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

Update on the thread on things that don't invalidate one's asexuality thread.

The Rantings and Musing host told me they are planning to decrease the number of pinned threads by creating just one thread about interesting posts made in that forum and pin the thread of links. They plan to include the thread we all worked on in it.

Soooo we are sorta getting a pin :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the thread should be pinned in the Asexual Q&A. (mods are saying otherwise)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm similar to you in many points you mentioned, but I don't consider myself asexual, but rather a "sexual person, who feels more psychologically comfortable not having sex with other people". Can you clarify, what is a "lack of desire to have sex with other people" means to you? How do you define "desire to have sex with other people" personally?

Simple. I don't have the "urge" to have sex with people. I can go for the rest of my life without having sex with people and not feel like I am missing anything. Sex is something I can enjoy; but it's not something I feel like I have to have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm similar to you in many points you mentioned, but I don't consider myself asexual, but rather a "sexual person, who feels more psychologically comfortable not having sex with other people". Can you clarify, what is a "lack of desire to have sex with other people" means to you? How do you define "desire to have sex with other people" personally?

Simple. I don't have the "urge" to have sex with people. I can go for the rest of my life without having sex with people and not feel like I am missing anything. Sex is something I can enjoy; but it's not something I feel like I have to have.

I'm similar to you in many points you mentioned, but I don't consider myself asexual, but rather a "sexual person, who feels more psychologically comfortable not having sex with other people". Can you clarify, what is a "lack of desire to have sex with other people" means to you? How do you define "desire to have sex with other people" personally?

Simple. I don't have the "urge" to have sex with people. I can go for the rest of my life without having sex with people and not feel like I am missing anything. Sex is something I can enjoy; but it's not something I feel like I have to have.

I'm similar to you in many points you mentioned, but I don't consider myself asexual, but rather a "sexual person, who feels more psychologically comfortable not having sex with other people". Can you clarify, what is a "lack of desire to have sex with other people" means to you? How do you define "desire to have sex with other people" personally?

Simple. I don't have the "urge" to have sex with people. I can go for the rest of my life without having sex with people and not feel like I am missing anything. Sex is something I can enjoy; but it's not something I feel like I have to have.

I'm similar to you in many points you mentioned, but I don't consider myself asexual, but rather a "sexual person, who feels more psychologically comfortable not having sex with other people". Can you clarify, what is a "lack of desire to have sex with other people" means to you? How do you define "desire to have sex with other people" personally?

Simple. I don't have the "urge" to have sex with people. I can go for the rest of my life without having sex with people and not feel like I am missing anything. Sex is something I can enjoy; but it's not something I feel like I have to have.

I'm similar to you in many points you mentioned, but I don't consider myself asexual, but rather a "sexual person, who feels more psychologically comfortable not having sex with other people". Can you clarify, what is a "lack of desire to have sex with other people" means to you? How do you define "desire to have sex with other people" personally?

Simple. I don't have the "urge" to have sex with people. I can go for the rest of my life without having sex with people and not feel like I am missing anything. Sex is something I can enjoy; but it's not something I feel like I have to have.

Is an ability to go without partnered sex easily make a person asexual?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That'd be too broad a question. how long is long enough, a day a month a year? what's the ability, everyone is technically able since lack of sex is not life threatening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's about the ability to be without "partnered sex" that makes the difference. I think it's about whether or not the person would feel okay without partnered sex and not feel like they're missing out, which is far more likely the case for an "asexual" person. I think an "asexual" person's ideal (or preferred) situation would be to go without partnered sex for the rest of their life (while a "sexual" person would be the opposite).

Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe not so much "missing out" 'cause I certainly had sex my first time on that assumption of "missing out"

also, I'm starting to form the notion that, attraction is something that doesn't really have to do with sex at all. sex and arousal are pretty linked, and mating is linked to sex, and attraction is linked to finding a mate aka mating. so therefor is a big happy circle, sex arousal mating attraction, all in the same boat. but here's the thing - I've certainly learned from gender that associated things are not the same at all! not all men are masculine and want to bang with women. so why should it be that attraction and sex and mating are all linked as one orientation? IMO the notion that the three are as one should be discarded. attraction is attraction. mating is mating. sex is sex. sometimes they align into nice boxes, but by no means does that make those nice boxes the "right way" to describe the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're saying that sexual arousal, sexual attraction, and sexual desire aren't always together, then yes. They don't always align for sexual people either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying that "sexual attraction" is not really a thing at all, but simply the words to describe the grouping of attraction with sexual desire... that there is no difference between "sexual attraction" and "other forms of attraction"at the core of the experience, and so as such the difference is simply the same kind of label as calling a horse white and then trying to say it's no longer a horse. that, asexuality being "the lack of sexual attraction" while technically true, creates a fallacy that confuses everyone regardless of orientation because the real thing not there is sexual desire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how would we define aromanticism? Romantic attraction is an emotion, so defining it as "a person who does not desire a romantic relationship" would make romance-indifferent romantics aromantic. If we word it in a way that means it's unwanted then it would exclude aromantics who are willing to be in a romantic relationship for the sake of someone else. Unless there just needs to be an added clause to that saying "but if someone feels romantic attraction and is just indifferent to reciprocation then they're still romantic."

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how would we define aromanticism? Romantic attraction is an emotion, so defining it as "a person who does not desire a romantic relationship" would make romance-indifferent romantics aromantic. If we word it in a way that means it's unwanted then it would exclude aromantics who are willing to be in a romantic relationship for the sake of someone else. Unless there just needs to be an added clause to that saying "but if someone feels romantic attraction and is just indifferent to reciprocation then they're still romantic."

I think that's probably a topic for another thread since romantic orientation doesn't really have anything to do with "asexuality." I personally define my "romanticism" based on whether or not I experience romantic feelings for someone else (and how often that happens) vs. whether or not I generally desire a romantic relationship, however, I historically desire a romantic relationship with someone once I have romantic feelings for them and may or may not pursue a relationship with them depending on whether or not there are known incompatibilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how would we define aromanticism? Romantic attraction is an emotion, so defining it as "a person who does not desire a romantic relationship" would make romance-indifferent romantics aromantic. If we word it in a way that means it's unwanted then it would exclude aromantics who are willing to be in a romantic relationship for the sake of someone else. Unless there just needs to be an added clause to that saying "but if someone feels romantic attraction and is just indifferent to reciprocation then they're still romantic."

I think that's probably a topic for another thread since romantic orientation doesn't really have anything to do with "asexuality." I personally define my "romanticism" based on whether or not I experience romantic feelings for someone else (and how often that happens) vs. whether or not I generally desire a romantic relationship, however, I historically desire a romantic relationship with someone once I have romantic feelings for them and may or may not pursue a relationship with them depending on whether or not there are known incompatibilities.

I agree. Let us take this to the back my thread to discuss. It will give it much needed bumps till the link thread is put up and not disrupt this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

So, it seems like the majority of posters favor a desire based definition of asexuality because no one can agree about what sexual attraction even is. But now I read that a large percentage of women have no desire for sex until after they are already making out with their partners. The fact that they experience desire responsively rather than spontaneously seems to have no effect on their enjoyment of sex and has no major impact on their lives one way or another.

So, if a woman only desires sex after foreplay commences, is that an intrinsic desire or not? Is she a sex favorable asexual or a pretty typical sexual woman? Would your answer change if she stated that she although she consistently gets aroused and enjoys sex with her partner once her partner initiates she doesn't actually desire sex?

Also, is it possible for a woman to actively seek out sex for it's own sake (not for procreation or for the sake of a relationship) without desiring it? Is anticipating that you are going to want sex later different from desiring sex?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it seems like the majority of posters favor a desire based definition of asexuality because no one can agree about what sexual attraction even is. But now I read that a large percentage of women have no desire for sex until after they are already making out with their partners. The fact that they experience desire responsively rather than spontaneously seems to have no effect on their enjoyment of sex and has no major impact on their lives one way or another.

So, if a woman only desires sex after foreplay commences, is that an intrinsic desire or not? Is she a sex favorable asexual or a pretty typical sexual woman? Would your answer change if she stated that she although she consistently gets aroused and enjoys sex with her partner once her partner initiates she doesn't actually desire sex?

Also, is it possible for a woman to actively seek out sex for it's own sake (not for procreation or for the sake of a relationship) without desiring it? Is anticipating that you are going to want sex later different from desiring sex?

I think the concept of "desire" is even more vague than "attraction". Many people prefer the "desire" definition, just because they feel sexual attraction to people, but they like being a part of the asexual community.

It depends, what is "desire". Such reasons as curiosity, striving to get sexual expierence and do like most people do, shame of masturbation more than partnered sex, belief that sex is good for woman's health are count?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

How about urge? Instinct? Craving? Yearning? Anything we can agree on? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda in a hurry will do my formatting later.

Edit: And formatted!!!

So, it seems like the majority of posters favor a desire based definition of asexuality because no one can agree about what sexual attraction even is. But now I read that a large percentage of women have no desire for sex until after they are already making out with their partners. The fact that they experience desire responsively rather than spontaneously seems to have no effect on their enjoyment of sex and has no major impact on their lives one way or another.


Many sexual people are like that, not just women.

So, if a woman only desires sex after foreplay commences, is that an intrinsic desire or not? Is she a sex favorable asexual or a pretty typical sexual woman? Would your answer change if she stated that she although she consistently gets aroused and enjoys sex with her partner once her partner initiates she doesn't actually desire sex?

Yes that is intrinsic desire. Yes she is a typical sexual women using the desire defintion. It occurs naturally doesn't it? That is the definition of the word intrinsic.

Getting aroused and enjoying sex have nothing to do with asexuality. Going by the desire definition alone (and for the record I am an attraction and/or desire definition supporter) if she doesn't desire sex then she is asexual.


Also, is it possible for a woman to actively seek out sex for it's own sake (not for procreation or for the sake of a relationship) without desiring it? Is anticipating that you are going to want sex later different from desiring sex?

No, that is not desiring. Thinking you might desire it in the future is speculation...not desire.

That said remember with BOTH the attraction and the desire definition we are discussing the POTENTIAL to feel these things. A sexual person is not walking around attracted to people all the time or desiring sex 24/7. Further no one can know the future so we are all stating our perceived truths for the moment based upon our experiences.


I think the concept of "desire" is even more vague than "attraction". Many people prefer the "desire" definition, just because they feel sexual attraction to people, but they like being a part of the asexual community.

It depends, what is "desire". Such reasons as curiosity, striving to get sexual experience and do like most people do, shame of masturbation more than partnered sex, belief that sex is good for woman's health are count?

No it isn't. Attraction is far more vague. You know when it is sex your desiring, you don't know if you are attracted to people because of sex or not. I don't even think sexual attraction is real. It is just attraction coupled sexual desire. I experience attraction to people but not desire.

And technically, if you don't experience desire then you don't experience this alleged sexual attraction thing by definition. So assuming sexual attraction is real, then that is wrong. What is and does happen is that people experience attraction but have no clue "what type" of attraction it is and think it "might" be sexual attraction. They don't understand that to be sexual attraction it has to be accompanied by sexual desire as well (another reason why attraction is more vague it requires two different feelings at one time).

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how would we define aromanticism?

I have not spent enough time thinking about it. I suspect that desiring a long-term relationship for reasons other than "for convenience" or "to fit in" is romantic. but, like I said, I haven't thought about it enough, so I'm not really sure, and can't really explain or justify my suspicions.

edit: er, by "long-term relationship" I mean like, something that on first glance would look romantic. I think that even tho I do not "feel romantic" and do not really appreciate the classic romance, the fact that I long for a partner to live my life out with is what romance is. right now I still ID as aromantic, but I am wondering if "romance" is not "classic romance" I mean it certainly isn't right? there had to be something that came before the classic romance was culturally dominate. and that something, is what drives romance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@nanogretchen

Having responsive desire and spontaneous desire are completely normal; 90% of women have responsive desire (i.e. first get aroused for whatever reason; hormonal, responce to physical contact, etc., and then their desire for sex is triggered), while 10% of women spontaneously desire sex (and reverse those percentages for men). Men also typically require sex to desire romance, where as women typically need romance to desire sex. What causes arousal also has polar differences; women typically require emotionally invested porn while a majority of men can get aroused at simply seeing boobs, a butt, or someone making out. Men and women aren't just different in alot of ways, they are virtually different in a majority of ways. With the U.S.'s divorce rate being 40 to 50% and sex being a top cause for divorce, it makes alot of sense as to why. The brain is also wired to get bored of a sexual partner essentially; it's like going on your favorite food bindge for days straight and then you eventually can't stand to eat it anymore (not that that sever of a reaction happens with sex) . The change in opinion of the food is because it has become slightly less pleasurable; so sex wise they will eventually feel less pleasurable of an orgasm from sex. In order to fix this people need to do different types of sex to jump start the brain into thinking they're having sex with a new partner. Also, alot of the time when cheaters say "I've never come harder" they most likely have but have become desensitized to their current partner, and with that happening over a fair amount of time they don't notice the decline and thus no longer remember orgasms being as strong. The same thing happens with porn users. link

The point in a sexual orientation is that they at some point completely desire to have sex with someone; it being responsive desire doesn't matter. Also, the desire for sex may be responsive, but their desire to make out may not be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

Right. By the time things get to that point they have already made a series of decisions they know will probably lead to sex. If someone intends to have sex, because they anticipate that they will probably enjoy it, do they desire sex? Or can they say, "Well, I intended to have sex with my partner, and sure enough once we got started I got aroused and enjoyed the sex as I had predicted. And yes, I intend to keep doing this on a regular basis with the same predicted results. But that's different from desiring sex, so I'm asexual."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Litmus test:

Ask them how they'd react if they went to foreplay with their partner to the point of arousal, and then have their partner just stop, say goodnight, and go to sleep. Would they be frustrated at not having sex then and there? If yes, then they very clearly did desire sex, and thus are sexuals with what some sources call "responsive desire", not ace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. By the time things get to that point they have already made a series of decisions they know will probably lead to sex. If someone intends to have sex, because they anticipate that they will probably enjoy it, do they desire sex? Or can they say, "Well, I intended to have sex with my partner, and sure enough once we got started I got aroused and enjoyed the sex as I had predicted. And yes, I intend to keep doing this on a regular basis with the same predicted results. But that's different from desiring sex, so I'm asexual."

Probably lead to sex? "Probably" is not the same as "will."

So you are saying that a person enjoys sex, and actively seeks it out wanting that experience and engages in activities they know will lead to sex...but doesn't desire it. Yeah, but no.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/desire

The definition of the word desire, a strong wanting. That is exactly what you described. Further, they specifically did it for sex. Not children. So they desired sex for its own sake. The very thing the desire definition says asexuals don't have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a person who seeks out others in the pursuit of sexual arousal is certainly not ace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Litmus test:

Ask them how they'd react if they went to foreplay with their partner to the point of arousal, and then have their partner just stop, say goodnight, and go to sleep. Would they be frustrated at not having sex then and there? If yes, then they very clearly did desire sex, and thus are sexuals with what some sources call "responsive desire", not ace.

I'll add some confusion here : I could totally be in the mood for sex in that situation, but if my partner suddenly stopped like that, I wouldn't be frustrated at all. I could even live a 100% sexless life until I die and not feel frustrated at the idea (if my favourite kind of chocolate candy were to disappear from supermarkets, this is the kind of situation where I'd be infinitely more frustrated LOL). But I don't consider myself asexual strictly speaking, because I definitely do have some sexual feelings for someone.

This is weird, maybe, but this is my personal experience and the desire-based definition is absolutely not clear if I want to apply it to my personal life.

I'm probably not going to enter the debate again, this is an endless debate anyway. I just wanted to add an element with a personal perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 2:13 in the morning here, so I'm not going to go through and read every post. :unsure: My apologies!

"A person who is not intrinsically attracted to any gender sexually" isn't actually that bad of a definition, so I chose it. However, I think I made a mistake choosing it because I am so tired, but ah well. XD In reality I will continue to give out AVEN's definition, because I don't see anything wrong with it.

I HATE the "no desire for partnered sex" crap, because it has several loopholes that it can't really fix. The fact of the matter is that there are many times when a person has a desire (or at least a semi-desire) for partnered sex, but when they actually have it they don't enjoy it, and, to continue on that, they don't feel sexual attraction. Furthermore, I would like to point out that

homosexual =/= a lack of desire for sex with a person of the opposite sex

And, of course, the same sort of thing goes for heterosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, etc., etc., etc. Sexuality is about ATTRACTION, not SEX, and I realize that that "new definition" is literally about not having sex, but it completely excludes people who want to, for whatever reason, but feel no sexual attraction. That way of explaining things is very unclear, and I would also like to point out that if we had that on AVEN's banner then newbie's would look at it and say, "Oh, well, I WANT to have sex/like sex/etc., but I don't really want to have it. . . ." So on and so forth.

Bad idea. Sorry, that's just my opinion. I am apparently too tired to think, but this is what I . . . think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a person who seeks out others in the pursuit of sexual arousal is certainly not ace.

But asexuals with fetishes do this. They may mess with their partners feet and then masturbate; they still don't desire sex with their partner. Should Asexuals with fetishes/kinks/non-sexual BDSM have a different title now?

1) I will continue to give out AVEN's definition, because I don't see anything wrong with it.

2) there are many times when a person has a desire (or at least a semi-desire) for partnered sex, but when they actually have it they don't enjoy it, and, to continue on that, they don't feel sexual attraction. Furthermore, I would like to point out that

3) homosexual =/= a lack of desire for sex with a person of the opposite sex

1) That's because you haven't been informed why there are problems with it. People who DO desire sex, but just not because they find the person (sexually) attractive can go by asexual because of that definition. And i don't mean people who want to make their partner happy or procreate. They literally feel unsatisfied without a sexual relationship; they need sex.

2) Are you talking about when an asexual masturbates and considers they could be comfortable with sexually compromising?

3) Are you referring to the "one/rare exception to a monosexual's orientation"?

And no, sexuality is factually about sex and not attraction; look up a dictionary.

but it completely excludes people who want to, for whatever reason, but feel no sexual attraction

Again, that is a COMPLETELY NORMAL sexual person; according to allosexuals nearly half of sexual people are like this.

And the words enjoy and desire are two completely different words. If someone has a brain they'll know what desire actually means.

Secondly, the same thing already happens with the current definition; people don't look up what sexual attraction is supposed to mean and interpret other things as it. I've hear people mistake it for their aesthetic attraction, sensual attraction, desire to kiss ,etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's 2:13 in the morning here, so I'm not going to go through and read every post. :unsure: My apologies!

That is fine. This thread is waaaaay too long to read every post.

"A person who is not intrinsically attracted to any gender sexually" isn't actually that bad of a definition, so I chose it. However, I think I made a mistake choosing it because I am so tired, but ah well. XD In reality I will continue to give out AVEN's definition, because I don't see anything wrong with it.

I HATE the "no desire for partnered sex" crap, because it has several loopholes that it can't really fix. The fact of the matter is that there are many times when a person has a desire (or at least a semi-desire) for partnered sex, but when they actually have it they don't enjoy it, and, to continue on that, they don't feel sexual attraction. Furthermore, I would like to point out that

Same can be said for the attraction definition.

Really I don't see how anyone can call people who don't desire sex a "sexual." If it weren't for external factors like wanting kids or trying to keep a marriage healthy we wouldn't ever have sex. The same can not be said of a person who desires sex but finds no one attractive.

That said, I do support calling both people asexual as I believe in being inclusive and also believe that one can be asexual in multiple sense. Ie there being a desire/drive based orientation, and there being an attraction orientation. So both are asexual in different ways to me. After all, if there can be multiple types of sexuals why can't there be multiple types of asexuals?

Asexaul: A person who lacks the potential to desire sex with others for its own sake and/or lacks sexual attraction toward others.

Slightly redundant as both terms are describing the same exact thing, but it makes things a bit clearer and more inclusive and less likely to cause false negatives. I rather deal with us having more of a voice due to a few false positives than there being an asexual person walking away thinking they are not asexual.

homosexual =/= a lack of desire for sex with a person of the opposite sex

And, of course, the same sort of thing goes for heterosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, etc., etc., etc. Sexuality is about ATTRACTION, not SEX, and I realize that that "new definition" is literally about not having sex, but it completely excludes people who want to, for whatever reason, but feel no sexual attraction. That way of explaining things is very unclear, and I would also like to point out that if we had that on AVEN's banner then newbie's would look at it and say, "Oh, well, I WANT to have sex/like sex/etc., but I don't really want to have it. . . ." So on and so forth.

Firstly, we are talking about sexual desire, not sex itself. Desiring sex does not mean having sex. One can desire something but choose not to engage in it. I have a bag of cookies in the kitchen. I am desiring a cookie, but I already had enough for today and choose not to give in to my desire..

That said, yes, the sexual desire definition does indeed exclude people who want to have sex but don't find people attractive. That is part of the reason I am a "and/or" proponent. That said, I find the idea of a person who wants sex and will seek it out and have it repeatedly despite not finding others attractive being the "true" asexual or "more" asexual than a person who doesn't want sex, and probably avoid it if possible...laughable. Mr or Ms "I love sex" has no sexuality, but Mr or Ms "I don't want sex" is sexual. I don't mean to be snarky, but that to me is just ridiculous.

Now if you want to say they are both asexual but in different ways, I can live with that.

Homosexual doesn't include the prefix "a-" in its name. However, an aheterosexual (or would the correct spelling be anheterosexual?) would be "a lack of desire for sex with a person of the opposite sex."

Heterosexuals desire sex with the opposite sex/gender. Homosexuals desire sex with the same sex/gender. Bisexuals desire sex with both sexes/genders. Pansexuals desire sex with people because of their personality. It has everything to do with desiring sex. The opposite can not be said.

Either way, that is what this alleged "sexuals attraction" thingy actually means: Attraction coupled with sexual desire.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/sexual-attraction?q=sexual+attraction

Sexual allure; (an) attraction based on sexual instinct or sexual desire.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attraction

a feeling that makes someone romantically or sexually interested in another person

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interested

having the desire to do or have something

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+attraction

Noun 1. sexual attraction - attractiveness on the basis of sexual desire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_attraction

Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest

Saying "it has nothing to do with sexual desire" is absurd, and if anything it is a semantic argument and nothing more than an equivocation fallacy. Like I said earlier, assuming that sexual attraction exists as something unto itself, then all it entails is attraction coupled with sexual desire. Meaning that if you are missing either component, attraction or desire, or both components then you don't have sexual attraction.

But the term itself is horribly confusing because it makes people think there are actually different attractions and they can't tell them apart. Is what I am feeling sexual attraction? Romantic? It leads to unnecessary anxiety.

By choosing an "and/or" definition you remove that possibility for confusion. Further, just going with a pure desire definition, would have the same exact effect but be far less vague as one would only have to consider one type of feeling.

And to be completely honest, if one INSISTS on using the term sexual attraction those who desire sex but lack attraction to others STILL HAVE SEXUAL ATTRACTION, it is just not aimed at people. Instead it is aimed at the idea of having sex itself.. They are sexually attracted to the idea of sex. They like it, and seek it out because they want sex. That is again, the definition of both attraction in general and sexual attraction specifically.

Bad idea. Sorry, that's just my opinion. I am apparently too tired to think, but this is what I . . . think.

It is fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and it is probably better to post one when one is well rested. Maybe tomorrow you will have an easier time thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

homosexual => a lack of desire for sex with a person of the opposite sex

Fixed that for you. "Homosexuals" with a desire for sex with opposite sex persons are bi/poly/pansexuals. If they call themselves homosexual, they are mislabeling themselves, plain and simple.

Sexuality is about ATTRACTION, not SEX

I could not disagree more. Sexuality is not about "attraction" at all, but it is indeed all about sex.

[...] and I realize that that "new definition" is literally about not having sex, but it completely excludes people who want to, for whatever reason, but feel no sexual attraction.

Either you have forgotten a "not" in there, or you really do not understand the "desirist" definition, at all. The proposed new definition is not about "not having sex" (neither literally, nor figuratively). It's about not desiring to have sex. World of difference. You can obviously have, and even enjoy, partnered sex without desiring it.

And yes, people who want to have sex for the reason of desiring partnered sex itself should absolutely be excluded from the ace spectrum. They are not asexual, they are bog-standard sexuals, even if they "do not feel sexual attraction" (whatever that even means). Excluding them would be a very, very good thing for the asexual community as a whole, if we want to be seen as anything else than a bunch of special snowflakes. A policy of "total inclusivity" is poison for visibility and education, and for being taken seriously. We can't have both.

That way of explaining things is very unclear, and I would also like to point out that if we had that on AVEN's banner then newbie's would look at it and say, "Oh, well, I WANT to have sex/like sex/etc., but I don't really want to have it. . . ." So on and so forth.

Because it's not like we constantly get "what even is 'sexual attraction'" threads right now. :rolleyes:

Desire for sex is far, far easier to conclusively define and identify than whatever "sexual attraction" is supposed to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

I'm seriously struggling to understand this whole "I want to have sex but I don't feel attracted to the person I'm doing it with, therefore I'm asexual" thing. Isn't that about half of all casual sex? Beer goggles and all that? From what I've heard most sexuals have had sex without feeling any attraction, simply because it's something they want to do. It's completely different to having sex with a partner to keep them happy, or in order to conceive naturally.

What I'm trying to say simply is, how can you desire sex and not be sexual (or grey-sexual)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seriously struggling to understand this whole "I want to have sex but I don't feel attracted to the person I'm doing it with, therefore I'm asexual" thing. Isn't that about half of all casual sex? Beer goggles and all that? From what I've heard most sexuals have had sex without feeling any attraction, simply because it's something they want to do. It's completely different to having sex with a partner to keep them happy, or in order to conceive naturally.

What I'm trying to say simply is, how can you desire sex and not be sexual (or grey-sexual)?

You are not the only one who has a hard time understanding that...it boggles my mind too. They enjoy, want, and seek out sex for the sake of sex, but are asexual?

dizzy.png

Honestly, it sounds more like Pansexuality to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord, you ain't kidding. Glad I have returned well-rested. xD

Instead of responding to every point made (which, they've all been good), I'll just cut down to my own opinion, because really my own opinion is the only one I understand, as far as "desiring to have partnered sex" goes. I do completely disagree that sexuality is about sex (because if it was about sex then every closeted gay man who has ever had sex with a woman is actually bisexual, never mind that he doesn't experience sexual attraction to women), so if the argument here is that it is more about sex then yes, I think that's wrong, and no, I don't understand the "desirist" definition at all, regardless of whether it actually means you just don't want sex.

Maybe my confusion is because I don't know if I fully understand the difference between wanting to have sex and wanting to have partnered sex. Those here who call themselves asexual and also say that they want sex are very well-aware that sex can only be had with at least one partner . . . so, what's the difference? All you are doing is taking out one little word ("partnered") and saying it makes a world of difference, but no, it doesn't, because all sex is partnered. There really has to be something I'm not getting here, so please, feel free to explain. :wacko:

The people who call themselves asexual and say they want sex desire the IDEA, not the ACTION. That is to say, yes, even if they do actively search it out, it is not going to be what they hoped. The sex in their head is going to be better than what it is in reality, and that is why I still call them asexual. As for those who have said that they "want" sex, well, I have yet to meet a single one of them who has actually enjoyed it.

For me:

I sometimes say I desire sex to make someone happy, but that probably isn't the best thing to say as I would much rather not have sex at all, ever. Sex is boring, it is not love (at least not to me), and even if a partner and I had it I would prefer for it to be a one-time thing. :P I suppose when I say that I "desire" sex, I really don't mean it in the same way that the others do. It is more because I feel that if they aren't going to have sex with someone else (which, incidentally, I'd be fine with) then the relationship would have a strain that need not be necessary. Of course, that strain would probably be there because I could never, ever have sex as much as they wanted, but whatever.

Thus, it isn't that I desire sex, it's that I desire to make the relationship work, and if sex is how the relationship works then I can probably do it from time to time.

Again, that's just what I mean when I say that I desire sex. Different people probably mean different things.

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...