aces understand what they are feeling.

There's a thread like that in the Sexual Partners and Allies section already, though adding one in Q&A might be a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachwalker

Reading through everything, what it seems like is that we need to clarify "sexual attraction" rather than change the definition. Both "desire for partnered sex" and " inclination to engage in sexual relations" work in that respect. For some the meaning of sexual attraction is obvious and doesnt need clarification. I think it might be good to have a place where sexuals can describe what sexual attraction feels like to them to help aces understand what they are feeling.

I think this thread is just repeating the other thread now.

The problem is most people have their own understanding of what sexual attraction is and becuase of this there is no shared understanding of what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is useful to have a debate like this, as I happen to agree the current definition has a lot to be desired. That saying, I do have a number of concerns ...

Lacks an inherent desire for partnered sex or sexual relations.

I know many of you in this thread experience this, and so it makes sense. However, there are members on AVEN, like myself, who only experience sexual attraction towards their partner, and are willing to engage in partner sex and / or sexual relations. Yet, because they do not experience sexual attraction to anyone else, do define themselves as asexual, as indeed do I. The problem then is by having the definition as suggested, this group of people will then fall outside of that definition.

You know...if you want to make sexual attraction be only about people and asexuality only about sexual attraction then why isn't it as simple as...does not want to have sexual relations. Why make it so complicated?

And how many times does one need to ask why it's not as simple as understanding gay, bi, or straight? Orientation should be that simple...it really should. You're headed in a specific direction right? Like north or south? Who cares how many zigzags to get there or not get there (as the asexual case may be)?

Sadly, it is not as simple, as I stated above. Yes, agreed, orientation should be that simple, but once you factor in behaviour, it becomes much more complex, and thus defies a simple definition.

And why is it so complicated ... ? As I see it, being human is complicated ...

The problem is most people have their own understanding of what sexual attraction is and because of this there is no shared understanding of what it is.

I have a strong suspicion you are right ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an idea why people first coming onto AVEN ask what sexual attraction is. It's because they don't feel it.

Once they're told what it is -- by whatever means, using whatever words -- they tend to say "Oh, that's me! I don't feel that!" Because, you know, most people coming to AVEN are doing so because they're asexual.

Duh.

And frankly, I don't care whether any sexual disagrees with any given definition of asexuality. We're not defining what sexuals feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Midnight Lady

It is useful to have a debate like this, as I happen to agree the current definition has a lot to be desired. That saying, I do have a number of concerns ...

Lacks an inherent desire for partnered sex or sexual relations.

I know many of you in this thread experience this, and so it makes sense. However, there are members on AVEN, like myself, who only experience sexual attraction towards their partner, and are willing to engage in partner sex and / or sexual relations. Yet, because they do not experience sexual attraction to anyone else, do define themselves as asexual, as indeed do I. The problem then is by having the definition as suggested, this group of people will then fall outside of that definition.

Isn't it demisexuality???

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is useful to have a debate like this, as I happen to agree the current definition has a lot to be desired. That saying, I do have a number of concerns ...

Lacks an inherent desire for partnered sex or sexual relations.

I know many of you in this thread experience this, and so it makes sense. However, there are members on AVEN, like myself, who only experience sexual attraction towards their partner, and are willing to engage in partner sex and / or sexual relations. Yet, because they do not experience sexual attraction to anyone else, do define themselves as asexual, as indeed do I. The problem then is by having the definition as suggested, this group of people will then fall outside of that definition.

Isn't it demisexuality???

Yes, but as far as I am aware of, it still comes under being asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They wouldn't fall out of it Nigel...the and/or in front of the bit you quoted in addition to the current definition takes care of it.

However, the bit about not experiencing sexual attraction makes me laugh...because I don't experience it to a greater extent than most of the people here. How can I say this? Because I know what it is, and I don't experience it unless I'm with my husband, it has to be procured I guess. Anyway, I am not asexual as most of you know. If you look up sexual attraction...arousal, interest, and desire are all part of it. They are. Really!

And yeah, what's with all the asexual fetishists? It kind of defies the definition of a fetish, which has been mentioned.

It should be simple Nigel...gay, bi, and straight are pretty simple. I really hope someday it is simple, the explaining it to such great extent takes away from it's validity. I'm not sure why, but it does.

You may not care what sexuals feel Sally, but at one point I remember them being the only ones feeling this thing you're 'lacking' so maybe it's important. Anyway, the asexual closest to me feels there's different points in the process towards the sex act or even during it where the disconnect takes place and I'm most likely to believe him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is useful to have a debate like this, as I happen to agree the current definition has a lot to be desired. That saying, I do have a number of concerns ...

Lacks an inherent desire for partnered sex or sexual relations.

I know many of you in this thread experience this, and so it makes sense. However, there are members on AVEN, like myself, who only experience sexual attraction towards their partner, and are willing to engage in partner sex and / or sexual relations. Yet, because they do not experience sexual attraction to anyone else, do define themselves as asexual, as indeed do I. The problem then is by having the definition as suggested, this group of people will then fall outside of that definition.

Isn't it demisexuality???

Yes, but as far as I am aware of, it still comes under being asexual.

I always thought that was the purpouse of the gray-a. To cover people who arent strictly asexual but fall near it on the spwctrum...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...