Jump to content

Definition of Asexuality POLL for "Asexuals" - Check Post if Unsure of Definitions!


Hot_Air_Balloons

Definition of Asexuality - POLL  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Which Definition Do You Feel Fits Asexuality Best?

    • AVEN - Person Does Not Experience Sexual Attraction
      49
    • Rabger's Model - Person Who Lacks Primary Sexual Desire, but May Still Feel Attraction
      13
    • Nonlibidoists Definition ONLY
      2
    • Both AVEN & Rabger - No Sexual Attraction AND No Primary Sexual Desire
      16
    • Asexuality is Either AVEN or Rabger's Model Definitions
      13
    • A Whole New Definition is in Order
      3
    • Not Sure
      1
    • Don't Care (why am I even voting?)
      4
  2. 2. What Do You Personally Generally Experience?

    • Primary Sexual Attraction & Primary Sexual Desire
      0
    • Primary Sexual Attraction & Secondary Sexual Desire
      4
    • Primary Sexual Attraction & No Sexual Desire (or need to engage in acts with others)
      9
    • Secondary Sexual Attraction & Primary Sexual Desire
      3
    • Secondary Sexual Attraction & Secondary Sexual Desire
      5
    • Secondary Sexual Attraction & No Sexual Desire (or need to engage in acts with others)
      8
    • No Sexual Attraction & Primary Sexual Desire
      5
    • No Sexual Attraction & Secondary Sexual Desire
      12
    • No Sexual Attraction & No Sexual Desire (or need to engage in acts with others)
      49
    • Not Sure / Can't Generalize this
      5
    • I Don't Fit Any of These Models
      1
  3. 3. Which is the Highest Level of Attraction You Think Should Be Allowed in the ASEXUAL Definition? (Not Gray-A etc.)

    • Primary Sexual Attraction
      16
    • Secondary Sexual Attraction
      19
    • No Sexual Attraction
      47
    • Not Sure
      9
    • Don't Care (why am I even voting?)
      10
  4. 4. Which is the Highest Level of Desire You Think Should Be Allowed in the ASEXUAL Definition? (Not Gray-A etc.)

    • Primary Sexual Desire
      14
    • Secondary Sexual Desire
      37
    • No Sexual Desire (or need to engage in acts with others)
      26
    • Not Sure
      12
    • Don't Care (why am I even voting?)
      12
  5. 5. What Do You Identify As?

    • Asexual (Non-Sexual)
      83
    • Demisexual
      5
    • Gray-A (Semisexual)
      9
    • Celibate
      0
    • Sexual
      0
    • I Don't Fit in a Category!
      4

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Hot_Air_Balloons

Hi Everyone!

Just a poll on the definition of Asexuality because I see so many posts on this.

In order to vote, know these definitions:

AVEN

Asexual - A person that does not experience sexual attraction

Rabger's Model:

Asexuals - people who lack primary sexual desire. Some asexuals therefore experience attraction and/or secondary sexual desire, but some don't.

Attraction

Primary Sexual Attraction - an instant attraction to people based on instantly available information such as their looks or smell which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire.

Secondary sexual attraction - an attraction that develops over time based on a person's relationship and emotional connection with another person.

Desire

Primary sexual desire - the desire to engage in sexual activity for the purposes of personal pleasure whether physical, emotional, or both.

Secondary sexual desire - the desire to engage in sexual activity solely for the sake of the happiness of the other person involved, or for another ulterior motive such as the conception of children.

"Desire" refers to being with another person. That's how the poll is modeled.

Pick what you feel fits the definition best!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hot_Air_Balloons

I'm unsure of what to put on many of these myself. However I am firm that I don't think primary sexual desire should be part of the definition. I had always assumed that attraction and desire were one in the same.

However now that I know they are different, a person who does not experience sexual attraction but still has primary desire seems more Gray-A or sexual to me. I would not consider them Asexual because they are still desiring to act on their feelings. But a person who experiences primary sexual attraction but no primary sexual desire still seems like they could be Asexual to me.

As for being Asexual, I always felt the not having desire to go out an act on sexual feelings was always the bigger meaning to me being asexual than just not being attracted to anyone.

It's still confusing because I always thought they were one in the same! :wacko:

Although I really think I prefer the combination of the 2 definitions - No Primary Sexual Desire and No Sexual Attraction.

But that's just my opinion. I'm looking forward to hearing yours. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think of sexual orientation as, what type of sex does your sex drive drive you to?

Under that model, since secondary sexual desire is ulterior motives, i. e. motives other than sex drive, having secondary sexual desire does not contradict being asexual. Similarly, both types of attraction are defined so that they don't necessarily include sex or have any relation to sex at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like either of the definitions as the terms are defined here.

Primary Sexual Attraction - an instant attraction to people based on instantly available information such as their looks or smell which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire.

- well I think plenty of asexuals have that

Primary sexual desire - the desire to engage in sexual activity for the purposes of personal pleasure whether physical, emotional, or both.

- 'pleasure' is a bit vague. you could be asexual and still gain pleasure from the closeness of the bodies or just enjoy their company or whatever.

I think asexual roughly just means that sexual acts with another person don't awaken your arousal or give you sexual gratification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should say, that though I could see myself maybe wanting to do stuff for a partner if I was really in love with them, for their pleasure and voted as such I'm not really sure cause I didn't with the grand total of one boyfriend (yup, not the most romantically inclined of people ever) I've had. But not impossible, and I can see it happening.

Also, this sort of thing is too individual to say 'NO, you are NOT asexual' if they rise above a certain confusing definition. Buuut, again I voted in the 'about right place' type thing. Assuming I'm understanding those Rabger's things right. Which I may not be. And there'll be five different ways of reading it to which my answers would change.

Seriously, AVEN's definition is simpler and works best.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FallenAngel

I think when talking about asexuality, you should be strictly talking about no sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hot_Air_Balloons

Yeah secondary sexual desire definitely seems find to me in the definition. But if primary desire is in there, that doesn't seem to me to fit the definition at all. I thought that Rabger's models WAS the main definition of asexuality on here because I thought desire was the same as attraction. And if you think that, then reading AVEN's definition would seem to say that too! I just didn't realize that they were two different things.

So in that case it makes me wonder with sexuals, if a person could be sexually attracted to the opposite sex, but have primary sexual desire with the same sex, or vise versa? Although that seems very contradictory to me but it probably does happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm sure it happens. I mean, I'm not speaking from personal experience, (the idea myself having any sexual feelings towards or engaging in any sexual activity with someone of my own gender, um, squicks me out...), but in my experience, there's such a huge range of preferences and desires in human sexuality, that I'd find it hard to believe that there aren't some people like that.

To me its obvious that does happen if you know much about history. Societies which divide into gender binary, allowing men pretty much to spend all their time with men and women to do the same tend to form emotional/intimate relationships with their same-sex peers and leave sexual relationships as a seperate entity to be enjoyed within the boundaries of a heterosexual marriage. A good example of this would be women in Victorian England (and probably other places at the time) who were bound to 'hearth and home.' Read over any of their letters to eachother and it becomes abundantly clear their emotional love is for eachother and often their relationships with their husbands are... awkward at best. Of course their husbands spent all their time at work, at "men's clubs" and doing exclusively male activities. Their letters to eachother are also revealing. Of course there are other examples... like Samuri culture or even in some polygamous cultures where the relationship of sister wives is often far stronger (and hopefully positive but of course this doesn't always work!) than the one between man and wife... Just my two cents. Personally I've formed deep bonds with both men and women... though I've never wanted or had any reason to breach my own asexuality because of it. I guess that's where being honest at the very beginning comes in! I think asexuality is having no (or very insignificantly little) desire to have sex... no need for complicating factors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

There are a number of other possible ways of defining asexuality. One huge advantage the AVEN definition has over most other attempts to define "asexual" is that it is short, easy to remember, and fits well on the front page as a way of introducing asexuality to people.

For anyone who's interested, I've written a fair amount on the topic of defining asexuality, and have posted links and a couple articles on my website (as well as provided links to other discussions of the matter.)

Also, the AVENwiki has 5 pages with different attempts to define asexuality (plus a page on the ABCD types, which isn't really a definition of asexuality.) You've ignored two of them in your pole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I obviously support my def over the AVEN def. I haven't gone over my notes in a long time but had to review them recently for an interview I was doing. After reading it after all this time I still agree with it, and here is why. Want to call it sexual attraction or not, I have found people on this board that experience sexual attraction but no desire. They are in the minority, to be sure, but if you actually listen to what they say (avoiding actual labels put on it) and then think of a label, it just doesn't make any sense to consider it anything other than sexual attraction. The key difference between sexuals and asexuals is their desire. Desire is what makes people act or even think of acting. I believe people that are asexual but do experience this sexual attraction without desire are against using this definition and label because of the stigma it has developed on the boards. Since the very beginning an asexual was someone that didn't experience sexual attraction. Yet all those years ago when I first came on, no one could actually describe what sexual attraction was. When I differentiated between the two, many agreed with me after an explanation, but the small group of popular kids had a near-meltdown. Between that and the stigma that just comes with identifying something as one thing for so long, I think people are scared to identify with the "sexual attraction" thing now for fear of those that will demand a black-white standard and claim they are no longer asexual. Many people, at least back when I was on here more often, were all for a very narrowly defined black and white answer, but that's just not how the world works. I would like to say though, in my own defense, that the first post I put up on my defs greatly helped clarify things and I worked on listing examples and better defs. What's listed on AVEN in the wiki isn't as cleaned up as it is now, though the ideas are still largely the same.

For the record though, I have never come across anyone, sexual or asexual or anything else, that experiences sexual desire but no sexual attraction. I don't even know how that would work.

One of the things I like to stress during interviews or just talking to people is that orientation and action are not the same thing. Again, this goes against some that wanted asexuality to have a very black-and-white def that asexuals never had sex for any reason, ever, period. That's not realistic. There are many reasons to have sex or not have sex. I like to use homosexuality as an example. I have lesbian friends that have been married to men. Were they straight and then their orientation changed? No. They were either in denial, felt incredible pressure to conform, or thought it would "fix" them. They had hetersexual sex many times. That didn't make them heterosexual.

Having spoken to many asexuals over the years I've had people tell me that they could enjoy sex on a physical and/or emotional level. They just didn't desire it. They could get those other things in other ways, but they weren't necessarly being tortured if they did decide (for whatever reason) to have sex with people they loved. Desire is the key, IMO.

I initially had a hard time answering the questions because they aren't all my defs. When did the second sexual attraction come about? There was something else I didn't recognize either but don't recall what it was. As for the standard AVEN def, I can see the attraction for some people because its so clean-cut, easy, and short. I consider it the laymen's def. Life isn't clean-cut. There are grey areas that this definition doesn't cover which I think mine does. Obviously I'm bias, but it took me years of talking with many different kinds of people to come up with that, it wasn't something I just slapped together to try and contradict AVEN.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For the record though, I have never come across anyone, sexual or asexual or anything else, that experiences sexual desire but no sexual attraction. I don't even know how that would work.

Well, plenty of asexuals masturbate. I think the definition of "primary sexual desire" listed here could easily be satisfied by an asexual with a high sex drive / masturbation urge, and for whom sex is an effective way of meeting that need.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nalle Neversure

When did the second sexual attraction come about?

To me that sounds like the definition of demisexual. A person who only becomes sexually attracted to someone they know really well and/or are really close (friends, romantic partners etc). No idea how official that term is or if thre is a less awkwardly worded definition somewhere in AVEN.

For the record though, I have never come across anyone, sexual or asexual or anything else, that experiences sexual desire but no sexual attraction. I don't even know how that would work.

Well, plenty of asexuals masturbate. I think the definition of "primary sexual desire" listed here could easily be satisfied by an asexual with a high sex drive / masturbation urge, and for whom sex is an effective way of meeting that need.

Yeah, that's what I thought too.

And it's nice to see the definitions being discussed again. I liked those "my brain hurts" threads that were around when I joined. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hot_Air_Balloons

I'm taking this as "Desire" means with another person.

That's how the poll is modeled, and that's how it sounds like Ragber's definitions are modeled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rabger's Model - Person Who Lacks Primary Sexual Desire, but May Still Feel Attraction

Great definition... That's what I was always talking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to feeling sexual attraction but having a low libido... I'm probably going to get called elitist for this, but isn't libido something that is variable and can be manipulated with drugs? I'm of the belief that if you can take a pill and get a libido, if you have sexual attraction and now a libido you are hetero(etc)sexual. If you have sexual attraction and no libido, you are something like a non-libidoist hetero(etc)sexual. Orientation can't be changed with a pill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

With regards to feeling sexual attraction but having a low libido... I'm probably going to get called elitist for this, but isn't libido something that is variable and can be manipulated with drugs? I'm of the belief that if you can take a pill and get a libido, if you have sexual attraction and now a libido you are hetero(etc)sexual. If you have sexual attraction and no libido, you are something like a non-libidoist hetero(etc)sexual. Orientation can't be changed with a pill.

The pharmacuticals have been trying hard to come up with a pill (or patch) to increase interest in sex but have had very little success. (T-patches seem to have a small positive effect in some populations, but there are serious concerns about long term health issues.) There do seem to be plenty of meds that decrease sexual interest, but not much for the reverse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheLocalDinosaur

This is potentially confusing, only because AVEN's definition of sexual attraction is not the same as Rabger's model of primary and secondary sexual attraction. I think that some voters may not be thoroughly reading your first post, because as of posting this, the majority of voters are apparently aromantic and believe that asexuality should be defined by aromantic asexality.. So if that is the case, then the community believes that hetero-romantics and homo-romantics, etc. do not count as asexual. :huh: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Rabger's version of "primary sexual attraction" is physical but not necessarily sexual attraction to another person. A vast number of AVENites I have spoken with experience this, which is why I am confused by the results.

Love the idea to make this a poll though. :) :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Rabger's version of "primary sexual attraction" is physical but not necessarily sexual attraction to another person.

It's not primary SEXUAL attraction then?

I'm demi-romantic. Romanticism hasn't been mentioned and isn't part of the above discussion, I think all that is being discussed in relation to asexuality is sexual libido and the direction (or not) of that libido. Romanticism hasn't factored and I don't believe is especially relevant as compared to the other two areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheLocalDinosaur
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Rabger's version of "primary sexual attraction" is physical but not necessarily sexual attraction to another person.

It's not primary SEXUAL attraction then?

Primary Sexual Attraction - an instant attraction to people based on instantly available information such as their looks or smell which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire.

Sorry, I was making reference to the poll itself, not the conversation. I apologize if this was confusing. I was talking about the definitions used above and how some people might be confused if they don't read it over thoroughly, and might continue on to answer the poll incorrectly. Just an observation, don't mind me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After thinking about this topic for a little while, I believe I experience primary sexual attraction and no sexual desire (according to what has been described by the creator of this poll).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sleeping Beauty

Which Definition Do You Feel Fits Asexuality Best?

1. AVEN - Person Does Not Experience Sexual Attraction

I base it on the definitions for the other sexual orientations, hetero--->attraction to the opposite sex, homo--->attraction to the same sex, bi--->attraction to both so ace--->attraction to none.

What Do You Personally Generally Experience?

# No Sexual Attraction & Secondary Sexual Desire

If I can avoid it it's better but I can accord what I'm not repulsed of to keep a relation with a sexual man, or at least I can do an attempt.

Which is the Highest Level of Attraction You Think Should Be Allowed in the ASEXUAL Definition? (Not Gray-A etc.)

# No Sexual Attraction

According to what I said at the first question.

Which is the Highest Level of Desire You Think Should Be Allowed in the ASEXUAL Definition? (Not Gray-A etc.)

# Not Sure

I'm more oriented to the second desire but I'm not sure about the idea of personal pleasure, to me looks a lot like attraction but I can't tell for sure since I don't know what attraction really is.

What Do You Identify As?

1. Asexual (Non-Sexual)

According to question one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For the record though, I have never come across anyone, sexual or asexual or anything else, that experiences sexual desire but no sexual attraction. I don't even know how that would work.

Well, plenty of asexuals masturbate. I think the definition of "primary sexual desire" listed here could easily be satisfied by an asexual with a high sex drive / masturbation urge, and for whom sex is an effective way of meeting that need.

Sexual desire is different than sex drive or sexual interest. Sure, some asexuals will have sex but I think it would require more than just wanting to meet the sexual needs to pursue it. I've yet to hear of any asexual that would. Though, I haven't been on the boards much in the past few years so I can't be 100% certain. However, by my def, asexuals don't experience sexual desire. I'm still not sure how I feel about this "primary" definition. I'm looking into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to feeling sexual attraction but having a low libido... I'm probably going to get called elitist for this, but isn't libido something that is variable and can be manipulated with drugs? I'm of the belief that if you can take a pill and get a libido, if you have sexual attraction and now a libido you are hetero(etc)sexual. If you have sexual attraction and no libido, you are something like a non-libidoist hetero(etc)sexual. Orientation can't be changed with a pill.

It's my opinion, and I think that of others, that libido (or sex drive) is not the same thing as desire. Just because you have a sex drive doesn't mean you want to pursue sex with someone and it doesn't mean you will be attracted to someone. So, no matter how low or high a libido is, it has nothing to do with attraction or desire, which are the defining characteristics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Rabger's version of "primary sexual attraction" is physical but not necessarily sexual attraction to another person. A vast number of AVENites I have spoken with experience this, which is why I am confused by the results.

Again, I haven't been on in a while but in all those years I was around all the time, primary sexual attraction did occur in some asexuals but it seemed to be in the minority, and they were always lacking the desire to pursue anything with the person. Has this become more common? Either way "primary sexual attraction" IS a sexual attraction to another person. What else is there to be attracted to? I mean other than odd fetishes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheLocalDinosaur

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Rabger's version of "primary sexual attraction" is physical but not necessarily sexual attraction to another person. A vast number of AVENites I have spoken with experience this, which is why I am confused by the results.

Again, I haven't been on in a while but in all those years I was around all the time, primary sexual attraction did occur in some asexuals but it seemed to be in the minority, and they were always lacking the desire to pursue anything with the person. Has this become more common? Either way "primary sexual attraction" IS a sexual attraction to another person. What else is there to be attracted to? I mean other than odd fetishes.

I suppose I mean physically attracted as aesthetically. I'm aesthetically attracted to people, but not sexually. From my experience, a lot of asexuals feel this way (hetero-romantic, etc.), but I've only been part of this site for a little over a year, so maybe I am wrong. Can someone not be aesthetically attracted to a person without being sexually attracted to them as well? For instance, many asexuals will hug and kiss, but have no interest whatsoever in sexual contact. I was confused because the definition of "primary sexual attraction," in contrast to "primary sexual desire." It seems like an attraction to people, as the wording says it "may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire." Are the only types of attraction "sexual" and "emotional," but not aesthetic?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose I mean physically attracted as aesthetically. I'm aesthetically attracted to people, but not sexually. From my experience, a lot of asexuals feel this way (hetero-romantic, etc.), but I've only been part of this site for a little over a year, so maybe I am wrong. Can someone not be aesthetically attracted to a person without being sexually attracted to them as well? For instance, many asexuals will hug and kiss, but have no interest whatsoever in sexual contact. I was confused because the definition of "primary sexual attraction," in contrast to "primary sexual desire." It seems like an attraction to people, as the wording says it "may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire." Are the only types of attraction "sexual" and "emotional," but not aesthetic?

Let me say up front that at the present time I disagree with two catagories of sexual desire. I still see it as one, but I'm thinking about it.

With that out of the way, you can totally find someone attractive (aesthetic, in appearance) without being sexually attracted to them. For example, I'm a homoromantic asexual. Yet I can still find men attractive. I can find a flower aesthetically attractive too, but I'm not attracted to it. I think physical attraction is different and is the desire to be physically close to someone in a non-sexual way, such as wanting to hug or kiss or whatever.

IMO, sexual attractions, romantic attraction, physical attraction, sexual desire, sex drive, sexual interest, aestetically attractive, etc. <-- all different

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hot_Air_Balloons

This is potentially confusing, only because AVEN's definition of sexual attraction is not the same as Rabger's model of primary and secondary sexual attraction. I think that some voters may not be thoroughly reading your first post, because as of posting this, the majority of voters are apparently aromantic and believe that asexuality should be defined by aromantic asexality.. So if that is the case, then the community believes that hetero-romantics and homo-romantics, etc. do not count as asexual. :huh: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Rabger's version of "primary sexual attraction" is physical but not necessarily sexual attraction to another person. A vast number of AVENites I have spoken with experience this, which is why I am confused by the results.

Love the idea to make this a poll though. :) :cake:

Rabger's model talks about Primary and Secondary SEXUAL attraction. What you are referring to is ROMANTIC attraction. This has nothing to do with hetero-romantics and homo-romantics. This is all about sexual attractions. People here on AVEN I've seen describe romantic attraction as something else, it is not the same thing as sexual attraction. Of course I could be mistaken with this. But this poll as I made it has NOTHING to do with ROMANTIC preference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is always counterproductive to get wrapped up in definitions - it rarely simplifies anything and can lead to exclusion. People shouldn't feel pressured to define themselves. For the sake of pure logic, the strict asexual definition would have to be nonexistent libido, no attraction and no thoughts of sex whatsoever, except what the outside world forces on us. The loosest definition would be someone with a naturally low libido, feels it causes problems achieving a "normal" relationship and identifies as "asexual" as a term of convenience, since they have a lot in common. Some boundaries of definition are essential - for mutual clarity, we still need to be clear that by cat we mean cat, and not a dog - but between these logical bounds, who cares? Relax!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hot_Air_Balloons
I think it is always counterproductive to get wrapped up in definitions - it rarely simplifies anything and can lead to exclusion. People shouldn't feel pressured to define themselves. For the sake of pure logic, the strict asexual definition would have to be nonexistent libido, no attraction and no thoughts of sex whatsoever, except what the outside world forces on us. The loosest definition would be someone with a naturally low libido, feels it causes problems achieving a "normal" relationship and identifies as "asexual" as a term of convenience, since they have a lot in common. Some boundaries of definition are essential - for mutual clarity, we still need to be clear that by cat we mean cat, and not a dog - but between these logical bounds, who cares? Relax!

Yeah true, I feel bad about making people "categorize" themselves. But this poll is meant as a general guide. There needs to be some kind of categorization in the world, or there would be chaos. I mean everything is categozied in some way, it's how human make sense and learn. Everything is categorized, from the planets, to atoms. Look at the periodic table of elements. The kingdom of life is categorized, Animals, Plants, Fungi....

Or course no matter how much things are categorized there were always be things, or "those" that fall between the lines. Such is cornstarch and water - is it a solid or liquid? It has properties of both.

This poll is just meant for us as "asexuals" to help figure out where we stand in with each other, and make sense of the community as a whole. It is not mean to create confusion and fights. That's the last thing I was trying to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This poll is just meant for us as "asexuals" to help figure out where we stand in with each other, and make sense of the community as a whole. It is not mean to create confusion and fights. That's the last thing I was trying to do.

But this poll will only consist of people on AVEN (not all asexuals in the community of asexuals) who answer the poll (not all asexuals on AVEN). It won't help us figure out where we stand in with each other or make any sense, because all answers will be highly individual. Polls don't result in any reliable data.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...