Asexual vs antisexual

[sparr]

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.)

Comments

[hermitgeecko.livejournal.com]

You're not taking into account the opportunity cost.

Let's say that I'm never interested in playing checkers. I am interested in playing chess, Connect Four, or Chinese checkers, but regular checkers have zero appeal.

I only have so much free time and so much energy. My life stresses me out for a variety of reasons. I want to use my limited free time and energy for things that actually rejuvenate me and give me more energy and happiness.

And the world keeps wanting me to play goddamn checkers. Every person I've ever dated wants to play checkers with me. There are weekly checkers tournaments and everyone you know is into checkers. People actively give you a hard time and say there's something wrong with you if you never want to play checkers.

Under those circumstances? Fuck checkers. I will date someone who wants to play chess with me, or someone who is okay with playing checkers with other people. But I'm not going to force myself into playing checkers when my personal happiness would benefit so much from not playing checkers, especially in light of the hostile environment.

But that doesn't mean I started from fuck-checkers. It means I started checkers-disinterested. The part of me that is part of my identity is checkers-disinterested, not fuck-checkers. (Unless I get so tired of all the checkers advocates that I go full swing into the opposite.)

Also,

1) Antisexual would imply hostility toward other people's sexual behavior. Asexual doesn't.
2) Attempting to redefine anyone else's identity from an external perspective is pretty offensive.

[vortex.livejournal.com]

I don't know that many people would be educated enough to be so precise in defining themselves, nor would they want to put that kind of effort into it. I think you will have a hard time finding such people.

I personally take a person's "self-identity" as a general guideline, not as something precise and exacting. For myself, I identify as "Bisexual", when in reality, I am more "Pansexual" as I am attracted to more than just two genders at any one time. I also identify as "Hypersexual", but in some states that would get me committed :)...

Fine I will use LiveJournal, heh ~ Shea

[shea c reinke (from livejournal.com)]

This reminds me of your point the other day about -ism. The union of the sets of asexual strict vs antisexual soft. As in someone one who is willing but not completely so. Many are antisexual soft vs one gender or the other.

But can you include gender into that equation in this context?

asexual simply meaning no active desire can be dichotomized with someone who has sexual avoidance or atisexual as it were in that they will probably accept a well trained ( professionally or casually ) sexual partner who performs specifically pleasurable action and techniques. Whereas an antisexual person would specifically avoid *all* physical contact most likely.

The sickening question is to what extent the difference between asexual and antisexual is not natural but driven from trauma. I am personally pro the asexual term. I can get long with someone who is asexual. I know right where that line goes. Strait to facebook..mostly.. and never to a good morning, unless its on a flip honey moon..that is. Vegas casino room?

drive-by-comment-from-the-front-page-of-LJ

[boosette.livejournal.com]

The asexual community has a word for what you're describing: sex-repulsed. Which gets across the viewpoint that they think sex is gross and never want to have it, without the implications that "anti-" carries.

/not-asexual-but-have-had-many-conversations-on-the-topic-with-friends-who-are.