When any publicity is bad publicity

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

When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby PiF » Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:39 am

Some of you may have seen the story in the U.K. newspaper about a lady who is identified as Lisa Smith who I understand is also a member in Aven

There is a fine line when stories like this are written because of the editorial cander and editing to gain audience so you have to hold some reservation as to what was actually said

For me I can only go by what print was in front of me. I read it a few times to make sure the first impact was not an incorrect one. Ms Smith labels herself as an Asexual, no problem with that but from the article I do not believe she is but is actually some one who is and has always been sexually repulsed who now after a few relationships has decided to become celibate.

Fair play to her, we all make our own rules and as I said there is always doubt between what is said and what ends up in print.

Where I take exception is that the article portrays asexuals as sexually repulsed without clarifying the two are not joined at the hip and there are many more sexuals who are sexually repulsed. Her individual story..again who I see as a sexually repulsed person and not asexual..has I feel led even more to the confusion around asexuality by the usual lazy and uninformed association that "I am asexual because" or "my asexuality is caused by"

For years I have been banging the drum of a clear and precise definition of asexuality...However I have felt we had one but in the wish to be a welcoming inclusive body we have accepted variants that are so weak in relation to our definition that it has undermined our definition and added to the confusion which has given ammo to those who doubt asexuality is even genuine.

Anyway..enough of my opinion for now and here is the link ..see what you feel

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... again.html

should it not work then it's in the daily mail online ..in the femail section titled...Why, aged 29, I have decided I'll NEVER have sex again

Kellam
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:07 pm

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby Kellam » Fri Feb 01, 2013 9:46 am

The only problem I noted was that the perspective of the artictle is that she seems to be coming from the defensive "there is nothing wrong with me I swear, I have proof" angle. The assumption of society seems to be that if you're not into sex, if you find it un-apealing or un-interesting then that equals revulsion, there is something wrong with you. Its a case of presuposed deffinitions, people talking at crossed purposes whilst using the same words. The author puts this perspective on herself and is still viewing her life through a sexual lens. I have found the grey-a and romantic-a cattegories very confusing and explaing that perspective to the world is sure to be difficult. I don't think that the Ace tent is to big, I think that this is still so new to the sexual world that any ripple or variation is going to cause hiccups. Humans are varied beings though, so what can we do. In the end I think ist about the strength of the lable for the individual, as long as the strength they gain dose not detract from the strength others need from it. Of course, the only real solution is to get more press for asexuals. I think the average reader would only pick up the important points from that article. Namely that asexuals arent interested in sex and that is normal and healthy. They may be made more aware of asexuals but the piece does muddy the waters a bit, and leave room for doubts. But every step is a step further out.

When I come out to people I don't do it from the defensive stance, I'm not asking questions or for tollerance or forgiveness. No "I hope its ok if I'm . . .", more like " I'm asexual!" When I say 'asexual' I mean it as a statement of fact. One can't ask for truth from power, one must speak truth to it, whatever that power structure may be.

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby PiF » Fri Feb 01, 2013 2:40 pm

Kellam wrote:The only problem I noted was that the perspective of the artictle is that she seems to be coming from the defensive "there is nothing wrong with me I swear, I have proof" angle. The assumption of society seems to be that if you're not into sex, if you find it un-apealing or un-interesting then that equals revulsion, there is something wrong with you.


Agreed, I think if anything it reaked of trying to hard

Kellam wrote: I have found the grey-a and romantic-a cattegories very confusing and explaing that perspective to the world is sure to be difficult. I don't think that the Ace tent is to big, I think that this is still so new to the sexual world that any ripple or variation is going to cause hiccups. Humans are varied beings though, so what can we do. In the end I think ist about the strength of the lable for the individual, as long as the strength they gain dose not detract from the strength others need from it.


In part I agree but not all. I am of the opinion that the demi/semi/pan etc inclusion is the promotion of the part time individual over the full time definition. I am a firm believer but I am also aware that not everyone agrees.....that the semi/demi/pan etc are not asexuals but are sexuals who on occasions display asexual tendencies and the asexual community allows this inclusion at the cost of long term legitimacy of the asexual message and definition.

In many ways and I have used the description before ...it's like pescetarians calling themselves vegetarians...... On that basis my own personal opinion is that the inclusion of semis/demis/pans etc adds to those who doubt us and appears to give them the ammo that asexuality is nothing more than a teen phase of unclear direction and lets make it up as we go along

Kellam wrote:Of course, the only real solution is to get more press for asexuals. I think the average reader would only pick up the important points from that article. Namely that asexuals arent interested in sex and that is normal and healthy. They may be made more aware of asexuals but the piece does muddy the waters a bit, and leave room for doubts. But every step is a step further out.


I agree on more press but would define that as more correct press. This daily mail interview skewed asexuality as most I suspect will see this as nothing more than asexuals are people who are just sexually repulsed. Again whilst I feel Miss Smith feels she is asexual I would say she is a sexual who is a sexually repulsed lady and that confusing message has done more damage than good.

This has been promoted as an asexual issue but has been promoted by one who is not asexual but is sexually repulsed and that is the confusion that has now been associated with this daily mail and tv interview. We have enough proplems in getting people to believe our orientation without people believing all asexuality is nothing other than people who are sexually repulsed

On steps, I feel this is one of those one step forwards two steps back. and the confusion allowed from this article has I feel done a disservice to the long term promotion of Asexuality and highlights why we need a uniform media standard definition approach rather than someone going off half cocked identifying as asexual and a representitive of such when they are not and doing more damage than good.
Last edited by PiF on Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Kellam
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:07 pm

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby Kellam » Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:14 pm

That was a realy well put argument, and I think you're right. You've given me alot to think about, thanks. You got me with the pescatarian/vegetarian thing. I was a so called veggi for twelve years, but I insisted on calling myself ovo-lacto-vegetarian. I lived off eggs, cheese and pasta. I hardly ate veggetables. I also didn't like being lumped in with health nuts and peta people. Luckily I was able to just stop being a strict veggie. I can't stop being asexual so what other choice is there? The way you put it, articles and representations of asexuality such as this one do take away from what we need as a necessity to describe ourselves. Maybe that's where more lables, confusing thought they may be, do help. There are shared experiences there though that validate their presence in the community. But perhaps the lables will help to define them as their own destinct community within the larger?

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby PiF » Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:25 pm

I think there is only one definition to have and that definition of asexuality is the most precise and accurate one to promote

where it goes wrong is when people don't have the 100% association with that definition then they refuse to say the obvious such as.....I am probably not asexual then..because to do so removes the sense of direction many are looking for.

However attach an incorrect definition which many do because they are desperate to belong..... brings in variation that distorts the original message/definition of the many... for the personal gain of the one.

Even more worrying is they then go on to promote their version of asexuality which has little to do with the truth about asexuality at all.

So if anything the more labels, the more confusion and the less of an understanding but more chance of a wrongfull identity as has happened in this interview.

The interviews portrayed an asexual is=a sexually repulsed person and completely projected the wrong definition rather than an accurate and helpfull one

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby KAGU143 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:08 am

I already made a long post in a different area and I can only do that on rare occasions, but I wanted to touch briefly on this topic.

I happen to agree that that the various Semi-Demi-Grey-A, (etc) categories should not be considered as aspects of asexuality. I can see their problem, though, and the reason that they would look for inclusion in the asexual community. They are caught in the middle, and asexuals are generally much more open and accepting of those with little sexual interest. Unless/until they acquire enough numbers to form their own group, I think they should be welcomed and encouraged.

Now, sexually repressed asexuals are in a different category. I think that many of them are perfectly valid asexuals who have only become repressed as a secondary aspect of asexuality.
A topic which inspires nothing but indifference can grow into one which inspires absolute loathing if it's inescapable, and I think that probably happens quite a bit - often at such an early age that it's hard to remember which came first - the lack of interest or the loathing. 'Just something to think about.

That's all for now. Real life is demanding my attention ... again.
*rolls eyes*
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

Kellam
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:07 pm

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby Kellam » Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:20 am

This does kinda remind me of the time surounding the Stonewall Riots, at the genesis of the gay rights movement. The question was over deffinitions then too. There was the "normal gay" side, suits and jobs and respectable members of society. And then there was the drag camp. In the end they found that they needed eachother to move forward. Humans are amorphous, none of us are exactly the same. Strict deffinitons are important, but so are allies. Asexuals and Grey-As alike can give a stronger show of difference to the sexual world than they could on their own. I see it more as a fight not for the deffinitions and lables but for the understanding, accepting and integration of the Asexual perspective in the world. Sp what is there to do to advance the more precise deffinition? Write, blog, put out videos, submit edditorials to newspapers etc. Get the word out. That's all I was trying to say. I was just asking questions and you answerd me very concisely. Thank you for your candor. I have been trying to share my experience with the world, and you have given me a clearer foccus as to what I want to say and how I want to say it. You've made me feel more secure in putting the more precise, and personal, definition of asexual into the foreground of my communication. Thanks

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby PiF » Sat Feb 02, 2013 3:18 pm

In relation to the interviews by miss smith My problem with is is that I feel, wether you agree or not..I feel she is a sexual who is sexually repressed and because of that has aligned herself with asexuality but is claiming she is asexual and promoting herself in that wrong description

Where this for me has badly gone wrong is that her interviews were more on the repulsion giving the impression that all asexuals are sexually repulsed and add to that celibate. You can see even more so when the semi's demis etc are added into the mix......so your asexual yes? well sometimes I'm known as a demi or semi....so you have sexual attraction to some people but not others yes?...yes...isn't that what normal people do ? sexually attracted to some but not others?

it's that level of "we seem to make shit up as we go along" added to the large user base of teens within aven and people think asexuality is nothing more than a mixed up teens/young adult "phase" and by encouraging the addition of 20 shades of 1 colour we seem to be losing the ability to promote the asexual message. Aven is alledgely the visibility and awareness network but has failed as the message it promotes is unclear and confusing

The other problem this interview highlights is just how many are calling themselves asexual adding to the confusion of what is and isn't an asexual because we don't want to be "rude" and tell them they do not meet the definition but more importantly have a sexual apathy that is not asexual related

We have sexually repulsed, depressed, anti social, people who have difficulty relating to others, people with libido issues, teenage discovery, a victim of child abuse, a victim of sexual abuse etc..all of these would in their own unique way cause many to feel apathy/reluctance to sex or sex with others. But..the more asexuality becomes known the more many are wrongly diagnosing themselves as asexual when they are not because of the causes above..these causes do not make people asexual..in fact I would argue if you have to say "I am asexual because" then you are almost certainly not and never will be..asexual

These interviews if anything should be seen as a iconic reference on how not to do it and we should learn from these because if we are ever to be taken seriously then we need to know who we are if we are to expect others to know too

In many ways Aven is to weak to be honest and say to people, actually your not asexual but instead says go forward and project an incorrect message because like bad parents we don't like to say...no

ASIC

Postby ASIC » Sun Feb 03, 2013 3:17 pm

I don't understand this thread: why is someone "who is and has always been sexually repulsed" deemed to be somehow masquerading as asexual? (and somehow causing offence?)

She describes a "lack of libido" towards either men or women and has no desire for sexual congress: what does she have to do to be allowed into the club? Is 'true' asexuality only acceptable among those who can take it or leave it - is it finding the act repulsive that disqualifies her?
(Because, frankly, without attraction the act is repulsive: hence rape.)

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby PiF » Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:15 pm

ASIC wrote:I don't understand this thread: why is someone "who is and has always been sexually repulsed" deemed to be somehow masquerading as asexual? (and somehow causing offence?)


Asic, I wonder if you had read the whole thread and just not skimmed?

The lady concerned was portrayed and promoted herself as asexual when it was clear she is not but is in fact sexually repulsed. When you claim you are asexual then it helps if you are going to promote it to promote it accurately. The outlying impression from both sets of interviews gave the wrong impression you had to be sexually repulsed to be an asexual which is clearly wrong. Many asexuals are sex positive

ASIC wrote:She describes a "lack of libido" towards either men or women and has no desire for sexual congress: what does she have to do to be allowed into the club? Is 'true' asexuality only acceptable among those who can take it or leave it - is it finding the act repulsive that disqualifies her?


This is the argument normally used by people who think thinking is too hard and normally throw a race card out when they don't like others to have an opinion the other usual limited opinion is that of elitism..there is no club....there is no elitism......there is however people who are asexual..and people who are not..if the truth offends you then perhaps the internet is not your best learning source

ASIC wrote:(Because, frankly, without attraction the act is repulsive: hence rape.)


I don't know who this frankly person is but I can only assume you know them. As to sex without attraction is rape??? I can only assume your ignorance is deliberate and you won't realise you have just offended almost every asexual in a physical loving relationship with a sexual

There is nothing wrong with miss smith promoting herself at all but if our prime concern on the promotion and awareness of asexuality then it should not be promoted as a sexual repulsion as to do so would be wrong and very damaging

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby KAGU143 » Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:52 am

PiF, I think you are being needlessly judgmental when you say that a sexually repulsed person isn't asexual.

The simple fact is that asexuality CAN sometimes be caused by other factors, and/or other factors can be a contributing cause. The end result is 100% indistinguishable from asexuality, no matter how it occurs.
DJ has steadfastly avoided discussing this aspect of asexuality and, while I understand his reasons, I think his continued denial of facts which are easily observable to others has a good chance of backfiring on the entire asexual movement.
I have always maintained that we will have a much stronger position if we accept ALL aspects of asexuality and not just those which are conveniently un-explainable as anything other than a random accident of birth.

(I hate to use the blindness analogy but it's all I can think of at the moment.)

What you seem to be saying, in effect, is that someone who becomes blind after having vision for part of their life is not TRULY blind because they can probably remember what it was like to see.
Or, that someone who found found sight to be so painful that they gouged out their own eyes in order to get away from it is not truly blind - they are visually repulsed.
I am saying that a person who cannot see at all is legitimately blind, no matter how they became that way.

Asexuality is a state of being.
An asexual person does not experience sexual attraction.
Full stop.


Now, I can certainly agree that a person who is obviously sexually repulsed is not going to be our best public relations choice, but that doesn't invalidate their asexuality.
In much the same way, a person who has gouged out their own eyes would not be a very good poster child for the Lighthouse for the Blind charity.

I don't think that misleading publicity is bad publicity - It just means that we still have more work to do, and that we (all asexuals) need to be honest about the many human variations that can be gathered together under the asexual umbrella.
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: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby PiF » Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:45 am

KAGU143 wrote:PiF, I think you are being needlessly judgmental when you say that a sexually repulsed person isn't asexual.


I would say the opposite...I'm pretty sure i know the differences between an asexual who is sexually repulsed and a person who is sexually repulsed and identifies with the asexual movement. Based on the articles i do feel ms Smith is not a sexually repulsed asexual but a sexually repulsed lady who alines with the asexual movement

KAGU143 wrote:The simple fact is that asexuality CAN sometimes be caused by other factors, and/or other factors can be a contributing cause. The end result is 100% indistinguishable from asexuality, no matter how it occurs.


We differ on this..I am asexual because is like I am gay because and both are incorrect self labelling and a wrongfull assumption. I am xyz because ..indicates choices and my asexuality is not a choice

KAGU143 wrote:DJ has steadfastly avoided discussing this aspect of asexuality and, while I understand his reasons, I think his continued denial of facts which are easily observable to others has a good chance of backfiring on the entire asexual movement.


DJ is an ass who gets off more on tv interviews and media days out and certianly does not represent Asexuality. He maybe the most widely known but a true relfection of asexuality as whole? then no

KAGU143 wrote:I have always maintained that we will have a much stronger position if we accept ALL aspects of asexuality and not just those which are conveniently un-explainable as anything other than a random accident of birth.


Which sounds all very love and peace man but emphasises why beyond our own circles so many doubt asexuality even exists..muddy the waters enough and all people will see is muddy water and not the clear people need to see to understand..as to the blindness analogy..like any analogy and the semi/demi etc all it does is confuse rather than be honest and clarify. I wonder if some within the asexual movement are worried about being too honest through afear most will turn out not to be asexual at all?

KAGU143 wrote:Asexuality is a state of being.
An asexual person does not experience sexual attraction.
Full stop.


as analogies are being used this^^^^ would mean asexuality does not exist at all..why? well using that definition if someone doesn't think about sex for a 5 second span they they would meet that asexual clarification..two fully active sexuals who do not shag every second of the day would have asexual tendencies if they stop for a momment..you can see why if anything that statement would in effect say we are all sexual but with asexual occasional thoughts..again like missrepresenting yourself as an asexual I fail to see how this helps the uninformed and promote visibility about what an asexual actually is and that it should be viewed as real

KAGU143 wrote:I don't think that misleading publicity is bad publicity - It just means that we still have more work to do, and that we (all asexuals) need to be honest about the many human variations that can be gathered together under the asexual umbrella.


if you want to go from a to b which would be the simplest and most correct way of doing it..going direct from a2b or going from a to c to f to l to p to w to z?

If we want people to believe we actually exist then correct identification. promotion and visibility is the only way..to put anything else out will and as does regulary happen make us look like selective fakes..and I am definately not a fake..i am asexual

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby KAGU143 » Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:33 am

PiF, the parts of my post that you didn't respond to were the most important parts.

To continue with the blindness analogy: If it is proven that blindness can occur in a number of different ways, does that mean that it doesn't exist?



(On another topic: Isn't it nice to be able to disagree without worrying about being banned? :D Some of our newer members don't know me, but I enjoy a good debate. It's perfectly okay to disagree with me, and you MIGHT even be able to change my mind on something if you can produce enough evidence to prove me wrong.) (But don't count on it! LOL!!)
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: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby PiF » Mon Feb 04, 2013 1:36 pm

KAGU143 wrote:PiF, the parts of my post that you didn't respond to were the most important parts.

To continue with the blindness analogy: If it is proven that blindness can occur in a number of different ways, does that mean that it doesn't exist?


I didn't ignore it Nancy I just didn't see it as relevant in relation to the thread ...if anything my analogy with pescatarian/vegetarian was more relevant and correct in displaying what happens when people wrongly apply a label the promote it as the truth

The problem also is that people know what blindness is under the clear definition that came first..we are not there yet and we seem to be promoting the message arse end first. We are asking people to understand the divisons within asexuality without them knowing what asexuality is

The trouble is if i maybe so blunt is aven...Despite holding the Asexual Visability flag holder it is actually the biggest missanomer within the asexual movement. By trying to be a safe place for all and welcoming to all they have lost the message about what Aven and asexuality really is. Be honest if you had never been in aven and were over 25..what would you think of asexuality based on aven? I would say it is a kiddie site full of people temporary claiming to be asexual because they are on the teen/early adult phase of their lifes and as such a more approriate name would be "the phase" site

The older section within aven I suggest is were you will find the real asexuals who have been asexual longer than 6 months and are likely once they get past 25 will realise if they were even asexual

currently...the projection of welcoming the many against the need to send out a correct message of what is an actual asexual is ..is so far out of balance that you can easily understand those who doubt us..we are it seems..more capable of damaging our own image than any other

KAGU143 wrote:(On another topic: Isn't it nice to be able to disagree without worrying about being banned? :D Some of our newer members don't know me, but I enjoy a good debate. It's perfectly okay to disagree with me, and you MIGHT even be able to change my mind on something if you can produce enough evidence to prove me wrong.) (But don't count on it! LOL!!)


Absolutely!

Aven is so full of immature kids who get the mememe mindset that they press the report button the minute they have someone dissagree with them because they don't like to lose.....mum mum they are picking on me/they are racist/they are sexist/they are homophobic etc whinging flies off thier fingers faster than they can moan about their parents

So yes it's good to have Apositive where most people can still be open, passionate but mature whilst still holding a discussion and debate and to you and the other half I'm appreciative of that Nancy

as to getting banned..pahhh been there..done that :lol: :lol:

see you in a couple of weeks

User avatar
ParaLLL
Regular Member
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby ParaLLL » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:05 pm

Funny, I'm under 25 and I've been aware I'm asexual for six years, and was exactly the same before, only lacking the word for it.

I'm curious though; I can't tell from what I've read in your posts. You keep talking about the "only one definition" of asexuality, but I can't figure out what this definition is that you say should be the only one.

ASIC

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby ASIC » Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:14 pm

ParaLLL wrote:I'm curious though; I can't tell from what I've read in your posts. You keep talking about the "only one definition" of asexuality, but I can't figure out what this definition is that you say should be the only one.


Exactly; I'm still completely confused about what the argument is actually about.

ASIC

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby ASIC » Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:27 pm

PiF wrote:
ASIC wrote:I don't understand this thread: why is someone "who is and has always been sexually repulsed" deemed to be somehow masquerading as asexual? (and somehow causing offence?)


Asic, I wonder if you had read the whole thread and just not skimmed?

The lady concerned was portrayed and promoted herself as asexual when it was clear she is not but is in fact sexually repulsed.


It may be clear to you, but I'm not clear why it is - hence the whole enquiry.


ASIC wrote:She describes a "lack of libido" towards either men or women and has no desire for sexual congress: what does she have to do to be allowed into the club? Is 'true' asexuality only acceptable among those who can take it or leave it - is it finding the act repulsive that disqualifies her?


This is the argument normally used by people who think thinking is too hard and normally throw a race card out when they don't like others to have an opinion the other usual limited opinion is that of elitism..there is no club....there is no elitism......there is however people who are asexual..and people who are not..if the truth offends you then perhaps the internet is not your best learning source


*blink* Eh? That was a question, not an argument, let alone a personal attack...

In fact I gather from your further postings that my guess is in fact correct - it is indeed the repulsion that disqualifies her in your view. Which leaves me even more puzzled.




ASIC wrote:(Because, frankly, without attraction the act is repulsive: hence rape.)


I don't know who this frankly person is but I can only assume you know them. As to sex without attraction is rape??? I can only assume your ignorance is deliberate and you won't realise you have just offended almost every asexual in a physical loving relationship with a sexual.


i.e. this is why rape is considered repulsive and, for example, forcing a woman to scrub your floor is not.

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby flergalwit » Sat Feb 16, 2013 7:48 am

KAGU143 wrote:The simple fact is that asexuality CAN sometimes be caused by other factors, and/or other factors can be a contributing cause. The end result is 100% indistinguishable from asexuality, no matter how it occurs.
DJ has steadfastly avoided discussing this aspect of asexuality and, while I understand his reasons, I think his continued denial of facts which are easily observable to others has a good chance of backfiring on the entire asexual movement.

I have always maintained that we will have a much stronger position if we accept ALL aspects of asexuality and not just those which are conveniently un-explainable as anything other than a random accident of birth.

What facts has DJ been denying? DJ has never pushed the "born this way" line particularly, as far as I can tell. Others do this. DJ has never pushed the idea that asexuality is uncorrelated with every other "condition". Others do this. DJ is supportive of intersectionality. And DJ certainly hasn't pushed the idea that you can't be asexual if you're [repulsed / old / trans / autistic / a survivor of abuse / ...].

He is far far in the other direction actually (further than me for sure): to oversimplify things, his model is basically that you're asexual if and only if you identify as asexual.

PiF wrote:DJ is an ass who gets off more on tv interviews and media days out and certianly does not represent Asexuality. He maybe the most widely known but a true relfection of asexuality as whole? then no

Evidence of this?

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby PiF » Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:10 pm

I got 10 mins so had a chance to reply

Firstly

Hi ya Michael...I hope your well and those close to you are well too..good to see you

On your reply to nancy's post

flergalwit wrote:What facts has DJ been denying? DJ has never pushed the "born this way" line particularly, as far as I can tell. Others do this. DJ has never pushed the idea that asexuality is uncorrelated with every other "condition". Others do this. DJ is supportive of intersectionality. And DJ certainly hasn't pushed the idea that you can't be asexual if you're [repulsed / old / trans / autistic / a survivor of abuse / ...].

He is far far in the other direction actually (further than me for sure): to oversimplify things, his model is basically that you're asexual if and only if you identify as asexual.


dj has never pushed born this way because lets be honest dj is a bisexual asexual to to say he was born this way would lead to the obvious question of ..what way? having sex with men, women or just having no feeling for sex with either. My point to that is that he has been an advocate of fluidity with very little to say asexuality even exists other than a rubber band of a definition for him...which as the very public face of asexuality is something that continually undermines our genuine existence

As to hasn't pushed the idea you can't be asexual if your repulsed etc..well there in lies my first reply...he really doesn't push anything that can be nailed down and again aids those who doubt asexualities existence. Demis,semis etc are a good case..in welcoming those that are not you confuse the message of what is

I like many long term asexuals absolutely are aware there are asexuals who are depressed, gay, trans, abused ....however dj like some of his sycofants refuse to accept there are also those on the other side of the coin who are trans, depressed, socially awkward, repressed sexually, repulsed etc who are just that but wrongly then identify as asexual and go onto to promote asexuality when they themselves are not asexual at all and so the message of the many gets watered down to the message of the one

the your asexual only if you identify as asexual leaves asexuality in a black hole of doubt and lacking in direction and honesty. It sounds like a politician trying to avoid a yes no answer

PiF wrote:DJ is an ass who gets off more on tv interviews and media days out and certianly does not represent Asexuality. He maybe the most widely known but a true relfection of asexuality as whole? then no

flergalwit wrote:Evidence of this?


O I think we both know I have history with dj being an ass

ask him for an interview and he's there like a rat up a drain pipe..ask him to intervene in the main asexual forum that he himself created ..to stop it tearing itself apart and suddenly he has the attention span of a goldfish and when he does come in..he makes all kinds of promises about change, listening to it's members, promises promises promises and like a true politician..lets it fade away into the mist when he thinks people have forgotten about it

In true politician ways he loses the message in his own audience and instead of promoting what asexuality is..he leaves it causing more doubt than proof, more no's than yes's and more proof his own agenda is more important than the message of the orientation

so yes..he's a media whore and an ass

I hope that answers your question

Anyway...for various reasons I will be in Denver on the 6th March then back to blighty ..never know..I might attend a meet...although I am sure some of the aven mods will try and ban me from that too :lol: :lol:

User avatar
ParaLLL
Regular Member
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby ParaLLL » Wed Feb 20, 2013 8:55 pm

If I may repeat myself, since I haven't seen an answer yet....

You keep talking about the "only one definition" of asexuality, but I can't figure out what this definition is that you say should be the only one. What is it?

Kellam
New Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 12:07 pm

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby Kellam » Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:33 pm

I'm glad you posed that ParaLLL because this conversation has been bugging me. I've questioned allot of my own input here and I think that stems from not completely getting the whole deffinition thing.

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby flergalwit » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:41 pm

The standard definition of asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction. An asexual person is someone who does not experience sexual attraction.

Of course that's where the fun starts. Next question is: what does sexual attraction mean? Lots of different ideas here... But the first paragraph is pretty standard (the most credible variant being to replace "does not experience" with "experiences little or no").

Hi PiF!

Er what? DJ is bisexual now? When did that happen?

Yes DJ supports fluidity. So do I. For too long some people in the LGBT community and some people in the asexual community have held onto the dogma that sexual orientations can never change and are always life long. The evidence appears to contradict this belief. Therefore it's worth abandoning. (And for the record, I am a "lifelong asexual": never felt sexual attraction and never expect to in future. But not everyone is like me.)

PiF wrote:As to hasn't pushed the idea you can't be asexual if your repulsed etc..well there in lies my first reply...he really doesn't push anything that can be nailed down and again aids those who doubt asexualities existence. Demis,semis etc are a good case..in welcoming those that are not you confuse the message of what is

It really doesn't seem that complex to me. Sexuality is a spectrum. Asexuals are right at one end. Gray-As are near the end but not actually at the end. I don't see how one undermines the other.

PiF wrote:O I think we both know I have history with dj being an ass

ask him for an interview and he's there like a rat up a drain pipe..

Yes: most of us are thankful for his continuing work in visibility and education.

PiF wrote:ask him to intervene in the main asexual forum that he himself created ..to stop it tearing itself apart and suddenly he has the attention span of a goldfish and when he does come in..he makes all kinds of promises about change, listening to it's members, promises promises promises and like a true politician..lets it fade away into the mist when he thinks people have forgotten about it

Hmm. Last time that happened he offered to hold a private meeting involving you and a few other disgruntled members, which none of you took him up on...

PiF wrote:Anyway...for various reasons I will be in Denver on the 6th March then back to blighty ..never know..I might attend a meet...although I am sure some of the aven mods will try and ban me from that too :lol: :lol:

Yes do come along. The London scene has really picked up since last summer. (I haven't lived in London since the previous millennium but I go visit there quite a lot these days.)

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby KAGU143 » Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:29 pm

Wow ... I swear, I only stepped away for what seemed like a moment ...
Some explanation for my comments is definitely needed.

Okay, first. I don't personally dislike DJ and I'm certainly not negative toward him like PiF is, .... BUT:
I do believe that he has shown a consistent pattern of avoiding any mention of the relationship between asexuality (as he defines it: An asexual is one who does not experience sexual attraction) and things like natural aging, past sexual abuse, depression, gender dysphoria, fear of intimacy, autism, drug use, and many other factors or situations.

A lack of sexual attraction can indeed be idiosyncratic and present from birth, but it can also be caused by internal or external influences and it can occur later in life.
In my experience, DJ seems to focus on only the first type and to avoid any discussion of the latter, other than to suggest that getting a medical examination is always appropriate.
Absolutely, and I have no problem with that as far as it goes, but the implication seems to be that those people whose asexuality has a probable cause are not "real" asexuals.
It might be that the idea that asexuality is a sexual orientation is hard to reconcile with the fact that it can be caused by known factors, but I don't know why this should be the case since it's also understood that sexual orientations can and do change.
Anyway, I saw this attitude time and again on AVEN, and, since DJ still identifies with AVEN, those opinions must be presumed to be his as well unless/until he states otherwise.

I prefer to accept all people who do not experience sexual attraction at all as asexuals if that's how they would like to be accepted, and that's whether they've been that way from birth or whether they've arrived at it later in life.

PiF, I'm not talking about momentary episodes. I'm talking about a consistent life experience that has no sign of changing or ending and that doesn't cause the person who is experiencing it any personal distress. In other words, they don't experience sexual attraction.

As a nod to DJ and his efforts, I'm willing to consider another, slightly different name for it. I think I've mentioned the term "functional" asexuality in the past to distinguish asexuality which seems to have a cause from that which doesn't. I would have to look it up to be sure, but I'm pretty sure that's the term I chose for lack of anything better at the time.

Now, the following is based ONLY on my personal observations so it could be wrong. Have some salt handy and take some if needed.

Regarding DJ and some of his quirks ...
Never forget: DJ is promoting himself and his own ideas about asexuality first and foremost, and public awareness of AVEN second.

He doesn't show very much interest in the asexual movement as a whole, though - only those parts which can reflect favorably on himself.
There are a lot of asexual websites now besides AVEN and Apositive, and, as far as I know, DJ has never joined a single one of them - ever.
He's aware of their existence, and he's not hostile to them in any way that I know of, but he's been unwilling to add his name to ANY other asexual group's membership list as an ally or to show solidarity.
To me, it appears that he's unwilling to do anything other than give a brief mention that other asexual venues exist, because to do so would dilute his own importance.
Now, this is a relatively minor blip in the grand scheme of things, and admittedly I owe DJ a lot. I'm willing to forgive him for everything, but that doesn't mean that I'm blind or ignorant. Spending any amount of time with DJ feels just like spending time with a politician or a lobbyist, and I don't think that's an accident. There's a very strong feeling of "What's in it for me?" that seems to hover around him, although I don't think it's intentional on his part.

Now, this is ALL my own opinion based on my own impressions, nothing more, so please take it only as that and not as any sort of gospel truth. I can be wrong; I have been wrong, but overall I have a pretty good lifetime average at judging character.
To anybody who has seen DJ's movie "A Sexual": think about the part near the end where he draws a graph to illustrate his idea of intimacy.
I can't explain it any better than that.
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: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby PiF » Thu Feb 21, 2013 7:26 pm

ParaLLL

Apologies, as you had said you had identified as asexual for a number of years I thought you knew the definition...An asexual person is someone who does not experience sexual attraction.

Michael ..there are two many copy and pastes and i'm getting lost :lol: so I will hit some key points if I may?

DJ supports fluidity. So do I. For too long some people in the LGBT community and some people in the asexual community have held onto the dogma that sexual orientations can never change and are always life long. The evidence appears to contradict this belief.

If you view clear cut definitions then you could as you have done claim it to be dogma..you would be wrong to do so but lets go with that and lets see where this goes

researcher asks...so you are asexual..you lack or do not experience sexual attraction?
asexual...that's correct
researcher..well i don't experience sexual attraction 24 hours a day does that make me asexual
Asexual..hell yeah, we believe in fluidity..if you want to call yourself asexual then why not
researcher..whats this demi semi thing?
asexual..well thats asexuals who do not experience sexual attraction except for one or two people
Researcher...but I'm like that..I don't want to have sex with everyone and I'm not sexually attracted to every one..so I could now be a asexual and a demi/semi and sexual? cool
asexual ...well erm...erm... we believe in fluidity
researcher...okay then..what about those people who have mental health issues, personality disorders, unable to get on with others, those sexually repulsed, sexually abused etc all who would be perfectly happy due to those reason who would not feel sexually attracted to anyone..are they asexual too because of those reasons?
asexual..erm erm erm..they could be, might be
Researcher..so an asexual could be anyone, even a sexual
asexual..erm erm erm
Okay..so asexuality is a spectrum where no one can pin down what an asexual actually is because from what you have told me..most sexuals at some time or another could be labelled as asexual?
Asexual.well of course..don't you know nothing?

and there in lies Michael, the message according to those who want the flock to be all encompassing whilst actually projecting confusion,doubt and an actual distrust of someone calling themselves asexual, where the definition is one thing, it becomes distorted into doubt

and the biggest promoters of an incorrect, unclear and doubtfull clarification of what asexuality is.....asexuals

Hmm. Last time that happened he offered to hold a private meeting involving you and a few other disgruntled members, which none of you took him up on...


If that is what you have been told Michael then you have been missled..you can ask arch we tried to pin down changes needed to make our message clearer whilst promiting aven and asexuality as a valid and clear orientation...dj sought to diffuse, confuse and delay any single change that was put forward.

Having seen dj do this several times before I sent a pm to him arch..and I forget the third..pointing out he talks bolloxs, wants no part in correct promotion or clarification and this was nothing more than the usual smoke screen he does when something hits the fan, trying to appease some with smoke and mirrors in the usual way he does in the hope it all goes away and reverts back to his normal..so yes you were misslead michael and on that basis i said with change promised and yet again an appeasement of the masses with false hopes..that I had run out of patience with dj's lies and withdrew from the false promises, shortly after I think arch and the third also pulled out realising as I had, that dj was full of piss and wind

Hiya nancy

you know me, I always prod peoples thoughts, even more so when I'm right :lol:

Dj is a politician and will say shit if it gets him to where he wants to be and with little care for the message of asexuality in a way that clarifies, promotes and installs a genuine..ahhh now I get it message

in a 2010 interview with UTHE UBYSSEY...this part caught my eye .......he pointed out that while many people who identify as asexual do so for their whole life, some people will use the label for a time and then feel that it no longer reflects their best understanding of themselves and change it.

Now this is a person who will do more interviews than the kardashians promiting what is and isn't an asexual whilst saying it's fluid so we could all be sexuals with asexual tendencies one minute and the next..quite clearly..some are wrongly identifying as asexual..now forgive me but if our most vocal front man can't nail it down then why would you allow a contiual vaguity to be promoted then seemingly get upset when people doubt us?

and back to the original post..when people wrongly identify as asexual..then go forward to the media and promote a wrong definition, a vague definition, a definition that could make most of us look like sexuals with an oddity instead of the real what we are....then as I have said many times over...the biggest groupd of people causing doubt about what an asexual is ..is asexuals

User avatar
ParaLLL
Regular Member
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby ParaLLL » Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:16 pm

I asked what definition you were trying to push for, PiF. Unless being asexual is supposed to make me able to read your mind, what definition I am aware of and use is irrelevant.

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby PiF » Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:07 am

ParaLLL wrote:I asked what definition you were trying to push for, PiF. Unless being asexual is supposed to make me able to read your mind,


Calm down princess..I replied to you because you asked in a respective manner, start turning drama queen avenite on me and further answers/conversations from me to you will not be forthcoming

for now..onward

ParaLLL wrote:what definition I am aware of and use is irrelevant.


Actually no, it's very relevant because it ties in with my point that unless you use the same definition and project that definition correctly and accurately when need arises then you are using a different definition which as I was pointing out..creates and promotes confusion as to what an asexual actually is and why we have such difficulty in asking people to trust us that we exist

I had a bit more time to think about the fluid theory Michael and as i know your keen on this and as you know i am not. I'd like to elaborate on this a bit further if i may

The reverend moon (dj) and his disciple moonies believe that "fluidity is not just about asexuality but most things because to be honest without "fluidity" you would have to have a definition that people could understand.

My feeling is that in todays society people are in so much of a rush to have the "have it now" with labels being part of that culture that they latch on to anything then demand it as so only for some time later to realise they were incorrect and then latch onto the next label that is "definately them"

I don't see this as fluidity, I very much see this as people with no direction wandering through life who at stages grab labels that suits them for that momment in time..if anything "undecided" would be more accurate than fluid. The danger of this is that those promote that vaguity of their own personal life as fact for the entire asexual definition..Dj and his moonie troop are a classic example of that

deliberately promoting vagueity and acceptance of any old dog and trumpet in the hope of boosting awareness and numbers despite knowing the cost is to asexuality itself..is the message of mad men who have little respect for the cause of correct visibility over the cause of self promotion that reverend moon continues to follow

so why is fluidity promoted by the public faces of asexuality? simply because most asexuals are not

rather than be correct the community has sought to be all encompassing but in doing so ..working purely on observation..is probably less than 10% actually asexual with the majority being 6 month asexuals or not asexual at all yet these are promoted as asexual

so why don't we correct this? numbers simply..it is better to say asexuals are 1% than 0.1% if the notion is that we are a larger number than we are then some might listen especially for those seeking a self promoted self important platform and to correct it would see that relevance decrease and the sudo personality of the few decrease so false numbers help some even when the numbers confuse what is and isn't an asexual

I have always said that i will be thankfull that dj split from the non libidoists (there were others also but dj got the fame ticket first) and created the term asexual but have always also said he is the very wrong face of asexuality as a public representitive and he continually promotes the incorrect and self serving image

and there is why the message is lost and is continually doubted..we seem to be actively promoting vaguity rather than accuracy and when challenged the smoke and mirros come out because those who are doing it know they are costing us our credibility and orientation

There is a balance to be had..but at the momment the balance is almost entirely the promotion of what an asexual isn't whilst saying that it is...instead of a correct and consistent description that promotes us positively. To be honest unless we take the guts to be able and say..yes you are..no your not then our descriptional promotion we currently have will cause more doubt than ever. Get it right, get it right first time and stay on track ..lose that direction and asexuality will forever be seen as a hippy dudey latest kid on the block and nothing more

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby KAGU143 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:05 am

I think I understand what you are trying to say, PiF, but I have to disagree with you.

You still haven't said what YOU believe to be the definition of a true asexual, so I'm going to try to read between the lines and speculate. Tell me if I'm right, okay?

You seem to be saying that a true asexual must have never experienced sexual attraction at all, ever, at any point in their past, and that they must never experience it during the present or at any point in the future. If they ever experience sexual attraction in the future, even if it's the first time in their life and they are well past middle age or even older, then they were wrong all along and they were never asexual - they were only choosing the label that seemed like the best match for them at the time.

Is this what you believe?
If yes, then the following must also be true:

There's a woman who grows up liking men, she's attracted to men, eventually she meets her male soul mate, marries, has children, raises them, and then later in life she suddenly finds herself attracted to women ... that means that she was wrong all along and was never a heterosexual at all.
Even though she had no interest in women whatsoever for most of her life, she was always a lesbian.

Conversely, there's a man who grows up being attracted to women, liking women, banging women every chance he gets, marrying, having children, being a great father, the whole nine yards ... and then suddenly he finds himself being attracted to another man.
So, OOPS!
His whole life has been a big lie and he was always gay, even though he had no interest in men and found the entire idea of homosexuality to be disgusting ... ??

I'm not making up either of these scenarios, by the way.
It doesn't happen often, but it DOES happen. People can and do CHANGE their sexual orientations. Nobody knows why it happens - only that it sometimes does.

Will you say that these people were obviously bisexual all along instead of straight and just didn't know it?
But then what is a bisexual? Is it even a real situation?

How can they be distinguished from straight people if they never happen to meet that one special same-sex individual who interests them?

I think you all might know where I'm leading with this, but I'll stop for now and give anybody who wishes to reply some time to respond.
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: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby PiF » Fri Feb 22, 2013 1:20 pm

KAGU143 wrote:I think I understand what you are trying to say, PiF, but I have to disagree with you.


your entitled too Nancy, if we all agreed it would be a very boring place

KAGU143 wrote:You seem to be saying that a true asexual must have never experienced sexual attraction at all, ever, at any point in their past, and that they must never experience it during the present or at any point in the future. If they ever experience sexual attraction in the future, even if it's the first time in their life and they are well past middle age or even older, then they were wrong all along and they were never asexual - they were only choosing the label that seemed like the best match for them at the time. .Is this what you believe?


Mostly.....yes but i am not a fan of the "true asexual" branding..that starts to sound like muggles :lol: I am a fan of yes you are or no you are not..fluid takes away the honesty of something by hiding the truth in fog.... let me put it in another way to you if i may that might make my stand clearer

i eat meat from the age of... .well childhood, then late teens I become a vegan..then some years later i go back to eating meat and continue to do so...now under fluid they can be both as it assumes that person can be what ever they want to be and at the flick of a switch can then be the exact opposite...to me this would indicate they are neither or but like to have the options to be what ever they decide to be whenever they want to be

this is a contradcition to asexuality where I believe asexuals are asexual from birth till death and those who claim to be asexuals other than that definition are not in fact asexual but sexuals who at times of their life have identified as having asexual empathies and reactions..or lack of them if we are talking about sex.

within those claiming to be asexual ...many who use asexuality as their safe place from the sexual world because the sexual world is too much from then so are not asexual but see a place where identifying as asexual has a benefit for them for that safe place

I raised this many years ago about the definition..if it is a person who does not experience sexual attraction then what is the time line?..10 years, 10 months, 10 days or even 10 minutes because at all times....sexuals would have met the asexual definition even if it is for 5 seconds.....based on that, the definition needs a clarity..a pure simple easy to reflect and promote so when people hear asexuality they know from minute 1..we are not there because the definition has been allowed to be hijacked by "fluid" to encompass the many of whom most are not asexual

I am sure I am not the only one who looks at what we promote and think..yup I can see why people have trouble believing we even exist let alone we are genuine

remember the problem here is we are trying to convince others of what we are and the message/definition of the orientation....however we seem to be confusing that with the right of an individual to self label and then promote that half truth very much to the cost of what the intent of the promotion was

I doubt you will find anyone..myself included, that would say you are sexual identifying as asexual wrongly and you are not welcome..I would be angry if people did that

all are welcome..but on the clearest possible way to define what an asexual is..we need to be a bit more honest with ourselves first before we ask others to accept us, accept what we are, who we are and the best way to do that is have an clear what is and isn't an asexual

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

Re: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby KAGU143 » Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:28 pm

Okay, but now you seem to be equating sexual behavior to sexual preference. I made a helluva long post about that on AVEN ages ago, and for all I know it might still be pinned.
The bottom line was pretty simple, though. A person's sexual orientation is determined by what they WANT to do, not by what they feel that they must do for whatever reason.

An asexual is not only perfectly happy to not have sex - they would actually prefer to not have it, EVER, because they aren't attracted to people in that way.
And that's the end of the definition as far as I'm concerned. There is no time limit on it.

It's like being a vegan. You either are or you aren't, but you don't have to be born a vegan and you don't have to die as one. It is perfectly possible to be a vegan for a year, or a decade, or whatever. How about a week? Maybe ...

The thing is, it seems pretty pointless to try and split hairs about how long a condition must exist before it can be valid and then to tell people that they aren't qualified to know their own identity if they don't measure up to some arbitrary standard. That is, unless you can read minds. I'm pretty good at judging character but I'm a hopeless failure at reading minds; so is everybody else that I've ever met, so at least I'm in good company.

I will go back to the analogy of blindness: My definition is that blind people don't experience vision.
That seems pretty simple, right?
So, are people who are born blind somehow MORE blind than those who lose their vision due to an accident?
How about a person who completely loses their vision for several years due to injury or disease and then gets part of it back?

I am saying that a person is indeed blind for as long as they cannot see, and it doesn't matter if it's caused by a mini-stroke and lasts for an hour or if it's caused by an explosion and lasts for the rest of their life.

Can't see = blind.

Doesn't experience sexual attraction at all, doesn't care, and doesn't WANT to experience it = asexual.
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: When any publicity is bad publicity

Postby PiF » Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:03 pm

KAGU143 wrote:Okay, but now you seem to be equating sexual behavior to sexual preference.


Nope..I am saying asexuals are born..they are not created or is it a choice

KAGU143 wrote:A person's sexual orientation is determined by what they WANT to do, not by what they feel that they must do for whatever reason.


This is where we disagree Nancy as I'm sure others will also. We have pushed asexuality is not a choice because it is an orientation.... your saying a persons orientation is a choice and is then determined by what they want to do

let me show what I think I am..I am a straight celibate asexual...My being straight is NOT a choice, my being celibate IS a choice, my being asexual is not a choice

KAGU143 wrote:An asexual is not only perfectly happy to not have sex - they would actually prefer to not have it, EVER, because they aren't attracted to people in that way.
And that's the end of the definition as far as I'm concerned. There is no time limit on it.


Not always..we have many sex positive asexuals who have no issues with having sex in order not for the sexual experience but to provide someone they hold incredibly close..a feeling of happyness. just because an asexual gains pleasure from making others happy it does not always follow asexuals are anti sex

as to the time limit....why not? would you say a teen who told you 5 minutes ago that they just found apositive and they now know that they are asexual..would you say hell yeah you been one for 5 minutes you must be asexual?

so why is time important....because again we are seeing the conflict of the feeling for the individual against the message of the orientation and that is were our balance is out because some are too afraid to be honest in favour of awww kitteh of corse you iz a asexualeh


KAGU143 wrote:The thing is, it seems pretty pointless to try and split hairs about how long a condition must exist before it can be valid and then to tell people that they aren't qualified to know their own identity if they don't measure up to some arbitrary standard. That is, unless you can read minds. I'm pretty good at judging character but I'm a hopeless failure at reading minds; so is everybody else that I've ever met, so at least I'm in good company.


there is an irony to that^^ we are saying we can't say they are not but we can say they are?

KAGU143 wrote:Doesn't experience sexual attraction at all, doesn't care, and doesn't WANT to experience it = asexual.


couldn't they same be said of a sexually repulsed sexual, a sexual who is unable to link relationships with people, a sexual with no libido, a sexual with severe depression, a sexual who is suicidal, a sexual who has been sexually abused, a sexual.....you get my drift

as I keep saying the message we are putting out and promoting ..directly causes doubt on our own existence..and that needs to be addressed