Defining asexuality - a better definition?

[Guest]

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.

Well, in my example, he doesn't find anyone attractive. So, how would you define his orientation if his sexual desire isn't driven towards a singular person or sex/gender but just drives him to seek sex for sex itself?

And how is experiencing desire for sex with another human being without a source of attraction experiencing sexual attraction?

[shockkkk]

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.

Yeah this. Everyone whose saying that the sexual attraction definition is clear and unambigious needs to wake the fuck up. Here is the link to the poll (shameless self-promotion)

http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/85686-sexual-attraction-survey/

Moreover, what concerns me even more is that 86% of posters here think outsiders perception of sexual attraction differs from that of AVEN's. I have to agree with them. The vast majority of people I've talked to outside the asexual community believe being turned on by porn/smut, fetishes, kissing, or just finding someone hot is sexual attraction. If AVEN took these things as being sexual attraction, I would be a lot more accepting of the sexual attraction definition, but we don't (including by people arguing for the sexual attraction definition in this thread). Most of the time when topics like this come up, people perform intellectual gymnastics with stuff like "arousal doesn't equal attraction", "it's just sensual attraction", "I'm attracted to the acts not the people", and tons of other crap like that. This doesn't even touch the whole I don't feel sexual attraction, but I love and seek out having sex with other people, so I'm still asexual. These are the reasons why asexuality has is sometimes perceived as a special snowflake movement, not because some (a lot) of us want a definition based on desire for partnered sex.

So yeah I think that if AVEN's idea of sexual attraction is completely different from the general public's idea of what sexual attraction is, we shouldn't be using it in our definition. If outsiders are looking into our community and see people that get turned on by porn, find people hot, have fetishes, or get butterflies when kissing, they are certainly not going to think that "lack of sexual attraction" is the common denominator among asexuals. However, I do think that lacking desire for partnered sex is something that is common among the asexuality community and has been for quite some time. Moreover, for all the talk about those pushing for the desire based definition being those who don't fit the sexual attraction definition, a lot of the sexuals on here over the past few years have expressed displeasure over the attraction based defintion claiming that they would be asexual under it, choosing to support the desire based definition instead.

[Turning]

Serran

Desiring sex with another human being is sexual attraction toward them (by all the definitions in the English language I can find.)

Otherwise George would ultimately get the same result from masturbation? But he is attracted to people sexually and therefore wants/needs them to be actively part of fulfilling his sexual desires. Sexual attraction is what causes the urge to have sex with others I beleive. Orientation is which sex/gender your sexually attracted to (and need I say usually particular people of that sex/gender).

[warrigan]

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.

i disagree that my explanation sounds like sexual desire. to me, "sexual desire" sounds like something that can get turned on or off. it might get turned on while thinking of an attractive person, it might get turned off when thinking of a repulsive person. on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything or using a smokescreen, i honestly do differentiate between the two terms being used. maybe we're using two different terms for the same idea, but i don't think of them as meaning the same thing.

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.

Well, in my example, he doesn't find anyone attractive. So, how would you define his orientation if his sexual desire isn't driven towards a singular person or sex/gender but just drives him to seek sex for sex itself?

And how is experiencing desire for sex with another human being without a source of attraction experiencing sexual attraction?

see, i would call george asexual in this scenario.

[Guest]

Serran

Desiring sex with another human being is sexual attraction toward them (by all the definitions in the English language I can find.)

Otherwise George would ultimately get the same result from masturbation? But he is attracted to people sexually and therefore wants/needs them to be actively part of fulfilling his sexual desires. Sexual attraction is what causes the urge to have sex with others I beleive. Orientation is which sex/gender your sexually attracted to (and need I say usually particular people of that sex/gender).

Interesting. So to you, sexual attraction IS sexual desire. The urge to have sex at all, regardless of it having nothing to point to? But, then it's also the word you use for who your desire points to? So, a man in a desert, with no human around, who thinks "Man, I wish I could get laid right now" would be experiencing sexual attraction by your definition (lets say for arguments sake he's not even mentally conjuring an image of a human to point said desire to)? But without someone to be attracted to.

Most definitions I have found for sexual attraction is something along the lines of "who you point your sexual desire towards" - which seems to line up with the sexuals I have talked to. They describe it kind of like hunger. You feel hungry, you need to eat. What you eat is what your preferences direct you towards. For them, they describe feeling a desire/urge to have sex. Who they have sex with, is what they describe attraction about. Their preferences and what sparks it and exactly what it means varies a lot and no two people ever respond the same to me, but, the urge/desire is the same for all of them. I guess that is why I view them as separate - it's a constant in every sexual I have talked to, whereas attraction definition varies by who I am talking to.

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.

i disagree that my explanation sounds like sexual desire. to me, "sexual desire" sounds like something that can get turned on or off. it might get turned on while thinking of an attractive person, it might get turned off when thinking of a repulsive person. on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything or using a smokescreen, i honestly do differentiate between the two terms being used. maybe we're using two different terms for the same idea, but i don't think of them as meaning the same thing.

Sexual desire can't be turned off. If it could, sexuals could just think of something gross and stop being bothered about not having sex when they are in a dry spell.

It is interesting how many different definitions of desire, attraction and even asexuality there are. But, it does provide some very difficult conversations for those who want to educate others about asexuality. For example, following the asexuals can want/need sex and still be asexual definition:

"So, what is an asexual?"

"A person that doesn't experience sexual attraction"

"So, asexuals don't like sex?"

"Oh, no, some asexuals can enjoy sex and desire it. Even seek it out."

"Ok, then what's the difference?"

"An asexual doesn't experience sexual attraction to the person"

"So, they don't find people hot?"

"No, asexuals can find people aesthetically appealing"

"So, an asexual finds someone hot, wants sex with them, enjoys it and seeks it out? What is the difference between them and everyone else then?"

Honestly, confronted with that conversation, I would have no response beyond a shrug.

[Geo]

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.

i disagree that my explanation sounds like sexual desire. to me, "sexual desire" sounds like something that can get turned on or off. it might get turned on while thinking of an attractive person, it might get turned off when thinking of a repulsive person. on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything or using a smokescreen, i honestly do differentiate between the two terms being used. maybe we're using two different terms for the same idea, but i don't think of them as meaning the same thing.

No. It most certainly is not.

Attraction only happens in the presence of, or when thinking about, appealing individuals (Those who fit into our own personal, individual archetypes of appealing people.)

For me at least, desire for sex is pretty constant.

[Turning]

Serran

Desiring sex with another human being is sexual attraction toward them (by all the definitions in the English language I can find.)

Otherwise George would ultimately get the same result from masturbation? But he is attracted to people sexually and therefore wants/needs them to be actively part of fulfilling his sexual desires. Sexual attraction is what causes the urge to have sex with others I beleive. Orientation is which sex/gender your sexually attracted to (and need I say usually particular people of that sex/gender).

Interesting. So to you, sexual attraction IS sexual desire. The urge to have sex at all, regardless of it having nothing to point to? But, then it's also the word you use for who your desire points to? So, a man in a desert, with no human around, who thinks "Man, I wish I could get laid right now" would be experiencing sexual attraction by your definition (lets say for arguments sake he's not even mentally conjuring an image of a human to point said desire to)? But without someone to be attracted to.

Most definitions I have found for sexual attraction is something along the lines of "who you point your sexual desire towards" - which seems to line up with the sexuals I have talked to. They describe it kind of like hunger. You feel hungry, you need to eat. What you eat is what your preferences direct you towards. For them, they describe feeling a desire/urge to have sex. Who they have sex with, is what they describe attraction about. Their preferences and what sparks it and exactly what it means varies a lot and no two people ever respond the same to me, but, the urge/desire is the same for all of them. I guess that is why I view them as separate - it's a constant in every sexual I have talked to, whereas attraction definition varies by who I am talking to.

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.

i disagree that my explanation sounds like sexual desire. to me, "sexual desire" sounds like something that can get turned on or off. it might get turned on while thinking of an attractive person, it might get turned off when thinking of a repulsive person. on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything or using a smokescreen, i honestly do differentiate between the two terms being used. maybe we're using two different terms for the same idea, but i don't think of them as meaning the same thing.

Sexual desire can't be turned off. If it could, sexuals could just think of something gross and stop being bothered about not having sex when they are in a dry spell.

It is interesting how many different definitions of desire, attraction and even asexuality there are. But, it does provide some very difficult conversations for those who want to educate others about asexuality. For example, following the asexuals can want/need sex and still be asexual definition:

"So, what is an asexual?"

"A person that doesn't experience sexual attraction"

"So, asexuals don't like sex?"

"Oh, no, some asexuals can enjoy sex and desire it. Even seek it out."

"Ok, then what's the difference?"

"An asexual doesn't experience sexual attraction to the person"

"So, they don't find people hot?"

"No, asexuals can find people aesthetically appealing"

"So, an asexual finds someone hot, wants sex with them, enjoys it and seeks it out? What is the difference between them and everyone else then?"

Honestly, confronted with that conversation, I would have no response beyond a shrug.

From an earlier post I made.

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

Sexual desire (with the absence of sexual attraction) can refer to libido so shouldn’t be defining asexuality as an orientation." (or any orientation for that matter)

So no, sexual attraction isn't sexual desire. Sexual attraction involves sexual desire but sexual desire doesn't always involve sexual attraction (masturbation).

As for your man in the dessert. I would ask the same as with Goerge. Who is he attracted to - what is his orientation? If his sexual desrie is not directed at a particular sex/gender then he would just masturbate and be done with the desire. That is asexual with a sex drive/libido to me.

I don't understand fully what you are saying. Your scenarios are like - someone wants to have a sex with another human but they have no clue who, or it doesn't matter who, but it has to be another human body. With that information I would say pansexual and not a very picky one?

The second part of the post I see a misunderstanding of the meaning of sexual attraction from the person trying to explain it.

And the desire based definition would be much more confusing IMO:

"SO you don't desire partnered sex but you just desire other sexual activities with a partner?" (It's not just the simple act of sex we are discussing)

Also it sounds like low sex drive and not an orientation because there isn't a reason given for the lack of sexual desire given. That being lack of sexual attraction. As is used to define all other sexual orientations without confusion.

[Guest]

No. A desire for sex cannot be fulfilled with masturbation - a libido can, but a sexual can masturbate all day, every day and still desire sex and feel horribly frustrated. For example - my partner has desire for intercourse at times. Oral doesn't fulfill it, manual doesn't fulfill it, masturbation certainly wouldn't. All of those would leave him frustrated, he wants INTERCOURSE. He feels it REGARDLESS of if there is someone to point it to or not. Wanting sex for sex. Not for being attracted to a person and wanting sex from them. Not from seeing someone hot. Not from imagining someone hot. Just sex for the sake of sex. And NOTHING short of sex will fulfill that desire.

That is what I mean when I say desire for sex. Not arousal from a libido that needs to be taken care of. The URGE towards SEX WITH A PERSON. Not a SPECIFIC person.

The sexual people I know define attraction like Geo does. Attraction is the urge to have sex with someone specific because you are attracted to them. Whereas, desire for sex is wanting sex for the sake of sex with or without a direction. Every sexual I know has had the desire for sex without a direction. They have no partner, they have no one they are particularly interested in, they aren't even looking at someone hot, but that desire for sex is nagging at them. And the longer they deny it, the more insistent the nagging becomes. Much like hunger, it keeps getting more severe the longer you don't eat. I know people who after a long enough "dry spell" haven't really cared WHO they sleep with, the need for sex is so strong they'll take whoever is willing. And I know people who just bite their tongues and wait until someone they are attracted to, whatever that means to them, comes along.

For the example of George - as I said, he is attracted to NO ONE. He does not experience attraction to humans. He merely has the desire for sex. SEX, not arousal from a libido that masturbation can handle. Desire for sex. The man in the desert has no one around to be attracted to, he just wants sex cause he hasn't had it in a while. But, lets say, when he's around humans he's heterosexual. But, he's not thinking of anyone or looking at anyone - he's just desiring the activity of sex, with no focus for the desire. And masturbation won't fulfill it.

[warrigan]

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.

i disagree that my explanation sounds like sexual desire. to me, "sexual desire" sounds like something that can get turned on or off. it might get turned on while thinking of an attractive person, it might get turned off when thinking of a repulsive person. on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything or using a smokescreen, i honestly do differentiate between the two terms being used. maybe we're using two different terms for the same idea, but i don't think of them as meaning the same thing.

Sexual desire can't be turned off. If it could, sexuals could just think of something gross and stop being bothered about not having sex when they are in a dry spell.

okay, but i think of it more as an in-the-moment sort of thing. perhaps it would be better to replace "on" and "off" with "stronger" and "less strong" or "more immediate" and "less immediate."

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.

i disagree that my explanation sounds like sexual desire. to me, "sexual desire" sounds like something that can get turned on or off. it might get turned on while thinking of an attractive person, it might get turned off when thinking of a repulsive person. on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything or using a smokescreen, i honestly do differentiate between the two terms being used. maybe we're using two different terms for the same idea, but i don't think of them as meaning the same thing.

No. It most certainly is not.

Attraction only happens in the presence of, or when thinking about, appealing individuals (Those who fit into our own personal, individual archetypes of appealing people.)

For me at least, desire for sex is pretty constant.

i think we have different conceptions of attraction. to me, attraction isn't an overwhelming urge to have sex, it's the gender or genders that you naturally think of in a sexual context. not, "oh, i'd want sex with that attractive individual there," more like, "i think of women in a sexual context but not men." and then i think of desire as being tied a bit more to libido and therefore fluctuating a bit more. like, you might feel stronger desire when you're in, say, a club than when you're in, say, a business meeting. i don't know if that helps explain my position, but that's why i said the stuff above.

[Geo]

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.

i disagree that my explanation sounds like sexual desire. to me, "sexual desire" sounds like something that can get turned on or off. it might get turned on while thinking of an attractive person, it might get turned off when thinking of a repulsive person. on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything or using a smokescreen, i honestly do differentiate between the two terms being used. maybe we're using two different terms for the same idea, but i don't think of them as meaning the same thing.

Sexual desire can't be turned off. If it could, sexuals could just think of something gross and stop being bothered about not having sex when they are in a dry spell.

okay, but i think of it more as an in-the-moment sort of thing. perhaps it would be better to replace "on" and "off" with "stronger" and "less strong" or "more immediate" and "less immediate."

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.

i disagree that my explanation sounds like sexual desire. to me, "sexual desire" sounds like something that can get turned on or off. it might get turned on while thinking of an attractive person, it might get turned off when thinking of a repulsive person. on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

i'm not refusing to acknowledge anything or using a smokescreen, i honestly do differentiate between the two terms being used. maybe we're using two different terms for the same idea, but i don't think of them as meaning the same thing.

No. It most certainly is not.

Attraction only happens in the presence of, or when thinking about, appealing individuals (Those who fit into our own personal, individual archetypes of appealing people.)

For me at least, desire for sex is pretty constant.

i think we have different conceptions of attraction. to me, attraction isn't an overwhelming urge to have sex, it's the gender or genders that you naturally think of in a sexual context. not, "oh, i'd want sex with that attractive individual there," more like, "i think of women in a sexual context but not men." and then i think of desire as being tied a bit more to libido and therefore fluctuating a bit more. like, you might feel stronger desire when you're in, say, a club than when you're in, say, a business meeting. i don't know if that helps explain my position, but that's why i said the stuff above.

I never said attraction was an overwhelming urge to have sex. It's not at all. An "overwhelming urge to have sex" is sexual desire, plain and simple. Attraction is being drawn to an individual, wanting to be closer, know more about them, see them more often, wanting more intimacy with them, ect.

What you are calling attraction is just gender preference, also called orientation. Attraction is not orientation.

[LiaMarie]

I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that there is so much disagreement in the definition of asexual, there are so many different individuals here who all experience that very intimate part of life very differently. It seems that no matter what the definition used, it excludes someone. I know I would feel excluded if the definition were to mention "partnered sex" simply because I have no need or desire to experience sex in any way including masturbation. For that matter, that definition would not necessarily have brought me into this community and I might still be feeling very lost. What brought me here initially was a comment I had made to a friend who was talking about her attraction to females. I simply said that I feel no attraction to anyone of any gender. That works for me, but I already know that it doesn't work for everyone here. Oddly, my husband's biggest issue is that he feels the word "asexual" is the wrong word. If we all found AVEN through this word and this definition, why do we feel the need to redefine it? Just my thoughts.

[Turning]

No. A desire for sex cannot be fulfilled with masturbation - a libido can, but a sexual can masturbate all day, every day and still desire sex and feel horribly frustrated. For example - my partner has desire for intercourse at times. Oral doesn't fulfill it, manual doesn't fulfill it, masturbation certainly wouldn't. All of those would leave him frustrated, he wants INTERCOURSE. He feels it REGARDLESS of if there is someone to point it to or not. Wanting sex for sex. Not for being attracted to a person and wanting sex from them. Not from seeing someone hot. Not from imagining someone hot. Just sex for the sake of sex. And NOTHING short of sex will fulfill that desire.

That is what I mean when I say desire for sex. Not arousal from a libido that needs to be taken care of. The URGE towards SEX WITH A PERSON. Not a SPECIFIC person.

The sexual people I know define attraction like Geo does. Attraction is the urge to have sex with someone specific because you are attracted to them. Whereas, desire for sex is wanting sex for the sake of sex with or without a direction. Every sexual I know has had the desire for sex without a direction. They have no partner, they have no one they are particularly interested in, they aren't even looking at someone hot, but that desire for sex is nagging at them. And the longer they deny it, the more insistent the nagging becomes. Much like hunger, it keeps getting more severe the longer you don't eat. I know people who after a long enough "dry spell" haven't really cared WHO they sleep with, the need for sex is so strong they'll take whoever is willing. And I know people who just bite their tongues and wait until someone they are attracted to, whatever that means to them, comes along.

For the example of George - as I said, he is attracted to NO ONE. He does not experience attraction to humans. He merely has the desire for sex. SEX, not arousal from a libido that masturbation can handle. Desire for sex. The man in the desert has no one around to be attracted to, he just wants sex cause he hasn't had it in a while. But, lets say, when he's around humans he's heterosexual. But, he's not thinking of anyone or looking at anyone - he's just desiring the activity of sex, with no focus for the desire. And masturbation won't fulfill it.

A desire for sex with another human and just a sexual desire are different things. For example the desire to masturbate is a sexual desire. So a desire for sex cant be fulfilled with masturbation but a sexual desire can.

You are saying if someone just wants to have sex with a human body because they want sex with another human body it isn't being sexually attracted to human bodies? There I disagree. Sexual means well sexual and attraction is a pull toward someone. So if you are drawn to human bodies for sexual purposes you are sexually attracted to them imo.

This is in consideration of a man isolated in a dessert. Otherwise sexual attraction is more specifically directed, even if only a little, and that's orientation.

In the case of an asexual the idea is the man never wanted another humane body to satisfy sexual desire aka he was never sexually attracted to other human bodies so I guess the dessert scenario wouldn't cause any sexual frustration.

[WhenSummersGone]

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.

You would still have sex with a female and not a male. If it's only a desire for sex then I don't understand why you won't sleep with males. You are sexually attracted to females physically regardless of their personality or who they are.

Most of the time when I see girls get turned on by a shirtless guy it has to do with looks that turn to sexual feelings. You don't need to be attracted to someone's personality to desire sex with them but you would like them to be physically attractive.

Also I wouldn't say I prefer to date guys but that I am only attracted to guys in a romantic way.

[WhenSummersGone]

Here's how I feel about this:

Sexual Desire: A want for partnered sex.

Sexual Attraction: Who you want to sleep with. Which sex/gender will you seek out sex with.

Sexual Attraction is who you direct your sexual desire to. This attraction is sexual because it has to do with sex, obviously.

[binary suns]

I think it's possible for someone to feel sexual attraction but zero sexual desire, and they should not be excluded from asexuality.

I think the point of the label of sexuality, is to embrace those who feel ousted by their surrounding culture due to a large difference in sexual interest, be it attraction or desire or even something else

I think even, we should allow gladly and encouragingly that if someone wants to identify as asexual despite being on the low side of grey, because they are also either sex repulsed or a practiced celebate for whichever reason...

sexuality is an identity and not a definition. it may take a definition to describe it, but that does not mean that it is a definitive descriptor!

I would never - and I mean NEVER tell someone they are not how they identify. That is an insult no matter how you say it.

I do look to guide people towards a more realistic identity if I feel their identity is untrue AND harmful towards their well-being, but I would do so subtly and by showing them things, so that they can choose to shift identities on their own.

[Guest]

on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

That is not real. I doubt that anyone in the world actually feels "sexual attraction" like that; at the very least, I've never knowingly met a single person who does. Ifanyone does, they're in dire need of professional help, optimally while safely locked up, it sounds like a massive psychiatric problem, and a (series of) sex crime(s) just waiting to happen.

Thus, if that's the basis of the defintion, yeah, maybe you're asexual, but whoop-de-do, so are 99%+ of all people. (In which case, campaigning for more "visibility and education" is complete bullshit, and just trying to oppress the marginal minority of non-asexuals, should they even exist. Aces already completely rule society, there's hardly anyone else than us around, for goodness sake!) Saying you're asexual is pretty damn irrelevant; don't waste people's time talking about it in public.

The much more likely scenario, of course, is that "asexuality" defined on ground of that criterion is complete bullshit and simply doesn't exist.

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?

Sexual Attraction: Who you want to sleep with. Which sex/gender will you seek out sex with.

Sexual Attraction is who you direct your sexual desire to. This attraction is sexual because it has to do with sex, obviously.

(sorry, quote function messed up, had to add the username by hand)

I think partner preference is a much better term for that than "sexual attraction". And yes, orientations are definitely about partner preference - I'm certain that the overwhelming majority of people would agree to that sentence.

Attraction does not define orientation (and that goes for every orientaion). Desire and preference does.

What you are calling attraction is just gender preference, also called orientation. Attraction is not orientation.

Seriously, this is one of those statements that should be effin' pinned right on top of every page of the boards. I could not agree more!

[Vampyremage]

A desire for sex with another human and just a sexual desire are different things. For example the desire to masturbate is a sexual desire. So a desire for sex cant be fulfilled with masturbation but a sexual desire can.

I think this is an important note. Consider how many sexuals have spoken about how masturbation just isn't the same or that masturbation just doesn't cut it. I would agree that a desire for sexual release via masturbation is most certainly still a sexual desire, but there is clearly a difference between a mere desire for sexual release which masturbation can satisfy and a desire for partnered sex. Of those asexuals who masturbate, how many ever claim that they miss having sex with a partner and that masturbation just doesn't cut it? My guess is almost none. Compare that to the answers given by sexuals and you'll generally find them to be flipped.

[WhenSummersGone]

on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

That is not real. I doubt that anyone in the world actually feels "sexual attraction" like that; at the very least, I've never knowingly met a single person who does. Ifanyone does, they're in dire need of professional help, optimally while safely locked up, it sounds like a massive psychiatric problem, and a (series of) sex crime(s) just waiting to happen.

Thus, if that's the basis of the defintion, yeah, maybe you're asexual, but whoop-de-do, so are 99%+ of all people. (In which case, campaigning for more "visibility and education" is complete bullshit, and just trying to oppress the marginal minority of non-asexuals, should they even exist. Aces already completely rule society, there's hardly anyone else than us around, for goodness sake!) Saying you're asexual is pretty damn irrelevant; don't waste people's time talking about it in public.

The much more likely scenario, of course, is that "asexuality" defined on ground of that criterion is complete bullshit and simply doesn't exist.

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?

Sexual Attraction: Who you want to sleep with. Which sex/gender will you seek out sex with.

Sexual Attraction is who you direct your sexual desire to. This attraction is sexual because it has to do with sex, obviously.

(sorry, quote function messed up, had to add the username by hand)

I think partner preference is a much better term for that than "sexual attraction". And yes, orientations are definitely about partner preference - I'm certain that the overwhelming majority of people would agree to that sentence.

Attraction does not define orientation (and that goes for every orientaion). Desire and preference does.

What you are calling attraction is just gender preference, also called orientation. Attraction is not orientation.

Seriously, this is one of those statements that should be effin' pinned right on top of every page of the boards. I could not agree more!

I don't believe it's a preference. I don't date guys because I prefer them, I date them because I'm attracted to them. You can't help who you are attracted to.

[Guest]

I don't believe it's a preference. I don't date guys because I prefer them, I date them because I'm attracted to them. You can't help who you are attracted to.

I'd say you can't help what you prefer, and that you're only attracted to them because you intrinsically prefer guys.

(But at this point, it kinda starts being potayto, potahto. ;))

[Lady Girl]

It is interesting how many different definitions of desire, attraction and even asexuality there are. But, it does provide some very difficult conversations for those who want to educate others about asexuality. For example, following the asexuals can want/need sex and still be asexual definition:

"So, what is an asexual?"

"A person that doesn't experience sexual attraction"

"So, asexuals don't like sex?"

"Oh, no, some asexuals can enjoy sex and desire it. Even seek it out."

"Ok, then what's the difference?"

"An asexual doesn't experience sexual attraction to the person"

"So, they don't find people hot?"

"No, asexuals can find people aesthetically appealing"

"So, an asexual finds someone hot, wants sex with them, enjoys it and seeks it out? What is the difference between them and everyone else then?"

Honestly, confronted with that conversation, I would have no response beyond a shrug.

^This is possibly one of the best examples of how ridiculous it sounds to say some asexuals desire and seek out sexual interaction with others.

To be honest, I've often wondered about this scenario too, and I've mentioned it in other discussions:

Sam and Edward are at a party and meet an attractive girl. They both have the exact same reactions to her while they are chatting...they like her looks, they think she's funny, they both feel slightly aroused. They both experience what most people call sexual attraction. Sam takes her home and stays over and they have sex. Edward on the other hand, goes home and masturbates and is totally happy about it. Why? Because he's asexual and didn't desire sexual interaction in the first place. He probably wouldn't talk about it on AVEN though, because he would either not be asexual, or be told he experienced aesthetic or romantic attraction, but not sexual attraction since he identifies as asexual.

As to gender preference...I agree that is not attraction, it's gender preference. Attraction is being drawn to someone, as in, they attract your attention.

[Turning]

on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

That is not real. I doubt that anyone in the world actually feels "sexual attraction" like that; at the very least, I've never knowingly met a single person who does. Ifanyone does, they're in dire need of professional help, optimally while safely locked up, it sounds like a massive psychiatric problem, and a (series of) sex crime(s) just waiting to happen.

Thus, if that's the basis of the defintion, yeah, maybe you're asexual, but whoop-de-do, so are 99%+ of all people. (In which case, campaigning for more "visibility and education" is complete bullshit, and just trying to oppress the marginal minority of non-asexuals, should they even exist. Aces already completely rule society, there's hardly anyone else than us around, for goodness sake!) Saying you're asexual is pretty damn irrelevant; don't waste people's time talking about it in public.

The much more likely scenario, of course, is that "asexuality" defined on ground of that criterion is complete bullshit and simply doesn't exist.

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?

Sexual Attraction: Who you want to sleep with. Which sex/gender will you seek out sex with.

Sexual Attraction is who you direct your sexual desire to. This attraction is sexual because it has to do with sex, obviously.

(sorry, quote function messed up, had to add the username by hand)

I think partner preference is a much better term for that than "sexual attraction". And yes, orientations are definitely about partner preference - I'm certain that the overwhelming majority of people would agree to that sentence.

Attraction does not define orientation (and that goes for every orientaion). Desire and preference does.

What you are calling attraction is just gender preference, also called orientation. Attraction is not orientation.

Seriously, this is one of those statements that should be effin' pinned right on top of every page of the boards. I could not agree more!

I don't believe it's a preference. I don't date guys because I prefer them, I date them because I'm attracted to them. You can't help who you are attracted to.

Sexual attraction: Attraction based on sexual desire.

This is not only Avens definition(in so many words) but everyone I can find in the English language with a quick google search. So despite feelings or confusion here that's what it actually means.

So that is to say sexual attraction is who you desire sexual interaction with. What you are suggesting as a definition, "asexual = no desire for sexual interaction" is the same thing as saying " a person who does not experience sexual attraction" except your definition says asexauls also cant have a libido - sexual interactions with themselves.

Gender preference is very close to orientation except it is missing a word. Sexual. Preferred gender sexually is closer. And this is again sexual attraction. The gender you prefer/desire sexually.

[WhenSummersGone]

I don't believe it's a preference. I don't date guys because I prefer them, I date them because I'm attracted to them. You can't help who you are attracted to.

I'd say you can't help what you prefer, and that you're only attracted to them because you intrinsically prefer guys.

(But at this point, it kinda starts being potayto, potahto. ;))

I would say it's more attraction than a preference. We could call it sexual preference but I think there is a sexual interest towards a sex/gender. Which is why I think both should be included in the definition.

on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

That is not real. I doubt that anyone in the world actually feels "sexual attraction" like that; at the very least, I've never knowingly met a single person who does. Ifanyone does, they're in dire need of professional help, optimally while safely locked up, it sounds like a massive psychiatric problem, and a (series of) sex crime(s) just waiting to happen.

Thus, if that's the basis of the defintion, yeah, maybe you're asexual, but whoop-de-do, so are 99%+ of all people. (In which case, campaigning for more "visibility and education" is complete bullshit, and just trying to oppress the marginal minority of non-asexuals, should they even exist. Aces already completely rule society, there's hardly anyone else than us around, for goodness sake!) Saying you're asexual is pretty damn irrelevant; don't waste people's time talking about it in public.

The much more likely scenario, of course, is that "asexuality" defined on ground of that criterion is complete bullshit and simply doesn't exist.

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?

Sexual Attraction: Who you want to sleep with. Which sex/gender will you seek out sex with.

Sexual Attraction is who you direct your sexual desire to. This attraction is sexual because it has to do with sex, obviously.

(sorry, quote function messed up, had to add the username by hand)

I think partner preference is a much better term for that than "sexual attraction". And yes, orientations are definitely about partner preference - I'm certain that the overwhelming majority of people would agree to that sentence.

Attraction does not define orientation (and that goes for every orientaion). Desire and preference does.

What you are calling attraction is just gender preference, also called orientation. Attraction is not orientation.

Seriously, this is one of those statements that should be effin' pinned right on top of every page of the boards. I could not agree more!

I don't believe it's a preference. I don't date guys because I prefer them, I date them because I'm attracted to them. You can't help who you are attracted to.

Sexual attraction: Attraction based on sexual desire.

This is not only Avens definition(in so many words) but everyone I can find in the English language with a quick google search. So despite feelings or confusion here that's what it actually means.

So that is to say sexual attraction is who you desire sexual interaction with. What you are suggesting as a definition, "asexual = no desire for sexual interaction" is the same thing as saying " a person who does not experience sexual attraction" except your definition says asexauls also cant have a libido - sexual interactions with themselves.

Gender preference is very close to orientation except it is missing a word. Sexual. Preferred gender sexually is closer. And this is again sexual attraction. The gender you prefer/desire sexually.

Exactly. The gender you desire to have sex with is sexual attraction. Just like the gender I desire to be romantic with is romantic attraction. Asexuals don't desire either gender. They also don't desire partnered sex.

[Lady Girl]

I think by definition sexual interaction involves two people.

in·ter·ac·tion

ˌintərˈakSHən/

noun

1. reciprocal action or influence.

   "ongoing interaction between the two languages"

[Vampyremage]

on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

That is not real. I doubt that anyone in the world actually feels "sexual attraction" like that; at the very least, I've never knowingly met a single person who does. Ifanyone does, they're in dire need of professional help, optimally while safely locked up, it sounds like a massive psychiatric problem, and a (series of) sex crime(s) just waiting to happen.

Thus, if that's the basis of the defintion, yeah, maybe you're asexual, but whoop-de-do, so are 99%+ of all people. (In which case, campaigning for more "visibility and education" is complete bullshit, and just trying to oppress the marginal minority of non-asexuals, should they even exist. Aces already completely rule society, there's hardly anyone else than us around, for goodness sake!) Saying you're asexual is pretty damn irrelevant; don't waste people's time talking about it in public.

The much more likely scenario, of course, is that "asexuality" defined on ground of that criterion is complete bullshit and simply doesn't exist.

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?

Sexual Attraction: Who you want to sleep with. Which sex/gender will you seek out sex with.

Sexual Attraction is who you direct your sexual desire to. This attraction is sexual because it has to do with sex, obviously.

(sorry, quote function messed up, had to add the username by hand)

I think partner preference is a much better term for that than "sexual attraction". And yes, orientations are definitely about partner preference - I'm certain that the overwhelming majority of people would agree to that sentence.

Attraction does not define orientation (and that goes for every orientaion). Desire and preference does.

What you are calling attraction is just gender preference, also called orientation. Attraction is not orientation.

Seriously, this is one of those statements that should be effin' pinned right on top of every page of the boards. I could not agree more!

I don't believe it's a preference. I don't date guys because I prefer them, I date them because I'm attracted to them. You can't help who you are attracted to.

Sexual attraction: Attraction based on sexual desire.

This is not only Avens definition(in so many words) but everyone I can find in the English language with a quick google search. So despite feelings or confusion here that's what it actually means.

So that is to say sexual attraction is who you desire sexual interaction with. What you are suggesting as a definition, "asexual = no desire for sexual interaction" is the same thing as saying " a person who does not experience sexual attraction" except your definition says asexauls also cant have a libido - sexual interactions with themselves.

Gender preference is very close to orientation except it is missing a word. Sexual. Preferred gender sexually is closer. And this is again sexual attraction. The gender you prefer/desire sexually.

So to build on what you posted earlier, lets say sexual attraction is attraction based upon sexual desire. We've all ready established that the desire for masturbation still counts as sexual desire although it is different than the desire for partnered sex. Thus, person A meets Person B, feels slightly aroused, appreciates how person B looks and goes home and masturbates to fantasies of person B because person A feels sexual desire. That sexual desire is not the desire for partnered sex (with person B or otherwise) but is clearly still sexual desire. Thus, Person A must be asexual despite experiencing sexual attraction because that sexual attraction triggered sexual desire (to masturbate).

[Turning]

It is interesting how many different definitions of desire, attraction and even asexuality there are. But, it does provide some very difficult conversations for those who want to educate others about asexuality. For example, following the asexuals can want/need sex and still be asexual definition:

"So, what is an asexual?"

"A person that doesn't experience sexual attraction"

"So, asexuals don't like sex?"

"Oh, no, some asexuals can enjoy sex and desire it. Even seek it out."

"Ok, then what's the difference?"

"An asexual doesn't experience sexual attraction to the person"

"So, they don't find people hot?"

"No, asexuals can find people aesthetically appealing"

"So, an asexual finds someone hot, wants sex with them, enjoys it and seeks it out? What is the difference between them and everyone else then?"

Honestly, confronted with that conversation, I would have no response beyond a shrug.

^This is possibly one of the best examples of how ridiculous it sounds to say some asexuals desire and seek out sexual interaction with others.

To be honest, I've often wondered about this scenario too, and I've mentioned it in other discussions:

Sam and Edward are at a party and meet an attractive girl. They both have the exact same reactions to her while they are chatting...they like her looks, they think she's funny, they both feel slightly aroused. They both experience what most people call sexual attraction. Sam takes her home and stays over and they have sex. Edward on the other hand, goes home and masturbates and is totally happy about it. Why? Because he's asexual and didn't desire sexual interaction in the first place. He probably wouldn't talk about it on AVEN though, because he would either not be asexual, or be told he experienced aesthetic or romantic attraction, but not sexual attraction since he identifies as asexual.

As to gender preference...I agree that is not attraction, it's gender preference. Attraction is being drawn to someone, as in, they attract your attention.

I agree with some of what your saying here except that if Edward did not desire sexual interaction with the girl (and this is the definition of sexual attraction - the desire to be with a person sexually) it was not sexual attraction. He may have been repulsed by actually having sex with her. It was simply sexual arousal at the thought of sex with her. She had sex appeal for him you could say. But if he didn't desire sexually interactions with her person he wasn't sexually attracted to her actual self.

[Turning]

I think by definition sexual interaction involves two people.

in·ter·ac·tion

ˌintərˈakSHən/

noun

1. reciprocal action or influence.

   "ongoing interaction between the two languages"

I was actually thinking of toys in this case - like your interacting with a sex toy. But I'm pretty sure you can interact with yourself anyway.

[WhenSummersGone]

on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

That is not real. I doubt that anyone in the world actually feels "sexual attraction" like that; at the very least, I've never knowingly met a single person who does. Ifanyone does, they're in dire need of professional help, optimally while safely locked up, it sounds like a massive psychiatric problem, and a (series of) sex crime(s) just waiting to happen.

Thus, if that's the basis of the defintion, yeah, maybe you're asexual, but whoop-de-do, so are 99%+ of all people. (In which case, campaigning for more "visibility and education" is complete bullshit, and just trying to oppress the marginal minority of non-asexuals, should they even exist. Aces already completely rule society, there's hardly anyone else than us around, for goodness sake!) Saying you're asexual is pretty damn irrelevant; don't waste people's time talking about it in public.

The much more likely scenario, of course, is that "asexuality" defined on ground of that criterion is complete bullshit and simply doesn't exist.

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?

Sexual Attraction: Who you want to sleep with. Which sex/gender will you seek out sex with.

Sexual Attraction is who you direct your sexual desire to. This attraction is sexual because it has to do with sex, obviously.

(sorry, quote function messed up, had to add the username by hand)

I think partner preference is a much better term for that than "sexual attraction". And yes, orientations are definitely about partner preference - I'm certain that the overwhelming majority of people would agree to that sentence.

Attraction does not define orientation (and that goes for every orientaion). Desire and preference does.

What you are calling attraction is just gender preference, also called orientation. Attraction is not orientation.

Seriously, this is one of those statements that should be effin' pinned right on top of every page of the boards. I could not agree more!

I don't believe it's a preference. I don't date guys because I prefer them, I date them because I'm attracted to them. You can't help who you are attracted to.

Sexual attraction: Attraction based on sexual desire.

This is not only Avens definition(in so many words) but everyone I can find in the English language with a quick google search. So despite feelings or confusion here that's what it actually means.

So that is to say sexual attraction is who you desire sexual interaction with. What you are suggesting as a definition, "asexual = no desire for sexual interaction" is the same thing as saying " a person who does not experience sexual attraction" except your definition says asexauls also cant have a libido - sexual interactions with themselves.

Gender preference is very close to orientation except it is missing a word. Sexual. Preferred gender sexually is closer. And this is again sexual attraction. The gender you prefer/desire sexually.

So to build on what you posted earlier, lets say sexual attraction is attraction based upon sexual desire. We've all ready established that the desire for masturbation still counts as sexual desire although it is different than the desire for partnered sex. Thus, person A meets Person B, feels slightly aroused, appreciates how person B looks and goes home and masturbates to fantasies of person B because person A feels sexual desire. That sexual desire is not the desire for partnered sex (with person B or otherwise) but is clearly still sexual desire. Thus, Person A must be asexual despite experiencing sexual attraction because that sexual attraction triggered sexual desire (to masturbate).

I think they mean sexual desire as in seeking out sex with that person. If they don't want sex with that person then I wouldn't call that sexual attraction.

[Arctangent]

I feel like a lot of the objections to the desire-based definition aren't actual objections to it, but misunderstandings of what we mean by "innate/intrinsic desire for partnered sex." Others have already done a good job clarifying these, and I suppose I'm a bit late to the party... but I'll go ahead and offer my own opinion anyway. My own views are based on personal observations, following discussions like this one, and talking to sexuals I know about their experiences.

No one is saying that asexuals who have a libido and masturbate should be excluded under the desire-based definition. I think most of us (if not all) can agree that a definition which excludes people who masturbate is needlessly exclusive and not very practical. When we talk about "sexual desire" in this context, we're talking specifically about the desire for partnered sex. Even if you consider masturbating a sexual act and the drive to do so a "sexual desire," solo masturbation does not involve a partner and therefore is not partnered sex.

This is related to the idea that masturbation can satisfy libido, but it cannot satisfy the desire for partnered sex. Consider the fact that when many sexuals go without sex for a long time, they experience an intense longing to have sex. In this state, masturbation doesn't cut it. It might be satisfying in its own way and temporarily resolve the tension of arousal, but it won't erase the feeling that they need to have sex with someone else. If it could, then it would seem all these "horny" sexuals are complaining for nothing, as their problem could be easily solved by a quick wank. But it's not that simple, and to me that suggests that libido and desire for partnered sex are distinct phenomena.

In general, I think the utility of the desire-based definition is that it captures something the attraction-based one does not - that people can desire sex without their desire being "directed" at anyone in particular, and for many sexuals, that is the fundamental aspect of their sexuality. Some interpretations of the attraction-based definition assume a model in which a person's attractions retroactively induce them to desire sex, but I don't think that's how it works for most sexuals. (That might, however, be accurate for demisexuals.) Most sexuals I've talked to can desire sex in the absence of attraction... and this is how you can end up with people engaging in situational sexual behavior that doesn't align with their sexual preference (e.g. heterosexuals who have sex with people of the same sex/gender in exclusively same-sex/gender environments, as in the military and some boarding schools) or having one night stands with people they don't find attractive. Those events make a lot more sense under a model of sexuality that includes desire rather than one based solely on attraction.

[Lady Girl]

To be honest, I've often wondered about this scenario too, and I've mentioned it in other discussions:

Sam and Edward are at a party and meet an attractive girl. They both have the exact same reactions to her while they are chatting...they like her looks, they think she's funny, they both feel slightly aroused. They both experience what most people call sexual attraction. Sam takes her home and stays over and they have sex. Edward on the other hand, goes home and masturbates and is totally happy about it. Why? Because he's asexual and didn't desire sexual interaction in the first place. He probably wouldn't talk about it on AVEN though, because he would either not be asexual, or be told he experienced aesthetic or romantic attraction, but not sexual attraction since he identifies as asexual.

As to gender preference...I agree that is not attraction, it's gender preference. Attraction is being drawn to someone, as in, they attract your attention.

I agree with some of what your saying here except that if Edward did not desire sexual interaction with the girl (and this is the definition of sexual attraction - the desire to be with a person sexually) it was not sexual attraction. He may have been repulsed by actually having sex with her. It was simply sexual arousal at the thought of sex with her. She had sex appeal for him you could say. But if he didn't desire sexually interactions with her person he wasn't sexually attracted to her actual self.

That's the kind of mental gymnastics people in this thread are talking about. Both guys experienced the same thing. One calls it sexual attraction and the other one can't...he can't define his asexual experience in simple terms of desire like he really should be able to. He feels he has a clear disconnect between sexual attraction and the desire for sexual interaction that his friend experiences.

Edit: And yes, what Law of Circles said.

[warrigan]

on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

That is not real. I doubt that anyone in the world actually feels "sexual attraction" like that; at the very least, I've never knowingly met a single person who does. Ifanyone does, they're in dire need of professional help, optimally while safely locked up, it sounds like a massive psychiatric problem, and a (series of) sex crime(s) just waiting to happen.

Thus, if that's the basis of the defintion, yeah, maybe you're asexual, but whoop-de-do, so are 99%+ of all people. (In which case, campaigning for more "visibility and education" is complete bullshit, and just trying to oppress the marginal minority of non-asexuals, should they even exist. Aces already completely rule society, there's hardly anyone else than us around, for goodness sake!) Saying you're asexual is pretty damn irrelevant; don't waste people's time talking about it in public.

The much more likely scenario, of course, is that "asexuality" defined on ground of that criterion is complete bullshit and simply doesn't exist.

i'm starting to suspect that you're simply refusing to attempt to understand my point of view. i had assumed that we already understood that our definitions of "attraction" and "desire" do not add up, but apparently not. what i'm trying to say is that from my point of view, sexual attraction is not something that decreases or gets satisfied by having a bunch of sex or increases by exposure to porn or whatever. it is something in your brain that happens regardless of outside influence (like, as someone has already mentioned, being on a deserted island). i don't know how you got raging sex lunatic from my explanation, but there you go. sometimes that happens when you focus on a portion of one sentence and ignore the rest of the post.