Defining asexuality - a better definition?

[teeq]

Hey, I have a question (admittedly, I did not go through 60 pages in this thread, but this might not have been addressed and I didn't really notice people mention it in other posts). Maybe you guys can help clear it up.

Wouldn't a definition centered solely around desire/inclination to have partnered sex include gray-aces? In a "you can experience sexual attraction as long as you don't feel a desire to act on it" way?

I'm aware that the definition of sexual attraction is hard if not impossible to agree on, but from what I've gather whilst talking to non-aces in my environment, they didn't agree that sexual attraction only consists of a desire for partnered sex and they insisted there was "more to it", like viewing a person in a specific way, which an ace, unlike gray-aces who feel they experience sexual attraction, wouldn't do naturally.

Would you still favor disregarding the notion of sexual attraction altogether because it's indeed not clear cut?

[Guest]

Yeah, I would... because I haven't made this experience when talking to sexuals. The one I talk to most often - very much sexual by self-definition, married for I don't know how long, 30 years or so, just had his first grandchild - is just as clueless about what this magical "sexual attraction" is supposed to mean as I am. He knows he desires partnered sex; he also knows he desires sex specifically with women, and just about never has the idea to have sex with a man even vaguely cross his mind (although the thought doesn't repulse him, he's "just not into it")... and he says that the combination of these two is what makes him a heterosexual man.

So, the only "more" there seems to be to have some kind of partner preference attached to the desire. (Which I personally just see as a specific "flavor" of said desire, and see no need to call it by the word "attraction".)

I just don't think someone with an inherent desire for sex but no "attraction" is grey. Just sounds like a form of pretty normal sexuality to me. Greys are people who very rarely, very mildly, and/or very conditionally feel any desire for sex. I don't think "attraction" figures into it.

[Lost247365]

Hey, I have a question (admittedly, I did not go through 60 pages in this thread, but this might not have been addressed and I didn't really notice people mention it in other posts). Maybe you guys can help clear it up.

Wouldn't a definition centered solely around desire/inclination to have partnered sex include gray-aces? In a "you can experience sexual attraction all you want as long as you don't feel a desire to act on it" way?

I'm aware that the definition of sexual attraction is hard if not impossible to agree on, but from what I've gather whilst talking to non-aces in my environment, they didn't agree that sexual attraction only consists of a desire for partnered sex and they insisted there was "more to it", like viewing a person in a specific way, which an ace, unlike gray-aces who feel they experience sexual attraction, wouldn't do naturally.

Would you still favor disregarding the notion of sexual attraction altogether because it's indeed not clear cut?

Depends on how one defines grays.

Some define gray as feelings "sexual attraction" at a frequency/intensity level much much lower than average or only under specific circumstances. If you go with a sexual desire definition then you simply replace the word "sexual attraction" in the gray definition with "sexual desire." Still works the same way.

The oxford definition of the term "sexual attraction" does indeed include more than just desire. It literally says you feel a desire to have sex and from that develop attractions to people.

But, really, in my not so humble opinion, the argument here for the desire definiton isn't really so much about what IS sexual attraction (though that is probably a large part of it) so much as it is that sexual attraction is a really crumby way of defining an orientation. Or to be ever more specific, it a really LOUSY way of define asexuality.

The "desire only" argument is (again this is my opinion not fact) that who one intrinsically desires to have sex with is a much better indicator of one's orientation than this nebulous "attraction" concept. If you desire to have sex with the opposite gender only- you are heterosexual. If you desire to have sex with the same sex only- you are homosexual. If you desire to have sex with more than one gender-You are some category of polysexual (bisexual/pansexual/etc.). If you don't desire to have sex with anyone- You're asexual.

Now compare that with attraction. If you have attraction to someone does that necessarily mean its sexual attraction? What if it is just aesthetic attraction? Attractions don't tell you the type they are. Desires on the other had tell you who and why.

And just as a thought experiment. Lets say you feel sexually attracted* to someone of the same gender but desire sex only with members of the opposite gender. Do you really think it makes sense to say this person is gay despite the fact that they only desire to have sex with people of the opposite gender? However, how do you feel about saying this person is heterosexual? That makes more sense doesn't it? In this example can you really say it is more rational to make attraction the defining factor?

*Based on all the dictionary definitions of sexual attraction I don't think it is even possible to experience sexual attraction to someone without desiring sex with them at the same time. But the fact that one might actually think they are experiencing sexual attraction without sexual desire kinda illustrates one of my problem with the "attraction only" definition in the first place really

Edit: For the record I am an "desire and/or attraction" supporter.

[teeq]

Mysticus. It seems like we've had different experiences and I can't agree with your stance completely, but I see where you're coming from. Thanks for sharing your view; it's something to think about, for sure.

Lost. Thanks for your reply. I wondered what would happen if the notion was erased from the definition because I've seen a number of gray-aces distinguishing themselves from aces solely on the basis of sometimes feeling sexual attraction.

'Some define gray as feelings "sexual attraction" at a frequency/intensity level much much lower than average or only under specific circumstances. If you go with a sexual desire definition then you simply replace the word "sexual attraction" in the gray definition with "sexual desire." Still works the same way.'

Basically, it would work if one uses sexual desire as a synonym for sexual attraction. Interesting!

As for the clarity of sexual attraction as a concept, I don't particularly want to get into a discussion about it, sorry.

A thought occurred to me though, in my native language we use a word which is close to a "pull" towards someone when talking about attraction - it signifies more than desire to have sex with someone and doesn't put as much emphasis on sex itself. Even if the concept of sexual attraction wouldn't make sense to someone on one side of the world it could to someone on the opposite. Language shapes thought and all that.

I can't really comment too much on the example you provided. Neither gay or straight makes sense to me in that situation though. :lol:

[Guest]

A thought occurred to me though, in my native language we use a word which is close to a "pull" towards someone when talking about attraction - it signifies more than desire to have sex with someone and doesn't put as much emphasis on sex itself. Even if the concept of sexual attraction wouldn't make sense to someone on one side of the world it could to someone on the opposite. Language shapes thought and all that.

Now I'm curious, teeq - what's your native language?

Specifically asking because my own, and freshly-grandpa-guy's (while he's very proud of the little one, I hope noone tells him I called him that! :lol: ) is German, not English... and as repeatedly pointed out in the 60+ pages you (understandably) didn't read, the German language AVEN site does use a desire/urge (dt.: Verlangen) based definition for asexuality, too; also, the German Wikipedia page on sexual orientations mentions "attraction" (dt.: Anziehung) only when addressing asexuality, not in regards to any other orientation.

[Star Bit]

"A [persistent/enduring/etc.] lack of inclination for partnered sex" would be a wording I could agree with. *suggests it as an addition to the new poll alternatives*

But as said, enduring and lack have problems. Even wording it as persistent lack makes it even more interpretable as "aces can have low libidos or infrequently experience sexual attraction" which is wrong. So lack has a dual meaning, enduring can mean they're patiently suffering, and (to me) persistent just sounds like it's momentary.

So lack should be "absence" and endure could be "prevalent".

And i prefer my previously suggested additions, so for me, if those words were insisted on being used, it would fully be "An asexual person has a prevalent absence in the desire for sex (any type; whether it's for sexual or emotional pleasure, or even after foreplay)." Though i still prefer "An asexual person does not desire any type of sex for sexual or emotional pleasure (even after foreplay)."

A thought occurred to me though, in my native language we use a word which is close to a "pull" towards someone when talking about attraction - it signifies more than desire to have sex with someone and doesn't put as much emphasis on sex itself. Even if the concept of sexual attraction wouldn't make sense to someone on one side of the world it could to someone on the opposite. Language shapes thought and all that.

Your language either sounds like it's using sexual attraction to define orientations (i.e. a pull to have sex with certain people) or it's just using attraction in general (which for most people includes romantic attraction and other attractions), which in either case is still not what actually makes orientations.

[Guest]

So lack should be "absence" and endure could be "prevalent".

I'm perfectly fine with "absence" instead of "lack", if that sounds better to you. However, "prevalent" misses the mark in an almost "I do not believe it means what you think it means" way... ;)

I consider both enduring and persistent far, far better choices than "prevalent" (even though I can understand the problem brought up about "enduring").

[Lost247365]

How about the word continuous?

Asexuality-The continuous absence of intrinsic desire to have sex with others.

I still prefer to define asexuality as the absence of potential/capability/capacity/ability.

Asexuality-The continuous absence of the potential for the intrinsic desire to have sex with others.

[Guest]

How about the word continuous?

Asexuality-The continuous absence of intrinsic desire to have sex with others.

I still prefer to define asexuality as the absence of potential/capability/capacity/ability.

Asexuality-The continuous absence of the potential for the intrinsic desire to have sex with others.

I'd accept continous in a pinch, but would really prefer persistent.

The latter bit though.... no offense, but that reaches critical word salad mass, IMHO... of + for + to = "how about no".

[Lost247365]

How about the word continuous?

Asexuality-The continuous absence of intrinsic desire to have sex with others.

I still prefer to define asexuality as the absence of potential/capability/capacity/ability.

Asexuality-The continuous absence of the potential for the intrinsic desire to have sex with others.

I'd accept continous in a pinch, but would really prefer persistent.

The latter bit though.... no offense, but that reaches critical word salad mass, IMHO... of + for + to = "how about no".

Then lets remove all the unnecessary words.

Asexuality-The absence of the potential to desire sex.

[Guest]

How about the word continuous?

Asexuality-The continuous absence of intrinsic desire to have sex with others.

I still prefer to define asexuality as the absence of potential/capability/capacity/ability.

Asexuality-The continuous absence of the potential for the intrinsic desire to have sex with others.

I'd accept continous in a pinch, but would really prefer persistent.

The latter bit though.... no offense, but that reaches critical word salad mass, IMHO... of + for + to = "how about no".

Then lets remove all the unnecessary words.

Asexuality-The absence of the potential to desire sex.

If you insert just one more - "partnered" - then at least you & me are good to go. :D

But - and you know I'd have but face (gawds I love that expression, Mr Joss Whedon :lol: ) - folks will start getting confused about an unqualified wording of "desire". *deep prolonged sigh*

[Lost247365]

If you insert just one more - "partnered" - then at least you & me are good to go. :D

But - and you know I'd have but face (gawds I love that expression, Mr Joss Whedon :lol: ) - folks will start getting confused about an unqualified wording of "desire". *deep prolonged sigh*

No matter how we qualify the word people will claim to be confused.

If we were to try and come up with a definition in which no one could ever get confused, we would end up with a single sentence with over a quarter of a million qualifying words in it. We might as well give up on even attempting to create a definition if that is our goal.

Lets focus on being concise instead. The most meaning with the fewest words possible.

That said, I am willing to put "partnered" in there, but is it really necessary? Sex always requires a partner. If it doesn't have a partner, is it really sex? That is the whole reason I removed "with others" from my definition. Its was unnecessary.

The Law of Parsimony/Occam's Razor:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

[Guest]

No matter how we qualify the word people will claim to be confused.

If we were to try and come up with a definition in which no one could ever get confused, we would end up with a single sentence with over a quarter of a million qualifying words in it. We might as well give up on even attempting to create a definition if that is our goal.

Lets focus on being concise instead. The most meaning with the fewest words possible.

That said, I am willing to put "partnered" in there, but is it really necessary? Sex always requires a partner. If it doesn't, it not really sex is it? That is the whole reason I removed "with others" from my definition. Its was unnecessary.

The Law of Parsimony/Occam's Razor:

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

A not insignificant number of people claim masturbation is a form of sex.

A not insignificant number of people claim to use "desire" in a sense synonymous with "want" or "agree to".

These are obvious and common enough tripwires which I'd say we better try to avoid from the start.

[Lost247365]

Okay~!

Asexuality-The absence of the potential to intrinsically desire partnered sex.

[WhenSummersGone]

I don't like the word potential because desire is already present in most people. It kinda makes it seem like most people are Demisexual.

[Guest]

I don't like the word potential because desire is already present in most people. It kinda makes it seem like most people are Demisexual.

I don't mind it, because 99+% of sexuals don't desire sex 24/7... and those who do are seriously ill and in need of therapy, just like for any other life-impeding addiction. (No snark, just fact.)

[WhenSummersGone]

I don't like the word potential because desire is already present in most people. It kinda makes it seem like most people are Demisexual.

I don't mind it, because 99+% of sexuals don't desire sex 24/7... and those who do are seriously ill and in need of therapy, just like for any other life-impeding addiction. (No snark, just fact.)

Ya but Demisexual's would only have it after an emotional connection, and most people already know they want to have sex at some point. So the potential is already there.

[Lost247365]

I don't like the word potential because desire is already present in most people. It kinda makes it seem like most people are Demisexual.

I don't mind it, because 99+% of sexuals don't desire sex 24/7... and those who do are seriously ill and in need of therapy, just like for any other life-impeding addiction. (No snark, just fact.)

Ya but Demisexual's would only have it after an emotional connection, and most people already know they want to have sex at some point. So the potential is already there.

That is the point.

For sexual people they do have the potential. Asexuals don't.

A sexual doesn't go around in a state of constant sexual desire, but rather it is something that under the right circumstances can develop and form. For an asexual that will never happen.

And if it makes it sound like it is describing demi-sexuals....good. Demis are sexuals. It should describe them. It would be a bad description if it didn't.

[WhenSummersGone]

I don't like the word potential because desire is already present in most people. It kinda makes it seem like most people are Demisexual.

I don't mind it, because 99+% of sexuals don't desire sex 24/7... and those who do are seriously ill and in need of therapy, just like for any other life-impeding addiction. (No snark, just fact.)

Ya but Demisexual's would only have it after an emotional connection, and most people already know they want to have sex at some point. So the potential is already there.

That is the point.

For sexual people they do have the potential. Asexuals don't.

A sexual doesn't go around in a state of constant sexual desire, but rather it is something that under the right circumstances can develop and form. For an asexual that will never happen.

And if it makes it sound like it is describing demi-sexuals....good. Demis are sexuals. It should describe them. It would be a bad description if it didn't.

That's not what I see from all sexuals though. Some already know at a certain age they want to have sex so it's not always in a certain situation.

[WinterWanderer]

I don't like the word potential because desire is already present in most people. It kinda makes it seem like most people are Demisexual.

I don't mind it, because 99+% of sexuals don't desire sex 24/7... and those who do are seriously ill and in need of therapy, just like for any other life-impeding addiction. (No snark, just fact.)

Ya but Demisexual's would only have it after an emotional connection, and most people already know they want to have sex at some point. So the potential is already there.

That is the point.

For sexual people they do have the potential. Asexuals don't.

A sexual doesn't go around in a state of constant sexual desire, but rather it is something that under the right circumstances can develop and form. For an asexual that will never happen.

And if it makes it sound like it is describing demi-sexuals....good. Demis are sexuals. It should describe them. It would be a bad description if it didn't.

That's not what I see from all sexuals though. Some already know at a certain age they want to have sex so it's not always in a certain situation.

So for them, that potential became apparent around puberty

But for some sexuals, the potential becomes apparent later on

[Guest]

I think you misunderstand what Lost is saying, WSG (which makes me think maybe this "potential" wording may not be the best choice *sigh* ).

Asexuals do not have this potential at all.

Sexuals have the potential, and are (usually) very well aware of it, because for them, it pretty damn regularly "flares up" and becomes actualized.

Demis (and other Greys) have the potential (and thus, aren't asexual); however, their "flares" are so rare and/or so conditional that their everyady experiences are, sometimes for years, practically indistinguishable from the ones of aces, and very different from those of "normal" sexuals.

[Lost247365]

That's not what I see from all sexuals though. Some already know at a certain age they want to have sex so it's not always in a certain situation.

Huh? I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say.

How does knowing that one has a potential to desire something make the word potential problematic? Knowing one has the potential to have desire does not mean one has desire on at all times. It just means they know they have that potential.

Most likely because they experienced that potential at some point in the past. Or, possibly because some part of their brain tells them they have that potential. Like a fuel gauge tells you that you have gas in your car.

WSG (which makes me think maybe this "potential" wording may not be the best choice *sigh* ).

In my definitions defense, I still maintain that no matter how hard we try, every definition will cause confusion to some people. I am sure someone will misunderstand what the word "intrinsic" means as well.

[WhenSummersGone]

After reading it over I understand a bit more. If it's from puberty then I think it should mention that so it doesn't get confused with those in the gray area.

[Guest]

WSG (which makes me think maybe this "potential" wording may not be the best choice *sigh* ).

In my definitions defense, I still maintain that no matter how hard we try, every definition will cause confusion to some people. I am sure someone will misunderstand what the word "intrinsic" means as well.

I know that none will ever be perfect. I'm arguing for not settling for any that are so clearly flawed that you can bet money on getting a sizeable bunch of people misundertanding them completely every time you say it out loud. ;)

...nor so vague that if you ask four people what it means, you get five different and mutually exclusive answers. Like with that mess on the banner up there that we're currently stuck with. -_-

[Guest]

Absence of potential to intrinsically desire partner sex vs. No intrinsic desire for partnered sex... Why not just go for the simpler one when they're both saying the exact same thing?

[LenaLuthor]

My definition: Lack of sexual attraction and or desire to have partnered sex.

[Frigid Pink]

If it doesn't have a partner, is it really sex?

Yes! People define "sex" in many different ways. Some people think "intercourse" is the only type of "sex" and some people don't consider oral intercourse or oral sex as "sex." Some people have "sex" with themselves. "Sex" and "sexual activity" doesn't require others.

Absence of potential to intrinsically desire partner sex vs. No intrinsic desire for partnered sex... Why not just go for the simpler one when they're both saying the exact same thing?

Yes, because if someone doesn't have the potential, then they won't ever have the desire, therefore, it's unnecessary to include "potential" because "no intrinsic desire for partnered sex" will always include people who have no potential to intrinsically desire partnered sex. If we want to distinguish between temporary states for sexual people, then it'd be better to say "an enduring lack of intrinsic desire for partnered sex."

[Lost247365]

Absence of potential to intrinsically desire partner sex vs. No intrinsic desire for partnered sex... Why not just go for the simpler one when they're both saying the exact same thing?

I think it is important to include it as to avoid a person claiming to be asexual between periods of desire. Asexuality is an orientation not just a temporary state. Just because one is not experiencing sexual desire here and now doesn't mean they are asexual. Just because they are going through a lull doesn't mean they are asexual (think Caitlyn Jenner).

It recognizes that sexuals don't experience desire 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365.25 days a year. That certain conditions can temporary cause loss of desire.

But, if most everyone else dislikes it or feels it unnecessary I can live without it.

[binary suns]

But as said, enduring and lack have problems. Even wording it as persistent lack makes it even more interpretable as "aces can have low libidos or infrequently experience sexual attraction" which is wrong.

this is the reason why the term "sexual attraction" is problematic. by definitions such as aven's, then yes, asexuals never experience sexual attraction. but many people interpret a lot of the experiences asexuals do experience as "sexual attraction" - such as becoming aroused when cuddling, or liking porn or fantasies. additionally "grey" is a mischievous term in this regards - technically speaking, everyone is grey, but that would be too broad of an interpretation and meaningless. as such, there is a certain deviation from the "pure asexuality" that is asexual and not grey - such as someone who experiences sexual attraction once when they're thirty and goes "huh" and then despite attempting to pursue that never feeling it again.

regarding which synonym is best - that's entirely meaningless semantics. if one word is bad, all the synonyms are bad too.

[Guest]

If we want to distinguish between temporary states for sexual people, then it'd be better to say "an enduring lack of intrinsic desire for partnered sex."

Agreed completely, just suggesting (again) "persistent" instead of "enduring", because of a point made by StarBit earlier.

regarding which synonym is best - that's entirely meaningless semantics. if one word is bad, all the synonyms are bad too.

No, and easily disprovable. "Black person" and "n****r" are synonyms, as they describe the exact same group of people. And still, one, and only one, of these is a word you should not ever use, and for good reasons.

Connotations matter a lot, even with synonyms.