![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Asexual vs antisexual
I have a number of friends who describe themselves as asexual, in one form or another. I've heard the term defined in a few ways, mostly boiling down to something like the first noun definition from google, "a person who has no sexual feelings or desires".
I have a problem with this definition and label and most of the circumstances in which I've seen it applied. The key distinction is that between neutral and negative value assignments. Not having sexual desires is not the same thing as having a desire to avoid sexual activities. There are things I have a desire to do. There are things I have a desire to avoid. There are things I'm indifferent about. This is a spectrum, and some things close to the middle might reasonably be grouped into the indifferent/a- middle ground, but many things on either end are definitely far enough from the middle to fall solidly into the other two categories.
Now, in a relationship, be that acquaintance or friend or partner or lover, I will do virtually anything that I am indifferent about if it makes the other person happy. If we are both indifferent, I won't do it. If it makes me unhappy, then there's a value judgement to be made. It's perfectly reasonable to not do something that you are opposed to.
I place positive value on sexual activity with women that I find attractive. I place negative value on sexual activity with men. This is a general definition of "heterosexual man". I place somewhere near neutral/zero value on certain interactions with each gender, including hugging in some contexts. I might somewhat accurately label myself as (pro-)heterosexual, a-hug-ual, and anti-homosexual (referring only to my own sexuality, not to my feelings about others'). If my partner asks me to have sex with a woman, that's an easy yes. If they ask me to hug someone, that's also a yes. If they ask me to have sex with a man, that's mostly a no, or at least a very long conversation.
If you place negative value on all sexual activity, such that you avoid it in circumstances where the net value is otherwise positive, and your partner asking you to have sex is mostly/always a no, then you are not asexual. You are antisexual (or some other word that I am not familiar with). If you want "asexual" to describe that situation, then there's a lot of work to be done on the popular definition of the term, including the definition actively promoted in pro-asexuality literature and events.
(This note may be revised based on feedback.)
I have a problem with this definition and label and most of the circumstances in which I've seen it applied. The key distinction is that between neutral and negative value assignments. Not having sexual desires is not the same thing as having a desire to avoid sexual activities. There are things I have a desire to do. There are things I have a desire to avoid. There are things I'm indifferent about. This is a spectrum, and some things close to the middle might reasonably be grouped into the indifferent/a- middle ground, but many things on either end are definitely far enough from the middle to fall solidly into the other two categories.
Now, in a relationship, be that acquaintance or friend or partner or lover, I will do virtually anything that I am indifferent about if it makes the other person happy. If we are both indifferent, I won't do it. If it makes me unhappy, then there's a value judgement to be made. It's perfectly reasonable to not do something that you are opposed to.
I place positive value on sexual activity with women that I find attractive. I place negative value on sexual activity with men. This is a general definition of "heterosexual man". I place somewhere near neutral/zero value on certain interactions with each gender, including hugging in some contexts. I might somewhat accurately label myself as (pro-)heterosexual, a-hug-ual, and anti-homosexual (referring only to my own sexuality, not to my feelings about others'). If my partner asks me to have sex with a woman, that's an easy yes. If they ask me to hug someone, that's also a yes. If they ask me to have sex with a man, that's mostly a no, or at least a very long conversation.
If you place negative value on all sexual activity, such that you avoid it in circumstances where the net value is otherwise positive, and your partner asking you to have sex is mostly/always a no, then you are not asexual. You are antisexual (or some other word that I am not familiar with). If you want "asexual" to describe that situation, then there's a lot of work to be done on the popular definition of the term, including the definition actively promoted in pro-asexuality literature and events.
(This note may be revised based on feedback.)
no subject
To illustrate:
Let's say that my options tonight are going to a party, going to the movies, going out to dinner, or staying in and reading.
Each of these has potential value to me in terms of happiness vs. energy expenditure. Pretend it can be measured in points, such as:
going to a party - 7 points
going to dinner - 5 points
staying in and reading - 10 points
going to the movies - 3 points
If I opt to go to the movies instead of staying in and reading, I'm giving up 7 potential happiness points.
That doesn't mean I'm anti-going-to-the-movies - in fact, there's a clear happiness bonus from going to the movies. But all other things being equal, it would make no sense for me to go to the movies instead of staying in and reading.
no subject
There are people in my life who label themselves as asexual. I have absolutely confirmed that they are willing to endure negative point activities (chores, generally) for my benefit, particularly in situations where the point cost to them is less than the point cost to me. But, despite knowing that I place a high positive value on sex, they still do not want to have sex with me. There's nothing *wrong* with them not wanting to, the only problem is in their claim that sex is worth 0 points to them, when it is obviously worth a significant negative number of points to them.