Defining asexuality - a better definition?

[WhenSummersGone]

I agree. I think if someone does experience some sexual attraction and/or sexual desire then they seem to be gray a or demisexual. The A before sexual means none to me. Just my opinion.

[AwkwardAlien]

I classify myself as grey asexual.

Honestly, if someone even has a sex drive, but a low one that they don't care enough to act upon, I would consider them asexual. Having sub terms for these people doesn't really hurt anything, but let's not try to kick them out of the group. That would be like the LGBT dropping the B and claiming bisexuals were better classified as heterosexual.

For example: I may on rare occasions experience a strong attraction to a person's outward presentation. It does not motivate me to pursue them romantically, though I may wish to engage to in behavior that is defined as sexual to some people, I do not consider it sexual. I can go as far as making out and touching while clothed, though saliva will severely gross me out if I encounter it. I have no real desire to see them naked unless they want to participate in some kind of bondage, humiliation, or fetish act. These things don't require me to physically engage the person with genitalia, but they do bond us on an emotional, though not romantic, level because they have to trust me to allow me to connect with their mind that way. However, I typically don't date or develop romantic feelings for people I'm attracted to this way due to a lack of common personality traits. I date people who are not attractive to me appearance wise, because I am not thinking about anything past our friend like bond. I don't desire to engage in the activities I do with aesthetically pleasing people. I'm not sure why this is, but that's how it is. There is a different kind of mental process going on, different kinds of emotional bonding. I do not want to have sex with any of these people, but I have had sex on many occasions despite how nauseous or bored it made me simply because it made someone I cared about happy, or would help me socially in that specific situation. I feel urges to help myself out, so to speak, but I prefer to handle that myself.

I don't think the fact I have some kind of attraction, whether is considered sexual or not to people, should mean that I am not asexual. I am certainly not considered sexual by nature according to the sexual crowd. If I am not considered sexual or asexual, then exactly where would I fall? Would it not make sense to say I am more on one side of the spectrum (with a sub label) than the other and leave it at that?

[Frigid Pink]

I classify myself as grey asexual.

Honestly, if someone even has a sex drive, but a low one that they don't care enough to act upon, I would consider them asexual. Having sub terms for these people doesn't really hurt anything, but let's not try to kick them out of the group. That would be like the LGBT dropping the B and claiming bisexuals were better classified as heterosexual.

Anyone is free to classify themselves however they choose, however, asexuality isn't about "sex drive." It's about the direction (or lack of direction) of that drive (if one even has a "sex drive"). It's about the "why" ("I inherently prefer not to engage in sexual activity with anyone") and not the "what" ("I do or don't engage in sexual activity with anyone").

Also, "asexuality" as a "group" (anyone who identifies as asexual or anyone who doesn't identify with the sexual culture at large) and "asexuality" as a definition (someone who doesn't have an inherent desire for partnered sex) are two different things. One is about a community of people with shared experiences and the other is a way to differentiate.

[Guest]

DeIeted.

[Guest]

Ack... I'm Captain Procrastinator... :redface:

Public Service Announcement: I'll cook up the draft of a poll/thread I promised... months ago... and I'll post it into this thread before New Years Eve. (Yikes. Deadlines. *jitters*)

[Guest]

Mysticus don't stress over it, it shouldn't be all on you anyway! Maybe you could post what you have, or what you are thinking, here, and we could all put in suggestions and slowly work on exactly what we all think it should say etc, how it should be worded, then when we have something we are happy with and can agree upon (if that is possible lol) make the actual new poll thread? that way it takes a lot of the pressure off you and it can be a team effort, and however long it takes will just depend on how long it takes us to work through it, without putting actual time-line pressure on you (I fucking hate being under pressure haha it drives me insane :p) I wouldn't want you to be under unnecessary pressure because of this! and really, we should all be helping you, that's only fair.. unless you prefer to be a lone ranger of course ehe

[Frigid Pink]

Mysticus don't stress over it, it shouldn't be all on you anyway!

I second that.

I'm willing to help out, too.

[belovedless]

As an asexual, the definition of asexuality as not being sexually attracted to others makes complete sense to me.

To sexual people... not so much.

For this reason, I think that combining feeling little to no sexual attraction and/or not having the desire for partnered sex is a great way to explain asexuality to others in order to gain visibility and garner understanding.

[Frigid Pink]

As an asexual, the definition of asexuality as not being sexually attracted to others makes complete sense to me.

To sexual people... not so much.

For this reason, I think that combining feeling little to no sexual attraction and/or not having the desire for partnered sex is a great way to explain asexuality to others in order to gain visibility and garner understanding.

My previously posted version of the "and/or" definition (which actually isn't an "and/or" definition at all because it takes out the "or" and is less confusing because of that): "An asexual is a person who does not have an inherent desire for partnered sexual activity and experiences little to no sexual attraction."

[TardisBlue]

Oh God, I almost read the entire topic and I'm sooooooo confused about this whole thing that I don't even know where I stand myself!

But here's the thing, I find the current AVEN definition incomplete. Why:

Person A: doesn't experience sexual attraction, may or may not desire to have sex

Person B: doesn't experience sexual attraction, but they definitely desire to have sex

Person C: may or may not experience sexual attraction, but they definitely don't desire to have sex

According to the current definition of asexuality, Person A is called asexual, Person B is called asexual (or cupiosexual if you want, but that's still in the ace spectrum), and what is Person C called? Is Person C an asexual? If so, why not include that in the definition?

To be honest, this is always why I felt that the definition was incomplete, and why I never use it in real life. In real life, I just say that I'm not interested in sex, and that's it. I personally don't need the specific need to explain everybody that I don't experience sexual attraction.

But there are further topics I'm confused about, for example in the George scenario (see post #147) I'd consider him sexual in a real life case, though he's actually called ace/cupio? I actually can't comprehend this tbh? I mean how can he be asexual? Also there is the Sam and Edward scenario (see post #170), now Sam is clearly sexual but who is to say Edward is not asexual? (OP says that he is, but some people argues that).

So yeah, I am pretty confused, except one thing: current definition is neither complete nor clear at all.

[butterflydreams]

I know I'm a bit late to this game, and I haven't followed the entire thread, but I did see some interesting stuff so I figured I'd chime in. I get that this is all a discussion about AVEN's definition in particular, and AVEN's word choice of terms. It's certainly allowed to define and use whatever terminology it wants. What I can say is that the definition of "someone who does not experience sexual attraction" is pretty broad, and one will find it kicking around all over the internet in relation to asexuality, not only here.

I wanted to be sure about what I was or was not experiencing. So I tried to get as broad an understanding of the terms as possible, from as many sources as possible. Off the cuff, sure I knew was sexual attraction was...kind of. And in searching around, the best I could find was sexual attraction was the attractiveness of someone on the basis of sexual desire. That's what I roll with when I think about asexuality. And as PanFicto often says, it's an intrinsic or inherent feeling. Which, like many people on the internet like to describe, is something you'd know if you felt. It's something that for me, I simply can't find a single experience of in my history. Believe me, I tried really hard. That's what brought me into the loop, and also understanding that behavior is not in a one to one with attraction. THAT is something I think people have a hard time with. Not even just in the asexual community.

Ultimately though, definitions are definitions, and they change. They're about getting you to stop and listen for a minute. They don't have to be 100% accurate to the last detail, they just have to cast a net wide enough to grab as many people as they can. Then, once you are paying attention, you can see whether or not your experiences feel like they jive with others. That's ultimately what it's all about. It was the definition that drew my attention, but it was thinking about my experiences with an eye that I never hadn't used before that let me know, this was me, this was home. The details of my behavior and feelings might be different (they probably are!) but I know I belong here.

[RedPanda3]

Person C: may or may not experience sexual attraction, but they definitely don't desire to have sex

According to the current definition of asexuality, Person A is called asexual, Person B is called asexual (or cupiosexual if you want, but that's still in the ace spectrum), and what is Person C called? Is Person C an asexual? If so, why not include that in the definition?

I also don't really like to use the term "asexual" when I'm talking to other people about myself because of this. Because I feel I probably fit into your Person C. I believe I've probably felt sexual attraction before, my body reacts against my will when I see or think about certain things. But I don't desire partnered sex in any way or fashion. I don't feel comfortable describing myself as a "sexual" because of this, I don't think of myself as a sexual being whatsoever and it would be misleading to label myself that when I don't want any type of sex ever. But I can't describe myself as asexual either if I were to go by AVEN's definition. To me, a better definition would be "an asexual is someone who either doesn't experience sexual attraction or a desire for partnered sex." Something like that, to be a bit more inclusive of different forms of asexuality... some people are asexual when it comes to their attraction but not behaviour (no attraction, but might still have sex), whereas others are asexual in behaviour (might feel arousal and sexual attraction at times, but doesn't desire to act out sexual behaviours).

[Guest]

DeIeted.

[Frigid Pink]

Initially I believed that I experience sexual attraction, but have no innate desire for partnered sex. however I have found it's now A LOT easier to say I experience *sensual attraction* as opposed to sexual attraction.

Okay, this makes so much more sense to me now! In some ways, I'd also consider myself demi-sensual, as in, I like skin on skin cuddles and massages and things like that, however, I don't innately desire partnered sex (don't need genital stimulation from another person) and don't consider myself to experience "sexual attraction" (which to me is exactly as you describe it in this most recent post). Thanks for the update!

[Guest]

Initially I believed that I experience sexual attraction, but have no innate desire for partnered sex. however I have found it's now A LOT easier to say I experience *sensual attraction* as opposed to sexual attraction.

Okay, this makes so much more sense to me now! In some ways, I'd also consider myself demi-sensual, as in, I like skin on skin cuddles and massages and things like that, however, I don't innately desire partnered sex (don't need genital stimulation from another person) and don't consider myself to experience "sexual attraction" (which to me is exactly as you describe it in this most recent post). Thanks for the update!

I should have updated A LOT sooner but I have a *terrible* memory haha. I think "gosh I need to do that!" Then a month later I'll see something that reminds me of it and, oh crap, still haven't done it! What reminded me in this case was TardisBlue saying how confused they are by this whole thread! I probably have a lot to contribute to that confusion :P it was *months* ago that this thread started, and I have learned A LOT since then.. What I should do is go right through and update each post I've made just for clarification (another thing to add to the list of things I'll forget to do) heh.. hopefully when the new thread is made, everything (including the poll defintions) will be a lot clearer :)

[WhenSummersGone]

If Cupiosexual is the right word then it might be a better way to explain those who have sexual desire without sexual attraction, but I can see how they might feel Asexual. I wonder if we could add it somewhere as a new term? I think Pansexuals do experience sexual attraction to personality. So I guess I like the lack of sexual desire definition.

[Frigid Pink]

Hmm, never really knew what "cupiosexual" was until now, however, it still isn't "asexual" (more like another subset of sexuality) and, therefore, it still makes sense for the definition of an asexual to be "no innate desire for partnered sex."

Of course, as has been mentioned before, people are certainly free to identify with whatever label they choose, however, I think the definition for "asexual" needs to be a little more clear than "no sexual attraction" and also needs to differentiate itself from all the other sexual orientation labels on AVEN (demisexuality, greysexuality, pansexuality, etc.). I think Pan-Ficto really said it best in their last post.

[MusicalCakes]

I like the current definition of "a person who does not experience sexual attraction." As someone who experiences zero attraction whatsoever, it's important for me to have my orientation communicate EXACTLY that. "Little attraction" is not the same thing at all as "no attraction" and I don't believe it should ever be in the definition of asexuality. If it were, people would be more easily convinced that I and others could change or "find the right person someday." No. It doesn't work like that.

[Guest]

DeIeted.W

[Frigid Pink]

I made that post when I thought "sexual attraction" didn't necessarily mean the "innate desire for partnered sex" (after several of Pan-Ficto's posts about their personal experience and interpretation of the phrase). Since then (and since Pan-Ficto's "sensual attraction" clarification), I now agree with you that an asexual wouldn't experience "little sexual attraction" (they'd experience none). I think this is a great example of why "sexual attraction" is not the best way to define asexuality. It's a phrase that can mean so many different things and be interpreted in so many different ways.

I'd change my most recently posted definition to be (with the part in italics as an optional redundant add-on): "An asexual is a person who does not have an innate desire for partnered sexual activity and experiences no sexual attraction."

[Guest]

hehe I wonder how many people have started commenting in this thread thinking one thing, and by now are thinking something different? I know that I come under that category haha. I still have the same opinion as I did to start with (asexuality is the lack of an innate desire for partnered sex, not the lack of the experience of finding people attractive in a sexually arousing way) just the terminology of experiences involved in coming to that opinion have managed to change for me during the last 31 pages.. or something like that haha

[WhenSummersGone]

I think because everyone has their own idea of what sexual attraction is it might be better to leave it out. I personally think sexual attraction is the desire to have sex with someone specific while someone else may think it is arousal or fantasies. It's hard to define sexual attraction for everyone. Sexual desire is easier to explain because either you are horny and want partnered sex or you want to have sex with someone specific. I think they can be linked together, finding someone sexy and you want to have sex with them, but sexual desire can exist alone as well.

So my point is that sexual desire is more the want of having sex, caused by sexual attraction or not, and sexual attraction could mean many things.

[Guest]

DeIeted.

[WhenSummersGone]

I think because everyone has their own idea of what sexual attraction is it might be better to leave it out. I personally think sexual attraction is the desire to have sex with someone specific while someone else may think it is arousal or fantasies. It's hard to define sexual attraction for everyone. Sexual desire is easier to explain because either you are horny and want partnered sex or you want to have sex with someone specific. I think they can be linked together, finding someone sexy and you want to have sex with them, but sexual desire can exist alone as well.

So my point is that sexual desire is more the want of having sex, caused by sexual attraction or not, and sexual attraction could mean many things.

I think I find the term sexual desire confusing because it could easily be misinterpreted as sexual arousal? Often when I have seen you say 'sexual desire' I have to do a double take (ie 'asexuals don't feel sexual desire'') to remind myself that you mean 'the desire for partnered sex' and not 'sexual arousal'.. I am possibly the only person who feels this way though :p

This is why I always say 'the desire for partnered sex' instead of 'sexual desire' just so that I can be very clear that I do not mean sexual arousal.. in saying that though I am (pretty sure) that we are talking about exactly the same thing? heh.

Yes lol, partnered sex is what I mean when I say sexual desire. I think arousal is just a normal body reaction but it doesn't mean you desire/want partnered sex.

[Frigid Pink]

Great summary Pan-Ficto!

My (repeatedly edited) proposed definition ("sex" could also be replaced with "sexual activity" or "sexual contact"):

"An asexual is a person who does not have an innate desire for partnered sex"

[Guest]

Great summary Pan-Ficto!

My (repeatedly edited) proposed definition ("sex" could also be replaced with "sexual activity" or "sexual contact"):

"An asexual is a person who does not have an innate desire for partnered sex"

Sounds just about perfect to me.

WhenSummersGone... you've indicated your view has changed... you previously were very strongly in favor of having "partners" further pecified with "of any gender". Is this still something you think needs to go into it? Which would make it:

"An asexual is a person who does not have an innate desire for sex[-ual activities / -ual contact] with partners of any gender"

[WhenSummersGone]

Great summary Pan-Ficto!

My (repeatedly edited) proposed definition ("sex" could also be replaced with "sexual activity" or "sexual contact"):

"An asexual is a person who does not have an innate desire for partnered sex"

Sounds just about perfect to me.

WhenSummersGone... you've indicated your view has changed... you previously were very strongly in favor of having "partners" further pecified with "of any gender". Is this still something you think needs to go into it? Which would make it:

"An asexual is a person who does not have an innate desire for sex[-ual activities / -ual contact] with partners of any gender"

I think if romantic and sexual orientation is based on gender then it should say "any gender", but I would also be happy if it said "anyone" meaning the same thing as all genders.

[Frigid Pink]

"An asexual is a person who does not have an innate desire for partnered sex"

"An asexual is a person who does not have an innate desire for sex with anyone"

"An asexual is a person who does not have an innate desire for sex[-ual activities / -ual contact] with anyone[partners of any gender]"

I'm okay with any variations of the above, however, I personally prefer the first.

[Bronte]

"An asexual is a person who does not have an innate desire for partnered sex"

"An asexual is a person who does not have an innate desire for sex with anyone"

"An asexual is a person who does not have an innate desire for sex[-ual activities / -ual contact] with anyone[partners of any gender]"

I'm okay with any variations of the above, however, I personally prefer the first.

I prefer the last definition.

[the bumbling rotifer]

But there are further topics I'm confused about, for example in the George scenario (see post #147) I'd consider him sexual in a real life case, though he's actually called ace/cupio? I actually can't comprehend this tbh? I mean how can he be asexual? Also there is the Sam and Edward scenario (see post #170), now Sam is clearly sexual but who is to say Edward is not asexual? (OP says that he is, but some people argues that).

This is taking me back to school mathematics.

"If George is cupiosexual and travels towards Sam at 80 mph, and Edward is asexual and travels towards Sam at 3 mph, then calculate the sexual orientation of Sam at the point at which the three intersect".