September142012
unseilie:
Feelings of Disgust and Disgust-Induced Avoidance Weaken following Induced Sexual Arousal in Women
Background
Sex and disgust are basic, evolutionary relevant functions that are often construed as paradoxical. In general the stimuli involved in sexual encounters are, at least out of context strongly perceived to hold high disgust qualities. Saliva, sweat, semen and body odours are among the strongest disgust elicitors. This results in the intriguing question of how people succeed in having pleasurable sex at all. One possible explanation could be that sexual engagement temporarily reduces the disgust eliciting properties of particular stimuli or that sexual engagement might weaken the hesitation to actually approach these stimuli.
The finding that many of the strongest disgust eliciting stimuli are also involved in sex (e.g., saliva, and sweat) may not only help explain how disgust may be involved in sexual dysfunction, but it also raises the critical question of how people succeed in having pleasurable sex at all. One possible explanation could be that sexual engagement temporarily reduces the disgust eliciting properties of particular stimuli. Another hypothesis could be that sexual engagement might weaken the hesitation to approach disgust eliciting stimuli. Consequently, this would motivate further approach behaviour, in spite of the unchanged disgust properties of the stimuli. Alternatively, both mechanisms could act in concert. In line with the above, another possible explanation is that the disgust properties of specific stimuli might more readily decrease (i.e., habituate), when being sexually aroused during actual exposure to these disgusting stimuli.
[follow link to read more]
So yeah, not actually about asexuality or exclusive to asexuals but I imagine a lot of people who identify themselves as such can relate to it.
I would have to say that this makes a lot of sense to me. I had an idea that feelings of arousal allowed for people, in general, to not only tolerate but ignore some of the less pleasant aspects of sex, therefore making sex appear as an activity that has absolutely no downsides, at least while participating.
Like people get so caught up with the arousal and the action that they might not notice that their positioned in an awkward position, or involvement with a variety of secretions. Haha.
For me, since I can’t achieve arousal with my partner, the minor inconveniences of sex could have never been ignored, while at the same time I can’t personally experience the positive results of sex. And as a result, I can’t totally feel neutral about sex, since there aren’t any positives to balance out the unpleasantness. Also, emotionally it is a bit stressful, so that doesn’t help.
(via nautilidi-deactivated20130605)
August102012
What was wrong with the description of demisexuality as only experiencing secondary sexual attraction?
Most people who aren’t apart of the asexual spectrum can experience both primary and secondary sexual attraction. Asexuals cannot experience neither primary nor secondary sexual attraction. Grey-A’s can experience both but not as often.
Seeing this debate about demisexuality and if it is valid or not while people throw around subjective words like “deep emotional connection” or “love”, in my opinion, kind of keeps the debate running in place. Because one part of demisexuality matches a portion of how many people are socially conditioned to approach sex anyway, continuing to use the buzz words that culture defines as the appropriate reasons to have sex anyway kind of muddles the argument.
Just my opinion.
Edit: Note that I wasn’t talking about the use of vague terms but subjective terms. People know that sexual attraction exists and that people experience it. They might not know how to fully describe the term or all that goes into it but people understand in general what it means without needing a contrasting concept to describe it.
By the way demisexuality is described it implies that sexual attraction is only achieved within a mutual committed relationship. Which I can imagine not being necessary. How I first understood demisexuality which accommodates more than the narrow concepts and context of relationships, is with primary and secondary attraction. Someone can develop secondary attraction within or outside of a relationship.
I have a friend who is demisexual and she admits that the only time she ever felt attraction was towards one person who she was not in a committed relationship with. She had a strong sense of who he was but they didn’t have a deep emotional connection. If a deep emotional connection is required to be demisexual what is she then? Asexual with one fluke? A one shot grey-a?
August82012
I just saw a post on allosexism and its effects on those on the asexual spectrum. How there needs to be a way to describe the dynamic that does not involve asserting that sexual privilege exists or that asexuals are oppressed.
Yes, asexuals’ claims to their own sexual orientation are dismissed or ignored. Many people’s first thought is that asexuals are broken or cannot be legitimate or honest about not experiencing sexual attraction.
But, in my opinion, I don’t see a reason for taking all of that to heart, or hinging your opinions about yourself on how others accept one small fact about you, when everything is setup so it is harder for them to understand even themselves.
The idea that a heterosexual person either cannot accept or fully understand an orientation outside of their own is not a surprise when even looking at the state of sexual education, in the US at least, divorce rates, number of single parent homes, all while society states that natural state for heterosexual relationships is monogamy (sexual and social).
People have such a skewed idea of heterosexuality and how heterosexual relationships work in reality, I am not going to hold them up to the high standard of understanding asexuality.
Read More
August62012
You know it really makes no sense for some asexuals to play dumb about the motives and activities of “sexuals” while feeling they should be an unchallenged scholar on the diversity of human sexuality.
You just can’t have both. Either you are truly unaware of why people do X when on a date or why people expect or do Y at a certain point in a relationship, and you also don’t know about the complexities of the sociological and or biological components to human sexuality. OR you actually do know something about romance, sex, the many diverse motivations behind certain behaviors and you also have some insight into the complex topic of human sexuality as a whole.
You can’t do both.
Response in Thread A: “EWW. Why do all these pesky sexuals do THAT? They make no sense!”
Response in Thread B: “Well these sexuals are mainly driven by the urge to…” While smoking on their proverbial pipe while lounging in the salon.
What is the point of playing dumb? or feigning expertise or knowledge in an area that you just don’t that much know about?
I remember a quote:
Education is the progressive realization of our ignorance
- Albert Einstein
It is okay if you don’t know something. It is okay to ask questions because that is how we learn, but don’t admit ignorance but then turn around to claim knowledge just for the sake of saving face. If you really are ignorant and claim to be knowledgeable you will ultimately lose more face than if you had initially admitted that you aren’t an expert or knowledgeable in a particular topic.
If you really are knowledgeable, and just like to lower the quality level of your responses for the sake of solidarity with people who are not knowledgeable, don’t be surprised when other people just might not take you seriously.
August52012
Now it seems like there is a list or a few lists of asexual characters. Even looking at the assertions of many AVEN posters there are asexual characters EVERYWHERE, even the author or creator doesn’t realize that they have created an asexual character. This even goes into the realm of reality when people assert that historical figures are or must have been asexual.
Personally for me I think that there are layers of problems with this. While people keep on repeating, “Behavior does not equal orientation” they specifically look for certain behaviors to call characters or past historical figures asexual. They say, “There aren’t any asexual ‘traits’, we are all individuals,” however they look for asexual “cues” in others in order to add more members into the fold.
Signs one has spotted an asexual:
- Has never been married.
- Has no interest in romance of any kind.
- Oblivious to sexual or romantic advances from others.
- Oblivious to sexual or romantic context.
- Does not have or want to have children.
- Does not dress or act in a way to “invite” advances.
- Is never seen or recorded to be within a romantic relationship.
- Is never seen or recorded to be pursing a romantic relationship.
- Is never seen or perceived or recorded to participate in sexual activity (Virgin).
- Is not willing to compromise in terms of sexual activity for the sake of another.
Read More
August32012
Now for those of you who don’t know, AVEN stands for Asexuality Visibility Educational Network. It is a site created by David Jay, an asexual activist, to promote the education and visibility of asexuality. Asexuality is a sexual orientation in which is characterized as the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or lacking an inherent desire to have sexual intercourse. (Apparently, the definition is funky with some people so just bare with me.)
Now interesting enough, despite having the word “education” in the title, the site itself is not really treated as a source. The newsletter posts have not been done in years. The static side of the site just seems abandoned. However that is not to say that someone largely ignorant about the orientation can’t look at a page or two (really some stuff really doesn’t change that much) and get some common misconceptions cleared up.
However, and I am inclined to think unfortunately, the portion of the site that people take the “education” from is from the more active portion of the site, the forums.
Read More
July192012
rainbowcolouredbroccoli:
harmonioussanctity:
watergamer:
bogosiposo:
That makes total sense. So why are people getting pissy about the fact that it isn’t appropriate for them to use the word?
Being able to use the word “queer” doesn’t mean “visible”. Therefore when people claim that you aren’t “queer” it doesn’t mean “erasure” it just means that you don’t fit the…
I thought the point of reclaiming the word was that it’s a positive thing now. It no longer means “those dirty gay people”, and instead refers to people who don’t fit into the heteronormative conceptions of sexual orientation and identity. I’d say that applies to hetero- and aromantic asexuals.
Technically, yes that is the point of reclamation. However, we aren’t there yet. Queer violence is still a huge epidemic, and LGBTQ are still being dehumanized by the word queer. Maybe some day in the future when this violence and oppression has stopped queer could become that, but right now queer is still in the process of being reclaimed. It’s not a word free from all bonds of hate and bigotry just yet.
Can I add, there’s another problem with defining queer as “not heteronormative”?
I don’t particular want my sexual orientation defined as something that seems “queer” to cis straight people. I don’t want my sexual orientation defined by being outside the norm, because it’s not. There’s nothing strange about being gay (or trans)—it’s just cis straight people who want to act like there is. Half the battle we’re fighting is to be seen as normal and not “queer” (in the old-fashioned dictionary sense of strange—which is another problem with resorting to dictionary definitions).
Expanding the definition of queer to mean “not hetero” plays into the idea that our sexualities are defined by how they differ from heterosexuality as opposed to by what they are. It reinforces the idea of cis straight heterosexual people being the default. The definition of queer in this context is people who are same-sex attracted (whether sexually, romantically or whatever else) and people who are trans (and people who are both). That definition is based on who we are instead of who we aren’t. It’s positioning us as a different part of the norm rather than something outside it.
I think this idea of wanting to be seen as strange and different and unique is part of the problem. I get the idea of weird being cool—it can be fun to stand out. However, it’s important to understand the difference between standing out because of what one does as opposed to who one is. I’d love to stand out for other things; I don’t want to stand out for being gay. I don’t want my queerness to be some sign of subversive difference. I want it to be seen as boring and normal. I’m sure a lot of asexual people want the same thing as I do.
That’s without going into the history of queer as a slur. People still have “queer” thrown at them like a weapon. It’s an insult to the people who’ve experienced it to throw around the world queer like it’s history doesn’t matter—only the groups who’ve historically experienced a slur can transform it into a badge of pride. That’s a separate issue to the main subject of this post, though, because a million people have already said that. I just wanted to add my two cents of another reason the meaning of the word queer matters to me.
More really good points. A orientation should not be defined by how it differs from the more common orientation.
It does seem like some people want to use the word because it seems “cool” and for once in their life they can be proud of how different or unusual they are from the majority of people. That they aren’t broken, but instead they are extremely rare.
I can understand people high off of the sudden epiphany and self-acceptance of their orientation and they want to express it and be proud of it. Therefore they look to groups that are also proud of their orientation, the LGBT community. And if you look at pride parades, it looks like being proud and accepting of your orientation looks like a lot of fun and empowering. That the end positive end result matters the most, while at the same time forgetting all of the hardships it took for people to get to the point of pride. So people take cues from the high points of gay pride, like reclaiming the word “queer”, while forgetting about the low points and that they have been and still are intimately connected to the high points that they enjoy and want to join in with so much.
12AM
Now I keep seeing this list of things that may prove or cause people to ponder if there really is “sexual privilege” or trying to reinforce the idea that asexuals are oppressed and therefore have paid their suffering payment to achieve the coveted status of minority. Because to be a legitimate minority you need to suffer, right?
Read More
![metapianycist:
[OP is a gray-A & demi blog; not an invalidator.]
andyourlittlequeertoo:
White text on striped background: “But isn’t that just the same as not being a slut?”
I love when invalidation of demisexuality and gray-asexuality assumes people with those identities are slut-shamers while being itself slut-shaming. Bonus points if it involves shaming of aromantic alisexual people (and erasure of aromantic demisexuals/gray-As) in the form of “but EVERYONE needs to be romantically attracted to someone before they’re sexually attracted! it’s just NORMAL!”
I think the interesting thing is that the person who says “Isn’t that the same as not being a slut” that person is the one applying the concept of slutty behavior on someone, not demisexuals. By bringing up the term “slut” as meaning someone who has sex without a committed relationship, is slut shaming in itself.
“Oh so you think that everyone else is a slut?!”“I never said that anyone who has sex or has sexual attraction outside of a committed relationships are ‘sluts’ or act ‘slutty’. Do you think that? because I never made that association or said that there was anything bad or negative about it.”](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9h3hdHI8E1rbpixco1_500.png)
