Jump to content

Defining asexuality - a better definition?


thjb

  

779 members have voted

  1. 1. Please select your orientation;

    • asexual
      1422
    • grey-asexual
      207
    • demisexual
      82
    • heterosexual
      22
    • homosexual
      12
    • bisexual
      9
    • pansexual
      7
    • other
      28
    • rather not say
      19
  2. 2. Which of these would you prefer as a definition of asexuality/an asexual person?

    • a person who does not experience sexual attraction (current AVEN definition)
      889
    • a person who does not feel a desire for partnered sex (with emphasis on the "partnered")
      119
    • a person who does not feel a desire for partnered sex and/or little or no sexual attraction
      205
    • a person who experiences little or no sexual attraction and/or little or no desire for partnered sex (again an emphasis on the "partnered")
      427
    • another definition (please post below)
      29
    • a person who is not intrinsically attracted to any gender sexually
      139
  3. 3. do you think most non-asexuals understand you when you explain asexuality?

    • mostly
      185
    • to some extent
      651
    • not really
      533
    • not at all
      99
    • not sure
      340

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

OK, I've thought a lot about the definitions that are being suggested and this is what I have come up with (this is my own opinion of course - let me know what you think - though please be nice, I'm not trying to define it for you, this is just what asexuality seems like to me). I've realised that the original AVEN definition is pretty accurate, but could perhaps do with a specific addition;

Asexuals are people who are not intrinsically attracted to other people sexually.

I think this definition is a little more precise than "people who are not sexually attracted to any person" because it asserts that asexuality is built-in. This definition states the orientation aspect of asexuality while simultaneously telling people that this is not a state of mind, a medical condition or a behaviour. This lines up with what you could call the definitions of other sexualities;

Heterosexuals are people who are intrinsically attracted to members of the opposite gender sexually.

Bisexuals are people who are intrinsically attracted to members of both genders sexually.

Homosexuals are people who are intrinsically attracted to members of the same gender sexually.

The problem is I have no idea what this "attracted to other people sexually" means. Please explain what it means to be attracted to someone sexually.
You look at a hot guy and get turned on or you look at a hot girl and get turned. In other words which sex/gender would you like to have sex with? That seems like sexual attraction to me.

It almost never works like that.

Based on what I see in this world every sexual gets more interested in having sex with one gender over another. Sexual desire is sexual desire but that doesn't explain who you want to sleep with. Most straight girls want sex with guys and most straight guys want sex with girls.

I was responding to your first sentence. Simply seeing someone who is attractive doesn't get me turned on. Never has. It requires thinking about sexual acts to get turned on.

Having a gender preference is not attraction. It's just that, a gender preference. I am a heterosexual male, but I find 99% of females unapealing. Attraction happens to an individual, not a generic group.

Are you saying your desire for sex is more important than who you want to sleep with?

Immensely so.

Attraction is usually a fleeting thing. I may notice an attractive girl on the street, in a store or on the train. I may think "oh, she's hot, I could totally do her." or "Nice legs!", or "Cute face, it might be nice to kiss her." But when she's gone she's forgotten and the feelings are easily dismissed. There's no compulsion to act. If she was particularly noteworthy I may fantasize about her later when mastrbuating, but I would have been mastrabuating anyway with or without having thought of her.

Cases of strong attraction that do compel action are exceedingly rare. I'm 34 and can count total lifetime cases on one hand. And these have never been based solely physical appearance, but on a combination of all the person's traits, physical, intellectual, emotional, and are never instant, never develop quickly, they take weeks or even months of getting to know the person.

In contrast, the desire to have sex is a constant and prominent force in my life, and it compels me to act. Not a day goes by where I don't feel it strongly. The longer I go without having sex the stronger that feeling gets. If it goes on long enough it becomes a problem.

Or would most sexuals sleep with anyone?

Under the right circumstances I think many would with the exception of those they find completely repulsive. I think any amount of pickiness people have is due to the fact that there are literally billions of potential partners out there. There is always the thought, "I could do better that this." when evaluating a partner. If you put a small group of sexual people on a remote island I'm sure many would sleep someone they normally wouldn't because their desire for sex is strong enough to override the fact that they don't consider the person attractive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

If it can only be considered sexual attraction if sexual desire follows, then what do you consider a pattern of sexual arousal and sexual fantasy based upon an individual seeing individuals with desirable physical traits? That is to say, lets assume someone finds attractive curvy blond women. When they see an attractive curvy blond woman, it consistently leads to sexual arousal. When they fantasize, they fantasize to images of curvy blond women and perhaps use porn with curvy blond women as an aid to masturbation. However, no actual desire for partnered sex ever follows. Is this an example of sexual attraction and, if not, what is it?

It just sounds more like libido to me if there is no want. I watch lesbian porn but I don't want to sleep with those girls I see.

Certainly masturbation is the satisfaction of libido and libido is not the same as sexual desire, of that I think there is agreement. However, is there not a difference between masturbation without fantasy or with a fantasy that is a fetish compared to masturbation in which the fantasy is, for example, being with a specific kind of person? If one has a consistent pattern of fantasy an arousal based upon certain traits of a specific sex/gender, what can that be considered if not sexual attraction even if that attraction does not lead to sexual desire?

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

OK, I've thought a lot about the definitions that are being suggested and this is what I have come up with (this is my own opinion of course - let me know what you think - though please be nice, I'm not trying to define it for you, this is just what asexuality seems like to me). I've realised that the original AVEN definition is pretty accurate, but could perhaps do with a specific addition;

Asexuals are people who are not intrinsically attracted to other people sexually.

I think this definition is a little more precise than "people who are not sexually attracted to any person" because it asserts that asexuality is built-in. This definition states the orientation aspect of asexuality while simultaneously telling people that this is not a state of mind, a medical condition or a behaviour. This lines up with what you could call the definitions of other sexualities;

Heterosexuals are people who are intrinsically attracted to members of the opposite gender sexually.

Bisexuals are people who are intrinsically attracted to members of both genders sexually.

Homosexuals are people who are intrinsically attracted to members of the same gender sexually.

The problem is I have no idea what this "attracted to other people sexually" means. Please explain what it means to be attracted to someone sexually.
You look at a hot guy and get turned on or you look at a hot girl and get turned. In other words which sex/gender would you like to have sex with? That seems like sexual attraction to me.

It almost never works like that.
Based on what I see in this world every sexual gets more interested in having sex with one gender over another. Sexual desire is sexual desire but that doesn't explain who you want to sleep with. Most straight girls want sex with guys and most straight guys want sex with girls.

I was responding to your first sentence. Simply seeing someone who is attractive doesn't get me turned on. Never has. It requires thinking about sexual acts to get turned on.

Having a gender preference is not attraction. It's just that, a gender preference. I am a heterosexual male, but I find 99% of females unapealing. Attraction happens to an individual, not a generic group.

Are you saying your desire for sex is more important than who you want to sleep with?

Immensely so. The desire to have sex is a constant and prominent force in my life, and it compels me to act. Not a day goes by where I don't feel it strongly. The longer I go without having sex the stronger that feeling gets. If it goes on long enough it becomes a problem.

Attraction is usually a fleeting thing. I may notice an attractive girl on the street, in a store or on the train. I may think "oh, she's hot, I could totally do her." or "Nice legs!", or "Cute face, it might be nice to kiss her." But when she's gone she's forgotten and the feelings are easily dismissed. There's no compulsion to act. If she was particularly noteworthy I may fantasize about her later when mastrbuating, but I would have been mastrabuating anyway with or without having thought of her.

Cases of strong attraction that do compel action are exceedingly rare. I'm 34 and can count total lifetime cases on one hand. And these have never been based solely physical appearance, but on a combination of all the person's traits, physical, intellectual, emotional, and are never instant, never develop quickly, they take weeks or even months of getting to know the person.

Or would most sexuals sleep with anyone?

Under the right circumstances I think many would with the exception of those they find completely repulsive. I think any amount of pickiness people have is due to the fact that there are literally billions of potential partners out there. There is always the thought, "I could do better that this." when evaluating a partner. If you put a small group of sexual people on a remote island I'm sure many would sleep someone they normally wouldn't because their desire for sex is strong enough to override the fact that they don't consider the person attractive.

Thanks for explaining this more. So why do you prefer sex acts with girls over guys? I think that's the part I'm still confused on. Isn't there a physical/sexual attraction part that drives you to seek out acts with females?

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

If it can only be considered sexual attraction if sexual desire follows, then what do you consider a pattern of sexual arousal and sexual fantasy based upon an individual seeing individuals with desirable physical traits? That is to say, lets assume someone finds attractive curvy blond women. When they see an attractive curvy blond woman, it consistently leads to sexual arousal. When they fantasize, they fantasize to images of curvy blond women and perhaps use porn with curvy blond women as an aid to masturbation. However, no actual desire for partnered sex ever follows. Is this an example of sexual attraction and, if not, what is it?

It just sounds more like libido to me if there is no want. I watch lesbian porn but I don't want to sleep with those girls I see.

Certainly masturbation is the satisfaction of libido and libido is not the same as sexual desire, of that I think there is agreement. However, is there not a difference between masturbation without fantasy or with a fantasy that is a fetish compared to masturbation in which the fantasy is, for example, being with a specific kind of person? If one has a consistent pattern of fantasy an arousal based upon certain traits of a specific sex/gender, what can that be considered if not sexual attraction even if that attraction does not lead to sexual desire?

I could just be the "idea" of it rather than wanting to do it in real life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for explaining this more. So why do you prefer sex acts with girls over guys? I think that's the part I'm still confused on. Isn't there a physical/sexual attraction part that drives you to seek out acts with females?

There is a physical difference, sure, but I find it hard to call it attraction. Take any guy, and a girl who I don't find attractive at all, and I will choose the girl if I were forced to have sex with either one or the other. I am choosing sex with with a female even though there is no attraction to her. Why, because it's preferable to sex with a guy. It's a preference, not attraction.

Attraction means you are drawn to that person in some way, there is something about them you find appealing, you want to get closer, know them better, ect...

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Thanks for explaining this more. So why do you prefer sex acts with girls over guys? I think that's the part I'm still confused on. Isn't there a physical/sexual attraction part that drives you to seek out acts with females?

There is a physical difference, sure, but I find it hard to call it attraction. Take any guy, and a girl who I don't find attractive at all, and I will choose the girl if I were forced to have sex with either one or the other. I am choosing sex with with a female even though there is no attraction to her. Why, because it's preferable to sex with a guy. It's a preference, not attraction.

Attraction means you are drawn to that person in some way, there is something about them you find appealing, you want to get closer, know them better, ect...

But you are drawn to the female in a sexual way because you would rather sleep with her than the guy. If not could you explain the preference more?

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

For me I have always assumed that I am romantically attracted to guys and that's why I want to date them. So I figure it could be the same for sexuals and sexual attraction even if there is no reason, just how things are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But you are drawn to the female in a sexual way because you would rather sleep with her than the guy. If not could you explain the preference more?

This is like asking why a male heterosexual wouldn't want to have sex with a guy. Or even asking why a gay/lesbian wouldn't choose the opposite sex in the scenario. I mean, there's novelty there, having never handled another person's penis before, right? Even if there is the so-called "novelty" factor, it doesn't mean a heterosexual male would have sex with a male given the choice.

The scenario appears neutral enough since there aren't any visuals or any other factors than a male or a female. If one's orientation is geared towards a specific sex then most likely they would prefer to have experiences with that sex. This is the same with favourite foods - I prefer eating mangoes over apples because... well, mangoes! <3

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

But you are drawn to the female in a sexual way because you would rather sleep with her than the guy. If not could you explain the preference more?

This is like asking why a male heterosexual wouldn't want to have sex with a guy. Or even asking why a gay/lesbian wouldn't choose the opposite sex in the scenario. I mean, there's novelty there, having never handled another person's penis before, right? Even if there is the so-called "novelty" factor, it doesn't mean a heterosexual male would have sex with a male given the choice.

The scenario appears neutral enough since there aren't any visuals or any other factors than a male or a female. If one's orientation is geared towards a specific sex then most likely they would prefer to have experiences with that sex. This is the same with favourite foods - I prefer eating mangoes over apples because... well, mangoes! <3

I agree. My point with this conversation is to explain my idea of what sexual attraction is and why I think it is still important when it comes to orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the AVEN definition. I feel like a desire-based definition is even more confusing because "sexual desire" is an even more vague and confusing term/concept than "sexual attraction." I've seen people debate, philosphize, or wax poetic about the concept of "want" or "desire," even outside of the topic of sexual orientation, so I think having either of those words in any definition of anything is a recipe for miscommunication.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for explaining this more. So why do you prefer sex acts with girls over guys? I think that's the part I'm still confused on. Isn't there a physical/sexual attraction part that drives you to seek out acts with females?

There is a physical difference, sure, but I find it hard to call it attraction. Take any guy, and a girl who I don't find attractive at all, and I will choose the girl if I were forced to have sex with either one or the other. I am choosing sex with with a female even though there is no attraction to her. Why, because it's preferable to sex with a guy. It's a preference, not attraction.

Attraction means you are drawn to that person in some way, there is something about them you find appealing, you want to get closer, know them better, ect...

But you are drawn to the female in a sexual way because you would rather sleep with her than the guy. If not could you explain the preference more?

No. In this hypothetical scenario I am forced to choose sex with one or the other. I am not drawn to the female at all. It's just the lesser of two evils, so to speak. Or at best, a neutral and an evil.

I can't really explain why I prefer females over males, I just do. But I definitely know it's not attraction. Attraction is a entirely different experience, and only happens for with me for a very small portion of the female population. see post #121 in this thread for how I experience attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the AVEN definition. I feel like a desire-based definition is even more confusing because "sexual desire" is an even more vague and confusing term/concept than "sexual attraction." I've seen people debate, philosphize, or wax poetic about the concept of "want" or "desire," even outside of the topic of sexual orientation, so I think having either of those words in any definition of anything is a recipe for miscommunication.

Sexual desire is pretty blunt and unambiguous. I want sex. I feel like I need sex. I haven't had sex in 2 weeks and this really bothers me. There's nothing vague about that. It's very basic and straightforward.

I've yet to see someone explain what specifically sexual attraction is and how it's a distinct thing from just plain old attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Thanks for explaining this more. So why do you prefer sex acts with girls over guys? I think that's the part I'm still confused on. Isn't there a physical/sexual attraction part that drives you to seek out acts with females?

There is a physical difference, sure, but I find it hard to call it attraction. Take any guy, and a girl who I don't find attractive at all, and I will choose the girl if I were forced to have sex with either one or the other. I am choosing sex with with a female even though there is no attraction to her. Why, because it's preferable to sex with a guy. It's a preference, not attraction.

Attraction means you are drawn to that person in some way, there is something about them you find appealing, you want to get closer, know them better, ect...

But you are drawn to the female in a sexual way because you would rather sleep with her than the guy. If not could you explain the preference more?

No. In this hypothetical scenario I am forced to choose sex with one or the other. I am not drawn to the female at all. It's just the lesser of two evils, so to speak. Or at best, a neutral and an evil.

I can't really explain why I prefer females over males, I just do. But I definitely know it's not attraction. Attraction is a entirely different experience, and only happens for with me for a very small portion of the female population. see post #121 in this thread for how I experience attraction.

So if you wanted to sleep with someone you wouldn't call that sexual attraction even though you desire sexual contact with that person? You would call that just a preference and not attraction? You can be attracted to someone in a sexual way as well. If you ever say you want to have sexual contact with a person then your desire is directed towards that person in a sexual way. They turn you on sexually and you want to have sex with them. My romantic desire is directed towards guys that I am romantically attracted to, the same can't be said about sex?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree which is why I think both definitions should be included.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I can help with a simpler analogy for those that struggle by making it more complex than it needs to be

Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction...to me that means within that individual no sexual attraction exists..nada, zilch..... a big fat zero zerooooooooo

it has nothing to do with partnered sex ....... that would imply you have sexual attraction to get a partner then when you have one...you suddenly have no sexual attraction.

I am a rare breed in aven although thankfully there are a few of us still left who havn't been chased out because we are not hip, trip and cool.....we are born this way, life long 100% asexuals

how did that happen?

For me it is like those who believe they are gay from birth

in my case when i was on the production line as a lil tadpole....all the boxes for me were ticked in my making with the exception of...sexual attraction..that box went and remains ..unticked as part of my build.

it couldn't be any simpler and the only time it gets difficult is when people who do not fit the definition...try to then change the definition for their own, rather than the communities... purpose

I hope that clarifies at least my perspective and experience within asexuality

Link to post
Share on other sites

and if you're actually wondering about my definition (and not just being snide to discredit my viewpoint), i'm sure you've heard people say, "i don't think of my friend 'in that way.'" well, i don't think of anyone "in that way," and if you have a problem with my definition, that's fine. i disagree with your definition, but if that's the definition you like, that's fine.

No, I wasn't being snide. And this explanation, to me, sounds exactly like "I don't desire to have sex with them". No more, no less.

What I do want to discredit is the use of smokescreens - based on this reply, you absolutely do seem to make the distinction based on the criterion of desire for sex, you just seem to refuse to acknowledge that in plain text. That's simply not the way to make intellectually worthwhile definitions.

Sexual attraction is used to define heteor, homo, bisexual and it has never been confusing what they mean.

Nope, it's really not. If any of those is defined by "solely attraction, which has nothing to do with desire" then I don't think that's a legitimate orientation, either, and the person defining it that way is talking about stuff they don't really understand.

Someone who "is attracted" to people of the same sex/gender, but doesn't feel the desire to have sex with them, is not homosexual - I'd guess that most likely, they're actually closeted asexuals (likely homoromantic/homosensual/homoaesthetic, but definitely not homosexual). If that's legit to get called "homosexuality", then "homosexuality" has degenerated into a wishy-washy made-up special snowflake term, too, and is not to be considered a true sexual orientation any longer.

Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire. By all definitions including Avens. What is unclear really?

No, a good bunch of attractionists are actively denying that "attraction" has anything to do with desire (even though AVEN at least has that as it's official definition in the FAQ, which was a major leap for clarity when it got written in ~ a year ago). That is plainly and painfully obvious in this very thread.

And it's exactly why I consider the attraction-based definition nonsensical and misleading. If it's about desire (and you're correct - it is, according to AVEN's FAQ, and according to AVEN.de's official front page definition), then just say so. Don't make people jump through hoops and dig through definitory detours to preserve a wishy-washy "definition" (whatever reason that "definition" looked preferrable for in the first place).

I've brought this up before but I'll reiterate it here: if someone says an asexual doesn't get turned on BUT they can want to experience and share sexual intimacy, what on earth is the real difference between an asexual and a sexual? Why even bother at all if, someone fits into this label, for visibility and education if it doesn't have any real world consequence? What kind of obstacles, trials and tribulations do such "mixed couples" go through? The answer is: probably arguing over frequency.

A world of agreement. Except, I'm not really sure a "mixed couple" will necessarily even face these frequency problems, and if they do, I don't see why the "asexual" shouldn't be the one wishing for the higher frequency, when the sexual is content with a much lower one. "Attraction", whatever it may be, isn't connected to libido, right?

Basically, I don't see any problem inherent to "mixed" relationships that isn't equally inherent to "non-mixed" ones. "Asexual" and sexual makes no actual difference in relationship practice. The entire "mixed" wording seems a moot concept at that point, no more relevant than a "mixed" pairing between someone who likes to watch TV and someone who likes to listen to music. Just personal quirks and preferences that aren't 100% identical - every couple faces that.

I don't see how this "asexuality"-as-defined-solely-by-"attraction" thing is important enough to warrant any kind of visibility and education campaigning. It makes no difference in the real world if you're "asexual", especially if "asexual" is just a description of some minor additional aspect in addition to your actual orientation (homosexual, heterosexual, bi/pansexual etc.), the one that describes who you desire to have sex with. Seriously, noone out there really cares who you're attracted to or not. It's not a real-world issue.

If that's what asexuality is, we shouldn't pretend we (if that's even a "we". I have no friggin' idea what "sexual attraction that isn't based in desire" is to even mean, so I may be ace or not *shrug*; either way, I will then still have no idea what my orientation is, because even if I happened to unknowingly be asexual, asexuality is not a real orientation; it's not terribly important, though, as quite unlike an orientation, whether or not I'm "asexual" will makes zero actual difference in my life) have a cause near as important as LBGT, and certainly shouldn't bother them about including us. "Asexuals" would be cheapening the actual causes of real orientations by tailride along with petty concerns. If they're wise, they'll shut the door in the "asexuals'" face.

If asexuality is all about whatever "attraction" may be, then nonlibidoists would be a much more logical candidate for being called by a word with -sexuality at the end and considered a legitimate orientation, anyway. Nonlibs can clearly be defined in terms of desire for sex, so they're much more on a par with homo/hetero/bi(etc.)sexuals, definition-wise, than "asexuals" are. (BTW... I'm not a nonlib, I just dearly envy them.)

@Geo... I know we've had our run-ins on some topics before, but your posts in this thread just make me go "Can someone please listen to this guy*!!!" , over and over. I'll just click "like", the only reason I won't explicitly and massively QFT you is simply for the sake of saving bandwidth/server space. :cake:

* I hope guy is an okay word to use in regards to you, seeing as what you say in your profile... if not, I'm ready to change it.

@PiF... no, it doesn't, at all. I don't even see an analogy here, I just see what boils down to a circular argument: "Not feeling sexual attraction means, that you're not attracted to someone sexually." Well, ooooh-kay then! :rolleyes:

If that's the best we have to offer level, then I'll vote - seriously, I wish this were sarcasm, but it's just simple desparation - for changing the official AVEN definition to "an asexual person is someone who calls themselves asexual". It would be no real change from the current definition, in terms of substance, but it would be a world of progress in terms of honesty/transparency. And for those who'd want maximum inclusivity (I'm aware that neither you nor me in that group, that's one thing we clearly do have in common) - well, on that criterion that definition is the best possible one in any conceivable world, past present or future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While a desire based definition is one which makes the most sense to me on a personal level, I am in full support of a definition that encompasses both desire a and attraction.

I could live in peace with a combined/and-or solution, without any serious tummygrumbles... that would already be infinitely better than what we currently have.

Optimally, though, I'd prefer dropping "sexual attraction" from it completely and replacing it with "(innate) desire for partnered sex". That'd be maximum clarity, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you wanted to sleep with someone you wouldn't call that sexual attraction even though you desire sexual contact with that person? So You would call that just a preference and not attraction?

No. Again, In this hypothetical scenario I am forced to choose sex with one or the other. I DON'T desire sexual contact with them.

If you are asking generally, if I want to sleep with someone then that's just attraction, no different that attraction asexuals can feel. Unlike asexuals, I desire sex. I prefer sex with those I find attractive. There is no special case of attraction that is different from other attractions that magically makes me want sex.

You can be attracted to someone in a sexual way as well.

I really don't know what that is supposed to mean. If I'm attracted to someone, I'm attracted to them. Period.

The only thing I can possibly think of for that is that there is a person out there whose sexual attitudes, preferences, kinks and fetishes line up with mine and are the reason I'm attracted to them. So you could say the nature of that attraction is sexual. But that's a very special case not, it's broad enough to cover what it is to be a sexual person who is attracted to someone. I could be attracted to someone for all sorts of other reasons that are not sexual in nature and I will still want to have sex with them.

If you ever say you want to have sexual contact with a person then your desire is directed towards that person in a sexual way. They turn you on sexually and you want to have sex with them.

The desire you're talking about is sexual to begin with. If it's directed at someone then it's useless to add the "in a sexual way" qualifier.

Also, again, in this hypothetical scenario I am forced to choose sex with one or the other. I DON'T desire sexual contact with them.

My romantic desire is directed towards guys that I am romantically attracted to, the same can't be said about sex?

That depends on what you mean by "romantically" attracted. Because if you are analogizing between it and this idea you have that is "sexual attraction" then I doubt it means the same thing I think it means.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree which is why I think both definitions should be included.

No, I don't think both should be included. The attraction portion does not explain to sexual people what is different between them and asexual people. And if you are saying it does explain the difference then you are making incorrect assumptions about how sexual people function. It's unnecessary at best, and misleading at worst.

* I hope guy is an okay word to use in regards to you, seeing as what you say in your profile... if not, I'm ready to change it.

Sure. It's my body I have issue with. I don't care about pronouns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@PiF... If that's the best we have to offer level, then I'll vote - seriously, I wish this were sarcasm, but it's just simple desparation - for changing the official AVEN definition to "an asexual person is someone who calls themselves asexual".

In case you havn't noticed Mystic..that is what's happening by some .......that is why we try and hold onto the one thing that defines us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moved from Announcements to Census Forum

Lia

Administrator

Link to post
Share on other sites

@PiF... If that's the best we have to offer level, then I'll vote - seriously, I wish this were sarcasm, but it's just simple desparation - for changing the official AVEN definition to "an asexual person is someone who calls themselves asexual".

In case you havn't noticed Mystic..that is what's happening by some .......that is why we try and hold onto the one thing that defines us.

In case you haven't noticed (and I reckon that you probably really haven't), the exact reason that this is happening is because that's simply what you get when you make a fuzzy, fill-in-the-blanks-as-you-wish official "definition". It's not happening despite, but because of the word "attraction" up there without a solid definition attached to it (the closest thing to an official definition, in the FAQ - sexual attraction = the desire to share our sexuality with other people - is being attacked by you, without an alternative being offered.)

Your preferred definition is the cause of the exact problem you complain about.

So, if that is a problem you want solved, your two options are either

a) change the definition of asexuality to something altogether less fuzzy (i.e., get rid of "sexual attraction" as the sole criterion),

or

b) bring out a solid definition of what that "sexual attraction" is supposed to be. (note that there currently is an at least "semi-official" one in the FAQ, you just happen to not like it, because it's based on desire for partnered sex.)

Good luck on it if you choose the second option - you will so need it. I remind you of the fact that 80%+ of folks voting in an AVEN poll don't think there's a solid, unambiguous definition for the term "sexual attraction"... which you just casually chose to ad hominem away, instead of coming forth with any attempt of actually giving a definition yourself.

If you don't want either of these options, then you'll just have to learn to suck it up that you feel like the oddball out here. Not even the ace cake is the kind that you "can have and eat it, too". Maybe you'll come to the conclusion that you just don't fit into AVEN('s definition of asexuality) - there's no shame in that; as you said yourself, AVEN is not the sum and whole of all asexuals in the world. It's a big world, so you're bound to fit in somewhere - whether that's within or without AVEN is not up to me to decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mystic - I never said orientation was based on attraction solely. I said it is based on sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction by any definition - Avens being just one of many examples - is always based on sexual desire.

Saying we don't experience sexual desire isnt always correct and has nothing to do with orientation anyway because sexual desire separated from sexual attraction is just sex drive/libido.

Sexual attraction is sexual desire directed specifically at another sex/gender.

Sexual attraction without sexual desire would just become attraction or maybe sexual arousal or something else.

Just my opinion of course but adding 'sexual desire' and 'and/or' stuff doesn't add any value to the definition and is a bit repetitive and ultimately more confusing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mystic - I never said orientation was based on attraction solely. I said it is based on sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction by any definition - Avens being just one of many examples - is always based on sexual desire.

Saying we don't experience sexual desire isnt always correct and has nothing to do with orientation anyway because sexual desire separated from sexual attraction is just sex drive/libido.

Sexual attraction is sexual desire directed specifically at another sex/gender.

Sexual attraction without sexual desire would just become attraction or maybe sexual arousal or something else.

Just my opinion of course but adding 'sexual desire' and 'and/or' stuff doesn't add any value to the definition and is a bit repetitive and ultimately more confusing.

So you're basically saying a sexual person that isn't also currently sexually attracted to someone is completely fine by pleasing their libido? I'm inclined to disagree - it isn't what I heard from other (sexual) people.

Besides, using sexual desire does add considerably to the definition of asexuality if you ask me. I can even bring in my own experience here: Upon finding the term asexuality I first read the definition on Wikipedia, which explicitly mentions the absence of an interest in sexual activity. That made sense to me immediately - I knew then I was asexual. But then I found AVEN right after and the absence of attraction definition was incredibly confusing. I spent the following weeks and months trying to figure out if I have ever experienced sexual attraction. I believe most newcomers here go through the same ordeal and I'd rather if they wouldn't have to.

Because of that I wholeheartedly vote for a definition that gets rid of the fuzzy sexual attraction concept altogether and implements "absence of desire for partnered sex" instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual attraction by any definition - Avens being just one of many examples - is always based on sexual desire.

You've either been reading a very different thread, or have many people on your ignore list. :huh:

Besides, using sexual desire does add considerably to the definition of asexuality if you ask me. I can even bring in my own experience here: Upon finding the term asexuality I first read the definition on Wikipedia, which explicitly mentions the absence of an interest in sexual activity. That made sense to me immediately - I knew then I was asexual. But then I found AVEN right after and the absence of attraction definition was incredibly confusing. I spent the following weeks and months trying to figure out if I have ever experienced sexual attraction. I believe most newcomers here go through the same ordeal and I'd rather if they wouldn't have to.

*nods vigorously* I share that exact same experience, except that I didn't come here from Wikipedia, but from AVEN.de, whose official definition is desire-based and doesn't mention "attraction" at all. *points at my signature... threads like these are the reason why I changed it to what it says now*

Yes, that sentence there is the literal translation of AVEN Germany's equivalent to the "an asexual person is..." sentence, it's the top-of-the-homepage official definition, and thank goodness I read that one before running into the "sexual attraction" one. It provided a much needed solid core to a big sponge of fuzz!

Link to post
Share on other sites

mystic - I never said orientation was based on attraction solely. I said it is based on sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction by any definition - Avens being just one of many examples - is always based on sexual desire.

Saying we don't experience sexual desire isnt always correct and has nothing to do with orientation anyway because sexual desire separated from sexual attraction is just sex drive/libido.

Sexual attraction is sexual desire directed specifically at another sex/gender.

Sexual attraction without sexual desire would just become attraction or maybe sexual arousal or something else.

Just my opinion of course but adding 'sexual desire' and 'and/or' stuff doesn't add any value to the definition and is a bit repetitive and ultimately more confusing.

So you're basically saying a sexual person that isn't also currently sexually attracted to someone is completely fine by pleasing their libido? I'm inclined to disagree - it isn't what I heard from other (sexual) people.

Besides, using sexual desire does add considerably to the definition of asexuality if you ask me. I can even bring in my own experience here: Upon finding the term asexuality I first read the definition on Wikipedia, which explicitly mentions the absence of an interest in sexual activity. That made sense to me immediately - I knew then I was asexual. But then I found AVEN right after and the absence of attraction definition was incredibly confusing. I spent the following weeks and months trying to figure out if I have ever experienced sexual attraction. I believe most newcomers here go through the same ordeal and I'd rather if they wouldn't have to.

Because of that I wholeheartedly vote for a definition that gets rid of the fuzzy sexual attraction concept altogether and implements "absence of desire for partnered sex" instead.

A sexual person who is not currently attracted to a particular person still has a leaning toward a certain (or all) sex/genders and this is whats referred to as a sexual orientation. If a person never experiences sexual attraction toward any sex/gender well that would be asexual… Libido, if it was in question, would be satisfied alone but libido has nothing to do with it anyway.

Your preference of ‘absence of an interest in sexual activity’ may work for you but it does mean no interest in masturbation as this is a sexual activity. And again libido has nothing to do with it.

What I am stressing is sexual attraction is a direction of sexual desire toward a particular (or all) sex/genders.

‘Sexual desire’ (with the absence of attraction) can refer to libido so shouldn’t be defining asexuality as an orientation.

Sexual arousal….same idea.

I see some don't agree with my opinion on what is sexual attraction but I am basing this on the actual definition so... I am aware it is just my opinion, but the current Aven definition for asexual is the most sensible definition by my logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad that this census raises the question of sexual attraction vs. desire. AVEN defines sexual attraction as a desire, but some people (myself included) experience what they genuinely believe to be sexual attraction, but do not experience sexual desire. I read on a Tumblr page that some of those people identify as gray-asexual. I don't think it matters if people like myself are considered asexual or gray-asexual (at least not for me it doesn't), but I'd like to see more definitions of gray-asexual include us if that's the case. Not to sound like I'm complaining or anything ha.

If we're going to use AVEN's definition of asexuality (which I'm totally okay with), then I think we ought to define sexual attraction differently, not in terms of desire necessarily, but in terms of a broader understanding of what sexual attraction can be, something more affectively basic, like desire or interest or something else entirely. It feels, for me, like sexual attraction has more to do with an affective response to the perception of another that is sexual in nature, but doesn't necessarily move into the realm of desire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mystic - I never said orientation was based on attraction solely. I said it is based on sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction by any definition - Avens being just one of many examples - is always based on sexual desire.

Saying we don't experience sexual desire isnt always correct and has nothing to do with orientation anyway because sexual desire separated from sexual attraction is just sex drive/libido.

Sexual attraction is sexual desire directed specifically at another sex/gender.

Sexual attraction without sexual desire would just become attraction or maybe sexual arousal or something else.

Just my opinion of course but adding 'sexual desire' and 'and/or' stuff doesn't add any value to the definition and is a bit repetitive and ultimately more confusing.

So you're basically saying a sexual person that isn't also currently sexually attracted to someone is completely fine by pleasing their libido? I'm inclined to disagree - it isn't what I heard from other (sexual) people.

Besides, using sexual desire does add considerably to the definition of asexuality if you ask me. I can even bring in my own experience here: Upon finding the term asexuality I first read the definition on Wikipedia, which explicitly mentions the absence of an interest in sexual activity. That made sense to me immediately - I knew then I was asexual. But then I found AVEN right after and the absence of attraction definition was incredibly confusing. I spent the following weeks and months trying to figure out if I have ever experienced sexual attraction. I believe most newcomers here go through the same ordeal and I'd rather if they wouldn't have to.

Because of that I wholeheartedly vote for a definition that gets rid of the fuzzy sexual attraction concept altogether and implements "absence of desire for partnered sex" instead.

I have been attempting to figure out what sexual attraction is since I joined. I haven't yet. :lol: I am 99% sure I don't have it though, given I have no libido and also do not find people aesthetically appealing. The fact that watching pornography ONLY with aesthetically appealing people (because people who are not aesthetically appealing don't do anything for the person) is not considered sexual attraction here just makes me even more confused, because to every real world definition I know, that would be sexual attraction. :huh:

I do know though that I do not miss sex when I don't have it. As starry said, even the asexuals I know who do LIKE sex and enjoy it when they have it, do not actively seek it out and if it wasn't something the person they were with wanted, would not have it. It's like watching The Daily Show for me - yeah, I usually enjoy it when I watch it, but I only watch it when my partner wants to watch it together, I would never actually go to comedy central's website and watch it by myself. The sexuals who come in with trying to figure out their partners find this kind of confusing "She ENJOYS sex when we have it, but she never initiates and says she has no desire to have sex ever - what the... how can you enjoy it and not want it?"

Example scenario:

George has not had sex in 2 months. He's stressed, irritable and really missing sex. Frequently in his thoughts is "Man, I need to get laid, it's been too long"; however, George is not attracted to ANYONE, just has that innate desire for sex with someone that pushes him to be distressed without it. Masturbation doesn't work to curb this desire, because it's for sex, not just to get rid of the libido. Would George be asexual, or sexual? And why?

Edit: Oh and Jennox - people who want a desire definition have already stated that they want it as desire for PARTNERED sexual activity, so no masturbation wouldn't count.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal answer to the scenario involves the question who does George want to have sex with? Which sex/gender? This would define his orientation. And If he desires a partner then why?? Is it not because he is sexually attracted to one (or multiple) sex/genders and hence desires sexual activity with them.

The 'does not experience sexual attraction' part is defining asexual as an orientation, separate from sex drive.

Yes the 'desire for partnered sexual activity' makes some sense but I believe desiring partnered sexual activity is the basis of sexual attraction. Its stating basically the same thing with more words BUT it removes the reason for lack of interest in partnered sexual activity - lack of sexual attraction. Without the sexual attraction part It could very easily become a definition for low sex drive IMO - not an orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal answer to the scenario involves the question who does George want to have sex with? Which sex/gender? This would define his orientation. And If he desires a partner then why?? Is it not because he is sexually attracted to one (or multiple) sex/genders and hence desires sexual activity with them.

So, to your defintion, a heterosexual is sexually attracted to ALL members of the opposite sex/gender, because they have an innate desire to have partnered sex and a preference to a gender? And you are saying George is sexual then, yes? (since gender preference would just tell you if he was pan, bi, homo, heterosexual)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal answer to the scenario involves the question who does George want to have sex with? Which sex/gender? This would define his orientation. And If he desires a partner then why?? Is it not because he is sexually attracted to one (or multiple) sex/genders and hence desires sexual activity with them.

So, to your defintion, a heterosexual is sexually attracted to ALL members of the opposite sex/gender, because they have an innate desire to have partnered sex and a preference to a gender? And you are saying George is sexual then, yes? (since gender preference would just tell you if he was pan, bi, homo, heterosexual)

No....a heterosexual is attracted to some members of the opposite sex. Not every member of the opposite sex. I think that is well known that thats how sexual orientation works so I don't have to state that. But apologies if I made it sound that way.

And if George is pan,bi,homo or heterosexual then yup. He is non-asexual.

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...