No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

For discussion of general issues pertaining to asexuality.
Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:07 pm

No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby Thrasymachus » Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:30 am

Unfortunately being there first in most things means alot and I have not been there first with asexuality. By this I came to the idea after David Jay, AVEN and possibly others like social science researchers have shit the toilet bowl and left it unflushed for over a decade. Ewww. How did they stuff up the toilet? By mainly defining asexuality as a lack of sexual desire or sexual attraction.

Now if this was a true or a good course, why do so many asexuals seem to masturbate? If you masturbate clearly you like the sexual act in some manner. Why do asexuals have a sexual orientation? For example I am a straight male, because I don't pretend I am not attracted to women. If asexuals actually lacked a sexual desire or attraction, most asexuals would claim that they were "none" and not define themselves as straight, bisexual or gay, that is that they would claim a new sexual orientation, the asexual orientation whereby neither men or women interest them. If you have a sexual orientation, either straight, gay, bisexual or lesbian you cannot claim seriously you experience no sexual attraction, because that is what a sexual orientation is, it is what gender(s) you are sexually attracted to.

Rather what we have in the asexual community is people whose cost benefit analysis when it comes to mating and sex is completely skewed compared to the mainstream toward revulsion, indifference, apathy, etc. Thus we should look at:
Are you willing to do what it takes to have a mate and have sex? Is the cost-benefit worth it, for you or do you not care to pay the cost?


As it is we have a Dungeons and Dragons type cos-play game going on where people who clearly give every hint they do experience sexual attraction and desire create all sorts of stupid theories, terms and perform mental contortions to pretend they do fit with the bad definition some likely ditsy moron came up with. What is the term the Star War nerds came up for those who desire sex, they just have to have a romantic or personal connection first? The demisexual? Well obviously those people always had sexual attraction or some type of desire, their cost benefit is just such that they need to be comfortable with others to want and desire sex. What about all the asexuals who masturbate? That is probably almost everyone. Obviously the mechanics of sex is pleasurable to them, it is the cost of doing what it takes for them to do the same with another human partner is not worth it.

Do you guys see where I am going with this? My criteria/definition would make everything so much cleaners and neater. It would allow the rest of society to take asexuality seriously and put it in a better sociological context. Asexuals are essentially people who for various reason are alienated from the sexual act at a certain point in time. Unfortunately what we have in the asexual community is a bunch of mostly maladjusted, mentally unstable people defining the condition and running their own asylum. Needless to say it is a mess.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby PiF » Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:07 pm

I've said and often over the years, I am thankful that the messiah(and others) created aven because I was able to find what I was...but if ever there was a person that shouldn't have founded aven then he was it

The masturbate question...I probably knock one off about twice a year. I have no reason for it but once in a while I have a such a boner that even thinking of ugly women will not see it go down...so I beat the hell out of it for a few moments and then normal service is resumed. I never see it as a sexual act but more an itch that nature insists I scratch.....In somethings nature just rules the roost no matter how much people think they are in control.

I've never felt desire has anything to do with asexuality (I know some others disagree)..for me desire is a want..asexuality has nothing to do with want...asexuality is within the vocal spectrum, mutism. there is simply nothing there.

I agree with you on orientation..again I've often said that asexuality is not an orientation and often asked is this nothing more than special snowflakery in some claiming to be asexual looking for as many orientations as possible for themselves to claim themselves the winner of the most orientations game

I am a straight male asexual..only one of those is an orientation and asexuality isn't it

In regards to having sex..again this isn't specific to asexuals....personally I am a sex positive asexual and have no issues of doing the dirty because to me it is simply meh! but if it is for a partner who is sexual or has sexual needs then for them I don't mind swapping juices...that said for several years (mostly), I have been a celibate asexual

for most of the grey section descriptions I feel...it is the same as any other SEXUAL..most sexuals do not walk around wanting sex every 5 minutes and with anyone ( unless it's a 18-30 holiday in kos or spring break in cancun) most sexuals have sex far lower in their day today needs than the media and other bodies would have us believe...the grey section are sexuals..couldn't be simpler

I would agree with you in the last paragraph in that a simple, clear and easy to understand definition would do heaps to show us as genuine..for me that is the sexual attraction definition

however as with most minority groups, just when you get a 98% agreed term..the two per cent will be "outraged" that their definition is not the definition so they launch another one...then even within that group part of that 2 % will disagree with the 98% AND the 2% so then they create their own definition so what do we end up with?

LGBT turning into LGBTGGGGBTTTTQIAAAAAPPOODSSCTB ....Lesbian, Gay, Gender queer, Gender fluid, Genderless, Gynesexual, Bisexual, Bigender, Transexual, Transgender, Transvestite, Two-Spirited, Transitioning, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Agender, Ally, Androgenous, Androsexual, Pansexual, Pangender, Omnisexual, Omnigender, Demi sexual, Straight, Skoliosexual, Cisgender, Third-Gender, Boydyke.

and ASEXUAL turning into ..well to date, the list is being changed daily with the severe labellitist that sexuals wanting to belong to asexuality come up with

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby Thrasymachus » Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:28 pm

Why do you push the definition of an asexual feels no sexual attraction if you clearly feel sexual attraction, PIF? See:
PIF wrote:... I have a such a boner that even thinking of ugly women will not see it go down...so I beat the hell out of it for a few moments and then normal service is resumed. I never see it as a sexual act but more an itch that nature insists I scratch.....In somethings nature just rules the roost no matter how much people think they are in control.


Also you didn't understand my point about sexual orientation. The fact that you identify as a male heterosexual and write the type of passage as above where you admit that your perceived repulsion to an ugly woman figures effects your boner most the time(and an attractive women, the converse), shows you feel sexual attraction. You are just alienated from it. If you really felt no sexual attraction, you would have "an asexual orientation" meaning that males, females, trans-gendered, binary people equally don't interest you.

Rather compared to other males your cost benefit ratio is skewed enough to make you avoid sex.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby PiF » Fri Mar 11, 2016 12:29 pm

Not really...the ugly woman was humour

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby Thrasymachus » Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:02 pm

If the ugly women was just humor, how do you claim to be straight while denying that you feel sexual attraction to females?

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby PiF » Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:10 pm

Sorry for the delay, can I ask where I said I was sexually attracted to women? and what has that got to do with me being straight?

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby Thrasymachus » Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:15 pm

What part of identifying as a straight male implies anything other than that?

Like I said if you or anyone else, really felt no sexual attraction your sexual orientation would be the equivalent of "none."

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby PiF » Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:22 pm

What makes you think being sexually attracted to a person is the only attraction felt in regards to the opposite or same sex relationship?

I am attracted emotionally, physically and preferentially to the opposite sex...for me as a straight male that means a female..I have no sexual attraction at all

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby Thrasymachus » Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:25 pm

Physical attraction is what others mean by sexual attraction. See this is the type of mental hoops and coy games, that prevent asexuality from ever being taken seriously.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby PiF » Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:35 pm

For tea I fancy an orange and a slice of cake, that does not mean I want to f*ck it...I simply want to eat it

i think your comment shows the difficulties I agree but it shows more that you are confusing physical attraction with sexual attraction

When I have been in a relationship as a straight asexual.. I am physically compatible with the opposite sex, I am attracted to her humour, intelligence, like mind, can she fart and laugh at it, go on motorcycle rides etc etc..none of these are exclusive to asexuality because they apply equally to asexuals as they do sexuals...compatibility is not sexual attraction

I can see what your saying, I just disagree with it

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby KAGU143 » Fri Mar 11, 2016 1:59 pm

Thrasymachus wrote: If you have a sexual orientation, either straight, gay, bisexual or lesbian you cannot claim seriously you experience no sexual attraction, because that is what a sexual orientation is, it is what gender(s) you are sexually attracted to.



Just to point out this one bit for now.

"Gender" is definitely what attracts me to another person, but it has nothing to do with what type of body contains the gender. I have no interest in their plumbing, body hair, or mammary configurations.
Gender roles and behavior are a social construct, (I know . . . yadda yadda yadda) but I don't really care where they originate. The type of behavior which is generally attributed to males is more appealing to me than that which is generally attributed to females. Not ALL aspects of it appeal to me, but many of them do.

So, as it turns out, I have found myself being almost exclusively attracted to men since I was very young. Only with the understanding that comes with age have I been able to figure out why there were a few exceptions, and what they all had in common.

Sexual attraction is a big mystery to me, but I've been observing it in others for decades and I believe that it's real even if I don't share it.

As for masturbation, etc:
If you have a sexual itch and you scratch it to make it go away, that's masturbation.
If you have a sexual itch and you seriously want somebody else to help you scratch it, that's sexual desire.
If you have a sexual itch and you only want a certain type of person to help you scratch it, that's sexual orientation.
If you encounter a person ( or even think of a person) and you think it would be nice to have sex with them, that's sexual attraction.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby Thrasymachus » Fri Mar 11, 2016 4:37 pm

@PIF:
Pretending that physical and sexual attraction is different, is nothing but playing tautological games and extreme nitpicking. If people like you felt no sexual attraction, either you would be attracted to none of the sexes, and no non-binary gender either. Thus either you wouldn't care to start any relationship, or you wouldn't care what kind of sexual parts, or sex those who you wanted a relationship with had, if only the relationship sans the physical/sexual attraction mattered.

@KAGU143:
I should have known if I put sex instead of gender, my statement would be nitpicked. I know that I am attracted to the female sex, not the female gender. Meaning I have no interest in people born a male, but who think they have the wrong gender and get a sex change or whatever. And I am not alone -- most people are like that, they are attracted to a sex or both sexes, not gender.

If you want to have a sexual itch and want to scratch it through masturbation that means you are a sexual being. If you consider yourself asexual despite that it means the cost-benefit ratio of having intercourse with a partner belonging to a sex you are attracted to is not worth it for some reason. What you guys are saying is the equivalent of me saying I have to scratch myself, but I am never itchy. You are just playing tautological games. We live in an alienated society full of bullshit man-made rules and abstractions that get more made up and dehumanizing as time goes on. So more and more people become hikikomoris, asexual, become mentally deranged, as this process of alienation accelerates. This all reinforces itself as the more shut-in and the more mentally deranged individuals in society become, the less they will be willing to pay the social cost of having a sexual partner. That is exactly what is happening

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby PiF » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:00 pm

Thrasymachus wrote:@PIF:Pretending that physical and sexual attraction is different, is nothing but playing tautological games and extreme nitpicking.


I have never picked a nit as I have never had any. I had to lookup tautoligical as I thought it was a desert but it appears that is a torte. anyway, never the less, it is possible to be attracted to a person both physically and mentally without being attracted sexually

Thrasymachus wrote: If people like you felt no sexual attraction,
....I don't

Thrasymachus wrote: either you would be attracted to none of the sexes, and no non-binary gender either. Thus either you wouldn't care to start any relationship, or you wouldn't care what kind of sexual parts, or sex those who you wanted a relationship had, if only the relationship sans the physical/sexual attraction mattered.


When some people start saying they want a simple message to send out...then start to throw about silly terms like "non binary gender" then I switch off as it just sounds like someone is just trying to play games throwing about psuedo intelligence to win a point

I have started relationships..I am asexual not a monk...I have had sex..I am asexual not incapable...I can and have been attracted to the opposite sex...I am asexual not incapable of love or a wish to share my life with another.....I have never been sexually attracted to another , because I am asexual.

I am asexual, I am celibate, I am a straight male...I have never sought affirmation or approval from some one on the internet and I can't see me starting now :D

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby Thrasymachus » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:11 pm

PIF wrote:... I can and have been attracted to the opposite sex... ...I have never been sexually attracted to another ...


That is exactly what tautological games are made of. If you were not attracted to the opposite sex or any sex/combination there of either you wouldn't feel any attraction and/or you wouldn't care to only select between females if only emotional connection mattered and not any-type of physical/sexual attraction. To use a proper food analogy instead of your earlier crappy one, it is like me saying I don't care about the taste of food at all, while also saying I am very picky and only eat certain foods(obviously because I like the taste of those foods and not others).

Also if you had to look up tautological, you are simply just not well read. I used non-binary gender, because there are lot of nitpickers in the asexual community, perhaps especially because the biggest asexual forum is pretty full of nitpicking and I want to be careful to cover all bases to leave less space for nitpicking.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby PiF » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:28 pm

I'm incredibly well read, I just like playing games with people who think they are well read

I will give you some advice..aven is fucked..it is run by a clique that has turned asexuality into a joke for special snowflakes of whom about 90% are sexual claiming to be asexual just so they can belong to something or anything, perhaps even they want to belong to the latest fad but a joke it has become never the less. yes as it has expanded the skill set to run it hasn't and like government if people are apathetic then they get the government they deserve.

Asexuality through aven is a laughing stock,,,but that doesn't mean people who are attracted to other people are attracted only sexually..there are other ways to be attracted to another

now forgive me..I have an irish coffe and a nice rhubarb crumble waiting for me to eat as I have no torte..I may be a while

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby KAGU143 » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:29 pm

Let's look at some of the better known sexual orientations: heterosexual and homosexual.

A heterosexual person is sexually attracted to the opposite sex. I think we can agree on that. But, they are nonetheless perfectly capable of having sex with someone of the same sex. Does that mean they are sexually attracted to that person?
The opposite situation is probably more common. Homosexual people have often been in heterosexual relationships for the sake of blending into society, but they weren't sexually attracted to their partners. (Just for the record, it's perfectly possible to love someone without being sexually attracted to them.)

It really isn't any different when an asexual person agrees to have sex if they have a sexual partner. It's not what they would prefer to do, but sometimes it's important to make some personal sacrifices for the sake of a relationship.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby Thrasymachus » Fri Mar 11, 2016 5:36 pm

Pif, you have done nothing but dodge the hard questions and pretend there is a big supposed difference between physical attraction and sexual attraction. And to top it all off, while squirming around playing such definitional games you still act haughty and superior.

And I know AVEN is an internet toilet and that is why in my first 30 posts there, I have stated it to their faces in a more toned down manner that what they offer is drama, nitpicking, politicking. The thing is you are no different than the sexuals you claim that pretend they feel no sexual attraction or who play games to define themselves as asexual by your preferred definition of feeling no sexual attraction. The problem is exactly that preferred definition. Almost no one fits under it, thus it isn't very sociologically useful.

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby KAGU143 » Fri Mar 11, 2016 6:53 pm

I agree that I don't see any significant difference between the concept of physical attraction and/or sexual attraction. I think the terminology is unclear when using the term physical attraction, so I would prefer some other choice of words.

Personal attraction is another matter, however, and I think that term is sufficiently different from physical/sexual attraction that there should be less confusion. Maybe it would be slightly more accurate to call it emotional attraction, or even emotional affinity, but the basic concept is that it is the person's inner self who is perceived as desirable, not the body that they inhabit.

There's another kind of attraction which might be considered vaguely physical because it relates to something that is physical, but I think it is more accurate to call it aesthetic attraction. As an artist, I find some things to be very attractive, and on rare occasions I have even seen some humans that I thought were very attractive from purely a physical perspective. For instance, I think Johnny Depp is very nice looking. I might consider making a character with his features as an art project (if I had the time to do such things any more) but I can't imagine ever wanting to talk with him. He might as well be from a different planet because we would have absolutely nothing in common.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby PiF » Sat Mar 12, 2016 1:04 am

Thrasymachus wrote:Pif, you have done nothing but dodge the hard questions and pretend there is a big supposed difference between physical attraction and sexual attraction. And to top it all off, while squirming around playing such definitional games you still act haughty and superior.


Not really. It is a big question for you.... it probably isn't for most

Look, There is physical attraction to others that happens even for asexuals who lack sexual attraction let me explain further

Within a relationship I have physical expectations of a partner..I have a preference for taller ladies but have dated as short as 5ft 4 inches, I would prefer ladies with hair although I have dated one who had a completely bald head etc etc, ..you can see therefore why physical attractions may not be what you are trying to make as sexual attractions and why the two are different

the bit I do find confusing is in other parts of apos you have pushed for clarity and a simple message then in here you seem to want the typical sub of a sub of a sub and it goes on

I am asexual, I was born this way...I am straight, I was born this way...I am fugly, I was born this way...I am celibate, I made a choice

I am very at ease with these, I don't beat myself up about these things nor do I worry about too much about it..In real life the fact I am asexual has probably only raised it's head twice in 12 months and even one of those events were people close to me having a laugh in the usual friendly banter way

For me and I suggest most...asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction..now if people want to go down the lets investigate the hell out of it that's upto them but that path rarely ends up in an agreed place of happyness as with seen with avens obsessive compulsive label dissorder (copyright, before avens unsure identify claim that too as asexual :D )

In sexual identity and gender there are a lot of questions and unfortunately that is what aven has become..I suggested it be renamed to SIGN..the Sexual Identity and Gender Network...it sure aint asexual anymore but asexuality pretty much for me is a yes or no

So yes..there are differences between sexual attraction and physical attraction

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby Thrasymachus » Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:09 am

Again saying "I am physically attracted, not sexually" is just playing games with lexicon and the type of thing that makes "asexuals" look like clowns. If you really didn't care about physical/sexual attraction(they are basically the same) your sexual orientation would be none or all, since the physical vessel wouldn't interest you. But the physical vessel does clearly interest you, which is what sexual attraction is.

Since you started with food analogies. What you are doing is like pretending you don't care about the taste of food, while actually having very specific taste preferences.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby PiF » Sat Mar 12, 2016 3:48 am

Apologies for the delay, I tend to use the forums less at the weekends

Thrasymachus wrote:Again saying "I am physically attracted, not sexually" is just playing games with lexicon and the type of thing that makes "asexuals" look like clowns. If you really didn't care about physical/sexual attraction(they are basically the same) .


to you they are the same thing that is why your not happy with my reply

Thrasymachus wrote:your sexual orientation would be none or all, since the physical vessel wouldn't interest you. But the physical vessel does clearly interest you, which is what sexual attraction is.


I've said countless times I do not consider Asexuality as an orientation...my orientation is straight

Thrasymachus wrote:Since you started with food analogies. What you are doing is like pretending you don't care about the taste of food, while actually having very specific taste preferences.


Not quite correct..Asexuality isn't "not caring"..it is simply absent..a bit like the difference between why is their a pork sausage on my plate? I only like beef..asexuality is, there is no sausage on my plate

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby Thrasymachus » Sat Mar 12, 2016 7:07 am

No, to just about everyone there is no real or significant difference between physical attraction and sexual attraction. People in the inbred asexual community still stick to a crappy definition centered around pretending you don't feel sexual attraction, and that forces you through all sorts of mental gymnastics and hyperbole to shoehorn your behavior and feelings into a category that from its outset was always badly defined and thus sociologically undesirable. By this I mean the current definition doesn't explain society or social conditions better, it creates confusion and the type of "to you there is no difference between physical and sexual attraction" game, when to everyone outside of the inbred asexual community, there is no significant difference between the terms.

For example look at this trainwreck AVEN thread where a 30 something maintains he is only attracted to women aged 20-25, but "he doesn't experience sexual attraction:
http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/1260 ... te-anyone/

That type of nonsense is the asexual community in a nutshell and why the mass of humanity cannot ever take this seriously.
Last edited by Thrasymachus on Sun Mar 13, 2016 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby PiF » Sat Mar 12, 2016 9:24 am

Thrasymachus wrote: No, to just about everyone there is no real or significant difference between physical attraction and sexual attraction. People in the inbred asexual community still stick to a crappy definition centered around pretending you don't feel sexual attraction,


"Everyone" must mean something different to me and the people I've met who are asexual. I'm pretty sure my mother and father were counties apart an were not related although they both do like brussell sprouts, that should have been a warning sign. No pretending at all, it isn't, never was and never will be there... sexual attraction to me is a dead parrot even more so when no one put the parrot in the cage so to speak.

What I do find interesting though is you complain it should be one clear message, you then seek to create other versions, which one is it again?

Thrasymachus wrote: and that forces you through all sorts of mental gymnastics and hyperbole to shoehorn your behavior and feelings into a category that from its outset was always badly defined and thus sociologically undesirable. By this I mean the current definition doesn't explain society or social conditions better, it creates confusion and the type of "to you there is no difference between physical and sexual attraction" game, when to everyone outside of the inbred asexual community, there is no significant difference between the terms.


The current definition was never meant for societal conditions...it was meant for the individual..Thankfully as a baseline it has seemed to be picked up upon which is a good starting point....I hate some have tried to make it different but cest la vie

Thrasymachus wrote: For example look at this trainwreck AVEN thread where a 30 something maintains he is only attracted to 20-25, but "he doesn't experience sexual attraction:
http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/1260 ... te-anyone/

That type of nonsense is the asexual community in a nutshell and why the mass of humanity cannot ever take this seriously.


I would agree with you but I would say this is not just aven that has this issue, instead the issue is the internet.

In regards to asexuality... aven has probably only about 10% real asexuals. according to their 2014 aven census most of aven is female, mostly on the "spectrum" rather than a real asexual and most of those in it's entirity are kids at college and uni..I suspect the 2015 census will see those figures rise but they are refusing to release them and I suspect that is why.

Now, gender forums and sexual identity forums are by definition, flooded by people looking for answers and most of those are the people going from teens into early adult hood...yes they annoy the f*ck out of me when they come in, never use search and then after 4 posts start telling newer people they know all the be and end all of what asexuality is...but that is mostly all teen and sexual identity forums

Now in regards to older "asexuals" as well as some younger ones ....some do confuse depression, social anxiety, trans, anxiety,social apathy, medication, low libido, physical abuse, sexual abuse etc with have no feelings for sex due to those conditions or a repulsion towards sex or even anti sexuality or even apathy towards sex...with asexuality... so I do agree that many may mistake other events which impacts on their feelings around sex so to find a hook to rest these issues they often hang their sexual coat on an asexual coat hook..but this explains what we both seem to agree on in that the bastardisation of the definition for sexuals to get the definition to fit them by using more labels than a food factory...asexuality is not 99 labels and the b*tch aint one.....It's one definition, that definition is a simple yes or no

That thread you show however is typical of the modern age, like selfies etc,,people do not want to feel average or everyday..they want followers, they want to feel important, they want to be a celebrity and with nothing special about them..they go on these drama laden facebook/selfies/tumblrs threads/pictures/videos...seeking validation and admiration

Asexuality for me is how I was born, it is how I will stay and it is lacking sexual attraction.

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby Thrasymachus » Sat Mar 12, 2016 9:34 am

Again you keep giving no substance to your claim that attraction whether you say attraction, physical attraction or sexual attraction is different. Since the asexual community is so "inbred" you guys don't care that you create your own bizarro lexicon the rest of the world doesn't follow and won't ever follow.

PIF wrote:Asexuality for me is how I was born, it is how I will stay and it is lacking sexual attraction.


Genetic determinism is totally discredited and only being propped up for the benefit of industry and corporations:

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetic ... ojectId=11

Biologists have known for a long time that gene expression is complex and DNA does not determine biology, let alone other characteristics of physical and mental health, behavior and intelligence. Nevertheless, over the years, thedeterministic model that genes alone define biology has become enshrined as the prevailing paradigm. This dogma was manifested on a large scale in the pursuit of the Human Genome Project. Why do scientists, with the full knowledge that various aspects of the cellular machinery and the environment work in cohort, continue to apply and propagate the DNA mantra? The motivations may be many, but chief among them is the simplicity of the "DNA is everything" model, and the outside commercial and scientific incentives available for such a focus. The application of DNA ideology has led to a problematic construction of race, sexuality, and intelligence, as seen through a lens of genetic determinism and has fostered the belief that for each of us our physical and mental well-being are pre-programmed and reflect the composition of our individual DNA. This scientific interpretation enhances a sense of inevitability and forecloses efforts at promoting social justice by presenting them as futile.


This is what the maverick Dr. Greger of nutritionfacts.org wrote in the Daily Telegraph to promote his newest book and tackle genetic determinism when it comes to health:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... mer-s.html

...

Many people assume the diseases that kill us are pre-programmed into our genes. High blood pressure by 55, heart attacks at 60, maybe cancer at 70, and so on . . . But for most of the leading causes of death, our genes usually account for only 10–20 per cent of risk.
The other 80-90 per cent of risk? It’s our diet and lifestyle. The typical Western diet is the number-one cause of premature death and the number-one cause of disability. In other words, a long and healthy life is largely a matter of choice.

...

The primary reason diseases tend to run in families may be that diets tend to run in families. Research has shown us that identical twins separated at birth will get different diseases based on how they live their lives.
A recent American Heart Association-funded study compared the lifestyles and arteries of nearly 500 twins.
It found that diet and lifestyle factors clearly trumped genes. You share 50 per cent of your genes with each of your parents, so if one parent dies of a heart attack, you know you’ve inherited some of that susceptibility.
But even among identical twins who have the exact same genes, one could die early of a heart attack and the other could live a long, healthy life with clean arteries, depending on what she ate and how she lived.
Even if both your parents died with heart disease, you should be able to eat your way to a healthy heart. Your family history does not have to become your personal destiny.
Even if you’re born with high-risk genes, you have tremendous control over your medical destiny.
Whatever genes we may have inherited from our parents, what we eat can affect how those genes impact on our health. The power is mainly in our hands — and on our plates.


But if you ask most people(and most people btw in a waiting room would rather read sports nonsense, tabloids or celebrity rags instead of a quality periodical like Smithsonian), they will argue how genes determine almost everything. Well most people are simply just wrong and out of date on everything but trivia. But it is a convenient doctrine to hold in a shallow, consumer-capitalist society: how children are raised doesn't matter, social conditions don't matter, prevailing societal assumptions shouldn't be examined, what you do doesn't matter, give up, it is all in the genes. In summary: if I was an elite I would love genetic determinism and continue to propagate alot of the phony DNA based research critiqued above. Dr. John P. Ioannidis, who has conducted such DNA based medical research, in one of his Youtube talks also has many devastating revelations as well:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... +ioannidis

FYI that Aven thread I cited was not young people's issues or idiosyncrasies, that poster was 34. If you follow almost all self proclaimed asexuals you will find they do describe they feel what everyone outside of the inbred asexual community would consider sexual attraction. What is the problem in the asexual community is an alienation toward sex, creating a different cost benefit ratio, not an absence of sexual attraction. You pretend like you are different, but your not.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby PiF » Sat Mar 12, 2016 9:45 am

I didn't say young in relation to that thread, please check again it may help you be less confused also the last link you quoted you said Dr. Greger of nutritionfacts.org wrote in the Daily Telegraph and then linked it to the daily mail :lol:

sexuality like science will always have one side saying yay and another saying neigh...climate change is a good example of that..for every study that says one thing there will be another study disputing it

Red wine can give you cancer one week and the following week it's a superfood...scientists have as much of a clue as the rest of us.

Can I ask thas..are you an asexual?

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby KAGU143 » Sat Mar 12, 2016 6:24 pm

I want to come in here and try to clarify something relating to the "DNA is everything" misunderstanding.
It is entirely possible to be born with permanent conditions that have no basis in DNA whatsoever. The prenatal environment has a HUGE effect on the developing fetus, so if someone say that they were born asexual then it really isn't up to anybody else to say whether their statement is right or wrong.
Up until the time comes that we can read minds and literally share another's perceptions, we are forced to rely on their own statements about what they feel or experience.

(Does this hurt? How about this? Can you taste the difference between these two beverages? Do these colors look different or the same to you?)

I know it's tempting to try to condense complex issues into simple bumper sticker quotes, but the real world doesn't work that way.
'Never has, never will.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby Thrasymachus » Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:00 am

I don't think the prenatal environment has anything to do with a behavioral issues like asexuality. It is also funny that obviously man-made categories are continually being created by the DSM committee, the LGBT communities, and in this case the asexual community, etc., and we have more and more people alleging they fit into this categories and not only that, but they are "born this/that way". It is all a byproduct of the fact that genetic determinism rules the public consciousness and nothing else, even when in the better research that is not so corporate aligned, DNA and genetics is everything doctrine is not really taken seriously.

Also what people who distract themselves with most of their free time and who have mental issues think in their heads, does not make it real or make anything correct --especially because those are the type of people that are the least realistic. People think all sorts of things about others and themselves that are not true.

I think in some cases alot of people are sort of forced to be asexual if you will, but it is most definitely not genetic and more a byproduct of how and in what context they were raised that alienated them from sexuality. The amount of people who are genetically asexual by the definition of feeling no sexual attraction(by this I don't mean games of pretending their is a big difference between physical attraction, sexual attraction or just the plain word attraction) if they exist are very few, and thus it does not explain much sociologically to use the definition I am disputing. Instead what we have in the asexual community is alot of confused people making funny threads like this:
http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/1334 ... -it-alone/

... I am not averse to being with a guy romantically but apart from casual relationships it hasn't happened. I'm getting to the stage now where I am thinking I want children. ...


I wouldn't be surprised if that poster who used a hushed manner of saying they have casual sex, was also in their mind "born asexual"
Last edited by Thrasymachus on Sun Mar 13, 2016 7:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 1:47 am

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby PiF » Sun Mar 13, 2016 3:00 am

I would disagree that Asexuality is a "behavioural issue" as you have phrased it and have never understood why the dsm keeps mentioning asexuality, It's not a mental illness or mental condition.

I would agree that the amount of genuine asexuals is far far lower than is made out

The thread you posted..the one above not the incorrect one you posted earlier ... "You wouldn't be surprised" is different than "see what they they said"..they have only 4 posts and it is not unusual for any identification forum, to have people rush in, claim identity to get a huge confidence burst only to then find out they were not their people after all ..then move onto the next forum they want a hello and welcome from

So Thrasymachus...are you an asexual?

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1262
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby KAGU143 » Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:21 pm

Thrasymachus, asexuality isn't determined or defined by behavior. It's determined by what the person PREFERS to do. (Assuming that there aren't any extenuating circumstances.) A lack of sexual (aka: physical) attraction will naturally result in a lack of interesting in having sex, simply because ALL people will be as sexually attractive to an asexual as a same-sex person would be to a heterosexual, or an opposite-sex person would be to a homosexual.
That's not to say that a homosexual can't have sex with someone of the opposite sex - it's just saying that doing so does not automatically make them straight.

As for the prenatal environment determining sexual orientation? It can definitely have a measurable effect. I'm actually surprised to see you disagreeing with what I thought should have been common knowledge by now.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/

Here is a small excerpt from that article:
As detailed in other articles in this issue, the early (prenatal, neonatal) hormone environment has powerful influences on neural and behavioral sexual differentiation in a wide range of mammalian species. Literally thousands of experiments involving manipulations of hormones have shown these effects, and the evidence will not be reviewed in detail here. However, this section will provide a summary of some of the general conclusions that are most relevant to a discussion of possible early endocrine influences on human sexual orientation.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: No sexual desire/attraction claims are wrongheaded

Postby Thrasymachus » Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:20 am

Someone mentioned the staff of AVEN appearing on 20/20 in the past in another recent thread. That lead to me finding this gem on Youtube:

https://youtu.be/yrXWqwuOqIQ?t=328

Interviewer Do you get erections?
Asexual: "Erections are basically involuntarily physical reactions, so yes I still get erections"


That is why people cannot take asexuality seriously. See what contortions the definition I object to forces people into?