Defining asexuality - a better definition?

[Guest]

I'm posting this here instead of in the thread the discussion was happening in because it's off topic for that thread. If people from that thread want to continue the definitions debate it's probably better to do it here instead of derailing the other thread!

You want to change the definition of asexuality so that your experience fits into it? Fine. I propose [...]:

Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction and/or the lack of innate desire for partnered sex.

[...]

So one camp is defining the lack of attraction despite desire to have sex as asexuality, and the other camp is defining the presence of attraction but lack of desire to have sex as asexuality.

How about instead of both camps trying to claim that the other is actually sexual in order to strengthen their own place in the asexuality definitionboth camps just admit that they're both different kinds of asexuals?

No one needs to be voted off ace island here... Plenty of room for all.

Only if we're fine with accepting that we really are a club of special snowflakes here, and this "asexuality" thing isn't an actual real-world concept (let alone a legitimate orientation) that all these so-called "aces" would actually have in common.

Whatever the definition of asexuality is supposed to be, it needs to be strict enough to exclude people who don't fit it, otherwise it's worthless. If we don't "vote people off ace island" out of some PC super-inclusivity ideal, we're ruining asexual education and visibility. (And you bet that I consider this to be a major problem of AVEN - see my signature.)

The definition of asexuality that I suggested excludes those who experience sexual attraction toward others and also the innate desire for partnered sex.

Your a definition needs to be able to exclude people argument: ???

When I said "no one" I meant "no one in these subsets," as in "neither the aforementioned party identifying by lack of sexual attraction despite desire to have sex nor the aforementioned party identifying by lack of desire to have sex despite presence of sexual attraction," not literally "no one in the world." Perhaps that caused confusion.

So one camp is defining the lack of attraction despite desire to have sex as asexuality, and the other camp is defining the presence of attraction but lack of desire to have sex as asexuality.

How about instead of both camps trying to claim that the other is actually sexual in order to strengthen their own place in the asexuality definitionboth camps just admit that they're both different kinds of asexuals?

No one needs to be voted off ace island here... Plenty of room for all.

Only if we're fine with accepting that we really are a club of special snowflakes here, and this "asexuality" thing isn't an actual real-world concept (let alone a legitimate orientation) that all these so-called "aces" would actually have in common.

Whatever the definition of asexuality is supposed to be, it needs to be strict enough to exclude people who don't fit it, otherwise it's worthless. If we don't "vote people off ace island" out of some PC super-inclusivity ideal, we're ruining asexual education and visibility. (And you bet that I consider this to be a major problem of AVEN - see my signature.)

Okay sober (ish)

I disagree Mysticus! I think that people should totally be ''allowed'' to be asexual if they do desire partnered sex (for pleasure etc) because I mean, a lesbian woman can only want to have sex with men, only desire sex with men, only enjoy sex with men, never want to have sex with women ever, but still call herself a lesbian, right? As long as she does find women more aesthetically attractive to look she's totally gay even if she would never have sex with a woman and shudders at the thought of it. Sex is just so amazing with men, it feels so good.. so right. Sex with a woman would just be weird and awkward. But still.. totally gay.

Oh wait.. no, I am agreeing with you (as usual).. The fact is that if that was the definition of lesbian (''a lesbian is a woman who innately desires and prefers sex with men but finds women more attractive to look at'') then no one would take the label seriously and all lesbian women would be viewed as a joke, even the ones (you know, the homosexual ones) who do only desire partnered sex with other women and (often) experience discrimination etc because of that. People would roll their eyes and say ''Oh she's a lesbian, you know one of those special snowflakes who is actually just a regular straight woman that wants a special label''

So yeah sure, an asexual can be someone who desires sex, as long as we all agree that asexuality is a joke that only special snowflakes and confused sexual people identify with.

EDIT: Also at Katy, I'm not ''pushing anyone out to make room for myself''. I don't want or desire sex, ever, and I have had to suffer a lot throughout my life because of that.. how is that ''trying to make room for myself''? I just am what I am. I am making a stance for the visibility and education of asexuality (and trying to bring a greater understanding of sexuality to this community in the process, which is something sorely lacking here) ..I am not trying to squeeze myself into the ace label the way some of people who desire sex here do. This is just what I am. (and I identify in the grey area anyway which is really beside the point. I don't desire sex and am unable to have sexual relationships because of massive sexual disparity between myself and sexual people, that's all that matters)

And the very asexuals whom you are saying are not asexual are who they are, and have also suffered a lot throughout their lives because of their asexuality.

Someone might very well roll their eyes at you for saying youre sexually attracted to people and still claiming that youre not sexual. Someone might very well point out that engaging in sexualityeven without having partnered sexis the very definition of being sexual, and therefore youre not allowed to call yourself part of the asexual spectrum. But how would that make you feel? And more importantly, would it retroactively erase all those problems you have felt in your life by being unable to innately desire partnered sex, if they changed the definition on you, and then went on some kind of crusade where they told everyone that only their definition is asexual and your definition is plain and simply sexual and that's that?

Your analogy about the lesbian is flawed in that it would be more like a woman claiming to be a lesbian who has sex with men because in her culture its shameful for women to be with women, and also to not be married to men. Perhaps its also shameful to not have children. So she married a man and has sex with him, maybe for children, maybe to perform her wifely duties. Maybe every now and then she just wants sex and doesnt care who with so its easier for her to have sex with her husband than to go outside her marriage and have sex with a woman. Maybe she pretends her husband is a woman with a strap-on. You dont know. I dont know. Maybe she wishes she could enjoy sex with her husband just as him, but she can't.

Behavior ≠ orientation, and declaring that this woman who says I am a lesbian. This is who I am inside, regardless of what you see as an outside observer, treads dangerously close to invalidating transgender individuals who might say I am [this gender]. This is who I am inside, regardless of what you see as an outside observer. Is it your place to say that if it walks like a man and talks like a man, then it can only ever be a man even if they call themselves a woman? Is it your place to say that if it walks like a heterosexual and behaves like a heterosexual, then it must be a heterosexual even if she declares herself a lesbian?

More importantly, how does it hurt you to just say, Okay, sure, youre a lesbian and move on with your life and keep whatever skepticism you might have about it quietly? More than it would hurt oppressed lesbians who are pressured to perform heterosexuality for you to invalidate their homosexuality? Do the number of special snowflake kids who want to lie about being transgender warrant invalidating actual transgender people who just dont seem very transgender to you? Does the stray occurrence of a sexual person claiming to be asexual for the street cred warrant invalidating actual asexual people who experience asexuality differently than you do, and sometimes wish they could enjoy sex for sex's sake if only they were ever attracted to anyone ever?

Because everyone is Shroedingers Cat, and none of us on the outside know whats going on inside the box. So for you to take actions based on your conviction that either the cat is definitely alive and therefore we must keep feeding it or the cat is definitely dead and therefore we must throw the box into the incinerator will always risk either incinerating a live cat or wasting food on a dead one. Which is the greater tragedy, to you: unnecessarily wasted food or an unnecessary death?

You seem to err on the side of potentially unnecessary death; lets throw the baby out with the bathwater instead of risking keeping that damn bathwater around. It smells bad, or something.

But the prudence of humoring the asexual claims of people we may personally suspect to not be asexual because its preferable to becoming the arbiters of an asexual witch hunt is only a tangential point here. The real point Id like to bring us back to is this:

On what basis do you assert that your definition of asexuality holds more legitimacy than someone elses definition of asexuality?

Because I see you doing it oftenas in, I don't think I've seen a thread where you have allowed yourself to not step in and tell everyone else that your worldview is THE worldviewand I am curious as to where your authority on the matter comes from. Is it majority vote? Divine mandate? Professional qualifications and expertise? And which of these types of authority truly grants someone the right to tell other people what their own experiences "actually" are and are not?

The definition of asexuality that I suggested excludes those who experience sexual attraction toward others and also the innate desire for partnered sex.

Your a definition needs to be able to exclude people argument: ???

When I said "no one" I meant "no one in these subsets," as in "neither the aforementioned party identifying by lack of sexual attraction despite desire to have sex nor the aforementioned party identifying by lack of desire to have sex despite presence of sexual attraction," not literally "no one in the world." Perhaps that caused confusion.

As long as "sexual attraction" remains in the definition, it is too damn vague. Over 80% of AVENites in a 2013 poll said they do not think this term is consistently defined, and is used on AVEN in a way that the outside world doesn't use it. And if you take a vague term and add an "and/or" condition, it becomes even more vague; that's simple logic.

So, I cannot in good conscience be content with a definition of asexuality as long as it mentions "sexual attraction" at all.

A definition of asexuality that does not exclude people - i.e., that does not reliably give us the opportunity to agree to say "no, specific person X, you are not asexual" - fails as a definition. We must be able to draw a clear line, and tell the people beyond that line that whatever they may be, asexual they are not. Otherwise, we will never be taken seriously - because real orientations simply do not work that way. If a man only ever desires to date women, have sex with women, etc., but for some misguided reason chooses to call himself by the word "gay", it is not "invalidating his gayness" if we tell him "dude, you're straight, not gay". He really is not gay in any meaningful sense of the word. He would not fit into LGBT+ as anything else than as an ally, and accepting him as more than that would hurt an LGBT+ group's credibility.

In my opinion, it's high time we start doing the same here. Back in the days, AVEN - rightly - distanced itself from the raging elitism of the Nolibidoist Society. But over time, it overshot its mark and now is mired in the just as flawed opposite extreme. We have to row back from that, no matter the cries of "ohmegerd identity policing".

Mysticus said everything that really needs to be said, but I'll reply to some of the points directed at me

And the very asexuals whom you are saying are not asexual are who they are, and have also suffered a lot throughout their lives because of their asexuality.

Everyone suffers. But I meant suffering directly as a result of not wanting sex, forcing sexual partners who you love deeply into hellish situations where they aren't getting what they need sexually because you just don't want sex.. and you are suffering because you need them to not want sex and they just can't do that just as you can't want it. Sorry but someone who does want/desire/and actively enjoy sex and seeks it out as a result of that, just wouldn't experience what it's like to actually be an asexual perpetually without end. I'm sure the sexual partners of those ''aces'' who love sex and can't get enough of it aren't on this site desperately seeking help and guidance because their partner just doesn't want sex, ever.

Someone might very well roll their eyes at you for saying youre sexually attracted to people and still claiming that youre not sexual. Someone might very well point out that engaging in sexualityeven without having partnered sexis the very definition of being sexual, and therefore youre not allowed to call yourself part of the asexual spectrum. But how would that make you feel? And more importantly, would it retroactively erase all those problems you have felt in your life by being unable to innately desire partnered sex, if they changed the definition on you, and then went on some kind of crusade where they told everyone that only their definition is asexual and your definition is plain and simply sexual and that's that?

Yes I have been told that many times. We had a very vocal hypersexual attractionist here for some time who thought that if you find anyone attractive to look at, you're not asexual. They would go around telling everyone ''asexuals can love sex just as much as any sexual, I can't be happy without sex in my life, but I just don't have any preference to appearance. Looks just don't matter to me.. what I feel goes much deeper than looks. So yeah if you find people attractive, it doesn't matter if you've never wanted sex and will never have it, you're still sexual. Asexuals don't care about looks, and looks mean nothing to us. We desire sex for the enjoyment of sex itself, just for the natural pleasure another person can give us, not out of desire for the people we have it with''...And yes, this person had a lot of support on this site. Yet see what this is? It's underlying antisexuality and has nothing to do with orientation. It's saying ''my reasons for wanting sex are more pure than any sexuals reasons for having sex; my reasons are deeper, more special, so I am asexual'' ...

What you describe (the ''sexual attraction'' definition being the only 'real' definition) is what's already happening and we are making a stance against that not because we ''desperately want to fit the definition'' but because we know the definition as it's most commonly interpreted is incorrect.

Your analogy about the lesbian is flawed in that it would be more like a woman claiming to be a lesbian who has sex with men because in her culture its shameful for women to be with women, and also to not be married to men. Perhaps its also shameful to not have children. So she married a man and has sex with him, maybe for children, maybe to perform her wifely duties. Maybe every now and then she just wants sex and doesnt care who with so its easier for her to have sex with her husband than to go outside her marriage and have sex with a woman. Maybe she pretends her husband is a woman with a strap-on. You dont know. I dont know. Maybe she wishes she could enjoy sex with her husband just as him, but she can't.

Behavior ≠ orientation, and declaring that this woman who says I am a lesbian. This is who I am inside, regardless of what you see as an outside observer, treads dangerously close to invalidating transgender individuals who might say I am [this gender]. This is who I am inside, regardless of what you see as an outside observer. Is it your place to say that if it walks like a man and talks like a man, then it can only ever be a man even if they call themselves a woman? Is it your place to say that if it walks like a heterosexual and behaves like a heterosexual, then it must be a heterosexual even if she declares herself a lesbian?

I was not talking about a lesbian woman forced to act heterosexual due to whatever circumstances. How many asexuals live in sexual relationships and give their partners sex because it's either that or be alone? Thousands? Millions? How many gay people live the ''fake heterosexual'' life to avoid discrimination etc even though that causes them to suffer? That's all extremely common.

I was saying that someone who says ''I am gay because I'm a man and I love sex with women, I desire sex with women, I have no interest in having sex with men.. ew gross men'' will be told by gay people ''um no dude sorry, you're straight'' and that's all there is to it. Yet what we have here is exactly the same situation: People saying ''I am asexual, I love having sex I desire sex and I couldn't be happy without sex''. It's exactly the same thing. Asexuality is not a synonym for ''I want to have sex with anyone I don't care what they look like'' (which is where the sexual attraction definition gets you the way it's most commonly interpreted) asexuality means ''I don't want to have sex with anyone'' which is why it's only 1% of the population. It's extremely, extremely rare than an otherwise healthy person would just have no desire to have sex with anyone ever regardless of any other factor (like whether or not they find people attractive)

People who ''don't care about looks but still desire sex for pleasure'' are extremely common. There are also those who only desire sex when in love, but don't care about looks at all.. it's the quality of the bond they have with that person that counts. So now, if asexuality is all of a sudden like 20-40% of the population why are we even bothering? we aren't a minority! we are almost half the population! So why bother??

Not caring about looks is a-aesthetic, NOT asexual.. It's lacking any form of aesthetic attraction to other people. It has nothing to do with orientation. But many, many people interpret the 'sexual attraction' definition to mean it's all about looks. NO orientation is about looks, it's about which gender/s someone innately prefers to have sex with. An asexual does not have an innate desire to have sex with anyone, no desire to connect sexually with other people, which is what makes them asexual.

On what basis do you assert that your definition of asexuality holds more legitimacy than someone elses definition of asexuality?

Because I see you doing it oftenas in, I don't think I've seen a thread where you have allowed yourself to not step in and tell everyone else that your worldview is THE worldviewand I am curious as to where your authority on the matter comes from. Is it majority vote? Divine mandate? Professional qualifications and expertise? And which of these types of authority truly grants someone the right to tell other people what their own experiences "actually" are and are not?

Because we have sexual people here (and everywhere) looking at the reasons many people identify as ace (based on the sexual attraction definition) and saying ''hang on there mate, that's a normal sexual person''

...Many people are basing their asexuality around a massive misunderstanding of sexuality and what makes a ''normal sexual person'' ... So we get sexual people looking at us and laughing and mocking asexuality because ''they're just normal sexual people who don't have even the most basic understanding of what makes someone sexual'' (which is the fact that sexuals desire sex, for various reasons) ..Yet there is this underlying misconception in the asexual community that ''sexuals look at people they find attractive and want to fuck them because of the feelings they get about that persons appearance, and if you don't experience that you're asexual''

So you see, we have a duty to be as vocal as we are, to help people better understand what sexuality is and what it is not... Otherwise this underlying antisexuality will continue perpetually. Pretty much anyone who isn't a horny, raving, drooling beast that will fuck anything that looks good is asexual: Don't you see how wrong this is? How incorrect and... cruel it is, to sexual people?

So that's why we advocate a desire-based definition so strongly. Because that is the only thing, at the end of the day, that sets asexuals and sexuals apart. Sexuals desire partnered sex, for various reasons to varying extents. Asexuals just don't. That's it.

This understanding is based on years of active discussions in this community (discussions that are thousands and thousands of words long) where asexuals actually started listening to the words of sexual people, what they are saying, and actually trying to understand their perspectives (as opposed to just doggedly sticking to the ''sexuals get a special feeling relating to appearance that makes them want to have sex with people'' 'philosophy' perpetuated here). Aren't they the ''experts'' on what it means to be sexual? Shouldn't they know? How can we define asexuality based on a total lack of understanding as to what sexuality is? We can't. We need to first understand and comprehend ''normal sexuality'' (desiring sex with others for varying reasons to varying extents) then we can define what asexuality is (because asexuality is the lack of whatever makes sexual people sexual)

I used to be in favor of an and/or definition as well (I'd make posts thousands of words long discussing why the and/or definition was the best one) until I had sexual people (and clued up asexuals) telling me it was incorrect as long as the term sexual attraction is included because by that standard, someone can still love sex and not be able to be happy without it as long as they don't care who they have sex with or don't care about looks. and that is NOT ASEXUAL, it's a perfectly normal sexual person.

Myself and others (sexuals as well as asexuals) are trying to educate the asexual community as to what normal sexuality is. It's not some theory I have devised. It's just reality. Sexual people desire partnered sex. They aren't all shallow horny beasts who look at people and get horny and want to fuck based on those feelings. It's extremely important that the asexual community understands that sexual people just aren't that shallow. So someone who says ''I do desire sex, but not for the same reasons as sexual people... they find people attractive and lust after them and want to have sex with them.. for me it's deeper than that, I just love and desire the bond sex creates, which is why am asexual'' is actually just a normal sexual with an utter misunderstanding of normal sexuality, but that's rife in this community. The misconceptions about sexuals (and hence asexuality) are endless. That's why myself and others always speak up, because it's important. Education as to what ''normal sexual people'' are is vitally important for this community.

Why does it matter? Because asexuality is an extreme minority orientation and it's vitally important people understand it, instead of it being this mysterious indescribable thing no one can wrap their head around or accurately define, and that most sexual people laugh about and mock. Education is the only way we can have any hope of being taken seriously in the long run.

I replied in this thread because this conversation belongs here, although I did bow out of this thread ages ago because it does get extremely tiring explaining the same things in this much detail repeatedly, over and over and over. But yeah.. There's your answer.

[SpeedinThroughSpace]

I didn't want to post in a thread like this because the discussions and stuff scare me, but...

^^ This. All of it.

When I came across asexuality, I was surprised to find how well the experiences of aces reflect my own. I wanted to learn more about it. At first glance, when it was just reading people's experiences, it was like "wow, this stranger just described my life".

Then I encountered the definitions, the long threads of debates on what is asexuality and what isn't, on attraction and forms of attraction and damnit, I still don't really get any of it.

In trying to sort out myself and that whole asexuality thing, the most helpful and enlightening thing was reading the posts of sexual people here on AVEN (Telecaster and Skullery for example, to name just a few), because what they said is consistent in itself, and because of what they say makes sense. Many things around me never make sense if I look at them from my perspective. But if I consider what they say and how they say it, when I look at sexuality from their perspective as they describe it, it makes sense why people act the way they do.

By reading posts of sexual people on an asexual education website, I learned not only that I'm different from them in some basic traits (I was aware of that), but most importantly I learned that I don't understand sexuality at all. I am going to take the wild guess and say many people here don't understand it, that's partly because we're here.

What I kind of admire is that some of the sexual guys put up with this crap. I don't think I'd have the patience. I'm glad you guys do put up with us, because you are so much more enlightening than the definitions and debates.

Also, just to make sure this post is at least partly on topic for this thread: As a still somewhat confused sort of newbie, I vote for the desire definition. Desire is an easy to understand concept if you don't aim to shoot yourself up with semantics. Attraction is so vague nobody can agree on what exactly it is, it seems, and to someone who is trying to get some understanding of asexuality, it's not the least bit helpful.

[Star Bit]

(Yah, alot of aces don't get sexuals, just like alot of aros don't get romance. Rose Quartz, from Steven Universe, was on Earth for 5,000 years and she never understood it-- both of them actually. Well, conclusively the latter and assumably the former; especially since she doesn't have reproductive organs and wouldn't really even slightly understand it-- i.e. her son was created through shape-shifting a womb and microscopic manipulation.)

[Guest]

(Yah, alot of aces don't get sexuals, just like alot of aros don't get romance. Rose Quartz was on Earth for 5,000 years and she never understood it-- both of them actually)

Huh?

[Lost247365]

(Yah, alot of aces don't get sexuals, just like alot of aros don't get romance. Rose Quartz was on Earth for 5,000 years and she never understood it-- both of them actually)

Huh?

http://steven-universe.wikia.com/wiki/Rose_Quartz

[Star Bit]

[evidence of my previous comment: Despite how people probably read her physical and verbal actions, they're actually disclosed in the show as being because she views it as a neat new act; her culture literally has zero romantic relationships and asexually reproduces. Watch link, link, and link in order, or just watch episode 9 of the second season/episode 61 in total called "We need to talk". But note, if you plan to watch the series then the episode/clips have spoilers.]

Text version of the links if you don't want to/ can't watch the clips, or don't see the points I'm referring to.

The emphasis is on her lines "You're awfully cute, and i really wanna play with you", which is stated at the start of their third conversation after meeting, although it can also obviously be taken another way without the aro evidence (which happens later). and "Human man, you are so much fun. I hadn't planned on finding you quite this entertaining ... I like the way human beings play. I like playing along", which can be taken as creative/kid friendly lyrics without the next scene. and (full scene) "I love humans, you're all so funny." Greg finally realizes the unreciprocation and asks her if she respects him. She starts laughing. He gets upset. She asks "is this not how it works?", which again proves her uncomprehension of romance. Her laughter may have been because her culture doesn't have respect; just hierarchy and a job. He asks "have you loved other humans?" She answers yes, but he also asks "have you ever been in-love with a human?" She answers "how would i know?" (And the reason she agreeed to be in a romantic relationship with Greg and not Pearl is because she either didn't platonically love her enough to romantically compromise or because the line was already mentally drawn; preventing/mentally blocking her from acting so with other gems due to Gem culture. But she does have alot of platonic love.)

[binary suns]

there is so much about that post that makes me cry regarding the discussion of desire. if everything everyone is saying regarding desiring sex for physical pleasure is true, than she is not aromantic either. she just said, "i enjoy playing with you, I desire playing with you" and yet you insisted that she's aromantic

[Star Bit]

No, she literally wants to play (with these new things called humans); she doesn't desire a romantic relationship. Aromantics can enjoy romantic relationships, they just never desire them. He's literally a pet to her (and she comes to view him more equally). Her slanted words are like a new fun accent and she thinks she's playing a platonic game. Essentially she sees it like playfull "i hate you"s (which can be used platonically or romantically) or playfull doging on someone (which again can be used either way).

How can someone look that distantly uppon someone when they're both humanoid? Well, humans are quite different.

They have sex, romance, families/ brothers/ sisters/ fathers/ mothers, age, bleed, scar, lose body parts, need to eat, sleep, are born from another being rather than the ground, don't explore space (which probably causes Gems to view them primatively), don't have replacas, don't have supernatural abilities (e.g. fire breath), and they can't fuse, summon weapons from gems, live thousands of years/potentially forever, shapeshift, change their cloths/hairstyle at will, recede their body into a gem, or microscopicly manipulate their bodies, and they die from injuries rather than a broken gem, as well as can't be healed from death (rejoining gem shards with a specific serum). And at least so far in the show, i don't think Gem culture has platonic love either (or maybe more so toward other gem types/could feel something along the lines for their own gem replicas).

She's effectively going "ooh, new kitty, i really wanna play with you. I love how your kind shows platonic affection with grooming and cuddling". And remember that she has zero comprehension on what romance is/means because her culture is aro/ace. What if a cat could speak and inform you that those behaviors are romantic to them? Effectively their last conversation meant "do you love me?" yes "do you romantically love me?" what is romantic?

[Guest]

I think maybe someone could start their own thread about this Rose person? She doesn't seem to have much to do with the Asexuality definition debate, no offence :p

..Though if she wants to come and join the discussion here, that would be awesome! :lol:

[Star Bit]

Yah, i didnt think my mention of her would turn into this.

[purplemutant]

A person who experiences little to no sexual attraction and or little to no desire for partnered sex is a much better definition IMHO. It's waaayyy more comprehensible, especially considering how ambiguous the term "sexual attraction" is to a lot of people.

I still don't like attraction as part of the definition. What exactly is sexual attraction? If it's "I think you are hot and I want to have sex with you.". How is that any different than a desire for sex? I still like the desire based definition in my sig.

An asexual is someone who does not experience an innate desire for sex with other people.

Desire. Noun: "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen." Synonyms: Urge, Craving, Yearning.

That is far less complicated than attraction based definitions. I haven't been on here in ages but it seems that it's still the same back and forth over desire VS attraction. Part of the problem is in how other orientations are defined. People don't want to come out and say that homosexual = "I have a desire to fuck other men". They want to make gay more acceptable. So all other homo orientations are lumped together under the umbrella of gay. So gay = Homosexual, Homoromantic, Homosensual, and Homoesthetic. Are there any other I missed? So when it comes to asexuality it beccomes more difficult for people to understand. Maybe it would help if we could get gay people to start using proper orientation labels. There is nothing wrong with the term homosexual. Just because anti gay conservatives tend to use it; doesn't mean queer people shouldn't use it. If people can understand that Homosexual = "I want to fuck people of the same sex" then it might be easier for people to grasp that Asexual = "I don't want to fuck anyone". That of course is a simplification. But it does get the basic idea across.

[binary suns]

No, she literally wants to play (with these new things called humans); she doesn't desire a romantic relationship. Aromantics can enjoy romantic relationships, they just never desire them. He's literally a pet to her (and she comes to view him more equally). Her slanted words are like a new fun accent and she thinks she's playing a platonic game.

How can someone look that distantly uppon someone when they're both humanoid? Well, humans are quite different.

They have sex, romance, families/ brothers/ sisters/ fathers/ mothers, age, bleed, scar, lose body parts, need to eat, sleep, are born from another being rather than the ground, don't explore space (which probably causes Gems to view them primatively), don't have replacas, don't have supernatural abilities (e.g. fire breath), and they can't fuse, summon weapons from gems, live thousands of years/potentially forever, shapeshift, change their cloths/hairstyle at will, recede their body into a gem, or microscopicly manipulate their bodies, and they die from injuries rather than a broken gem, as well as can't be healed from death (rejoining gem shards with a specific serum). And at least so far in the show, i don't think Gem culture has platonic love either (or maybe more so toward other gem types/could feel something along the lines for their own gem replicas).

She's effectively going "ooh, new kitty, i really wanna play with you. I love how your kind shows platonic affection with grooming and cuddling". And remember that she has zero comprehension on what romance is/means because her culture is aro/ace. What if a cat could speak and inform you that those behaviors are romantic to them? Effectively their last conversation meant "do you love me?" yes "do you romantically love me?" what is romantic?

couldn't then the same thing be said about an asexual who enjoys sex enough to want to do it? we pet a cat and think of it as fun and enjoyable. we desire that fun experience. if the cat turned around and said "you always pet me, but you never go further! you are such a tease and I'm dont with you" we would stare at them and not know what to do. so, it strikes me as downright ignorant to say that anyone who physically loves sex is automatically sexual. it both says that asexuals cannot do a certain thing, which is logically false to begin with, and also implies that a sexual person is just a sex-addict with no further emotions than carnal pleasures, which just isn't true. there is more to sexuality than just arbitrary desire for personal release. if a person finds it fun to enjoy their own body by involving another person, that is not, by itself, sexual. if they say they desire it, that doesn't mean squat. what is sexual is a person enjoying another person's body, desiring contact with that person specifically, or desiring a physical "connection" in some way that is beyond just "this feels good so I like it and want it" just because it's more common for a sexual person to have sex without attraction/desire for that person, doesn't mean it's impossible for any person to do that.

[binary suns]

An asexual is someone who does not experience an innate desire for sex with other people.

Desire. Noun: "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen." Synonyms: Urge, Craving, Yearning.

I honestly like that definition. what is the problem with it? the vagueness of "innate"? vagueness and possibility of being misconstrued is kind of a guarantee with words in general, but I feel like it's a lot less uncertain what "innate" means - it literally implies the "lack of choice" ideology that dominates the mainstream orientation paradigms. it wouldn't be hard to write up a avenwiki entry that further explains the meaning of the definition and its history and yadayada, that's what wikipedia does with word definitions too.

I honestly believe it's possible to have "platonic" desire for sex. obviously not the true meaning of "platonic" hence the quoting it... but basically.... just a "non-innate" desire for it. it's like a massage. I have no innate desire for a massage. but if I found someone who gives great massages that make my day more manageable, I would go buy a massage from them every day. it's not because I'm "attracted to massages" because I'm literally not, I have no interest in pursuing a massage ever in my life. but if I happened to stumble upon someone who gave me perfect massages, I would "desire" their massage simply because it is something that feels good. why the hell would this not be true of any physical activity, even if the activity is partnered sex?

[Star Bit]

@purple

Maybe you should add "(even after foreplay)" to your sig? (i.e. half of sexuals require it to trigger their desire for sex)

And more so, the reason there's still a problem/this debate is still going on is because of how some cultures define orientations; in other cultures it's defined by desire. And so many asexuals (and some sexuals) are misinformed on what sexuality is or unaware of the problems with the banner. Sexual attraction is just a word that got popularized. Oxford dictionary says the phrase was created in the late 18th century, so how do you think they defined orientations before that? Sexual orientations were invinted in 1892, so they didn't use those either. And because there are variant experiences in sexuality they started using the word to refer to all of those things; things it doesn't even actually refer to (i.e. why people define it differently but why every dictionary defines it exactly the same).

And to your list of homo[insert attraction suffix], there is emotional attraction (i.e. the fixation on someone because of their emotions/personality; e.g. stoicless, optimism, etc.; like a favorite character or admiration), but homoemotional doesn't sound right lol. Having the urge to get to know someone is also normally present in romantic attraction, but because it's called platonic attraction that wouldn't really fit.

Also, i think the understanding part will more so come from people admiting that sexual orientations were made for how animals mate, and not every animal is monogamous/romantic.

[Star Bit]

@Swanky

couldn't the same be said of an asexual who enjoys sex enough to want it?

Once again, no, you're not getting it through your skull that the two are different things; desire and enjoyment. What you described is DESIRE. And while yes, enjoyment normally triggers desire, it doesn't always. If you're left coming back for more then that's desire, if you don't then that normally means there is none.

LMAO at the cat quote (it's funnier because i imagined my cat saying it; he's very affectionate)

[binary suns]

I know that. I am not stupid. stop assuming i'm stupid. wtf.

I Am saying. that when someone enjoys something. and then says well I enjoy it, so I should do it, because I enjoy it. that can be called desire.

but "sexual desire" is not that. sexual desire, is desiring something no matter whether you enjoy it or not, not wanting it just because you know it's fun. wanting something because it is fun can happen for anyone who finds something fun.

enjoy is not desire. but it impossible to enjoy something and be incapable of desiring it.

[Star Bit]

BECAUSE I KEEP HAVING TO REPEAT MYSELF.

(to other people, this has been repeated on another thread)

And yes, sexual desire IS what you just said in your second sentence.

Again, sexual people desire sex for MANY reasons; desiring it period is sexual.

Like i said, you're not comprehending what enjoyment without desire is.

I plaid tennis with my bff once, it was enjoyable (probably kuz i liked making her happy and hitting things is always fun) but i do not have a desire to play tennis.

[binary suns]

I have to keep repeating myself. but I do not accuse you of not getting it through your skull.

[Star Bit]

Because you keep trying to defend your argument with the same stuff and we (sexuals and asexuals) keep having to tell you the 100% truth that it's an absalutely normal sexual person consisting of HALF the sexual population, and that sexual people desire sex for many more reasons than just that. It's hard for some asexuals to comprehend sexuality because they can't experience it.

[WhenSummersGone]

There has been many things I have enjoyed but don't desire to do. Like I enjoyed New York when I went there but I'm not that interested in going there again. I also enjoy eating popcorn and chips but I don't have a desire to eat them. I desire sweets. So enjoyment doesn't mean you desire it and you can desire something without enjoying it as well.

[Star Bit]

Um, about a previous topic, what would be secondary romantic desire?

Also, i think "any form of sex" should be added to the ace definition as well; we occasionally get people who only desire non-penetrative sex and confuse it for asexuality.

[binary suns]

Um, about a previous topic, what would be secondary romantic desire?

I think it would be something not quite comparabe to sexual desire or to attraction...

so if the "leymans terms" for attraction is "reactive attraction" verses "dependent attraction"

and the leymans terms for sexual desire is sex for personal pleasure verse sex for a function....

I guess that for both, the "secondary" experience is dependant on something external, while the "primary" experience is some kind of immediate or subconsious drive...

maybe one example of "primary romantic desire" would be when a crush involves a need for reciprocation, instead of just infatuation?

maybe one example of "secondary romantic desire" could be.... controversially.... the desire for a QPR....

[Rising Sun]

Wait, if you say that, then all desire for friendship are secondary romantic desire. Meaning that platonic love doesn't exist. Yes, this is controversial to say the least.

[binary suns]

A second topic regarding primary verse secondary sexual desire, is that actually, it is "desire for oneself" verses "desire for external" which means that, a sexual's desire for sex for a partner's sexual release can be simultaneously primary and secondary - that they desire the involvement of another person's experiences, which is external and often depends on whether or not that person is attractive, as well as the need for "feeling" that connection which is mostly primary but also requires an external source. so the current primary verse secondary discussion of sexual desire is actuall imperfect, as the "true feeling" of sexual desire is not wholly separable into the two categories.

Basically... when there is desire for a partner's happiness for the sake of one's own happiness, it is partially "Secondary" without it being clearly separable from the primary nature of the experience.

oh wait... when I put it that way, that is exactly what is "secondary".... desiring a partner's happiness/pleasure for one's own satisfaction, even if that form of "satisfaction" is itself the same type of pleasure that is desired.

but then... "primary sexual desire" completely misses the "partnered sex" situation entirely

[binary suns]

Over here (Germany), not only is it not taught in schools, it's not talked about outside of schools, either. Orientations simply aren't defined by "sexual attraction", but by patterns of sexual desire (Verlangen). Your sexuality is not who you are "attracted" to... it's who you desire to have partnered sex with. Asexuals don't desire to have sex with anyone, regardless of who and in what way they are "attracted to"... and the definition of asexuality used on AVEN.de - with a very broad consensus, to boot - reflects this perfectly: Asexuality = no desire/urge (Verlangen) for sexual interaction. The English definition is woefully vague and unclear in comparison.

I feel a lot more confident with that defination that Myst is offering from the German definition. And I definitely feel that there is a definitive difference between a "desire/urge" and a "want" and I'm not sure about Verlangen in the German language, but I feel that the word "desire" also has a less common but valid usage that means "want" instead of "urge".

But my point returns to that the "primary verses secondary sexual desire" fails to encapture what makes "sexual desire" sexual. Either both are sexual, or both are inconclusive regarding sexuality.

I'd like to say that "wanting" is secondary while "urge" is primary, but that doesn't line up with the current way of defining "primary verse secondary sexual desire"

edit: actually, I feel that the "primary verse secondary desire" should be "urge/longing verses wanting/choice"

[Rising Sun]

If there is secondary romantic desire, then I could easily imagine it in a couple where one of the partners fell out of love, but still has romantic gestures towards their partner because they genuinely want to make them happy, which make them both happy in return.

[binary suns]

Wait, if you say that, then all desire for friendship are secondary romantic desire. Meaning that platonic love doesn't exist. Yes, this is controversial to say the least.

well, no. friendships are both not necessarily mutual, nor "exclusive within the relationship" - that a friend of a friend is not necessarily a friend.

and when a person feels jealous of a friend having other friends, or if they feel a need for that friend's attention, that friend often feels uncomfortable, as if they worry that friendship is too romantic. and there is also the whole "friend so close it's practically romantic" thing too - that is not all friendships, that is only some of them.

in a way, it is exactly "grey romantic" - it is either not romantic but seems romantic such that it's a grey area, or it is romantic but seems not romantic such that it's a grey area.

so no - not all desire for friendship is "grey romantic" but some is close enough that it is, technically, "grey romantic". and those friendships are actually the ones that are considered a "qpr friendship" - so this is why I say that any feelings of desire for a "qpr" might be grey romantic. I don't think that the experience of "qpr attraction" that people claim to be would be quite "Grey" attraction - but that if there is a following desire for a relationship as opposed to just infatuation, at that point it would be grey.

[Rising Sun]

I certainly wouldn't compare QP with grey. QPRs are friendships with atypical features that others might confuse with romantic, but emotionally they aren't like that at all. TBH I find that terrible to always confuse them with some kind of atypical romance. It's as if you can't have committed 100% platonic feelings towards someone. As soon as you mention having platonic feelings with desire for commitment, people look at you as if you said "I've seen a unicorn". Apparently such feelings can't exist. They must be romantic in some way or otherwise it "does not compute". It makes me sad to see these feelings (the kind of feelings I have very often) being invalidated by others. Because yes, that's erasure, nothing less.

[binary suns]

well, while it is considered that "secondary sexual attraction" is demisexuality AKA a subcategory of grey, it is also considered that "wanting sex for the sake of a partner" is secondary desire, and is not even "Grey" but just neutral in regards to sexuality.

it is true that I actually personally feel that wanting sex for the sake of a partner's needs (not just agreeing to it out of compromise, but rather sex "feels romantically affirming" it because of the partner's needs for it) would be grey... but actually even then, we'd then consider my proposed "Secondary desire" meaning "sex out of wanting or choice" rather than the current definition of "sex for external reasons" and would still involve compromise as a choice/want and compromise is definitely not even grey.

so basically... just because it is "secondary romantic desire" doesn't mean that it is grey.

edit: also.... it is the case that people DO (but not all people do) find familial love to be romantically stimulating. not that they say "familial love is romantic love" of course xD But rather that it partially fires up the same feelings of romantic appreciation that romantic courting would. like... they would not call it anything to do with romantic orientation, but they find it romantic. like how I can sometimes appreciate and like romantic movies or songs, even though I ID as aromantic.

oh, it's like, well maybe this is a bad example, but it's like porn being used for masturbation. that doesn't make it a sexual experience, but it is a sexual experience.

ugh stupid english language being too ambiguous... basically, it is "sexual" in the meaning of "relating to sexuality" but it is not "sexual" as in "Actual sexuality"

so
I'm just making things worse aren't I....

[Frigid Pink]

"romantic desire" doesn't have anything to do with "asexuality" or how to define it. I suggest further discussion of this topic in another thread in order to not to completely derail this thread from its original topic.

I really like Anthony Bogaert's proposed definitions from this scholarly article about "asexuality":

"an enduring lack of sexual desire for others" as well as "an enduring lack of sexual inclinations/feelings towards others"