Did you ever use to be prosexual?

by **Admin** Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:34 pm

…Or think you were? Did you think that you wanted sex, because of how pervasive those messages that everyone wants it are, or did you know early on that you never wanted it, and that you'd never change? If you used to be, what was it that led you to turn antisexual?

Did you also used to feel the same way about romance?

by ForeverPure Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:06 pm

I used to promote tolerance for LGBT when I was in elementary school, but that was only after going through a political correctness class and was a very, very short phase.

by **Admin** Sun Jul 12, 2015 6:22 pm

ForeverPure wrote:I used to promote tolerance for LGBT when I was in elementary school, but that was only after going through a political correctness class and was a very, very short phase.

Do you mean the people themselves, or the movement? I'm discontent that the mainstream part of the LGBT movement is so sexualized, but so are a lot of abstinence until marriage groups too, and even some parts of the asexual community.

I should've been more clear what i meant for this topic, but by "prosexual", I meant actively wanting sex, and believing it'd be good for you.

by SCH0206 Mon Jul 13, 2015 12:31 am

I tried to trick my brain into thinking that sex was good for me. I think I've been antisexual for pretty much most of my life, but I didn't want to admit it to anyone, not even myself, so I tried to hide that part from myself. Before finding out about antisexuality on the Web, I was bombarded with messages from school and the media that one has to want and like sex and anyone opposite of that was a religious fanatic or a prude.

In my late teens, I found out about AVEN, and learned that lack of interest of sex was accepted there, though I did get a pro-sexual vibe from it, so I tried to think that way.

When I found the (now defunct) antisexual website, I thought it was ludicrous and abandoned it for a while. But, later on, I found myself coming back to it and slowly began to accept my true opinions on sex, that it personally disgusts me and brings more harm than good, and I quit visiting the AVEN site.

About romance: I've already mentioned on this forum a few times about my boy-craziness, but I'll mention it again. I had wanted a boyfriend since I was 10. (Which I find pretty disturbing now as an adult.) I assume that puberty-related hormones and a feeling of emptiness mixed with media and peer pressure lead to this. I didn't feel I got what I needed at home, plus I was a school outcast, and hoped I could have a boyfriend like the people on TV and in school. It didn't help that a lot of the guys I flirted with found me annoying and homely, and my mother even said that if I kept up with my behavior, I would be violated by a pervert one day. (Now looking back, I found it horrid to blame a minor for being violated as a result of flirting.)

In high school, I still had crushes, but the urge to have a boyfriend wasn't as strong like during my pre-teen years. It wasn't until I left high school that my crushes disappeared. I think the idea that romance being based on superficial attributes like appearance and being more important than friendship disgusted me so much that it didn't appeal to me anymore. It's ironic how I thought I would be ashamed of never have dated in my life in the past, but now I don't see that as a big deal at all. I'm learning to be comfortable in my own lifestyle and beliefs even if they're unconventional.

by **Admin** Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:34 am

I don't think I was ever prosexual, in that I never actively wanted sex, nor felt any need to seek it out. Yet for some time I was vaguely open to the idea of it, having passively "accepted" the idea that it is something that just happens, and that it may be my duty to my future partner, if they want it, and even if I don't, but I thought I'd eventually like it.

I thought unless I'd be able to stay single, or at least find someone who doesn't care for sex, and would be okay going without, that I'd just have to go through the motions with it. I thought that expectation was normal, though I still found it to be repulsive. I didn't know how to challenge it, although I knew that someone shouldn't have to sacrifice ownership of their body to another person, for the other person's pleasure. That sex is something that people can willingly consent to with the other person wasn't a familiar idea.

Over time, the idea of having sex grew more repulsive to me, as I became aware of how much it is pushed on people, how much people use it as a tool to manipulate each other even when consensual, or as a tool of power over another person. Physicially, it's a repulsive and awkward process, so it confused me why did so many people want it so badly that they'd lie and cheat to get it?

From a pragmatic point of view, it's a lot of investment in time and energy, has significant drawbacks and risks, and for what benefit? I could be doing other things that I'd find much more fulfilling and don't carry such risks or drawbacks.

I thought romance was something that just happened too, and to everyone eventually. I grew up watching a lot of old Disney movies that ended with the princess getting married, and the narration said that they lived happily ever after. Incidentally, a lot of the villains in Disney moves are single, so it's easy to internalize the idea that good people can get relationships, while bad people don't deserve love. Yet at the same time, I usually didn't care that I didn't get crushes on others.

I can't recall if I've known any single adult relatives while growing up, which may have also influenced the idea that romance, and marriage by association, are an inevitability. All of my adult relatives that I remember are married, or have been married. At least they didn't push it on me, or rudely question why I'm still single.

by Panache Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:21 pm

To me there’s a world of difference between wanting to have sex oneself, that is, not being sex-repulsed, and being pro-sexual/sex-positive, that is, believing that sex is healthy and good for everyone who wants to have it, and an important part (if not the important part) of intimate and committed relationships. For example, it seems like most asexuals, even the ones who are sex-repulsed, are also sex-positive.

To my mind these are two separate issues, though being sex-positive may also reflect back on oneself and result in internal pressure to have sex, since it’s supposedly so good for you. Since antisexualism is a matter of principle and personal philosophy, ultimately it doesn’t matter whether one personally is sex-repulsed or not (except for when it comes to practical matters), so it seems important to have these terms well-defined.

I believe these are the terms that are generally in use:

How one personally feels about having sex:
Sex-enthused and sex-favorable…sex-neutral…sex-repulsed and sex-averse

How one feels about sex on a broader scale, or in principle:
Pro-sexual and sex-positive…antisexual and sex-negative

ForeverPure wrote:I used to promote tolerance for LGBT when I was in elementary school, but that was only after going through a political correctness class and was a very, very short phase.

We should totally start a thread about queer issues; this is a subject I'd like to talk more about.

Admin wrote:I thought romance was something that just happened too, and to everyone eventually. I grew up watching a lot of old Disney movies that ended with the princess getting married, and the narration said that they lived happily ever after.

The Disney movies had a big impact on how I thought about relationships as well. I think I got the sense that you “have” to get married from watching Disney movies.

Most of America was probably raised up watching Cinderella dancing with an utter stranger and singing “So This Is Love” with everything beautiful all around – is it any wonder we equate limerence with true love?

Admin wrote:Incidentally, a lot of the villains in Disney moves are single, so it's easy to internalize the idea that good people can get relationships, while bad people don't deserve love. Yet at the same time, I usually didn't care that I didn't get crushes on others.

OMG that is an excellent point that I hadn’t thought of. That’s so true that villains are much more likely to be single than heroes. Definitely, engaging in limerent-sexual relationships is generally a mark of the “good guy,” unless the object of one’s attentions is resistant. I hadn’t realized, though, that it’s not just an issue of the media portraying good guys as limerent and sexual, but also an issue of bad guys being more likely to be portrayed as not limerent and sexual.

Something I’ve noticed for a while that’s been getting to me more and more: the utter lack of major female characters who don’t end up getting paired up. If you’re a woman in a book, movie, or TV show, you know you’re either already with somebody or are going to be by the end of the story. Because obviously you’re worthless without a man (or, if the story is PC, a partner). “A major female character who remains single” doesn’t seem like such an obscure request; I think it says a lot about our society and our conscious or subconscious values that it’s so hard to come across.

by Panache Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:47 pm

This subject reminded me of this study:

Collins et al. Watching sex on television predicts adolescent initiation of sexual behavior.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15342887/
“Early sexual initiation is an important social and health issue. A recent survey suggested that most sexually experienced teens wish they had waited longer to have intercourse; other data indicate that unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases are more common among those who begin sexual activity earlier. The American Academy of Pediatrics has suggested that portrayals of sex on entertainment television (TV) may contribute to precocious adolescent sex. Approximately two-thirds of TV programs contain sexual content.”

“Multivariate regression analysis indicated that adolescents who viewed more sexual content at baseline were more likely to initiate intercourse and progress to more advanced noncoital sexual activities during the subsequent year, controlling for respondent characteristics that might otherwise explain these relationships. The size of the adjusted intercourse effect was such that youths in the 90th percentile of TV sex viewing had a predicted probability of intercourse initiation that was approximately double that of youths in the 10th percentile, for all ages studied. Exposure to TV that included only talk about sex was associated with the same risks as exposure to TV that depicted sexual behavior. African American youths who watched more depictions of sexual risks or safety were less likely to initiate intercourse in the subsequent year.”

It says that the more adolescents watch TV where people have sex, or even where people talk about sex, the more likely they are to have sex IRL. This is a disturbing finding to me, since to me sexuality is such a personal issue, and it bothers me that people are that susceptible to influence.

So if even people’s sexual behaviors can be dictated by comparatively mild cultural influences, I imagine our attitudes regarding sexuality are inescapably colored by our society’s attitudes. All we can do is try to be as mindful of the influences as possible, and fight towards truth and authenticity through all the extraneous noise.

by **Admin** Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:30 pm

Panache wrote:To me there’s a world of difference between wanting to have sex oneself, that is, not being sex-repulsed, and being pro-sexual/sex-positive, that is, believing that sex is healthy and good for everyone who wants to have it, and an important part (if not the important part) of intimate and committed relationships. For example, it seems like most asexuals, even the ones who are sex-repulsed, are also sex-positive.

I learned from AVEN the notion that someone can be sex-repulsed, being completely repulsed by sex, and never have it, yet be sex-positive. For so long I couldn’t understand this, especially not why a repulsed asexual would want to identify as sex-positive. I thought they believe sex is good in general, but what about for themselves, because they don't want sex?

To my mind these are two separate issues, though being sex-positive may also reflect back on oneself and result in internal pressure to have sex, since it’s supposedly so good for you. Since antisexualism is a matter of principle and personal philosophy, ultimately it doesn’t matter whether one personally is sex-repulsed or not (except for when it comes to practical matters), so it seems important to have these terms well-defined.

That’s something that’s always concerned me about sex-positivity, and whether it really respects the choice to not have sex. Maybe I’m biased, because my first impressions came from extremists.

I believe these are the terms that are generally in use:

How one personally feels about having sex:
Sex-enthused and sex-favorable…sex-neutral…sex-repulsed and sex-averse

How one feels about sex on a broader scale, or in principle:
Pro-sexual and sex-positive…antisexual and sex-negative

To be more clear with what I was trying to describe, someone can be prosexual without being sex-positive under the definition that they (the asexual and LGBT communities) use.

For example, certain groups who preach abstinence until marriage, and ruthlessly shame people (especially girls due to double-standards), for having premarital sex, are still prosexual in the sense that they both want sex, and believe it is good, though within the context of marriage. Prosexuals want sex and have an ideological justification for it or consider it a significant priority, like how antisexuals (usually?) have ideological justifications for not having sex (therefore sex is never a priority). Under those definitions, most asexuals are neither prosexual nor antisexual.

I’ve seen some asexuals say that they are favorable towards having sex under some circumstances, and can enjoy it. However, as I understand it, they’d be prosexual only if they consider seeking out sex despite the lack of desire for it, to be a significant priority in their lives.

ForeverPure wrote:I used to promote tolerance for LGBT when I was in elementary school, but that was only after going through a political correctness class and was a very, very short phase.

We should totally start a thread about queer issues; this is a subject I'd like to talk more about.

One of the topics I'm curious about is how does being antisexual intersect with sexual orientation? I've heard of LGBT celibate people, especially religious ones struggling for acceptance in LGBT spaces, but a lot of celibate spaces aren't well-versed in LGBT issues.

Admin wrote:I thought romance was something that just happened too, and to everyone eventually. I grew up watching a lot of old Disney movies that ended with the princess getting married, and the narration said that they lived happily ever after.

The Disney movies had a big impact on how I thought about relationships as well. I think I got the sense that you “have” to get married from watching Disney movies.

Most of America was probably raised up watching Cinderella dancing with an utter stranger and singing “So This Is Love” with everything beautiful all around – is it any wonder we equate limerence with true love?

Admin wrote:Incidentally, a lot of the villains in Disney moves are single, so it's easy to internalize the idea that good people can get relationships, while bad people don't deserve love. Yet at the same time, I usually didn't care that I didn't get crushes on others.

OMG that is an excellent point that I hadn’t thought of. That’s so true that villains are much more likely to be single than heroes. Definitely, engaging in limerent-sexual relationships is generally a mark of the “good guy,” unless the object of one’s attentions is resistant. I hadn’t realized, though, that it’s not just an issue of the media portraying good guys as limerent and sexual, but also an issue of bad guys being more likely to be portrayed as not limerent and sexual.

I’ve been aware of that for a long time, but I found that some genres are less affected by this than others.

Something I’ve noticed for a while that’s been getting to me more and more: the utter lack of major female characters who don’t end up getting paired up. If you’re a woman in a book, movie, or TV show, you know you’re either already with somebody or are going to be by the end of the story. Because obviously you’re worthless without a man (or, if the story is PC, a partner). “A major female character who remains single” doesn’t seem like such an obscure request; I think it says a lot about our society and our conscious or subconscious values that it’s so hard to come across.

That has frustrated me for a long time too. The idea of a woman needing a man to be a “complete” person is also very pervasive in society, and media portrayals of women reinforce it. That also made me not want to date. I believe people are complete, and don’t need a relationship to complete them. A lot of the ideals about relationships that the media glamorizes are codependency.

I hate the “shallow love interest” type of characters, and also when competent female characters get derailed into damsels in distress to be saved by the lead. The idea of having a romantic interest = good is probably why there are so many romances shoehorned in.

by Panache Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:03 pm

I'm so happy to have someone to discuss these issues with!

Admin wrote:To be more clear with what I was trying to describe, someone can be prosexual without being sex-positive under the definition that they (the asexual and LGBT communities) use.

For example, certain groups who preach abstinence until marriage, and ruthlessly shame people (especially girls due to double-standards), for having premarital sex, are still prosexual in the sense that they both want sex, and believe it is good, though within the context of marriage. Prosexuals want sex and have an ideological justification for it or consider it a significant priority, like how antisexuals (usually?) have ideological justifications for not having sex (therefore sex is never a priority). Under those definitions, most asexuals are neither prosexual nor antisexual.

This is not a distinction I've come across before. So people who are pro-abstinence are pro-sexual, because they think sex is a good thing overall, but not sex-positive, because they think it's not a good thing in some circumstances? I would have said they were a combination of sex-positive and sex-negative, depending on the circumstance.

Admin wrote:I believe people are complete, and don’t need a relationship to complete them.

I've heard people say this before, and I don't quite know how I feel about it. On the one hand, by "relationship" people tend to mean limerent-sexual relationship, and I totally agree that people don't need that sort of relationship. However, attachment is a basic part of being human and sane (unless you're a Buddhist monk); if I had no relationships, if everyone I loved were dead, I'd feel very, very incomplete. That's such a bleak world I don't even want to contemplate it.

Admin wrote:A lot of the ideals about relationships that the media glamorizes are codependency.

Would you be willing to maybe give an overview on codependency, and recommend some resources (maybe in its own thread)? This is something I'd be interested in learning more about, and I get the impression you already know a lot about it. It also strikes me as a relevant subject for antisexuals trying to navigate relationships in our society, when the default sort of relationship is so different from what we'd like it to be.

by **Admin** Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:31 pm

Panache wrote:I'm so happy to have someone to discuss these issues with!

Admin wrote:To be more clear with what I was trying to describe, someone can be prosexual without being sex-positive under the definition that they (the asexual and LGBT communities) use.

For example, certain groups who preach abstinence until marriage, and ruthlessly shame people (especially girls due to double-standards), for having premarital sex, are still prosexual in the sense that they both want sex, and believe it is good, though within the context of marriage. Prosexuals want sex and have an ideological justification for it or consider it a significant priority, like how antisexuals (usually?) have ideological justifications for not having sex (therefore sex is never a priority). Under those definitions, most asexuals are neither prosexual nor antisexual.
This is not a distinction I've come across before. So people who are pro-abstinence are pro-sexual, because they think sex is a good thing overall, but not sex-positive, because they think it's not a good thing in some circumstances? I would have said they were a combination of sex-positive and sex-negative, depending on the circumstance.

This is what I mean, and I shouldn't have assumed everyone here will find the definitions I've been using to be familiar: https://iamfortress.forumotion.com/t3-terminology

The definition of sex-positivity I've seen people in the LGBT and asexual communities use is the belief that sex is a positive thing that people should be free to have without stigma as long as it is consensual.

They don't count the abstinence-until-marriage groups, because they stigmatize sex outside of marriage. The sex-positive people say that people who think sex should be saved for marriage are sex-negative, but that doesn't make sense to me. They could be classified either way.

The sex-positive/negative terminology frustrates me, because there are conflicting definitions I've seen for each, and some people don't neatly fit into either label, and they're usually presented as a dichotomy.

I don't see being prosexual or antisexual as a dichotomy, because there are varying degrees, and there are people who are neither.

Admin wrote:I believe people are complete, and don’t need a relationship to complete them.
I've heard people say this before, and I don't quite know how I feel about it. On the one hand, by "relationship" people tend to mean limerent-sexual relationship, and I totally agree that people don't need that sort of relationship. However, attachment is a basic part of being human and sane (unless you're a Buddhist monk); if I had no relationships, if everyone I loved were dead, I'd feel very, very incomplete. That's such a bleak world I don't even want to contemplate it.

By "relationship" in this context, I did mean limerent or romantic-sexual relationship. I fell into the trap of using "relationship" as a shorthand for that. Sad

It's a shame that limerent or romantic-sexual relationships are seen as the most "real" relationship that someone can't be complete without, while other relationships are devalued.

I've heard of people who have friends, but say that they're alone because they aren't dating.

by Panache Tue Jul 14, 2015 11:34 pm

Sex-positive: the belief that sex is a positive thing that people should be free to have without stigma as long as it is consensual.

Prosexual: someone who wants sex, seeing it as favorable, or insisting on the need for it.

These still seem like roughly the same thing to me?

Admin wrote:By "relationship" in this context, I did mean limerent or romantic-sexual relationship. I fell into the trap of using "relationship" as a shorthand for that. It's a shame that limerent or romantic-sexual relationships are seen as the most "real" relationship that someone can't be complete without, while other relationships are devalued.

I've heard of people who have friends, but say that they're alone because they aren't dating.

I had to train myself out of doing that, as part of getting away from the underlying thinking that relationship = limerence and sex. It says a lot about our culture that when we say relationship we mean limerent-sexual relationship. Now I try to be careful to always spell it out, for the sake of being clear, as well as for the sake of emphasizing that that's not the only sort of relationship out there, and it doesn't have to be the automatic default for relationships. Though "limerent-sexual relationship" can be a little cumbersome. We need a shorthand - or a codeword, lol.

by xenosimiana Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:31 am

I've had problems understanding asexuals who were sex repulsed but be sex positive as well (I guess it's what makes the difference between repulsed and averse, I forget how people would differentiate between the two).

It's kinda like most "weak" or agnostic atheists that have the view of seeing some some of the good qualities of religion: fellowship, access to benefits, some forms of art etc. Also, being good for those who feel that they would still be a horrible person without it, morale, console...like on their deathbed. But it's mainly in the sense that they don't want to control people despite their understanding of the lack of evidence with the many claims religions make, and that people can have all of the above without believing in a god - them being the prime example.

So, it's like what you guys already mentioned about those who are sex positive or prosexual: "If it's good for them, then it's good for them." But, just because people are supposedly "happy" doing a certain thing, doesn't always make whatever that is good.

I used to have that attitude (and it creeps in once in a blue moon) of both wanting sex and seeing it as healthy for others. But, when I would think of having sex with someone else, most of the time it made me uncomfortable, particularly the oral crap. I think it has a lot to do with wanting to be liked, especially in middle and high school.

by Aztec12 Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:19 pm

Well I'm prosexual in a way (not what i truly am) but in my school I use dirty jokes to fit in. I know not good but it's a habit now. I also make comments about certain males looking neat but I don't really want to do Anything with them at all. Typical the guys I say are neat are guys that are not interested in females at all because I know they won't do anything. I feel bad though for not being a very good antisexual Im even a romantic and a family person oops.

Regardless I will always support antisexual And I pray I will keep my antisexual values, always

by Biscotti Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:31 pm

romance/dirty jokes/family aren't necessarily at odds with antisexualism.

Romance depends on the definition, family...also depends.
And people make jokes about their own religion n such all the time. But it depends on whether it's good in taste or not.
Also being afraid to stand up for what you believe is fairly common too, though I agree it's not really good.

If you're worried about being coerced, dragged or hazed into something you don't want though, I encourage you to seek support about it.

by SlagToccata Wed Oct 09, 2019 1:58 pm

I did, for the exact same reasons I'm the opposite way now. I used to think sex-positivity led to more freedom, now I don't. So I guess that shows the crux of my philosophy.

Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?

Re: Did you ever use to be prosexual?