Repulsed asexuals

For discussion of general issues pertaining to asexuality.
User avatar
Siggy
Regular Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 pm

Repulsed asexuals

Postby Siggy » Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:49 pm

As I understand it, the motivation for starting Apositive was the perceived sex-negativity on AVEN. It seems that repulsed asexuals also sometimes feel excluded from AVEN as well. See a concrete example. Being all-inclusive sure is difficult!

We should hammer out a good description of the relationship between sex-positive asexuals, repulsed asexuals, and antisexuals.

My two cents: I think it is important to distinguish between an automatic gross-out reaction to sex, and a more conscious decision that sex should stop. The former is repulsion, while the latter is antisexuality. I think that many people grow up repulsed and/or antisexual, it's just that sexual attraction helps people get over it rather quickly. Therefore, it's not surprising that both groups are frequently encountered in the asexual community. Also, if you're asexual, then there's little reason (and no good methods) to ever get over repulsion, because it doesn't really hurt anyone.

I also think that sex-positivity and repulsion are not mutually exclusive.

Bonus question: How are repulsed asexuals and antisexual asexuals seen by outsiders, and how do they affect visibility?

User avatar
ghosts
Regular Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby ghosts » Tue Jul 20, 2010 7:26 am

Sex-positivity & repulsion are not mutually exclusive, definitely. There is a difference between repulsion & antisexual.

This might get me yelled at, but I'd like to say this somewhere - I think "repulsed asexual" sounds pretty awful as a term & identity. And also, even though I respect a person's own individual feelings regarding sex, even if they are grossed out by it, I do have a problem with how this repulsion is expressed on AVEN at times. I think some repulsed asexuals can be pretty immature about how they express their feelings, which makes it difficult for me to take them seriously, I guess. It's one thing saying something like, "Yeah, sex just does not do it to me. And actually, the thought of me having sex is kind of gross." But I hear some more extreme reactions, like "Sex is so disgusting! Ewww!" and then comparing it to all sorts of undesirable things. It makes me feel weird when I read that stuff, just like it would probably make my gay friends feel weird if their straight friend said something like "Gay sex is so disgusting! Ewww!"

And it bothers me that it seems like I need to be ultra sensitive & not criticize this for fear of, I don't know, hurting feelings, challenging their identities, not being open minded, not realizing that this is their "safe space", etc. But if you want the truth, I believe that if an outsider saw someone talking like this on AVEN, & I assure you that people do, they would probably think poorly of them. I just wish that more people could discuss sex (& their feelings about it) like adults. (And yes, I do recognize that some of these people on AVEN are not quite adults yet.)

As for antisexuality, there are probably a bunch of different definitions for the term. For instance, there's a difference between having a problem with how sex is treated in mainstream society (a lot of people do!) & feeling that sex is bad bad bad & people who have sex are disgusting, perverted individuals. And yes, I definitely feel that, similar to what I mentioned above, outsiders would walk away with a poor opinion of the asexual community/asexuality if they just encountered antisexual views.

I feel like I'm being overly negative here, though. While at the moment I can't really respect a very antisexual viewpoint (or see why I should - but if someone else does, please let me know!), I definitely feel that sex-positive asexuals & repulsed asexuals should be able to coexist relatively peacefully, since I don't really see any contradiction between the two, as long as the repulsion doesn't get expressed in a way that may offend others. I don't think that sex-positivity is about liking sex for yourself - it's about respecting various sexualities & peoples' right to choose.

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Dargon » Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:58 am

My opinion largely echos that of ghosts.

As has been stated, repulsion and anti-sexuality are not at all mutually exclusive. In fact, I would go so far to say that it is possible to be a sex-positive repulsed asexual, in that you may think it is great for other sexuals to have sex, but you find it rather gross. If it makes them happy and it ain't hurtin' no one...

That being said, much as ghosts has said, it is not the fact that they are grossed out by sex that makes them somewhat bothersome, but the fact that many of them, and definitely the most vocal of them, react to any mention of sex as a five year old would. Girls have cooties and all that. I think most outsiders could respect a respectful repulsed asexual, but the frequent "ewww, gross!" reactions do give of an image of immaturity.

As for antisexuals, I'll be blunt. I don't like them. The only people they are good for are themselves. I've not met an antisexual who wasn't rude and immature, and never seen an antisexual argument that wasn't based solely on appeal to emotion and anecdotal evidence. They are bad for the sex-positive movement, bad for the asexual movement, and bad for humanity in general. The only outsiders who would respect them would be fellow antisexuals.

edit: for clarification, I am using the definition on anti-sexual as one who believes the act of sex is a negative thing, especially if they believe no one should take part in it, or it should always be for procreation only.


Just an aside, the climate over at AVEN was very different around the time Apostive cropped up. The Non-libidoist forum (invite only, had to be at least a repulsed asexual to get in, largely antisexual) had recently closed down, and many of their ilk had flooded AVEN. It became impossible to so much as utter the word "genitals" without the thread being bombarded with "ew, ew ew!" comments and accusations that /their/ safe space was being violated. The notions of "pure" asexuality became rampant, and those that advocated it basked in their holier-than-thou mentality. Furthermore, the anti-sexual sentiment grew rapidly, became commonplace, the norm even. A number of AVENites were driven off or, like me, eventually opted to cut their losses and give up the fight.

It was in that environment that A-positive came around, as a place where issues of both sexuality and asexuality could be discussed without the vocal majority freaking out because someone has a penis.

User avatar
ily
Regular Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby ily » Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:36 pm

Interesting topic.

ghosts wrote:This might get me yelled at, but I'd like to say this somewhere - I think "repulsed asexual" sounds pretty awful as a term & identity.


I agree, it's an odd term, especially as it is part of this "repulsed vs. indifferent" binary. Does anyone know where this concept came from? I'm not really a fan of the term "indifferent" either, since to me, its connotation is people having sex that they don't really want to be having, but they go along with it because they're indifferent. That doesn't sound good, either.

Antisexual people...I don't know. Mostly I just feel bad for them, since I'm assuming they must feel very alone. If it's really their opinion, and not something they're saying just to get a rise out of people, that is...

If it's any consolation, the "ewww sex!" thing seems to be a largely internet phenomenon. I'm lucky to have been to a lot of meetups and met a lot of asexuals...while I'm sure some of the people I've met are repulsed by sex, no one seems eager to voice those opinions, as people might on AVEN. Nor has anyone really voiced any anti-sexual sentiment. I've heard homoromantic asexuals talk about how the gay community is too sexual, but that's about it.

ARE repulsed and anti-sexual asexuals seen by outsiders at all? In all the media representations I've seen of asexuality, it seems like there is always the idea that "we're fine with sex as long as it doesn't involve us". (which obviously is only one point of view among many, but that's the one that I most often see conveyed.)

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Dargon » Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:01 pm

ily wrote:ARE repulsed and anti-sexual asexuals seen by outsiders at all? In all the media representations I've seen of asexuality, it seems like there is always the idea that "we're fine with sex as long as it doesn't involve us". (which obviously is only one point of view among many, but that's the one that I most often see conveyed.)


All the media things I have seen tend to show a mature indifferent or repulsed view towards sex. You don't get the "ewww sex" responses, but you seldom hear the "I don't get much out of it, but I do it" either.


With regards to the terminology, I haven't been a fan of the terms either, as both "repulsed" and "indifferent" tend to have negative connotations, but they are indeed good qualifiers for their described views on sexual activity. The repulsed asexual is repulsed at the notion of them having sex, and the indifferent asexual is rather indifferent to the idea. Any other term I can think of to describe either of these would just be yet another negative synonym. Unless someone can come up with something just as accurately descriptive, I think these are pretty much the best we're going to have. Furthermore, they have pretty much become the defacto terms at AVEN (and were so a number of years ago), so changing it would be difficult.

pretzelboy
Regular Member
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby pretzelboy » Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:18 am

Ily wrote:ARE repulsed and anti-sexual asexuals seen by outsiders at all? In all the media representations I've seen of asexuality, it seems like there is always the idea that "we're fine with sex as long as it doesn't involve us". (which obviously is only one point of view among many, but that's the one that I most often see conveyed.)

I'm pretty sure that's not by accident...

Siggy wrote:Being all-inclusive sure is difficult!

I think "logically impossible" might be a better description. Tolerance of other views only works with others who are willing to tolerate other views. Agreeing to disagree, by definition, must be mutual.

Anyway, I'll throw my two cents into the topic. One thing I've been thinking about in this respect is that there is quite a lot of sex that just makes people go "Ewww!!!!" It is hardly limited to immature "repulsed asexuals." It is, for instance, extremely common to people to be utterly repulsed by anything connected to sexuality and their parents (despite full understanding of the relationship between their parents having sex and becoming their parents.) I've known people with multiple adult children, who had no difficulty explaining the biological basics of sex to their children, who nevertheless are entirely squicked out by learning any details of their (divorced) parents' sex (former) sex lives.

Sexual reality and how we dismiss it has a really brilliant discussion of the origins of sex-negativity. He is responding to an idea dominant in sex-therapy (and professional sex-videos by sex-therapists and educators) in the 1970's that felt that sex is good and that everyone would love it if only they could get rid of their inhibitions and their beliefs that sex is dirty, if only they could get back to "natural" sexuality.

There is no evidence of any thought being given to why sex may be considered dirty. The idea is that our guilt about sex and our sexual inhibitions are a historical accident, a vestige of our Puritan and Victorian heritage that has no basis in reality.

The thinking here is slipshod to the point of capriciousness. Sex guilt and sexual inhibitions are world-wide. The sexual restrictions found in China, India, and Russia can hardly be traced to the Puritans and the Victorians. Even the Church Fathers did not originate sex guilt. Indeed, Augustine, in his City of God (Book XIV, Chapter 18), argued that he saw evidence of sexual shame all around him (he at least did not dismiss sexual reality, even if he took it too much at face value), and that it was this rather than some purely supernal vision that led him to conclude that sex is inherently shameful.

No one has yet offered a way to reasonably comprehend the idea that sex is dirty. It seems to me that the best way to comprehend it is to think of it as a reaction to the exploitive side of sex, a not inconsiderable side of sexual reality. In this light the counter-dogma that sex is OK (not dirty) represents a laundering of sexual reality.


I am inclined to agree with him on this point, and so my position remains largely the same as it did in Asexuality Among Sexualities. I am not a sex-positive asexual.

User avatar
Sciatrix
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:42 am

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Sciatrix » Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:20 am

I think the problem is also often compounded by a phase I've seen some repulsed asexuals go through, especially when they first encounter an asexual community--they become so thrilled to find other people like them that they go through this period of almost gleefully going on about how much they hate sex, and how terrible it's been for them, because they've never had anyone they can talk about that sort of thing with. Over time, I've seen a lot of people like that cool down and be a lot less wrapped up in the grossness, but while it's going on it can look a lot like antisexuality. I've seen a lot of people calm down over time from "sex is ICKY BAD GROSS" to "I think sex is icky, but it's good for other people."

I've noticed that this often seems to be more common in repulsed asexuals who have experienced a lot of pressure to be sexual or behave sexual, also. Often it seems like they're detoxing from the pressure they have been feeling.

I do tend to think outsiders are much more likely to write repulsed asexuals off as simply repressed, which is I think why most of our visibility asexuals have either been indifferent or simply very quiet about the whole repulsion thing. (I do know of at least one sex-positive repulsed asexual who did a visibility article, for instance.)

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby KAGU143 » Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:14 am

I really like the term, "detoxifying", Sciatrix.
I wonder if we could start introducing it more widely over at AVEN? If the general membership at AVEN could gently tiptoe into those kinds of threads and offer a few words of sympathy and understanding while, at the same time, trying to keep things in perspective, I think it would be a great help - not only to the new members who have finally found a much-needed place to vent, but to the overall atmosphere of the entire board.
The mods can do it too, of course, but sometimes it actually seems to carry MORE weight when it comes from members who are NOT mods. I'm not sure why that is, unless maybe there is a perception that the mods "have to" say those kinds of things just because they appear to hold a position of authority. (Which is a laugh! If only they knew .... )

And, thinking of terminology, I agree that "repulsed" asexual does seem to carry some unfortunate connotations. I can't think of any better way to put it, at least not right now, but I will think on it.
Indifferent might be replaced by neutral, maybe? I'm not sure if that would be any better, though.
*tries saying different things*
Neutral asexual? Sex-neutral asexual? Nonchalant asexual? Dispassionate asexual? Phlegmatic asexual? (Personally, I like that one, but it would confuse a LOT of people!) Disinterested? Uninvolved? Bored?
Well ... darn it. All in all, I can't seem to come up with any better terms than the ones we already have. I will continue thinking about it just for fun, since I am a bit of a voabulary geek, but I don't really expect to come up with anything earth-shattering.

More input is definitely welcome!
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Dargon » Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:43 am

I rather like the use of the term "detox" there as well, as it does describe that transition rather well.

That being said, with regards to its introduction at AVEN, my biggest concern, which stems from Greybird's sentence "If the general membership at AVEN could gently tiptoe into those kinds of threads ..." would be the implimentation. Odds are the newbies aren't going to be aware of such a term, and pushing such a term on them seems kind of rude, as well as possibly counter to simply exposing them sex-positive asexuality.

Implementing it by creating a "detox forum" seems like a horrible idea to me. Because of the kind of speech used in these "detox" posts, as well as the attitude regarding them shown by the sex-positive, if there were a separate forum, I would imagine few sex-positive types would venture in, leaving it towards the newbies "detoxing" and the anti-sexuals, effectively bringing about a breeding ground for anti-sexual sentiment. And damn it, AVEN has only recently been purged of that enough that I find I can go there without wanting to hit people in the mouth.

User avatar
Sciatrix
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:42 am

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Sciatrix » Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:13 pm

Oh gosh, yes, Dargon! I think a detoxing forum would be a horrible, horrible idea, because what you want to have happen with those kinds of posts is that the detoxing person be surrounded with people who go "yes, sex can be gross/is not for everyone, it's okay that it's not for you, but sex is an activity that makes a lot of other people very happy, not an intrinsically bad thing." That is, affirm the person's right to not want/be repulsed by sex, but not reinforce the general anti-sex feeling. I think that kind of pseudo-antisexuality can be eventually shifted into true antisexuality if the person is hanging out with a bunch of people reinforcing antisexual views in the middle of that detox stage, and I think throwing a bunch of people together doing it would be likely to create those conditions.

I just wish it was a transition that was more, mmm, well-known and recognized by community members for what it is. I've seen some people I would characterize as being in that stage jumped on for being antisexual, for example. I think that were I to want to bring it into greater usage at AVEN, I'd want to do it from a member point, not a mod one--that is, do it from the ground up, not by creating a forum. I feel like trying to get the word out among members that this is a process a lot of people go through might be more useful than anything.

User avatar
ghosts
Regular Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby ghosts » Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 am

I am probably guilty of being too harsh to newer people when they are ranting, but I do understand why it's good to be, I dunno, gentle yet firm (& I honestly do try to do this). A lot of people over there do change their attitudes over time because I think a lot of other AVEN members recognize this as well. I know other people have talked about this at AVEN before - about the tendency for newer members to have somewhat anti-sexual attitudes, but when seeing how other community members feel/react, their opinions cool down over time.

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Dargon » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:33 am

My reaction tends to be based on a combination of their attitude and the attitude of the replies. Around the time I joined AVEN, the detox response seemed to be common. Around the time I left, pure affirmation seemed to be the norm (hence my harsher responses). At this point, admittedly, I am not sure the norm, as I tend to avoid those forums (I am confident my tendency to be blunt would lead to me being banned).

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby KAGU143 » Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:26 am

Well, I don't know about AVEN's ban policy anymore. I often think it has drifted toward the extreme of being TOO intolerant of trigger words while allowing politely worded insults to slide by on technicalities. That's just my opinion, though.

Meanwhile, 'still thinking about terminology ...

How about detached asexual instead of indifferent? Too much innuendo? ('Cuz there could be some and it IS kinda funny in a way, but still?)
Other ideas I have had ... Unaligned? Objective?
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Dargon » Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:58 am

The ban comment pertains moreso to my general refusal to speak softly where I think things need be said. If there are ideas I think wrong or dangerous (both of which I would ascribe to anti-sexual sentiment) I will speak in a manner that expresses my point and its reasons as well as the reasons the opposing view is incorrect. I try to not be insulting, but I will not tread lightly, no matter how taboo or sacred the subject. It is my tendency to go after views held dear and sacred that which tends to offend, and that which I fear would lead to my banishment. As such, rather than try to tone back my views and opinions, I opt for the safer road of not expressing them.

With regards to the proposed alternative terminology, "detached" sounds more like "indifferent" to me, thus not getting across the right message. Unaligned has the same issue. Objective sounds based on reason or nature, the former I would argue no sexuality is, the latter, all sexuality. All sound prettier, but send the wrong message in my opinion.

User avatar
Siggy
Regular Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Siggy » Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:57 pm

The problem with the "indifferent" terminology it doesn't give a very nice image if they do end up having sex. That, and there is no room for asexuals with a positive disposition to participating in sex. "Detached" doesn't fix it. Basically I think there are no one-word solutions.

You might be interested to hear about the latest flame war on AVEN. A few self-identified antisexuals got defensive, saying they felt disrespected. I do not recommend participating, since the thread is crashing and burning very quickly.

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Dargon » Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:18 pm

I have been following that thread, Siggy. I have opted not to participate, as it is being lead by a certain poster who I am still quite bitter with. I defer to what I said above regarding my posting.

Roy
New Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:22 am

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Roy » Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:24 pm

Come on, that's hardly a flame war. If it was then it would have been locked already. It's just a simple matter of differing opinions and clashing ideologies. I've combed through the thread and can't see any trace of personal attacks that would warrant the label "flame war". And no, not even making unpleasant remarks about sexuals counts, even if it does offend many people. So far all remotely personal criticism has remained on-topic with the thread and forum, which is sexuality. Certain users have made assumptions and criticisms of other peoples sexuality. It's not nice, but it's hardly flame-ish.

User avatar
Pamcakes
New Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:30 am

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Pamcakes » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:10 pm

I know I personally made things a lot worse, on that thread, by charging in with my big size eights.
I tried to express exactly why antisexual statements bother me, phrased my feelings very badly, and people got up in arms...
Then it got worse. :/

P.
...trid fo eripme ym, lla ti evah dluoc uoy dnA

User avatar
ghosts
Regular Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:59 am

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby ghosts » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:16 am

Hm, I haven't visited AVEN in about a week, so maybe I should stay away for now.

As for terminology, I kind of agree with Siggy in that there aren't any one-word solutions. Actually, do we even need terms to differentiate between asexuals when it comes to how they feel about sex? It just seems sort of strange.

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Dargon » Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:36 am

I differentiating necessary? No. Is it advantageous? Perhaps.

People are wont to lump people of a category as being all the same. As such, there is some importance I think in pointing out that not all asexuals feel the same regarding things like romance or the physical act of sex.

User avatar
Siggy
Regular Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Siggy » Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:09 am

Now that you mention it, why is the difference so important anyway? It's like when people draw a distinction between asexuals who masturbate and those who don't. Yes there is a difference, and yes I fit into one of these categories and not the other, but why's it so important?

I can think of some good reasons and bad reasons why people consider it important.

Good reason: To show diversity. Being repulsed or indifferent does not invalidate asexuality.
Bad reason: To invalidate asexuality. There are two kinds of asexuals; clearly one kind is the real thing and the other is fake.
Good reason: To understand asexuals in the context of a sexual/asexual relationship, and find the right compromise.
Bad reason: To measure the degree to which the asexual is sex-positive.
Good reason: To show that we need not, and should not base morality on gross-out reactions. Homophobic heterosexuals and antisexual asexuals have a lot in common.
Last edited by Siggy on Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Roy
New Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:22 am

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Roy » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:29 pm

How is "antisexual" currently being defined?

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Dargon » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:28 pm

Roy wrote:How is "antisexual" currently being defined?


Individual definitions may vary, but the general definition seem to be the view that sex, especially non-procreative sex, is always a negative thing.

This often, but not necessarily, extrapolates into sexuals being bad people, as they enjoy this negative act.

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1270
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:09 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby KAGU143 » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:58 pm

Sometimes I think that things were a lot easier back when AVEN still had the four types system, A, B, C and D. Does anybody else remember it?

It allowed all of the different types to be included as asexuals regardless of their differences and I think it kept the conflict to a minimum.

Now, regarding that anti-sexual thread ... My bad. I posted in it, and no sooner did I hit submit than it got locked. My premise is that the most zealous anti-sexuals in that thread are behaving exactly like homophobics, and that they are to asexuals as homophobics are to straight people.
I figured since it was already getting pretty heated, a little gasoline wouldn't hurt.
I should probably be ashamed of myself.
Probably.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Dargon » Thu Aug 05, 2010 5:31 pm

I recall the ABCD system. It was a two axis system with the labels in each of the corners. I do not recall what the two axes were, though. I seem to recall one was libido, the other I do not recall. Romantic attraction maybe? The issue at the time was that it presented only four options, when it was really two spectra.

That being said, you do present an interesting point. Confining and limited as the terms were, it did allow for many different "types" to be presented as equally valid, whereas keeping the numerous variables separate, while it allows for people to better learn about and describe themselves, also allows for people to deem certain "types" superior to others.

As for your post at AVEN, Greybird, I do agree wholeheartedly with what you said. I was having difficulty drawing the parallel, but as soon as you said it, what urked me about it just clicked. Don't be ashamed of that. If anything, I should be ashamed of my disappointment in the locking of the thread, as upon reading that, I really wished I could have seen a certain member react.

User avatar
Siggy
Regular Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Siggy » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:49 pm

I "remember" the ABCD system, because it's on AVENwiki. Not sure why it's there, given that the most recent citation is from 2007.

If I were to take a guess, I bet the ABCD system was formulated back when the nonlibidoist faction was still relevant. These days, the asexy zeitgeist is that the libidoist/nonlibidoist distinction is relatively unimportant.

User avatar
Pamcakes
New Member
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:30 am

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Pamcakes » Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:50 pm

The way I see it, labels are for pickle jars, and boxes are for for dead people. :)

P.
...trid fo eripme ym, lla ti evah dluoc uoy dnA

User avatar
Dargon
Mega Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:34 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Dargon » Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:27 am

Siggy wrote:I "remember" the ABCD system, because it's on [url=http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=ABCD_types]If I were to take a guess, I bet the ABCD system was formulated back when the nonlibidoist faction was still relevant. These days, the asexy zeitgeist is that the libidoist/nonlibidoist distinction is relatively unimportant.


That is true, the non-libidoists were still alive and kicking at that time, with a less-than-friendly rivalry with AVEN.


Pamcakes wrote:The way I see it, labels are for pickle jars, and boxes are for for dead people. :)


I gots a whole shpeal on labels. In short, useful when used to describe, restrictive when used to define.

User avatar
Sciatrix
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:42 am

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Sciatrix » Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:52 pm

I don't know, I think it may be necessary, if only to have words to discuss the differences in reactions between ourselves. Sometimes it's nice to have a shorthand for the ways people react to sex--that is, to have a easy descriptive word to us. I do get a bit wary of creating a binary, which I don't think necessarily exists. Me, I do get repulsed by visual sexual stimuli but not anything else, including graphic descriptions, so I find the concept of a binary, being either repulsed or indifferent, not very useful. I tend to describe myself as indifferent for pretty much the same reasons I usually describe myself as aromantic: It fits best.

I actually tend to think "repulsed" is maybe the more problematic terminology, because in my experience people usually get what "indifferent" means pretty quickly, but they often confuse "repulsed" with "antisexual." I do agree with Dargon that I don't think there are any good one-word fixes for that, only explanation whenever someone appears to have got it wrong.

User avatar
Siggy
Regular Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:45 pm

Re: Repulsed asexuals

Postby Siggy » Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:24 pm

Well, some of us are pickle jars, and some are not. ;)

Someone on AVEN suggested "uncomfortable" rather than "repulsed". I like it, but it doesn't really roll off the tongue.