Defining asexuality - a better definition?

[dissolved]

Sexual attraction is very clearly useless for defining orientation because not every sexual person experiences it - but people do experience it. And of course, plenty of asexuals experience it (although they do deny it has any sexual element to it at all). Therefore: dumb.

Talking to actual people (i.e. away from the internet and especially AVEN) and from experiencing it myself, it's just your body reacting to someone/something. It usually involves physical arousal. If someone can be turned on by the sight/smell/sound of someone or something, that's clearly a sexual reaction, and it's the result of sexual attraction. It triggers arousal - it's the body preparing for sex. But if the desire or impulse to have sex isn't there, of course it won't go anywhere, and that person is either really not bothered about the target of their attraction (it's not at all uncommon to not want to sleep with someone you fancy) or quite likely asexual.

And again, people go throughout their entire lives without ever experiencing that reaction to someone, but if they have a general desire for sex, just not directed specifically at someone, they're still sexual.

I really have no idea why this sexual attraction crap is still being used on here. Sexual attraction is not the desire to be sexual with someone as AVEN claims it to be, because that's desire. Attraction might prompt that desire, but they're very different things.

[binary suns]

for the most part, I agree with that.

there might be some way of defining sexuality based off of desire. but I don't think it is "Desire for sex"

[Guest]

So the more a person prefers one-night-stands over longer sexual relationships, the more likely it is they're asexual?

Seriously, I give up. If that's the "education" about "asexuality" AVEN is selling, count me out on supporting "asexuality" until after the site goes through a much needed ideological purge.

[dissolved]

but I don't think it is "Desire for sex"

Desire for... coconuts? I really don't know what else sexual orientation could use other than sex.

So the more a person prefers one-night-stands over longer sexual relationships, the more likely it is they're asexual?

Where did you pull that from?

[Guest]

So the more a person prefers one-night-stands over longer sexual relationships, the more likely it is they're asexual?

Where did you pull that from?

From a bit of Swanky's post she apparently edited out after I replied, without even marking the edit. <_<

Which isn't the most constructive discussion style, if I may say so.

[binary suns]

well, greys can desire sex at least. Imo there are grey people who are being labeled as asexual, and they desire sex but not enough to go through with it. that's why.

if asexuals do not desire sex, then it needs to be clear that desiring sex but not wanting it, is grey and not ace.

[binary suns]

Which isn't the most constructive discussion style, if I may say so.

so what? there are a ton of deconstruction discussions styles avenites collectively love to spread all over, you even have destructive discussion styles. for example, attacking things that don't actually matter to the conversation at hand, such as a the constructiveness of a discussion style, or saying how you disagree with me but then not actually contributing any defense of your claim, leaving me in a position where either I ignore you and look weak, or I flame you and look weak, or I create a "straw man" which you attack me for.

edit @ 2:07: you must be a fan of Donald trump :lol:

[Guest]

well, greys can desire sex at least. Imo there are grey people who are being labeled as asexual, and they desire sex but not enough to go through with it. that's why.

if asexuals do not desire sex, then it needs to be clear that desiring sex but not wanting it, is grey and not ace.

Yes, greys can desire sex. (It's more than "can", actually. If they don't ever desire it, they aren't grey, they're ace.)

And desiring sex but not wanting it isn't neccessarily grey, either. A repulsed sexual who chooses to stay celibate fulfills that criterion, and no, that's not grey. That's just a specific form of being sexual.

Wanting sex has nothing to do with one's orientation and place on the spectrum. Grey means desiring sex, but desiring it very very rarely, and/or very very conditionally. Wants have nothing to do with it.

What remains is - if you desire sex, ever, you're not ace. YOu might be grey, you might be sexual. But ace is right out.

Re: post #1927....

Okay Swanky, that's it. Not reported, because I see no breach of ToS, but I'll just inform you that you have now made it to my ignore list, so don't bother further quoting me. It's pointless trying to discuss things with you logically and civilly, so I'll stick to talking to people actually interested in that. Bye.

Edit #2... corrected the number of the post. No idea what happened there.

[binary suns]

Re: post #1879....

Okay Swanky, that's it. Not reported, because I see no breach of ToS, but I'll just inform you that you have now made it to my ignore list, so don't bother further quoting me. It's pointless trying to discuss things with you logically and civilly, so I'll stick to talking to people actually interested in that. Bye.

what?

this is post #1879..... ?

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.

[Torquil]

Noone consistently defines it. People who do use it say "yes it's super duper important for orientation" whereas other people, using and identifying by the same orientation labels, say they don't understand it and can define orientations just fine without it.

Yes, it's clear that there is a lot of disagreement over sexual attraction. I made a diagram to explore one big factor:

Different people appear to have very different conceptions of where sexual attraction is on this scale from unconscious to conscious. Some people see it very much as a biological reaction. As a good example, what dissolved just wrote above:

it's just your body reacting to someone/something. It usually involves physical arousal. If someone can be turned on by the sight/smell/sound of someone or something, that's clearly a sexual reaction, and it's the result of sexual attraction.

On the other hand, there are many people who view sexual attraction as something much more "desire-like", involving some conscious processes and decision-making. I would predict that these people would be much happier with the current AVEN definition, and those on the biological side the most dissatisfied.

And of course there is also the very relevant point that maybe we shouldn't have an orientation defined by a term that is confusing and potentially divisive. People should agree on what the term means, which doesn't seem to be the case.

[Torquil]

Just to finish off my last post, I should have brought up the fact that the AVEN FAQ itself defines sexual attraction as desire:

Sexual attraction: Desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them [my emphasis]

I think this makes a lot of sense to two groups on the extreme of the spectrum: sexuals and non-libidoist asexuals. For sexuals, where there is attraction there is the potential for desire (at least under the right circumstances). For non-libodist asexuals, there is little to no attraction, and obviously no desire.

However, for libodist asexuals there is attraction but little to no desire. We should not conflate the two concepts of attraction and desire, because this group shows they are clearly dissociable. Demisexuals show the opposite dissociation (desire but no primary attraction). As per my table:

[Sage Raven Domino]

That's plausible, except that some nonlibs don't feel secondary desire either.

[Torquil]

That's plausible, except that some nonlibs don't feel secondary desire either.

I think the way the table should be read is that a "Yes" indicates a possibility, but not a certainty that people in the category will have the characteristic.

So, for secondary desire, people in all categories can have it, but not all people actually will.

Just as a reference, here are the definitions again:

• Primary Sexual Attraction: A sexual attraction to people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell) which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire.
• Secondary Sexual Attraction: A sexual attraction that develops over time based on a person's relationship and emotional connection with another person.
• Primary Sexual Desire: The desire to engage in sexual activity for the purposes of personal pleasure whether physical, emotional, or both.
• Secondary Sexual Desire: The desire to engage in sexual activity for the purposes other than personal pleasure, such as the happiness of the other person involved or the conception of children.

[binary suns]

AVEN defines in the FAQ, that sexual attraction is desire for sexual contact. this is a false notion. attraction and desire are not the same thing. they can easily be related, or even overlap/seem to be one thing. but that is like talking about a democratic republic and saying that all democracies are republics.

[Star Bit]

The secondary definitions are all wrong. The people/person who created them obviously didn't know how to use it. That is not desire, please look up the definition. According to that logic the romantic equivalent would mean gay/straight people who willingly suffice with dating/marrying outside their orientation to fill loneliness are actually bi. (I know it says that aces can have 'secondary sexual desire', but anyone who hears that isn't gunna think so due to the phrasing and insist that if they desire sex they're sexual, which again, isn't actually desire in this context.) Not everything can be applied to primary and secondary.

[dissolved]

Just to finish off my last post, I should have brought up the fact that the AVEN FAQ itself defines sexual attraction as desire:

Sexual attraction: Desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them [my emphasis]

And AVEN's definition is stupid. How can attraction be the desire for anything? They're two entirely different things. Attraction can cause desire, but it can't be desire.

AVEN's definition really clearly needs to be changed. Either drop the "sexual attraction" nonsense altogether, or differentiate between attraction and desire, stressing the fact that attraction is involuntary and unconscious. It's also absolutely fine to be attracted to someone. Take the fear out of it. Desire happens on top of attraction... they sometimes blend but they're really really different to those that experience both.

I heartily recommend the sexual attraction part of the definition is dropped to minimise confusion.

[Star Bit]

By definition attraction is something that evokes interest.

[Rising Sun]

By definition attraction is something that evokes interest.

If by "interest" you also include involuntary feelings that the person wishes they could get rid of, yes. Otherwise, no. I'm not sure if "interest" is the right word, because what we're interested in means what we want, rather than what we innately crave but can reject.

[Star Bit]

Yes. I was going to add "or in this case, compulsive thoughts" or "whether the interest is willing or unwilling".

[binary suns]

By definition attraction is something that evokes interest.

If by "interest" you also include involuntary feelings that the person wishes they could get rid of, yes. Otherwise, no. I'm not sure if "interest" is the right word, because what we're interested in means what we want, rather than what we innately crave but can reject.

no, definitely not. I'm interested in practically everything. But there is very little that I want.

[Star Bit]

While it's not clear in interest's definition, it is clear that compulsion's definition includes interest.

So interest isn't always willing.

And i think the reason AVEN defined sexual attraction (SA) that way was so they could get the desire based definition of asexuality out there, but in a horribly hidden way. But dictionaries also define SA with desire, but i think that more so shows that sexual people don't fully understand sexuality/that someone can feel attraction toward a gender and never feel a desire for a relationship. But sexuality is also admittedly an understudied field.

[Guest]

And i think the reason AVEN defined sexual attraction (SA) that way was so they could get the desire based definition of asexuality out there, but in a horribly hidden way.

Absolutely! I stand by saying it - sticking with "attraction" is a political decision, and nothing but a political decision. This hidden definition was, at the time, the best kind of half-hearted compromise to get the actual, meaningful truth out there, without forcing change onto the political agenda.

And frankly, I've been getting more and more tired of that agenda.

But dictionaries also define SA with desire, but i think that more so shows that sexual people don't fully understand sexuality/that someone can feel attraction toward a gender and never feel a desire for a relationship. But sexuality is also admittedly an understudied field.

I find this statement problematic. Many, many sexuals do understand just fine how sexuality works.

The real problem is that the people who originally coined the "sexual attraction" definitions (i.e., behaviorists) seem to have had no clue about how orientations actually work and should be conceptualized, and that there is a highly politicized and highly vocal flock *cough*American LGBT*cough* who clings to the term as Insistent Terminology. It's all about politics. And I've had it up to here with it.

[dissolved]

By definition attraction is something that evokes interest.

Yup, evokes being the key word. Attraction can cause desire, interest etc but they're not one and the same, which is what AVEN suggests.

[Star Bit]

Yes, alot of sexuals understand sexuality, but alot also don't. Alot insist if a guy can get aroused by gay erotica then he's bi/gay. The same goes for women, but this assumption seems to be more so from people misinterpreting the erotica arousal study and writing articles on it. But what these people don't seem to be acknowledging is that they were shown beastiality as well (among others), which would actually, to them, amount to women being sexually attracted to everything LOL. Or that if someone is aroused by an action then they really want it but are in denial. As well as many other misconceptions.

[Guest]

Yeah, that study that "proved" straight women don't exist... all women who call themselves straight are bisexuals in denial. #NoComment

[Star Bit]

XD but doesn't "no comment" actually confirm things?

[Guest]

XD but doesn't "no comment" actually confirm things?

The Mystic will neither confirm nor deny that theory. :lol: :p

[binary suns]

I don't trust your conclusions. the way you speak make you sound like you've warped one specific use of certain words into twisted... well, straw men.

it is true that there are bigoted scientists out there. but there are bigoted scientists everywhere, every alternative way of thinking will have some bigoted scientist backing it somewhere.

"attraction is behaviorist" but it is the opposite - desire is behaviorist. To look at a person and say, "that person desires this thing" isn't taking the time to ask, "why is that person desiring that thing" and in sexuality, the answer is, "if a person desires a thing because the desire is rooted in sexual emotions - that is evidence that person may be sexually attracted"

the attraction approach is looking at behavior as a guide, not as a dictation. it trusts the person with the experience to understand whether or not they are attracted. attraction is not abehavior, but an underlying emotion, and an individual who is attracted knows that they are just intuitively. no need for behavior there. people who are sexual will casually say they're attracted to men/women, and if they are the kind of people to be like "I don't feel that" when you describe a behavioral experience of emotion - that is because they don't feel that specific experience you're describing. in looking too closely you destroy their abstract grasp of attraction. that is the nature of abstraction.

the desire approach is crap because - it looks at a person who exhibits a behavior- wanting for sex - and dictates that if they have this behavior, this experience, then they are a certain way. the desire based approach is a behavioral approach, that puts all its eggs into one basket behavior - whether or not the person initiates in pursuit of sex.

[binary suns]

it is clear that compulsion's definition includes interest.

wait - what am I missing? if I relate "compulsion" to "interest" it is more of a, demonic evil twin of interest.

[Star Bit]

Well, correct, compulsion can be unwilling interest to the host. Definition wise it says "especially against one's conscious wishes", but there are people who do identify with their OCDs, so it's not just unwilling. And sorry, i looked it up and compulsive gets the definition i said, not so much compulsion, oddly enough.

Some definitions:

• irresistibly interesting or exciting; compelling
• very interesting

And more accurately it's called an intrusive thought, not a compulsive thought, eventhough that's accurate as well. But it does also seem to be more commonly related to having to act something out instead of having the disruptive thought, eventhough that is a symptom of OCD and thus would fall under compulsion (but intrusive thoughts are actually normal, it's just to a certain degree that it can also not be). But perhaps it's not the best word.

So to be more clear, i would personally just say it's sexual attraction is "the impulse to have sex with someone specific". Or perhaps more extensively "(knowingly or unknowingly) something about someone triggers the impulse to have sex with them".