Jump to content

What asexuality is not.


Recommended Posts

By broadening the definition to include a lack of desire for partnered sex, you're opening the door to celibate/repressed sexuals claiming to be Asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mostly Peaceful Ryan

AVEN's motivation for defining asexuality that way is so that it can ally itself with the LGBT movement in order to increase visibility (and the political power of AVEN's administration).

Yeah I am an Admin and don't feel comfortable at LGBT meetings I can assure you there is no conspiracy here. Some members ally themselves with the LGBT and some do not. I am in the not category because I've never felt the LGBT shared my viewpoints or goals. I am not against them, but I certainly am not a member. I do go to panels for the LGBT at cons if i get the chance and I have been to a few meetings but I don't feel too welcomed there.
Link to post
Share on other sites

sexual attraction
Web definitions
attractiveness on the basis of sexual desire.

attractiveness
Web definitions
attraction: the quality of arousing interest; being attractive or something that attracts;

desire
Noun
A strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.
Verb
Strongly wish for or want (something).

From the OP:

First and foremost Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction.

So from the above definitions, then, sexual attraction is attractiveness (having your interest aroused) on the basis of sexual desire (a strong feeling of wanting to have something). So wouldn't that boil down to sexual attraction being the desire to have sex?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

Though this isn't the first time a thread like this has come up, it is of great importance that it is nothing else but the lack of sexual attraction. Perhaps a disclaimer like this should be put within the FAQ, or at least pinned...

...it's time to clean up Tumblr... :mellow:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Member54880

By broadening the definition to include a lack of desire for partnered sex, you're opening the door to celibate/repressed sexuals claiming to be Asexual.

Not if the natural lack of desire or inclination for partnered sex is specified, and also rules out other factors. However, most celibate people who know of asexuality know that not wanting sex isn't asexuality.

'Desire' is ambiguous, and whether it is the physical, subconscious or conscious desires usually isn't specified.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

By broadening the definition to include a lack of desire for partnered sex, you're opening the door to celibate/repressed sexuals claiming to be Asexual.

Celibate, no I don't believe so because it has to do with an internal drive or desire not the external motivation to remain celibite. Repressed perhaps, but I don't think the current defintiion is any better on that front.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By adding and/or to the definition, you are basically saying 'if you experience one or the other, you're Asexual'. Perhaps unintentionally, but nonetheless...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mostly Peaceful Ryan

By adding and/or to the definition, you are basically saying 'if you experience one or the other, you're Asexual'. Perhaps unintentionally, but nonetheless...

What's wrong with that? What negative effects will this have?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, considering the same people who think the current definition of Asexuality is too broad now... Why would one logically want to make the definition broader if one thinks it's too broad already?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing: the alternative definition actually stream lines the current definition.

Let's look at the situation: currently, no one knows what sexual attraction is, or rather there is no universal agreement on what it is. Due to the ambiguous nature of sexual attraction, anyone can make anything up and say, "that's sexual attraction" and, in this case, claim they are asexual. It's just like my class on leisure: everyone knows what leisure is but no one can really define it.

By adding in "and/or lack of an internal desire for sexual interactions", you're painting a much clearer picture. I know some people tend to think, "that includes celibacy" but it does not. Celibacy is a choice and abstaining from sex does not mean you don't want it. Repression is sort of that annoying fruit fly around sexual orientation, so I don't even know how that can even be addressed given the "deeply closeted gay" conception.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mostly Peaceful Ryan

Well, considering the same people who think the current definition of Asexuality is too broad now... Why would one logically want to make the definition broader if one thinks it's too broad already?

That is why I am asking. It seems some have taken the position that their are people out there that aren't "Real asexuals" but claim to be, I might be mistaken but that is what it sounds like to me. I just am reminded when calling fellow punks "posers" became a norm in the punk culture. It doesn't seem to really help and only brings negative responses. If someone feels the asexual labl fits them and they don't fit under this definition perfectly then are we suppose to shu them? Why would someone want to identify as asexual if they aren't? I see no benefits for a sexual person to make a false claim about this just like I don't see the benefits of a heterosexual, claiming to be homosexual. It just seems counter productive to me.

I have a question, how would someone be disinterested in sex, but still sexually attracted to someone (desire sex from that other person)? I can't see someone both desiring something or craving it and still being disinterested in sex.

Doesn't that happen all the time? I'm pretty sure my parents are in that situation since they're in their late 40s and 25 years of marriage now

I wouldn't say so, because it seems impossible to both be craving something yet not interested in it. Can you think of something besides sexuality that some people do that? Because I think that Sexual people don't experience sexual attraction all the time, and that is how you have couples that are sexuals that aren't interested in sex. This definition seems to draw a picture like sexuals do always feel sexual attraction. I really don't see how you can both crave or desire something and not be interested in it at all. If I crave something I am interested in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachwalker

I wouldn't like it if this thread turned into another debate on what sexual attraction/orientation means on a semantic level. This thread was written by Doppel and myself as a tool for all new and/or confused people in order to help them understand what asexuality is not. This is not to say the attraction/orientation debate is not important, just that there are many other threads in which it can be brought, leaving this simple and clear :)

It's not a very useful/descriptive tool though if it's not based on a shared understanding of what sexual attraction is or is not. It is clear from all the threads on sexual attraction that it can be pretty much anything and everything.

This thread is anything but simple and clear.

For the most part however I agree with the OP except for the insistance that the only definition of asexuality is a lack of this ambiguous thing called sexual attraction and that asexuality is not a disinterest in sex.

I would say that this general disinterest in having partnered sex is what has brought many people to Aven and one of the only tangible common denominators amongst us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest problem with the current definition is the incredible fuzzyness. Asexuality is described as the state of lacking something that noone ever gives a clear and concise definition for (but yeah trust us, it's still totally a real thing!). I don't know how we're supposed to promote visibility and education on that basis; I for sure can't. I don't know what "sexual attraction" even means (if it's not about, you know, desiring sex with people). I don't know if attraction is a real thing or not, so I can't really blame someone who reacts with "asexuality doesn't exist", because, well, I have nothing at all to argue in favor of it existing with based on AVEN's one-and-only-one definition. Deniers of asexuality might actually even have a point - because, if it's not about lacking the desire for partnered sex... well, then I myself honestly have no idea anymore if such a thing as asexuality exists or if you crazy AVEN folks are just making shit up on the fly here. If you argue in favor of that last point, we really don't seem to have much in common, as much as I strongly relate to tons and tons and then tons of posts on this board and identify as asexual, I have no clue what you folks are talking about and what your orientation is. You can't possibly tell me that's a good thing?

BTW, at least one of the foreign language AVEN sites (namely, the German one) already explicitly uses the infinitely easier to understand "no desire for sexual interaction" definition right at the head of its front page.

@ Naosuu & Beachwalker... I tend to be too wordy, so you basically posted the same I said in a shorter time. Cant do much more than "+1" both of you. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the love of...

Disinterest means neutral; that you have no stake in the outcome of a given situation. And so, how exactly does that apply to having/wanting or not having/wanting sex?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the love of...

Disinterest means neutral; that you have no stake in the outcome of a given situation. And so, how exactly does that apply to having/wanting or not having/wanting sex?

Compare with:

Disinterest in sex is the lack of wanting to engage in sexual activity.

Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

And I repeat - that definition of "something that asexuality is not", as per Doppel's list, is almost verbatim the exact definition of what asexuality is, as per the starting page of AVEN.de.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

For the people in this thread who have been expressing fear that with the "not experience sexual attraction" definition, academics won't take asexuality seriously, I would encourage you to read some of the existing academic literature on asexuality. By and large, the two main ways of defining asexuality for research purposes are self-identification and not experiencing sexual attraction. For people who are interested, you may consider joining the asexual research reading group that was just started (it's online). Reading groups can be a good way to motivate yourself to read stuff, and then discussing it is helpful for getting other people's take on it as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the people in this thread who have been expressing fear that with the "not experience sexual attraction" definition, academics won't take asexuality seriously, I would encourage you to read some of the existing academic literature on asexuality. By and large, the two main ways of defining asexuality for research purposes are self-identification and not experiencing sexual attraction. For people who are interested, you may consider joining the asexual research reading group that was just started (it's online). Reading groups can be a good way to motivate yourself to read stuff, and then discussing it is helpful for getting other people's take on it as well.

How do these studies determine what is sexual attraction and what isn't?

No clue if this is a common trend but looking at Bogaret's 2006 paper, he says the following:

"Approximately 1% (n = 195) of the sample reported never having had sexual attraction to anyone"

So he is defining never experienced sexual attraction as people who say they never felt sexual attraction.

Also there's this line:

"Note that not all psychologists studying sexual orientation would necessarily give precedence to subjective attraction over physiological arousal/attraction (e.g., genital response directed toward females) in defining sexual orientation"

which is quickly followed up by:

"First, using a subjective definition of attraction seems to best capture the psychology of sexual orientation"

So he is very well aware that this definition subjective, and not clearly defined in any way.

"Second, [self-reported sexual attraction] may be more linked to actual sexual behavior than physiological arousal/attraction. For example, a person who does not perceive having sexual attraction toward women despite exhibiting physical arousal patterns toward them (e.g., in the laboratory) is unlikely to engage in sexual behavior with these partners."

This sounds like he is looking for a proxy to 'does not wish to engage in sexual behavior' to me. Actually, it sounds like he is looking for a proxy for 'does not engage in sexual relations', but seeing as how he acknowledges asexuals having sexual relations, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

"Some people may report a lack of sexual attraction, but they may in fact have demonstrable sexual attraction to others of a particular sex/gender. For example, if examined in a psychophysical laboratory (e.g., using phallometry), some asexual people may exhibit patterns of physical attraction/arousal similar to those of sexual people (e.g., physical attraction/arousal patterns similar to those of bisexual, gay or straight individuals). Such people's asexuality, then, may be best described as a “perceived” or “reported” lack of attraction, rather than an actual lack of physiological attraction to a partner of either gender."

This illustrates the disconnect between how sexual attraction is viewed in the asexual community and how it is often examined by researchers. He acknowledges that the group of people under consideration is better defined as people who say the don't experience sexual attraction, than people who actually don't experience sexual attraction as defined by a number of researchers.

"Asexuality, defined as a lack of sexual attraction, likely encompasses forms/variations of HSDD and related disorders. In particular, people who have had a lifelong absence of sexual desire and are markedly distressed about this situation or have marked interpersonal difficulty (i.e., lifelong HSDD) would not likely have had any sexual attraction to anyone or anything."

He obviously believes that the sexual attraction definition is not impervious to people with other sexual disorders identifying as asexual. This point was brought up by vamp earlier in this thread.

To summarize, while for the purposes of his study he defines an asexual to be someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction, he is well aware that the definition he is using is subjective, and that self reported lack of sexual attraction often doesn't line up with experimental results. Moreover, he admits that this definition has significant overlap with other sexual disorders. I also contend that at various points in the paper he thinks of asexuality more in terms of lack of desire for partnered sex, than in terms of sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

The question of what sexual attraction is hasn't been investigated as much as one might like, and I hope that research on asexuality will help motivate such research.

I suspect that "sexual attraction" involves several cognitive processes that, for most people, cluster together. For some people, they only experience some of these, or they experience all but not connected to each other and some only very rarely. In such cases, it is unclear whether it is or is not "sexual attraction."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of what sexual attraction is hasn't been investigated as much as one might like, and I hope that research on asexuality will help motivate such research.

I suspect that "sexual attraction" involves several cognitive processes that, for most people, cluster together. For some people, they only experience some of these, or they experience all but not connected to each other and some only very rarely. In such cases, it is unclear whether it is or is not "sexual attraction."

I agree with this. Hence why I think its a bad idea to define asexuality in terms of sexual attraction and absolutely nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think posts like the OP can only lead to more confusion for people. It's not a competition, it's not a contest. Only you can decide if you're asexual or anything else. If a person feels inclined to read up about it and they recognise themselves within the stories and definitions that they read, watch and listen to then they are asexual. They do not have to meet some criteria list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't read all the replies here but I was doing a search on whether Jesus may have been asexual and this is one of the resposes:

"Actually, no. In general, the word "asexual" indicates the absense of
reproductive organs in a biological entity, or reproduction without
those organs.
Your definition is one that shows up as a third definition
in some dictionaries and not at all in others. In any case it is an
adjective, not a noun. So technically, an asexual person is a person
without sex organs. Jesus was not an asexual person.

The question you seem to have meant was, "Did Jesus experience sexual
attraction?" In the sense of lust, the answer would have to be "no."
However, Jesus is fully man as well as fully God, so my guess would be
that He experienced non-lustful attraction to some women at some point. I
do not believe that there is an official Church teaching on the matter."

Another said No because that was an amoeba.

Is this the kind of stuff we have to deal with? The kind of mindset???? :(

Apparently so. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Invisible Pumpkin

I think posts like the OP can only lead to more confusion for people. It's not a competition, it's not a contest. Only you can decide if you're asexual or anything else. If a person feels inclined to read up about it and they recognise themselves within the stories and definitions that they read, watch and listen to then they are asexual. They do not have to meet some criteria list.

I thought that by a criteria list most of psychological "things" where classify, hence why there are so many test to conclude if someone it's aspie, autistic, depressed and all and all. I'm not saying that asexuality it's one of those "thing", just in case. I'm just saying that there are normally a criteria to evaluate if someone is or not (insert here something), why cannot be one for asexuality?

Again, I'm bunnysexual! Is this make sense? NO, but I'm stating it. Is it a real thing? NO, but I'm stating it. Are we going to do the same with asexuality and then expect to be considered as a real thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think posts like the OP can only lead to more confusion for people. It's not a competition, it's not a contest. Only you can decide if you're asexual or anything else. If a person feels inclined to read up about it and they recognise themselves within the stories and definitions that they read, watch and listen to then they are asexual. They do not have to meet some criteria list.

I thought that by a criteria list most of psychological "things" where classify, hence why there are so many test to conclude if someone it's aspie, autistic, depressed and all and all. I'm not saying that asexuality it's one of those "thing", just in case. I'm just saying that there are normally a criteria to evaluate if someone is or not (insert here something), why cannot be one for asexuality?

Again, I'm bunnysexual! Is this make sense? NO, but I'm stating it. Is it a real thing? NO, but I'm stating it. Are we going to do the same with asexuality and then expect to be considered as a real thing?

Most psychological diagnoses are also based upon multiple definitions and not simply "does not experience X. End of story." It's also worth noting that if I went to a psychologist and said I thought I had social anxiety disorder because of X,Y,Z, as long as they weren't completely ridiculous reasons, they wouldn't bust out a list of criteria for social anxiety disorder and start checking off which criteria I met and which criteria I didn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think posts like the OP can only lead to more confusion for people. It's not a competition, it's not a contest. Only you can decide if you're asexual or anything else. If a person feels inclined to read up about it and they recognise themselves within the stories and definitions that they read, watch and listen to then they are asexual. They do not have to meet some criteria list.

I thought that by a criteria list most of psychological "things" where classify, hence why there are so many test to conclude if someone it's aspie, autistic, depressed and all and all. I'm not saying that asexuality it's one of those "thing", just in case. I'm just saying that there are normally a criteria to evaluate if someone is or not (insert here something), why cannot be one for asexuality?

Again, I'm bunnysexual! Is this make sense? NO, but I'm stating it. Is it a real thing? NO, but I'm stating it. Are we going to do the same with asexuality and then expect to be considered as a real thing?

As someone who is quite a newcomer to the community, I was just making the point that I found the whole OP to be overly confrontational and negative, like as if it was saying if you don't meet these conditions you are not welcome at our club! If that was the first thing I had read when researching asexuality and trying to work out if it applied to me it would have just added to the confusion. I'm sure this was not the intention I was just stating the way it initially made me feel, and reading it again now maybe I was to quick to judge.

To me, as I stated previously, if a person feels inclined to be looking into asexuality and they start to recognise themselves in the stories etc. that they read, then that should be good enough and they shouldnt feel like they have to take a pop quiz. It should be simplified to avoid confusing people who are newly discovering themselves. If someone asked me personally 'am I asexual?' I would point them in the direction of personal stories that I have read and watched over the past weeks and say to them if you idenitfy with any of those, then yes - have some cake :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mostly Peaceful Ryan

To me, as I stated previously, if a person feels inclined to be looking into asexuality and they start to recognise themselves in the stories etc. that they read, then that should be good enough and they shouldnt feel like they have to take a pop quiz. It should be simplified to avoid confusing people who are newly discovering themselves. If someone asked me personally 'am I asexual?' I would point them in the direction of personal stories that I have read and watched over the past weeks and say to them if you idenitfy with any of those, then yes - have some cake :D

I agree with this, if someone looks into asexuality and identifies him or her self as asexual, then they are end of story. We don't need these accusations of each other being asexual or not. It is hard enough to discover yourself, you don't need to have to defend it afterwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think posts like the OP can only lead to more confusion for people. It's not a competition, it's not a contest. Only you can decide if you're asexual or anything else. If a person feels inclined to read up about it and they recognise themselves within the stories and definitions that they read, watch and listen to then they are asexual. They do not have to meet some criteria list.

I thought that by a criteria list most of psychological "things" where classify, hence why there are so many test to conclude if someone it's aspie, autistic, depressed and all and all. I'm not saying that asexuality it's one of those "thing", just in case. I'm just saying that there are normally a criteria to evaluate if someone is or not (insert here something), why cannot be one for asexuality?

Again, I'm bunnysexual! Is this make sense? NO, but I'm stating it. Is it a real thing? NO, but I'm stating it. Are we going to do the same with asexuality and then expect to be considered as a real thing?

As someone who is quite a newcomer to the community, I was just making the point that I found the whole OP to be overly confrontational and negative, like as if it was saying if you don't meet these conditions you are not welcome at our club! If that was the first thing I had read when researching asexuality and trying to work out if it applied to me it would have just added to the confusion. I'm sure this was not the intention I was just stating the way it initially made me feel, and reading it again now maybe I was to quick to judge.

To me, as I stated previously, if a person feels inclined to be looking into asexuality and they start to recognise themselves in the stories etc. that they read, then that should be good enough and they shouldnt feel like they have to take a pop quiz. It should be simplified to avoid confusing people who are newly discovering themselves. If someone asked me personally 'am I asexual?' I would point them in the direction of personal stories that I have read and watched over the past weeks and say to them if you idenitfy with any of those, then yes - have some cake :D

I agree that the most important thing when you get to AVEN, and also the most satisfying, is to see you are not alone and that there's people who feel almost exactly like you do :)

What the OP means is that, using your example, if someone comes to AVEN and reads some stories, and identifies only with, for example "sex is gross" and "I want to be a virgin for life", that isn't really enough to think "I'm definitely asexual", it's more "I'm a sex repulsed celibate" though it may help them looking more into why they feel that way, and then try and understand whether or not they're asexual. And they would obviously not be kicked out of the community, as they could relate to some part of asexuals' experiences either way. But if those are the only things they share with asexual people, do those make that person asexual?

Does it make sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think posts like the OP can only lead to more confusion for people. It's not a competition, it's not a contest. Only you can decide if you're asexual or anything else. If a person feels inclined to read up about it and they recognise themselves within the stories and definitions that they read, watch and listen to then they are asexual. They do not have to meet some criteria list.

I thought that by a criteria list most of psychological "things" where classify, hence why there are so many test to conclude if someone it's aspie, autistic, depressed and all and all. I'm not saying that asexuality it's one of those "thing", just in case. I'm just saying that there are normally a criteria to evaluate if someone is or not (insert here something), why cannot be one for asexuality?

Again, I'm bunnysexual! Is this make sense? NO, but I'm stating it. Is it a real thing? NO, but I'm stating it. Are we going to do the same with asexuality and then expect to be considered as a real thing?

As someone who is quite a newcomer to the community, I was just making the point that I found the whole OP to be overly confrontational and negative, like as if it was saying if you don't meet these conditions you are not welcome at our club! If that was the first thing I had read when researching asexuality and trying to work out if it applied to me it would have just added to the confusion. I'm sure this was not the intention I was just stating the way it initially made me feel, and reading it again now maybe I was to quick to judge.

To me, as I stated previously, if a person feels inclined to be looking into asexuality and they start to recognise themselves in the stories etc. that they read, then that should be good enough and they shouldnt feel like they have to take a pop quiz. It should be simplified to avoid confusing people who are newly discovering themselves. If someone asked me personally 'am I asexual?' I would point them in the direction of personal stories that I have read and watched over the past weeks and say to them if you idenitfy with any of those, then yes - have some cake :D

I agree that the most important thing when you get to AVEN, and also the most satisfying, is to see you are not alone and that there's people who feel almost exactly like you do :)

What the OP means is that, using your example, if someone comes to AVEN and reads some stories, and identifies only with, for example "sex is gross" and "I want to be a virgin for life", that isn't really enough to think "I'm definitely asexual", it's more "I'm a sex repulsed celibate" though it may help them looking more into why they feel that way, and then try and understand whether or not they're asexual. And they would obviously not be kicked out of the community, as they could relate to some part of asexuals' experiences either way. But if those are the only things they share with asexual people, do those make that person asexual?

Does it make sense?

But we come to back to asking ourselves why is identifying with "does not experience sexual attraction" the end all be all reason to think someone is asexual? Why is this the only reason good enough to think of yourself as asexual?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that by a criteria list most of psychological "things" where classify, hence why there are so many test to conclude if someone it's aspie, autistic, depressed and all and all. I'm not saying that asexuality it's one of those "thing", just in case. I'm just saying that there are normally a criteria to evaluate if someone is or not (insert here something), why cannot be one for asexuality?

Again, I'm bunnysexual! Is this make sense? NO, but I'm stating it. Is it a real thing? NO, but I'm stating it. Are we going to do the same with asexuality and then expect to be considered as a real thing?

I do get your point and agree - however, what you criticize here is exactly what this list is doing, unless the last point in it gets scratched out.

The current state is that we have a sole criterion that noone gives a solid definition and explanation for ("sexual attraction"). Without that solid definition, it's basically a magic mantra - you're asexual as long as you put the label "lack of attraction" on whatever is the reason that makes you identify as such. There is no substance to that definition.

Add to that that what many people see as a logical definition of "lack of sexual attraction", and what parts of AVEN use as their official definition of asexuality - lack of desire for sexual interaction - gets explicitly called "no, that's not it".

With this list, AVEN's official definition is Asexuality is the state of calling oneself asexual, it just hides that behind the fuzzy as hell smokescreen of whatever "sexual attraction" is supposed to mean as it's magic lingo. And bizarrely, people still get huffy about that! To be perfectly frank, this seems like the most dangerous form of elitism, namely the one that doesn't even tell you what the "untrue aces" supposedly are doing wrong. "They feel sexual attraction" means whatever you want it to mean. "They aren't celibate" at least gives you a solid criterion. It's incredible that the former gets admodly reinforced when the latter can lead to reprimands. This is very, very thin ice in terms of credibility of AVEN as a whole.

This list, in its current form, fails at both the V and the E part in AVEN, because it obscures and confuses. It does not need to get stickied, on the contrary - unless the "disinterest" nonsense disappears from the opening post, this thread needs to die and start catching dust on page 35.

Seriously, this list, if anything, shows to me that the addition of "and/or doesn't desire sexual interaction" to a streamlined official AVEN definition is a dire necessity. I've not seen this as urgent before this mess here happened, but I realize that I've reached the point where my mind changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think posts like the OP can only lead to more confusion for people. It's not a competition, it's not a contest. Only you can decide if you're asexual or anything else. If a person feels inclined to read up about it and they recognise themselves within the stories and definitions that they read, watch and listen to then they are asexual. They do not have to meet some criteria list.

I thought that by a criteria list most of psychological "things" where classify, hence why there are so many test to conclude if someone it's aspie, autistic, depressed and all and all. I'm not saying that asexuality it's one of those "thing", just in case. I'm just saying that there are normally a criteria to evaluate if someone is or not (insert here something), why cannot be one for asexuality?

Again, I'm bunnysexual! Is this make sense? NO, but I'm stating it. Is it a real thing? NO, but I'm stating it. Are we going to do the same with asexuality and then expect to be considered as a real thing?

As someone who is quite a newcomer to the community, I was just making the point that I found the whole OP to be overly confrontational and negative, like as if it was saying if you don't meet these conditions you are not welcome at our club! If that was the first thing I had read when researching asexuality and trying to work out if it applied to me it would have just added to the confusion. I'm sure this was not the intention I was just stating the way it initially made me feel, and reading it again now maybe I was to quick to judge.

To me, as I stated previously, if a person feels inclined to be looking into asexuality and they start to recognise themselves in the stories etc. that they read, then that should be good enough and they shouldnt feel like they have to take a pop quiz. It should be simplified to avoid confusing people who are newly discovering themselves. If someone asked me personally 'am I asexual?' I would point them in the direction of personal stories that I have read and watched over the past weeks and say to them if you idenitfy with any of those, then yes - have some cake :D

I agree that the most important thing when you get to AVEN, and also the most satisfying, is to see you are not alone and that there's people who feel almost exactly like you do :)

What the OP means is that, using your example, if someone comes to AVEN and reads some stories, and identifies only with, for example "sex is gross" and "I want to be a virgin for life", that isn't really enough to think "I'm definitely asexual", it's more "I'm a sex repulsed celibate" though it may help them looking more into why they feel that way, and then try and understand whether or not they're asexual. And they would obviously not be kicked out of the community, as they could relate to some part of asexuals' experiences either way. But if those are the only things they share with asexual people, do those make that person asexual?

Does it make sense?

That is my point. It's almost like you're trying to define a persons sexuality for them. I would give them the information and simply say if you relate to this then you are, in my opinion, asexual. Once a person has the information and knowledge that this exists and it's ok to be this way, they can go on to further analyze themselves, they may discover they arent asexual after all or they may discover that yes this is me. It is not the place of anybody else to throw definitions at someone and say no you arent this or that because you dont meet this condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual orientations are based on the following:

  1. Heterosexuality: sexually attracted to the opposite gender
  2. Homosexuality: sexually attracted to the same gender
  3. Bisexuality: sexually attracted to both males and females
  4. Pansexuality: sexually attracted to people of any gender

All of the above descriptions are the core of those sexual orientations: behaviour and libido, for example, do not play into factor. One could be a homosexual celibate and no one would question it, just as much as someone could be a heterosexual with any level of libido, etc.

Therefore, no matter behaviour and level of libido, the core of a sexual orientation is: who are you sexually attracted to? If the answer is nobody, I'm not sexually attracted to any gender, there you have the 5th orientation: asexuality, which has a consistant core definition as the others. It can be expanded, added personal experiences, etc when talking to people? Sure! But at its core, to me, that's what it is and should be.

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