the definition of asexuality

[michaelsmoker]

I've been defining asexuality as no sexual attraction for other people, regardless of age. So a pedophile wouldn't be asexual, but a narcissist would be, and so would those with sexual feelings for fictional characters, animals, plants and inanimate objects. Do people generally agree or disagree with this? I'm open to hearing different viewpoints because my own understanding is not all that firm.

Michael

[siggy]

Agreed. That's what the word means.

Although, there are the usual caveats. Self-identity is important; for instance, an objectophile could use a narrower definition of asexual and choose not to identify as such. Also, even if people don't identify as asexual, they might still find a lot in common with asexuals. For instance, someone who is only attracted to minors might find something useful in asexual discussion of living permanently single. Or not.

It's possible to justify the definition from a community-building standpoint. Does it make sense to exclude people because they're attracted to plants? The early asexual community didn't think so, so that's why we now have the definition we do.

[sciatrix]

There's also Rabger's model, but that's sort of problematic and poorly defined.

In general, every serious attempt I've seen to change the definition of asexuality is an attempt to distance the speaker from certain groups (most notably the repulsed and asexuals who masturbate), and I don't think I've ever seen one that wasn't extremely problematic. So no, you're generally not going to find people arguing with you on that.

[michaelsmoker]

In AVEN chat we had a new member argue that asexual = autosexual, so there needs to be a new identity called "non-libidoist" for people who have no sexual attraction plus no sex drive at all. A number of us stated that non-libidoist would be a type of asexual as "asexual" is generally defined, but the guy wouldn't budge in his opinion. I found it kind of uncomfortable because I don't have enough of a firm foundation to tell some other guy to call himself asexual, even if I did think his attempt to splinter the ace community was damaging. I bet other people have run into that kind of thing quite a bit.

Michael

[siggy]

Someone said that, really? Are you sure it was a new member?

You might be interested to read about the Official Nonlibidoism Society, which advocated exactly that kind of split. While the word "nonlibidoist" may be marginally useful, it's a terrible basis for a community. The Nonlibidoism Society was very exclusive, elitist, and antisexual. It went defunct in 2007. A good starting point to read about this is Apositive.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

It was my understanding that an asexual person does not experience sexual attraction. Not "sexual attraction TO OTHER PEOPLE," just "sexual attraction." I personally would not call people who are sexually attracted to objects, animals, or plants asexual, because they experience sexual attraction. I think I'd need an objectophile actually telling me to my face that he/she/zie identified as asexual before I could be convinced otherwise. And if you're sexually attracted to a fictional character...dude, that's still a person, even if that person doesn't actually exist, so going by "sexual attraction to other people" [which, like I said, I have never considered the definition of asexuality] attraction to fictional characters still counts as attraction.

[michaelsmoker]

People make some good points. Is asexuality just one thing or is it many things? I'm not sure right now.

There's also the question of how far self-identification goes. If someone who was formally diagnosed as a sex addict decided to self-identify as an asexual, would that self-identification be valid? I'd be hard-pressed to deny people membership in the ace community for any reason, but still....

Michael

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Well, sex addiction is sort of different...most sex addicts don't enjoy sex, they're numb to it...and when in need of a fix they may or may not act on actual attraction. Self-identification does present some tricky questions, but I would raise one eyebrow suspiciously at someone who is sexually attracted to inanimate objects who ID'd as asexual.

[sciatrix]

Frankly? I can't tell whether you experience sexual attraction from your behavior. People have sex for all kinds of reasons, only some of which are related to actual attraction.

So I fall heavily on the side of not questioning identification because of behavior, as long as the person says they don't experience sexual attraction. That includes your hypothetical "sex addict" case. It also includes cases I've actually seen like a polyamorous biromantic woman who had a lot of sex with a variety of partners. (As I recall, she was questioning whether she actually experienced sexual attraction or whether she was having sex primarily because it made her partners happy.) I think that questioning the identities of others based off of behavior leads us down a very slippery slope.

Now, outright saying something like "I do often experience sexual attraction, but I identify as asexual" is considerably trickier. That's a deliberate misinterpretation of the definition, and I would question that.

[michaelsmoker]

Dec 29, 2010 16:55:15 GMT -5 sciatrix said:

Frankly? I can't tell whether you experience sexual attraction from your behavior.

Do you mean me specifically? Just wondering whether you're trying to pick a fight yet again.

Michael

[sciatrix]

Aw, it's so cute of you to assume that I pick fights. No, it's a rhetorical you.

The part where I tell you to cut the passive-aggressive bullshit is, however, a specific you.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Dec 29, 2010 16:55:15 GMT -5 sciatrix said:

Frankly? I can't tell whether you experience sexual attraction from your behavior. People have sex for all kinds of reasons, only some of which are related to actual attraction.

So I fall heavily on the side of not questioning identification because of behavior, as long as the person says they don't experience sexual attraction. That includes your hypothetical "sex addict" case. It also includes cases I've actually seen like a polyamorous biromantic woman who had a lot of sex with a variety of partners. (As I recall, she was questioning whether she actually experienced sexual attraction or whether she was having sex primarily because it made her partners happy.) I think that questioning the identities of others based off of behavior leads us down a very slippery slope.

Now, outright saying something like "I do often experience sexual attraction, but I identify as asexual" is considerably trickier. That's a deliberate misinterpretation of the definition, and I would question that.

It seems obvious to me that Sciatrix meant a nonspecific/rhetorical "you." The proverbial "you." Passive-aggressiveness was not warranted there.

And I personally believe strongly that it is attraction, NOT behavior, that defines orientation, which is really why the sex addict identifying as asexual isn't a very good example; that's behavior-based. I mean, I've slept with my fiancee and I'm asexual. Anybody who tells me otherwise in meatspace is likely to become closely acquainted with my fist.

Getting back to the topic, I still think of asexuality as the lack of sexual attraction to anyone or anything.

[michaelsmoker]

It seems that some members are more equal than others here. Kindly cancel my account.

[anamia]

Re: non-libidoist, I do identify as such, but I use it as a modifier because I am pretentious like that and enjoy having a long string of words that describe me as exactly as possible. I'm just as ace as an autosexual, and they're just as ace as I am.

Also, I'd agree with Sciatrix re: being unable to judge a person's level of attraction based on their actions, which is why I find the common definition of asexual as, "someone who doesn't want to have sex with anyone" somewhat problematic, since nothing stops asexuals from wanting and even enjoying sex.

[you*hear*but*do*you*listen]

Feb 8, 2011 23:10:15 GMT -5 anamia said:

Re: non-libidoist, I do identify as such, but I use it as a modifier because I am pretentious like that and enjoy having a long string of words that describe me as exactly as possible. I'm just as ace as an autosexual, and they're just as ace as I am.

Also, I'd agree with Sciatrix re: being unable to judge a person's level of attraction based on their actions, which is why I find the common definition of asexual as, "someone who doesn't want to have sex with anyone" somewhat problematic, since nothing stops asexuals from wanting and even enjoying sex.

"Someone who doesn't want to have sex" seriously doesn't work for me. I'm asexual--I don't experience sexual attraction--but I do want to make love to my partner because she enjoys it so much, and I derive happiness from giving her pleasure. I also identify as nonlibidoist, though I think that makes me no more or less ace than anybody else...I'm just also another one of those people who likes to have a shit load of words to describe me as completely as possible