Does "asexual" mean "not desiring either men or women" or "not experiencing erotic arousal?"

[Portly_Penguin]

Do you experience sexual arousal in other situations than relating to another person? Do you masterubate? Fantasize in a way that arouses you?

Yup. I just don't actually want to have sex. Sexual desire and sexual arousal are two very different things for me

 

[Comshaw]

Can we not use the word 'abnormal' in this discussion please?

I spent my teenager years convinced there was something wrong with me because I didn't care about sex in the same way people in my class did. There was actually a scene in the show 'Sex Education' that touches on asexuality and is a pretty decent way of explaining it both as a term, but also how it feels to know something is off but to not know what it is. When you don't know that there's a term for something, or that other people feel the same way, you convince yourself that there is something weird or strange about you.

'Abnormal' isn't the word to use whether it's meant maliciously or not.

I am sorry but it's exactly the word to use. As in:
From Merriam-Webster
abnormal
deviating from the normal or average

The word isn't malicious unless it is used that way, and I didn't use it in such a context as to be malicious. It was not a slur or slam on asexuals. Sometimes things are just what they are. Asexuality is a deviation from the norm and as such is abnormal. That's all. I judged it neither good nor bad, just that it is what it is, outside the norm for human sexuality.

Comshaw

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

So now you're using deviant?

 

[Comshaw]

So now you're using deviant?

Will you be sensitive to every word I use that you do not like? Let's talk about that for a moment.

Both the word "abnormal" and "deviant" are perfectly acceptable words to use in this discussion. The problem arises in the context they are used or the interpretation of the person reading them. I used neither word in a disparaging or judgemental context. It appears that you however, no matter how a word is used, will interpret it to be insulting and degrading (which they weren't nor intended to be) if you are sensitive to or do not like the word. I can assure you they were used in an appropriate, non-disparging manner. What I can't do is change the way you perceive the words were used. That's for you to tackle.


I myself am abnormal. How? I'm an alcoholic. I am outside the norm of the reaction of people to alcohol. I DEVIANT from the average so to speak. I don't consider those descriptive terms are telling me I'm bad, just that I am what they say I am, not of the center, the mainstream, the majority. Way too many people get spun up about what they perceive things are and refuse to look at what things really are.


Comshaw

 

[Levorotatory]

I imagine most sexual men just take it for granted that they are that way and don't think about it. I think about it, and sometimes think, "This sure is distracting," but it's a form of distraction that gives so much pleasure and adds so much spice to daily life that I never think, "I wish I didn't find women in short skirts so desirable." I think, "Thank God for short skirts. And women's legs."

That is an interesting perspective. I have often wished that I didn't find women in low cut tops so desirable, because I have never found wanting what I can't have to be pleasurable. There is a certain joy in fulfilling a long denied desire, but it is fleeting and the longing comes back all too quickly. Demi-sexuality really sounds ideal. Able to enjoy sex when it is available, but not so frustrated when it is not.

 

[SimonDoom]

That is an interesting perspective. I have often wished that I didn't find women in low cut tops so desirable, because I have never found wanting what I can't have to be pleasurable. There is a certain joy in fulfilling a long denied desire, but it is fleeting and the longing comes back all too quickly. Demi-sexuality really sounds ideal. Able to enjoy sex when it is available, but not so frustrated when it is not.

I certainly know what it is like to desire what I don't have, and not to get it, but I somehow think of it as part of the richness of life experience. I've drunk from the well not nearly as much as I would have liked to, but enough to experience the joy. I know what it's like to want a woman down to my bones and have her say "No thank you" and choose someone else, and it's a terrible feeling, but I wouldn't choose a life without having experienced that feeling at least once. Intense, unrequited desire is a strong motivating force for my stories.

 

[AG31]

Yup. I just don't actually want to have sex. Sexual desire and sexual arousal are two very different things for me

Me too. See my related thread, posted in reaction to some of this thread.

 

[AG31]

I am sorry but it's exactly the word to use. As in:
From Merriam-Webster
abnormal
deviating from the normal or average

The word isn't malicious unless it is used that way, and I didn't use it in such a context as to be malicious. It was not a slur or slam on asexuals. Sometimes things are just what they are. Asexuality is a deviation from the norm and as such is abnormal. That's all. I judged it neither good nor bad, just that it is what it is, outside the norm for human sexuality.

Comshaw

I haven't read about relevant stats for decades, but decades ago it was news when it was discovered how many women didn't experience desire or have orgasms. Don't know what the stats are now, but given the definition predominating in this thread, they would have been asexual, and asexual females would not have been abnormal.

 

[alohadave]

I am sorry but it's exactly the word to use. As in:
From Merriam-Webster
abnormal
deviating from the normal or average

The word isn't malicious unless it is used that way, and I didn't use it in such a context as to be malicious. It was not a slur or slam on asexuals. Sometimes things are just what they are. Asexuality is a deviation from the norm and as such is abnormal. That's all. I judged it neither good nor bad, just that it is what it is, outside the norm for human sexuality.

Comshaw

You understand that words have connotations separate from the definition, right?

A person has asked you not to use a word because of the connotations of it and you give them the dictionary meaning of the word.

This isn't a medical clinic and we aren't in abnormal psych class here.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Women may be called 'frigid'.

Someone not liking what others do is not 'abnormal' or 'deviant'.

Not liking pineapple on pizza is not abnormal or deviant.

Not liking Stephen King stories is not abnormal or deviant.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

You understand that words have connotations separate from the definition, right?

A person has asked you not to use a word because of the connotations of it and you give them the dictionary meaning of the word.

This isn't a medical clinic and we aren't in abnormal psych class here.

He also didn't call anyone specifically abnormal or deviant; he was clearly using it in an academic/medical sense to convey his idea about asexuality.
You are also right when you say that this isn't a medical clinic, so people could give a few thoughts about the terms they use before they use them. But we are also not a kindergarten and people shouldn't get all riled up when someone uses a clumsy term here or there.
Also, there were obvious insults in this thread and in that other thread that is now closed and I didn't see anyone protesting about that. People should at least try to feign some consistency.

 

[Comshaw]

I haven't read about relevant stats for decades, but decades ago it was news when it was discovered how many women didn't experience desire or have orgasms. Don't know what the stats are now, but given the definition predominating in this thread, they would have been asexual, and asexual females would not have been abnormal.

As I have used the term here, women would have been abnormal if they had comprised a minority of the women that didn't have sexual desire or orgasms. According to the below article, it appears that 50 to 70% of women do orgasm. And the capability of them to orgasm (and I assume have a desire to do so) has more to do with sexual stimulation than anything else. In other words I take it to mean that a lot of men are selfish when it comes to sex and females don't get the sexual stimulation that need, or never learn self-stimulation. So I'm not sure if you can include those women in the asexual category.

Why So Many Women Don’t Have Orgasms


Comshaw

 

[AlinaX]

I'm beginning to wish I didn't delete that snowflake remark twenty seconds after making it.

 

[Portly_Penguin]

I am sorry but it's exactly the word to use. As in:
From Merriam-Webster
abnormal
deviating from the normal or average

The word isn't malicious unless it is used that way, and I didn't use it in such a context as to be malicious. It was not a slur or slam on asexuals. Sometimes things are just what they are. Asexuality is a deviation from the norm and as such is abnormal. That's all. I judged it neither good nor bad, just that it is what it is, outside the norm for human sexuality.

Comshaw

No, I get that, sorry. It's more of a personal thing since I spent so long thinking there was something wrong with me, an abnormality if you will, so it hit a little close to home. Definitely more of a personal gripe with it being used, but that's my issue.

I do see your point in its usage, though.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I'm beginning to wish I didn't delete that snowflake remark twenty seconds after making it.

And you shouldn't have. But you should also use it every time when it's deserved, not just when it's convenient for your side. Consistency, again.

 

[Comshaw]

You understand that words have connotations separate from the definition, right?

A person has asked you not to use a word because of the connotations of it and you give them the dictionary meaning of the word.

This isn't a medical clinic and we aren't in abnormal psych class here.

Nor am I in the habit of kowtowing to unreasonable demands because a person can't or won't look at things with a clear eye. I was never disparaging or demeaning to anyone. When questioned on my use of the words I explained that. Additionally, my history here does not support that I do that. Should I be required to use only those terms and words that are sanctioned by a minority not to give offense, even if they are widely used and regarded as part of the normal language? I don't think so.

As far as your comment about not being an abnormal psych class, apparently, you are of the mind that the only time learning takes place is in a formal class; I am of the mind that learning is a continuous process and can be done any place, even here.


Comshaw

 

[Bramblethorn]

I am sorry but it's exactly the word to use. As in:
From Merriam-Webster
abnormal
deviating from the normal or average

Um, actually, here's the full text of MW's definition for that usage:



Seems a mite disingenuous to quote the first half of that definition without acknowledging the second half, given how relevant it is to this discussion.

The word isn't malicious unless it is used that way, and I didn't use it in such a context as to be malicious.

It is very often used that way, and words acquire meaning from how they are very often used. If I call somebody a fuckwit, it's not an excuse to say I didn't mean it as an insult; they're within their rights to take offense because common usage has established it as an insult. In the same way, words like "abnormal" and "deviant" are likely to have strong negative connotations.

If you didn't intend it as a negative, that's great, but in that case it was a poor choice of words, and not the listeners' fault for being familiar with the way this word is commonly used. There are plenty of options like "atypical", "unusual" etc. which indicate lying outside the norm, without having the same negative baggage.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You understand that words have connotations separate from the definition, right?

Entirely valid as a general observation, but in this case, those connotations are provided in the dictionary definition. He just opted not to quote that portion of the text.

A person has asked you not to use a word because of the connotations of it and you give them the dictionary meaning of the word.

The actual dictionary definition would've been fine here.

 

[TomTeacher19]

I am very close with two asexual people. They are very different than each other and the point made earlier that it is different for different people is spot on. Both have had sex and had reasons for doing it, but they don't feel the arousal or desire the way most people do and as much they feel the label fits them. It honestly doesn't really matter how they choose to define it - it's their lives and however they do should be fine as long as no assholes come around calling them deviants or abnormal or other negative crap.

 

[Comshaw]

Um, actually, here's the full text of MW's definition for that usage:

View attachment 2396365

Seems a mite disingenuous to quote the first half of that definition without acknowledging the second half, given how relevant it is to this discussion.



It is very often used that way, and words acquire meaning from how they are very often used. If I call somebody a fuckwit, it's not an excuse to say I didn't mean it as an insult; they're within their rights to take offense because common usage has established it as an insult. In the same way, words like "abnormal" and "deviant" are likely to have strong negative connotations.

If you didn't intend it as a negative, that's great, but in that case it was a poor choice of words, and not the listeners' fault for being familiar with the way this word is commonly used. There are plenty of options like "atypical", "unusual" etc. which indicate lying outside the norm, without having the same negative baggage.

I am sorry but it is the listener's fault when they pay no heed to an explanation of the use of a word they do not like. And it's not disingenuous to quote that part of a word definition that I am using. Why would I want to quote other definitions when none of them apply to how I used the word? The only time those would be relevant is if I was using them in a way to match those definitions, or someone was determined to take the use of the word out of context.

I understand words have multiple means and that over time most people associate one meaning with a word. Doing so is a misuse of the word when it has more than one definition. Not paying attention to, or dismissing the appropriate use of the word because they despise the word for its connection to a different definition is ignorant.

The analogy would be if a person met another walking down the road and the second person had a rifle slung over his shoulder.
First-person, "You're here to shoot me!"

Second-person, "No I'm, not. It's deer season and I'm looking for a deer."

First-person, "That's a lie! I've seen all the news stories of mass shooters! You have a rifle, you're going to shoot me!"

An errant and unreasonable emotional reaction to something they dislike. This happens all the time. I see a lot of it on the PB: confirmation bias. A person picks only those things that support what they want to believe true or not and ignores anything else, even if it's as or more relevant and factual.

I think I'm done with this. I'll see ya'll in the next discussion I decide to engage in.

I'm 10-10 and on the side.

Comshaw

 

[AlinaX]

bloody-minded
▸ adj. Brit. informal deliberately uncooperative.
– DERIVATIVES bloody-mindedly adv.
bloody-mindedness n.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Newscaster: Four people were shot today along a rural road near a hunting area.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I am sorry but it is the listener's fault when they pay no heed to an explanation of the use of a word they do not like. And it's not disingenuous to quote that part of a word definition that I am using. Why would I want to quote other definitions when none of them apply to how I used the word?

It's not "another definition". It's part of the SAME DEFINITION, provided as a note on that definition.

 

[The_Weeping_Angel]

Clouds are hot.

Technically yes because they rise with hot air. Fog is a cold cloud. And clouds smoke weed cause they are nearly always high. But seldom 'stoned'. Unless they are cold fog on the ground.