Why desire has no place in the definition

For discussion of general issues pertaining to asexuality.
PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Why desire has no place in the definition

Postby PiF » Mon Jan 05, 2015 7:31 am

A brief history

an asexual person is someone who does not experience sexual attraction...couldn't be simpler could it...or at least I thought so till about 4 years ago.

Then as asexual awareness started to spread on the internet it attracted the late teens/early adult attention and suddenly everyone and their dog was claiming to be asexual..which of course most of them were not. Aware as the definition stands would require most of them to be honest and say I am not an asexual they sought to change the definition.

The changes started roughly as they always do..with the halfs and half of halfs and the change the definition name entirely. in regards to the halfs, they tried to claim they were semi or demi or grey asexual...it doesn't matter how often you feel sexual attraction..if you feel it..then your not asexual..an asexual person is someone who does not experience sexual attraction...they key is does not.....not on a Friday with fish or only on full moons...or twice a year except leap years...you feel sexual attraction then you are sexual..trust me on this..let it go..move on ...a pescatarian does not a vegetarian make

The desire thing then....to me desire has always meant want...I desire that Ferrari, I desire that necklace I desire...you get the drift. So when some have tried to change the definition to make sure they can try and fit in when they know they can't..they have tried to say....I do not desire a sexual relation ship with another so I must be asexual

two points where they look silly

1.....it looks like you do not want sex with others but are more than hapy to have sex with yourself...you may wish to call yourself sex obsessed wankers but I would not...still not asexual though..saying I do not want a sexual relationship with another is called celibacy

2 asexuality is and never has been about desiring a sexual relationship..it has never been about not wanting something..never...it has always been about ...zilch..nothing..no feeling either way..nada and that is different from not wanting. Asexuality is the tick box of sexual attraction being completely empty ...it has neither a tick or cross in it...real asexuals never had the box in the first place..we do not experience it because it is not within us so we feel neither one way or another

So what about those who claim asexuality is about not having sex?...clearly they are talking bollox..again look up celibacy. Those that are sexually repulsed? this can apply as equally to sexuals as it can to asexuals so no,,it is not an asexual traight

so is asexuality caused by...include the current 5000th stupidest ideas that aven seems to find every week...asexuality is not caused by anything...it just is, it doesn't happen because we are straight, gay, depressed, victims of abuse, autistic,cynical bladdah bladdah bladdah...these are desperate attempts of those who are not asexual to try and claim some kind of in..into the asexuality club. Infact when I carried out polls in the census part of Aven of those claiming to be asexual the only things that stood out was the majority were females between the ages of 18-24 but most still did not feel 100% asexual!

Asexuals are of all ages and not just the teen discovery phase..we are all colours, all sexes and all genders but the one thing that defines us,,is we lack sexual attraction

For real asexuals it is not who we are but an important part of who we are...we do not experience sexual attraction..and if anyone else tries to offer an alternative suggestion of what an asexual is...they are probably not asexual but are trying desperately hard to convince themselves more than any other

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Why desire has no place in the definition

Postby PiF » Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:24 am

Let me help you see common sense and what happens when it's removed

Avens front page and the description ... An asexual person is a person who does not experience sexual attraction...couldn't get much easier could it. Accepted and understood by scientists and medical staff...couldn't be simpler..

it's at this point I would suggest you then go no further into aven..yes the very same forum because it's only when you go in ..you get this

http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/1047 ... ion/page-1

some 6 months later, 34 pages and over a thousand posts (many are from the same half dozen trying to change the definition) still think asexuality is everything to everyone......it's this level of confusion, chaos and self destruction that causes us to have people doubt us

Lets have some clarity shall we, then we can take it forward, as it was always meant to be and start to show people we are just not the current teen fashion.

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: Why desire has no place in the definition

Postby KAGU143 » Wed Jan 07, 2015 10:18 am

Just to be clear, I don't think it's correct to say that asexuality isn't caused by anything. Maybe it does have a cause that hasn't been identified yet?

We really don't know WHY it happens - only that it does, and that it is not caused by hormone imbalances, or abuse or neglect in childhood, or by past rape, or by being teased for being unattractive, or by being gay and ashamed of it, or by any of the other suggested causes that are used to help the sex-obsessed public redefine it as a mental or physical illness.

We can easily observe that it is statistically linked, very strongly, with gender dysphoria, but that is definitely not the same thing as cause and effect.
What is the connection? Will we ever know?

More research is clearly needed before the details are fully understood, if indeed they ever can be. We still have a long way to go.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

flergalwit
Mega Member
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: Why desire has no place in the definition

Postby flergalwit » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:39 am

KAGU143 wrote:Just to be clear, I don't think it's correct to say that asexuality isn't caused by anything. Maybe it does have a cause that hasn't been identified yet?

We really don't know WHY it happens - only that it does, and that it is not caused by hormone imbalances, or abuse or neglect in childhood, or by past rape, or by being teased for being unattractive, or by being gay and ashamed of it, or by any of the other suggested causes that are used to help the sex-obsessed public redefine it as a mental or physical illness.

We don't even know that much. We only know it's not *always* caused by those things and that those things don't *always* cause it (as there are numerous counter-examples in both directions). It's possible that some of those things could cause asexuality in some cases, possibly when combined with other factors.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Why desire has no place in the definition

Postby PiF » Wed Jan 07, 2015 11:57 am

I would disagree on some points

for me those who are real asexuals are those who were born this way and until their dying day will never ever experience sexual attraction

Where I think confusion may occur is where a lot of people confuse how they feel about sex, sexual relations etc after events in their life..example rape, sexual abuse, mental health issues, social anxiety etc...I personally feel a lot of those identify with the effect of asexuality without actually being asexual...but they identify as asexual.......the problem with this is it then leads you down the path of...asexuality is caused by...which I feel it is not caused by anything...you just are or are not and opening the door of asexuality is caused by will open doors as aven has proved..you will never be able to shut again.

for these identifying wrongly as asexual I get that for some it will be a temporary safe place for them but hiding behind an incorrect label doesn't make the reason why they are hiding..go away

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: Why desire has no place in the definition

Postby KAGU143 » Wed Jan 07, 2015 12:20 pm

I think of asexuality as being another rare but normal variation of the human condition, sort of like having red hair.

True, it "just happens", and the person has no control over it, but nonetheless it has a cause - even if it took centuries for science to figure it out

I'm also inclined to be a little bit more inclusive. I once suggested that we acknowledge another category of asexuality, which I believe I called being "functionally asexual."
I still think that this is a valid concept because it's a very real part of the human experience.

People can be normally sexual for a while and then lose all interest for a wide variety of reasons. I don't think it's very common, but it can happen.
IF they are perfectly content to stay that way (BIG IF!) - not alarmed about it and desperate to get their mojo back - then I would consider them to be functionally asexual. Despite their past, I think that a functionally asexual person can be considered to be a true asexual, as compared to, say, someone identifying as any of the many shades of "Grey-A"

I'm not saying that Grey A's don't belong someplace on the spectrum which includes asexuality, only that they don't really fit the definition.
In a similar way, bisexuals don't quite fit the definition of gay even though they may share many of the same experiences.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Why desire has no place in the definition

Postby PiF » Wed Jan 07, 2015 2:06 pm

This bit nancy I would agree with but feel it has nothing to do with asexuality
People can be normally sexual for a while and then lose all interest for a wide variety of reasons. I don't think it's very common, but it can happen.


I read a piece the other day that suggested as we become more and more digital age relaint and involved, people feel that meets their social need quota and as such quite a few would be more interested in a one night stand to scratch an itch so to speak rather than be in a relationship which requires hard work and many compromises. This lack of wish for sex or a sexual relationship isn't asexuality but look in other places and it's often confused with asexuality.

As people become more anti social and suffer from social anxiety, as well as being too selfish to share...I think we have to be carefull we do not allow this to be represented as asexuality. This is where Apositive I feel. will help in a more honest and grown up approach to information sharing in trying to promote what is and what isn't an asexual.

And Michael you old beirdy weirdo...good to see your still around

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: Why desire has no place in the definition

Postby KAGU143 » Wed Jan 07, 2015 5:05 pm

PiF, I think we will probably always disagree on this fine point, but we can still be friends. :D

I really hate to associate asexuality with any sort of disability but I'm having a hard time coming up with any other analogy at the moment, so bear with me.
Insofar as asexuals don't experience something that the majority of people take for granted, which is sexual attraction, let me liken it to another experience that is common to the vast majority of people: the ability to perceive light.

If somebody is unable to perceive light from the time of their birth then we would say that they are blind. They lack photonic attraction. (I just made up a new term -- yay me!)
They are considered to be blind because that is their current state of being.

If a person is born with the ability to perceive light and then later loses it for whatever reason, what should they be called?
What is their state of being? Are they blind or are they something else? They currently lack all photonic attraction, but they used to have it and they probably have memories of it, so are they only visually impaired instead of blind?

I feel like it is somewhat elitist to be so restrictive about defining who can be a "true" asexual and who can't be. The definition doesn't specify a time frame; it never has. It merely describes a state of being.
Now, you know that I'm not saying that everybody who is taking a break from sexual relationships is asexual - far from it - just that *sometimes* people can lose all interest in sex, that loss of interest can last for the rest of their lifetime, and the person may decide that they're just fine without it.
After a few years if it's gone it's probably gone for good, and for those who say "good riddance" ...

Does not experience sexual attraction = does not experience sexual attraction.

I'm not going to presume that I'm qualified to tell someone that their experience of asexuality is any less "real" than my own, just because I've been that way for as long as I can remember, while they can still remember finding somebody "hot" when they were in high school or college.

I think I'm making sense here. Maybe?
I've been wrong plenty of times before, but I feel pretty strongly about this topic.

I am thinking primarily of adults, and generally older adults, when I describe those who I would call functionally asexual.
Younger people - and by that I even mean people well into their 20s - can also be functionally asexual, because I have observed that a large percentage of them eventually grow out of it. That does not invalidate their experience in the least, however. For as long as they don't experience sexual attraction, they are asexual.

I think it's very possible that some of the ongoing confusion around AVEN, especially as it involves the younger members, may come from the fact that sexual attraction itself can sometimes be very hard to describe and very hard to recognize. Sometimes there's no way to miss it, but at other times it can be very subtle.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Why desire has no place in the definition

Postby PiF » Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:25 am

KAGU143 wrote: PiF, I think we will probably always disagree on this fine point, but we can still be friends. :D.


Absolutely, that is why I value Apositive not only as an asexual information exchange but also the way it's run in that it allows different views without kiddies going running to mods every 5 seconds...mum mum that nasty man has a different view to me and I don't like it :lol:

I get where your coming from on the light sensor although I'm sure it won't be a surprise we have have it seen different ways

KAGU143 wrote:I feel like it is somewhat elitist to be so restrictive about defining who can be a "true" asexual and who can't be. The definition doesn't specify a time frame; it never has. It merely describes a state of being.


Where you see restrictive I see honesty, where you see elitist I see honesty. Man goes into a shop, I'd like 20 tomatoes please...the greengrocer fills his bag..on the way home he opens the bag and finds he has instead of 20 tomatoes he actually has 5 leeks. He goes back to the shop and points out to the greengrocer his ask was very definite on what he wanted and how much he wanted...the greengrocer says...don't worry about it..they are all on the vegetable spectrum and as to how many vegatables....life is variable man and numbers are fluid

The tax man sends you a request for $1,170 dollars to be paid within two weeks...using correct definitions means you understand what and when the request is,,,if however you return $10 after 5 weeks and say hey man money is all in the spectrum of barter can I send you some apples and pigs too...how do you think that would go down

lastly....your cars brakes are failing, you take them to a dealer and they point out your car has very specific type of brakes or they will fail to achieve what they are designed for..you say but the others are cheaper and hey, brakes are brakes aren't they

my point is that there is no elitism at all in being accurate it is a simple yes or no question..it doesn't judge you , turn on you, all it requires is honesty and one reply. You know where you stand either way. From that you are able to convey to others accurately and with integrity that yes or no answer...do you experience sexual attraction yes, then you are not asexual....there is no elitism with that question and answer...it doesn't presume to tell anyone they are or are not it is a simple yes or no answer....lets be honest the only ones who struggle with the definition are those who mostly answer ..yes I do have sexual attraction but I want to be asexual

KAGU143 wrote: I've been wrong plenty of times before, but I feel pretty strongly about this topic. .


Who is wrong or write rarely matters the fact we can discuss it like adults is greatly appreciated, I have my view, you have yours

KAGU143 wrote: I am thinking primarily of adults, and generally older adults, when I describe those who I would call functionally asexual.
Younger people - and by that I even mean people well into their 20s - can also be functionally asexual, because I have observed that a large percentage of them eventually grow out of it. That does not invalidate their experience in the least, however. For as long as they don't experience sexual attraction, they are asexual..


For me the damage of what an asexual actually is comes from that age group as they temporary borrow the label then project it outward is where it causes the most harm...by numbers you would say an asexual is some one between the age of 18-23, female, an internet addicted real socially awkward person who does feel sexual attraction on occasions....this is where the definition helps correct rather than what has become the norm as anyone can be asexual.

KAGU143 wrote:I think it's very possible that some of the ongoing confusion around AVEN, especially as it involves the younger members, may come from the fact that sexual attraction itself can sometimes be very hard to describe and very hard to recognize. Sometimes there's no way to miss it, but at other times it can be very subtle.


See I've always felt the oppositie.. they say they don't know what it is when it suits them, again look at those who say it ..again most are not asexual but want to be..sexual attraction is incredibly easy to define..I am attracted to a person sexually..ta daah

Most know this to be true so tried another route by adding desire to the mix..a bit like the road infront of me is blocked but if I slip in through the back door I will be ok

what's the alternative to the definition and it's accuracy..one word..aven

flergalwit
Mega Member
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: Why desire has no place in the definition

Postby flergalwit » Thu Jan 08, 2015 3:08 am

Yeah but pif, in spite of your talk of accuracy, you are the one who is not accurately using the definition.

The definition says "does not experience sexual attraction." It doesn't say "does not, never has and never will experience sexual attraction." The latter might be true of some asexuals, but it needn't be true of all, going strictly by the definition that you support so vigorously.

Another example. "I do not drink alcohol" is a true statement in my case. That doesn't mean I've never drunk alcohol in my life. It also doesn't mean not drinking alcohol is a 5 minute phase. It means it's my present state of being. As in simple present tense.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Why desire has no place in the definition

Postby PiF » Thu Jan 08, 2015 5:03 am

I agree in some part Michael, the definition does not define for what length of time but does define that if you are asexual you do not experience it, that part is quite clear and those that question it do tend to be those who want to belong even though they may not be asexual.......so what would you recommend?

That is why largely I feel it's safer to say if you have never ever experienced sexual attraction then you would meet the definition..as soon as you do experience sexual attraction then you do not meet the definition ever again.

if you have it one week then not for another 2 years then have it again......then you do within yourself experience and have sexual attraction so would not be asexual....I feel a better description than that of an incorrect asexual identity would be.....you would be a sexual person who on occasion aligns yourself with episodes of asexual behaviour..that does not however make you asexual

I am not French but I can speak French......that doesn't, nor ever will make me.... French

I feel also a generational change is causing much of the confusion as well as people trying to make asexuality applicable to every man and his dog

as I mentioned earlier..the shift away from conventional relationships as people don't want the hard work and bad bits that come from that..will see the larger younger internet community less likely to be in long term real life relationships through reasons they feel are valid. This increase in people just not interested in a sexual relationship is not, and should never be confused with asexuality...nor should we seek to adopt it as such and nor should we confuse sexual apathy with asexuality

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2270
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: Why desire has no place in the definition

Postby PiF » Sat May 30, 2015 10:28 am

I thought a timely update was required

same thread http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/1047 ... on/page-41

It still seems after 41 pages and nearly a year in the gabbin....people seem still to ignore that the largest majority who voted..still recognise an asexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction

Same half dozen who are dubious on their own description of being asexual, totally ignoring the popular definition and even the poll that took place.

So in the finest tradition of not wanting to accept a poll results because you do not like them...they want a new thread on the same matter because a year, 41 pages and results over welmingly saying leave the definition alone...is not enough for them to get the message

The desirists will be the undoing of us as we try and ensure our integrity remains whilst explaining the simple and only difference between us and sexuals, they seek to make it several differences where is, and always has been, just one.

Law of Circles, on 30 May 2015 - 03:25 AM, said:...Also, isn't this thread going to be archived next month? Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to make another?

Mysticus Anus....I'd plea for excluding it from the usual archive rotation. Maybe even pinning it.

Law of Circles, on 30 May 2015 - 05:50 AM, said:........I think Lady Girl has heard your plea. :P

Mysticus Anus, on 30 May 2015 - 03:43 AM, said:Wheeee, awesome! Not that LG's awesomeness surprises me at all anymore. :cake: ;)

I stand where I have always stood..if you feel sexual attraction..you are not asexual....and that really is the only difference between us and asexuals, there is no other difference

There seems little point in having polls..if when the results are not what you want, so you just keep asking for a new one, and another new one, and another new one...in the hope the majority will now change

The poll at the top of every page of that debate shows a clear message ..The majority continually ARE sending out THE same message...leave it be, it's who we are