Jump to content

Defining asexuality - a better definition?


thjb

  

779 members have voted

  1. 1. Please select your orientation;

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

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

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

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

binary suns

"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"

Well, at the risk of sounding elitist, I certainly feel that asexuality is indeed that. that, a lot of previously considered "asexual experiences" such as feeling attracted to fictional characters, or becoming physically aroused when cuddling, are for example both immediately "asexual disqualifies" that put a person on the grey spectrum.

but of course... it's a grey area. descriptively, by this manner an asexual is someone who not even once feels attraction or desire. but, people who are attracted homosexually but desire only hetero, for example, consider themselves heterosexual and not bi - even though, technically speaking, they are bi - it's just ultimately meaningless to bother making that distinction for them. so someone being "Grey" isn't forced to ID any way. That the meaning of the identity is prescriptive - but the use of the id is for function, in the end. (oops I may be introducing another way this could go off-topic... :unsure: )

Link to post
Share on other sites

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"

Yeah, well... that's exactly what we've been trying to say with the "inherent/innate/primary/InsertAdjectiveHere desire". And I wouldn't want (heh) to get the word "want" in there, either way... because that word really can too easily be read to mean either - both the more "primal" urge/longing, and the far more circumstantial choose/agree to.

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.

Completely agreed with what you're saying there... but as I said, I'm wary of using the ambiguous word "want" in it, at all.

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.

Ooooh, Careful, thin ice! :D :P

I already caught a lot of flak once for saying that I consider the love between a mother and her baby/toddler to be very romantic... and possibly the only kind of healthy, adequate romance I can imagine and not get repulsed by.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

Well, at the risk of sounding elitist, I certainly feel that asexuality is indeed that. that, a lot of previously considered "asexual experiences" such as feeling attracted to fictional characters, or becoming physically aroused when cuddling, are for example both immediately "asexual disqualifies" that put a person on the grey spectrum.

but of course... it's a grey area. descriptively, by this manner an asexual is someone who not even once feels attraction or desire. but, people who are attracted homosexually but desire only hetero, for example, consider themselves heterosexual and not bi - even though, technically speaking, they are bi - it's just ultimately meaningless to bother making that distinction for them. so someone being "Grey" isn't forced to ID any way. That the meaning of the identity is prescriptive - but the use of the id is for function, in the end. (oops I may be introducing another way this could go off-topic... :unsure: )

I disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

"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"

Well, at the risk of sounding elitist, I certainly feel that asexuality is indeed that. that, a lot of previously considered "asexual experiences" such as feeling attracted to fictional characters, or becoming physically aroused when cuddling, are for example both immediately "asexual disqualifies" that put a person on the grey spectrum.

but of course... it's a grey area. descriptively, by this manner an asexual is someone who not even once feels attraction or desire. but, people who are attracted homosexually but desire only hetero, for example, consider themselves heterosexual and not bi - even though, technically speaking, they are bi - it's just ultimately meaningless to bother making that distinction for them. so someone being "Grey" isn't forced to ID any way. That the meaning of the identity is prescriptive - but the use of the id is for function, in the end. (oops I may be introducing another way this could go off-topic... :unsure: )

I disagree.

please elaborate

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

, I'm wary of using the ambiguous word "want" in it, at all.

Me too. but I don't know of any better word. Because "wanting" is what it is - it is just not "urge/longing/need"

if someone says, "do you want vanilla or strawberry cake" and you are me who doesn't like either cake but it's carbs so you'll eat it for sustenance, you will answer "I want vanilla please" because first off it's socially polite and expected, and second off it is valid because while you really desire chocolate cake that isn't one of the options, but you do want food in your body and find those cakes sweet even though you don't really enjoy them.

and someone who wants to have sex because their partner wants it, does want to have sex. but they do not feel the "urge/longing/need" for it that identifies sexuality.

and, while both "want" and "desire" are pretty interchangeable, and also sometimes interchangeable with "choose" or "urge" too, both "choose" and "urge" are too extreme that people will generally not like using them or find them useful, but with "want" compared to "desire" they might at face value be able to tell which means which, and it isn't too difficult to explain that "sexual desire is a drive, urge, longing, or need for sex or sexual courtship/coupling" and then if they want to know why certain "wants" for partnered interaction are not sexual it wouldn't be hard to say "in this case, it is more like a want than a desire. there isn't some kind of urge, longing, or need for it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or to some people, would the inclusion of "any type of sex" in the ace definition exclude aces who masturbate? Meh, i don't think so; phrasing it either way would still disqualify them to people who think masturbation is sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Desire this, desire that, I think purplemutant said it best: Asexual = "I don't want to fuck anyone". This is what should be on top of this site:

An asexual person is a person who does not want to fuck anyone.

Why do we have to be so politically correct all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rising Sun

Celibate people also don't want to fuck anyone. How is asexuality different from celibacy then ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because celibate sexuals DO have a desire for sex, they're just not acting on it for other reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rising Sun

Star Bit, I know that, but as explained before, wanting is an intellectual decision, something you choose, not like an urge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I get it. But it's a quick way to explain asexuality to some hillbilly.

"You are asexual, what's that?"

"I don't want to fuck anyone."

"Not even a goat?"

"Not even a goat."

"OK, then. You asexuals are weird, but I get it."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lost247365

"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"

Well, at the risk of sounding elitist, I certainly feel that asexuality is indeed that. that, a lot of previously considered "asexual experiences" such as feeling attracted to fictional characters, or becoming physically aroused when cuddling, are for example both immediately "asexual disqualifies" that put a person on the grey spectrum.

but of course... it's a grey area. descriptively, by this manner an asexual is someone who not even once feels attraction or desire. but, people who are attracted homosexually but desire only hetero, for example, consider themselves heterosexual and not bi - even though, technically speaking, they are bi - it's just ultimately meaningless to bother making that distinction for them. so someone being "Grey" isn't forced to ID any way. That the meaning of the identity is prescriptive - but the use of the id is for function, in the end. (oops I may be introducing another way this could go off-topic... :unsure: )

I disagree.

I agree with your disagreement to that post.

please elaborate

I can't and won't speak for pink, but I disagree with your assessment on feeling attracted to fictional characters or experiencing physical arousal being disqualifiers for asexuality. The former is abstract concept and not a real person. The latter is a physical reaction.

Neither one imply that one desires to have sex with another person. Nor do I feel a person who is attracted to the same sex but ONLY desires sex with the opposite sex is bi by any definition. There are many attractions, and just being attracted to someone (lets say aesthetically) is not sufficient to make one bisexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

Well, at the risk of sounding elitist, I certainly feel that asexuality is indeed that. that, a lot of previously considered "asexual experiences" such as feeling attracted to fictional characters, or becoming physically aroused when cuddling, are for example both immediately "asexual disqualifies" that put a person on the grey spectrum.

but of course... it's a grey area. descriptively, by this manner an asexual is someone who not even once feels attraction or desire. but, people who are attracted homosexually but desire only hetero, for example, consider themselves heterosexual and not bi - even though, technically speaking, they are bi - it's just ultimately meaningless to bother making that distinction for them. so someone being "Grey" isn't forced to ID any way. That the meaning of the identity is prescriptive - but the use of the id is for function, in the end. (oops I may be introducing another way this could go off-topic... :unsure: )

I disagree.

please elaborate

I've elaborated in previous posts in this thread multiple times before and have no desire to repeat myself or engage in a discussion or argument about that disagreement because I know my disagreement to the particular statements you made won't change, hence, there's really no discussion to be had on my part.

I posted at all because people currently engaging in this thread may not have viewed the previous posts and I wanted to make sure it was known that there's a dissenting opinion to the statements made. I'm only elaborating a bit more now so that people currently engaging in this thread know that these opinions have been expressed by myself and others previously in this thread so anyone who desires to do so can look back if they're interested in what those opinions are and have been.

(please see summary posted previously at the end of this post)

Desire this, desire that, I think purplemutant said it best: Asexual = "I don't want to fuck anyone". This is what should be on top of this site:

An asexual person is a person who does not want to fuck anyone.

Why do we have to be so politically correct all the time.

I dislike the term "fuck" (don't use it) and know that all people who desire sex with others don't desire to "fuck" others. It's similar to other words like "bang" and "screw," which are generally negative and violent in connotation (see quoted post "Sex. Who Gets Screwed?" below).

"One day I asked my class to think of slang words for sex. I got the following list:

Screw, f-, bang, nail, ram, smash, smack that, beat those, cut, boning, git-in-em-guts, get some trim, get some grip, do it, get some pussy, nasty time, make love.

I don’t know about you, but I only want to do one of those things.

Most of this list suggests a good deal of violence. And who gets screwed, rammed, nailed, cut, boned, banged, smacked, beaten, and f’d, anyway?

Really, it isn’t pretty.

The music I grew up on offered the B-52’s singing “Bang, bang, bang (on the door baby),” David Bowie intoning, “Wham, bam, thank you ma’am,” and the Tubes celebrating the raw tuna of a sushi girl. A nice piece of meat.

A DJ interrupts to suggest, “Could you trim that thing?”

It all sounds so appealing.

And we wonder why women indicate less sexual interest than men on surveys. But these words are only a small tip of that iceberg."

(summary posted previously in this thread)

POLL 1 : Do you think the definition of asexuality given by AVEN ought to describe asexuality in a way that is both concise and easy to understand?

- Yes

- No (please do elaborate if this is what you vote for)

- Abstain/other

POLL 2 : Do you think AVEN'S current definition ("no sexual attraction") fulfills these criteria?

- Yes, it fulfills them well

- Somewhat, but could do with improvement

- No, it does not fulfill them at all

- Abstain/other

POLL 3 : Which of these proposed definitions do you think fulfills the criteria best? "An asexual person is somebody...

- who does not experience sexual attraction." (current AVEN definition)

- who does not innately desire partnered sex with anyone."

- who does not innately desire partnered sex with anyone and/or does not experience sexual attraction".

- who does not not innately desire partnered sex with anyone and does not experience sexual attraction".

- none of the above fulfills the criteria adequately

- - -

- Main thread text -

- - -

If you have been following the long thread about defining asexuality, you will already be aware of the problems that have been raised about AVEN's current definition ("no sexual attraction"):

  • "sexual attraction" is a vague, ambiguous, and ill-defined concept, that is probably not used outside of AVEN in the same way as it is on here (cf. this poll thread made last year). The multitudes of "What is sexual attraction?" threads/questions on AVEN just confirm this.
  • despite claims to the contrary, attraction is not universally agreed upon as the basis for orientations (cf. German and Dutch Wikipedia, German AVEN)
  • the preference for the term "sexual attraction" in US English is culturally dependent and requires sociological and political background knowledge; since English is the internet language, this site will have readers and members from other countries who speak English as a second language and do not have this background knowledge. If they do not have access to a more understandable definition in their native language, this will hinder their capability to understand the definition.
  • all other sexual orientations do have a strong basis in describing the innate desire for sex with partners of sex/gender X, even in cultures/languages where this is worded as "sexual attraction". To bring asexuality closer to the definition of other orientations, "no innate desire for partnered sex" must become a concept reflected by the definition of asexuality
  • attraction implies that external factors are involved and implies strong situational factors; defining asexuality this way directly provokes the perfectly justified reply "you just haven't met the right person yet". In contrast, the innate desire for sex is a completely internal factor, that is far harder to invalidate as an inherent trait of personality/identity.
  • as a further problem with the previous point, the translations of "sexual attraction" offered by Wikipedia in languages such as German and Dutch - yet again - describe sex appeal and attractivity, traits of people who evoke sexual feelings and flirtatiousness in others. If this is the best translation some languages have to offer, we risk sending the signal that asexuals are mousy geeks who "can't get any".
  • AVEN's main FAQ currently defines sexual attraction as the desire for partnered sex. While this has been a long overdue step forward for clarity of what "sexual attraction" in the main definition is supposed to mean, there have been people who complained right from the start that a blanket equation between these two concepts is incorrect.

Due to these problems, we - the folks who have been regularly active in the thread mentioned above - consider it due time to put the validity of AVEN's definition up for debate on a more official level, to see if a move for a change of AVEN's definition of asexuality is mandated by the community.

Please vote and discuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

"I posted so many times before and gave up posting" that's insulting. why even tell me you disagree, if you're just going to snub me for my not being around all the time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Frigid Pink

why even tell me you disagree

(below is quoted from my previous post)

I posted at all because people currently engaging in this thread may not have viewed the previous posts and I wanted to make sure it was known that there's a dissenting opinion to the statements made. I'm only elaborating a bit more now so that people currently engaging in this thread know that these opinions have been expressed by myself and others previously in this thread so anyone who desires to do so can look back if they're interested in what those opinions are and have been.

(please see summary posted previously at the end of this post)

Link to post
Share on other sites
purplemutant

Desire this, desire that, I think purplemutant said it best: Asexual = "I don't want to fuck anyone". This is what should be on top of this site:

An asexual person is a person who does not want to fuck anyone.

Why do we have to be so politically correct all the time.

More specifically I would say "An asexual is person who has no urge to fuck other people". I like to make a distinction between urge and want. The urge to have sex is strong enough that people seem to think it's a need. Where as want is more of an "I would like that. But it's fine if I can't have it". Of course some people would argue that anyone who has any interest in sex isn't asexual. If a man is interested in gay sex out of curiosity or because there are no women around. That doesn't make him a homosexual. I would argue that it's possible for aces to have an interest in sex and still be ace. Provided what they lack is the urge/desire for sex. Of course my hair splitting might be due to my own issues with my sexualtiy. Right now I am not sure if I am ace or a lesbian. I guess by splitting hairs I can be both. The idea of sensual activities with a woman turns me on. If I were to engage in such activities I would likely get sexually aroused. In my hair splitting any resulting sex wouldn't disqualify me from being ace since the desire was for the cuddling and not the sex.

So I guess one question is this. If it's possible for aces to have sex for reproduction or to please a partner. Can an an ace have sex to relieve unintended sexual arousal? When I get an itch I want to scratch it. Sometimes I get the itch when I don't want it. But I still tend to scratch it anyway. At that point any masturbation is really just relieving tension and not for the sake of sexual pleasure. I guess sex and aces really comes down to the intent behind the sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Frigid Pink

I guess sex and aces really comes down to the intent behind the sex.

Yes, it's the feelings behind the actions (the desire) and not the actions themselves (the behavior) that determines sexual orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

so here is my question - if a person who wants sex for physical pleasure, but does not desire sex for physical pleasure, is that person ace or grey? if that person is grey, then why is someone who wants sex for any reason not automatically grey? I just fail to see how there is some arbitrary difference within wanting something for any reason - basically, to want something, a reason is required, but to desire something does not care about reason at all - it is pure intrinsic emotion. so why should the reason for why a person chooses to want something make any difference at all?

edit: basically, if it is possible to say that wanting something for the function of pleasure is the same as desiring something intrinsically - then it is not true that desire is intrinsic in any way. that even though the reason is hidden, then desire is not something we are born with, but rather, bred with. basically, that to say "an asexual person cannot choose to want sex due to physical pleasure" is entirely counter to the whole "born this way" paradigm. If wanting something purely for a function is the same as desiring something due to orientation - then orientation is a fallacy that does not exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

Desire this, desire that, I think purplemutant said it best: Asexual = "I don't want to fuck anyone". This is what should be on top of this site:

An asexual person is a person who does not want to fuck anyone.

Why do we have to be so politically correct all the time.

sorry for not replying to this before. but the existence of this thread doesn't have anything to do with being politically correct - what it does have do with, is in maximizing the visibility efforts of the asexual community. basically, that it's been found that the definition "an asexual person is someone who does not experience sexual attraction" can be very confusing, and it's been observed that essentially that definition is assuming that "sexual attraction" is synonomous with "sexual desire" and so as such, there is a movement to change the definition to something along the line of, "an asexual person is someone who does not experience sexual desire"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lost247365

so here is my question - if a person who wants sex for physical pleasure, but does not desire sex for physical pleasure, is that person ace or grey?

IMHO, Wanting sex for sexual pleasure vs desiring sex for sexual pleasure is a distinction without a difference. It is the same thing. If you want sex because sex is pleasurable and you seek it out- then that is not asexuality.

Mandatory cake analogy-I like spice cake. I find eating it to be pleasurable. I do not desire or want a spice cake though. There is no want or desire for it. This is pleasure without want/desire. If the pleasure I received from eating a spice cake was such that I wanted one, that I sought one out...that is desire with pleasure.

if that person is grey, then why is someone who wants sex for any reason not automatically grey? I just fail to see how there is some arbitrary difference within wanting something for any reason - basically, to want something, a reason is required, but to desire something does not care about reason at all - it is pure intrinsic emotion. so why should the reason for why a person chooses to want something make any difference at all?

I don't think that person is gray at all. But I do see a difference between want and desire. I see a "want" as purely relative and instrumental. It is a grand result of various desires and aversions. For instance an sex-averse asexual woman could want give birth to her own child. She desires to have a kid, but not only does she not desire to have sex but finds the idea repellent. However, her desire to be a mother could be so strong that it overcomes her sex-averse asexuality and it could be said that she wants sex (to have a baby).

The thing is here...she doesn't really desire to have sex. She desires a baby. But to have a baby she feels she has to have. So she wants sex (for the instrumental reason of having her own baby) but doesn't desire it. Desires, at least in the way i use the word with reference to asexuality, are intrinsic. To be a desire it has to be for the desired thing in and of itself.

There are many ways to have pleasure that are easier than finding another person to have sex with. Masturbation does the job just fine and is way easier. An asexual person would be just fine masturbating and wouldn't ever feel the need to involve another person with it. If someone volunteered and the ace was sex-favorable they might say "sure" but they wouldn't seek it out or desire it.

But if they want the SPECIFIC pleasure of having sex with someone else, that is a desire to have sex for the sake of having sex. It is intrinsic. That is why I call your example above a distinction without a difference.

edit: basically, if it is possible to say that wanting something for the function of pleasure is the same as desiring something intrinsically - then it is not true that desire is intrinsic in any way. that even though the reason is hidden, then desire is not something we are born with, but rather, bred with. basically, that to say "an asexual person cannot choose to want sex due to physical pleasure" is entirely counter to the whole "born this way" paradigm. If wanting something purely for a function is the same as desiring something due to orientation - then orientation is a fallacy that does not exist.

Again, imagine the sex favorable ace. ((S)he will not desire sex, but pleasure and take it from wherever they can get it. Since (s)he wants pleasure and can get it through masturbation easier they will almost always take that route and not worry or want to have sex. If someone just happens to be there and offer to have sex with them, well the more the merrier. They don't desire sex, they desire pleasure.

HOWEVER, if (s)he wanted the specific pleasure that one gets from sex itself, that would be a desire for sex...for the sake of sex. That is an intrinsic desire.

sorry for not replying to this before. but the existence of this thread doesn't have anything to do with being politically correct - what it does have do with, is in maximizing the visibility efforts of the asexual community. basically, that it's been found that the definition "an asexual person is someone who does not experience sexual attraction" can be very confusing, and it's been observed that essentially that definition is assuming that "sexual attraction" is synonomous with "sexual desire" and so as such, there is a movement to change the definition to something along the line of, "an asexual person is someone who does not experience sexual desire"

I am solidly in the "and/or" camp. I know it is a bit redudant, as the actual dictionary defintion of sexual attraction says "based upon sexual desire" and treats the two as synonyms, but I feel it is the best way to minimize confusion, the most politically expedient way of changing the definition, builds upon what has transpired across the on-line ace community, will create the least resistance, and that it is better to have a bunch of false positives than risk false negatives.

Beside, I feel the community is far better off being inclusive than exclusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Desire this, desire that, I think purplemutant said it best: Asexual = "I don't want to fuck anyone". This is what should be on top of this site:

An asexual person is a person who does not want to fuck anyone.

Why do we have to be so politically correct all the time.

sorry for not replying to this before. but the existence of this thread doesn't have anything to do with being politically correct - what it does have do with, is in maximizing the visibility efforts of the asexual community. basically, that it's been found that the definition "an asexual person is someone who does not experience sexual attraction" can be very confusing, and it's been observed that essentially that definition is assuming that "sexual attraction" is synonomous with "sexual desire" and so as such, there is a movement to change the definition to something along the line of, "an asexual person is someone who does not experience sexual desire"

Yeah, I get it. I wasn't really serious for that to be an official definition, just a simplified "street way" of saying it, which I think gets the point across quite well.

I definitely support the movement to change the definition. The current one has nothing but confused me when I first came here a month ago. It is, however, rather sad to see that the majority of people here still support the sexual attraction definition (according on the poll in this thread). My vote goes to the one based on sexual desire, but it appears that people like me are in the minority (only 7%).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Panficto either posted on here or another thread that people pick apart the innate/inherant/intrinsic detail, and they're kinda right; definition wise none of such synonyms apply and people can latently realize they're sexual (i.e. demi, etc.) which makes it not really "inborn". Basically an optimal word would be naturally or genuinely, but those are kinda vague words. But the "for sexual/emotional pleasure" bit answers that. So just saying "an asexual does not desire sex for emotional or sexual pleasure" is enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Frigid Pink

Panficto either posted on here or another thread that people pick apart the innate/inherant/intrinsic detail, and they're kinda right; definition wise none of such synonyms apply and people can latently realize they're sexual (i.e. demi or realize it's very pleasurable and desire it from there) which makes it not really "inborn". Basically an optimal word would be naturally or genuinely, but those are kinda vague words. But the "for sexual/emotional pleasure" bit answers that. So just saying "an asexual does not desire sex for emotional or sexual pleasure" is enough.

Yeah, that's why I really like Anthony Bogaert's proposed definitions from this scholarly article about "asexuality" because these definitions avoid the use of the words innate/inherent/intrinsic and also exclude temporary states of being without sexual desire:

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

I think the above definitions are pretty clear and easy to understand ways to describe "asexuality."

I think the former is best for brevity, however, people have argued over semantics about what the word "desire" means, so, the latter definition excludes that word completely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TLDR, no to those definitions and yes to what we already have/my additions ( <_< that sounds egotistical)

People can include low libido due to the double meaning of the word lack, so it needs to be absence. And the only difference those definitions hold from ours is that it includes the word enduring, which i would choose another word for because it also means "suffering quietly". But neither absence nor a synonym of enduring are really needed because we paint it clearly with just saying "an asexual does not desire sex". And there's also the question of "how long do i not have to desire sex to be asexual?" Also, i think my previous mentioned additions to our current definition are needed. (i.e. "any type of sex" and "even after foreplay") Also, I'm pretty sure someones going to pick apart those definitions as being synonimous with the banner, so it would need to be "with others" not "for/towards others", which don't flow the greatest and are the same thing as we already have for the replacement definition. But by "others" it sounds like "people" is its intended use, and there are people who aren't attracted to humans, but animals and objects (and despite my personal belief that animals are people, definition wise it's said to only apply to humans), and we already avoid that by saying "an asexual does not desire sex for sexual/emotional pleasure" because it doesn't mention what with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

So just saying "an asexual does not desire sex for emotional or sexual pleasure" is enough.

I agree with that. but not "physical or emotional pleasure" as has been mentioned on occasion.

sexual pleasure is an emotional experience I'm pretty sure, tbh. but physical pleasure? it isn't, really, at least not always.

I'd almost say that emotionally enjoying sex is an automatically grey thing? I mean, ignoring the fact that "enjoying" is an "emotion" of sorts. That an ace only really physically enjoys sex, without any emotional layer to the pleasure beyond the physical sensation. but I have no real grounds for making that claim other than my assumptions.

oh, also, I wouldn't know how to determine "libido pleasure" from "sexual pleasure" in a partnered event. is libido'd pleasure always strictly physical?

we almost need to do studies on arousal and desire to support whatever definition we propose :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's why I really like Anthony Bogaert's proposed definitions from this scholarly article about "asexuality" because these definitions avoid the use of the words innate/inherent/intrinsic and also exclude temporary states of being without sexual desire:

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

I think the above definitions are pretty clear and easy to understand ways to describe "asexuality."

I think the former is best for brevity, however, people have argued over semantics about what the word "desire" means, so, the latter definition excludes that word completely.

The first one sounds good and clear to me. The second is still a bit too vague for my taste - exactly when is an inclination/feeling sexual in nature?

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

IMHO, Wanting sex for sexual pleasure vs desiring sex for sexual pleasure is a distinction without a difference. It is the same thing.

I do see a difference between want and desire. I see a "want" as purely relative and instrumental. It is a grand result of various desires and aversions. For instance an sex-averse asexual woman could want give birth to her own child.

The thing is here...she doesn't really desire to have sex. She desires a baby. But to have a baby she feels she has to have. So she wants sex (for the instrumental reason of having her own baby) but doesn't desire it.

yes I agree with you on these points.

I am not against saying that an asexual cannot desire sex for sexual pleasure. The thing I am against is saying they can't desire sex for physical pleasure - it makes no sense to say an asexual can physically enjoy sex but not desire it for physical purposes or physical experiences. There is no difference between "enjoying because X" and "being capable of desiring because X" IMO.

And while I say that it's better to imagine this case being a want and not a desire - I am not denying that there are many ways in which "want" and "desire" are interchangeable in casual tongue. It's not about word choice that makes a person a certain way, it's the experience itself, which they happen to be describing, that determines whether they experience what we call "sexual desire" or not. Someone saying "I desire sex" just is not enough information to say they experience our concept of "sexual desire". We can say they "sound like they are experiencing sexual desire" of course, but I hate when I see people say "you are sexual" when the person just did not show enough information to determine that conclusion.

HOWEVER, if (s)he wanted the specific pleasure that one gets from sex itself, that would be a desire for sex...for the sake of sex. That is an intrinsic desire.

But if they want the SPECIFIC pleasure of having sex with someone else, that is a desire to have sex for the sake of having sex. It is intrinsic. That is why I call your example above a distinction without a difference.

This I disagree with. I wouldn't say it's wrong off course... just too extreme. If someone says "I want sex over masturbation" in most cases, yes, that person is probably sexual. But, from personal experience, there have been times in my life when masturbation was downright repulsive, but sex was not. I know that I am grey - but that is irrelevent for my point.... that if someone would PREFER not to stimulate themselves at all, but because of the drive and irritation of their libido does so anyway... as soon as their ultimate preference "no physical stimulation" stops being an option, then whichever secondary option they go for is still not their preferred option.

so if someone says "sex is different than masturbation, and better. I'd rather have sex than masturbate. I want a sexual partner in order to deal with my libido" but that person is someone who might be witnessed to say "I hate sex and masturbation, and strongly desire to go my whole life without either" then why would we say that person is sexual? they clearly are not. and the language I've quoted here, would dictate that they are sexual.

functionally speaking, as the community stands now, I'd recommend that that person would ID as grey because for reasons they need sex in their life. But I would never tell them they are a normal sexual person, because that is not a normal sexual experience, and I would objectively say that that person is an ace. And it is because of the possibility of experiences like this, where an asexual person has some obscure reason to include regular sex in their life, that I support the idea of a sex-favorable ace. Because as long as it is possible for an ace to enjoy sex, then it is also possible for them to want it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Frigid Pink

Yeah, that's why I really like Anthony Bogaert's proposed definitions from this scholarly article about "asexuality" because these definitions avoid the use of the words innate/inherent/intrinsic and also exclude temporary states of being without sexual desire:

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

I think the above definitions are pretty clear and easy to understand ways to describe "asexuality."

I think the former is best for brevity, however, people have argued over semantics about what the word "desire" means, so, the latter definition excludes that word completely.

The first one sounds good and clear to me. The second is still a bit too vague for my taste - exactly when is an inclination/feeling sexual in nature?

I think "sexual inclinations/feelings" means "sexual desire" said in a different way. At least, that's how I took it. I agree with you that I like the first definition better.

Also, as far as the "enduring lack" part goes, I'm okay with it because "sexual" people don't always desire sex with others at every possible moment, however, "asexual" people never desire sex with others, therefore, it makes it clear that "asexuality" isn't a temporary phase or a "dry spell" and that it's more of a "I never desire sex with others" vs. a "I sometimes desire sex with others."

Also, it seems to me that "an enduring lack" is a more nuanced version of "no" in the "no desire for sex with others" or "no sexual desire for others" definition.

My personal favorite is still "no desire for sex with others." I also like Mysticus' "no desire for sexual interaction" for those who want to include non-human others.

As far as all that goes, it's basically all semantics, and different ways to say the same thing. I'd be happy overall as long as the definition is a desire based one and no longer includes the phrase "sexual attraction." I think Mysticus said that before and I can get on board with that sentiment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

I'd support that definition, "enduring lack of sexual desire towards others"

inclination/feelings would be too problematic...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

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