Defining asexuality - a better definition?

[Guest]

@Ficto... Tahnks for the link, commented on that thread, because it's extremely important.

@Plectro... I have a bit of a headache right now. Will get back to you later.

[Guest]

@Ficto... Tahnks for the link, commented on that thread, because it's extremely important.

@Plectro... I have a bit of a headache right now. Will get back to you later.

I have a lot to do today, so won't get around to replying to anything here for at least 12 hours. I think it's really important we don't let the revamp issue go, so will be focusing on that for the next.. well, however long it takes.

They're just talking themselves in circles: ''AVEN doesn't have an official stance on the definition of asexuality, other than the official stance that asexuality is a lack of sexual attraction which we want people to be able to interpret however they want......'' So what you're really saying is ''AVENs official stance on asexuality is 'an asexual is anyone who wants to be asexual''' and in that case, why not just remove the word ''education'' out of the title of this website??? This should be called the Asexuality Visibility and Speculation Network, because as long as AVEN keeps its head in the sand and refuses to take an official stance, that's all this is. A website where people come and speculate as to what asexuality is.

I absolutely do not trust people that can talk themselves in circles to such an extent that they can say they are not in favor of the idea that anyone who wants to be asexual can be asexual, while at the same time saying that the only official stance AVEN has on asexuality is that anyone who wants to be asexual, is asexual and acting like that's a positive thing. It's not good that they have control over what will appear on the front page now.

[Star Bit]

@-@ now you get the brick wall i was talking about

[Guest]

I absolutely do not trust people that can talk themselves in circles to such an extent that they can say they are not in favor of the idea that anyone who wants to be asexual can be asexual, while at the same time saying that the only official stance AVEN has on asexuality is that anyone who wants to be asexual, is asexual and acting like that's a positive thing. It's not good that they have control over what will appear on the front page now.

Well, at least there's been a clear public statement now that the answer in question was one specific PT member's personal opinion, and won't be used as basis for a definition change without input by the community at large. I do trust that after this becoming pointed out, we will see the neccessary transparence in the project, and can make sure the definition does not silently get made to disappear.

I am annoyed and wary (which my posts in that other thread show quite clearly, I think), and I obviously strongly disagree with said PT member's view... but despite all my grumpyness, I'm nowhere near the point of desperate disappointment yet.

[Lost247365]

What got me about that whole thing is that they say in one post that they want to be as inclusive as possible:

The downside is that maybe some people will identify as asexual when others think they are not asexual, but that's generally considered a Type II error. Our aim is to be as inclusive as possible within reason. A bit of vagueness seems a reasonable price to pay for that.

But yet they reject the "and/or" definition. Which means that their aim is NOT "to be as inclusive as possible within reason." They don't want to upset nonasexuals who want to claim to be asexual, but don't care about actual asexuals feeling that they don't fit the definition.

It is kinda like how they think "desire" has problems but seem to completely overlook the problems of "attraction." Or how they want a definitive definition for asexual but base it upon "sexual attraction" to which they want to set no definitive definition. Which makes their definition of asexual completely meaningless. That is not inclusive within reason. In fact, their stance defeats both purposes. It is not inclusive, and it is a irrational definition altogether.

They just keep moving the goalpost. Seems like what they really want is to support and reinforce the status quo with all the confusion and problems that go along with it.

[Plectrophenax]

I was also rather surprised at the comment that using "desire" as an approach has it's difficulties. Unlike most here, I actually fully agree with that. But then implying [by omission, no less] that using "attraction" is somehow less problematic, to the extent of being openly endorsed due to nothing other than it being the 'status quo'* - while at the same time acknowledging the term's vagueness [without acknowledging the consequence of the term's meaninglessness] - indicates rather strongly to me that this issue has not been considered that much.

I'm glad it came up, as this is as good a time as ever to address it. Not only in the context of revamping the front page though, and not only in 'retalliation' to michaeld, but in general. I would be curious to see how many people would consider this an issue if it recieved forum-wide attention, since the counter-claim for any change of definition or even placement seems to be that "very few" would.

*thanks for making note of AVEN.de, Mysticus.

EDIT: Oh, and @Lost247365, be careful about terms like "nonasexuals" or "actual asexuals" as they only make sense in light of a presupposed definition.

[i wouldn't say that those asexuals more directly addressed through the desire-based definition are excluded in the current phrasing in a way they might feel left out. It seems very much to be the point of the term "sexual attraction" to let a broader amount of people than just those conveniently identify with the label of asexuality, but that need not alienate anyone. This, of course, only when the terminology is clear. If it isn't, it should alienate everyone. That it doesn't seem to do so is the reason why this is so irksome.]

[Lost247365]

EDIT: Oh, and @Lost247365, be careful about terms like "nonasexuals" or "actual asexuals" as they only make sense in light of a presupposed definition.

[i wouldn't say that those asexuals more directly addressed through the desire-based definition are excluded in the current phrasing in a way they might feel left out. It seems very much to be the [i]point[/i] of the term "sexual attraction" to let a broader amount of people than just those conveniently identify with the label of asexuality, but that need not alienate anyone. This, of course, only when the terminology is clear. If it isn't, it should alienate everyone. That it doesn't seem to do so is the reason why this is so irksome.]

I am sorry, that was poor wording on my part. My comments were more directed at what they meant by type I and type II errors. In that they seem more concerned to not to alienate "false positives" than they are to preventing "false negatives."

My deal with "sexual attraction" is that I do experience attraction, but not desire. Further, my attraction doesn't come up and slap me in the face and tell me what type of attraction it is. It would make life alot simpler if it did say "I'm not sexual attraction dipshit, I am aesthetic attraction!" But the attraction I feel doesn't work that way. Conversely, I know what desire is, and can even tell what it is directed toward, but attraction to me is just a pull I feel toward others. Nothing more.

I have seen it said on AVEN that there are six types of attractions:

Aesthetic Attraction: A pull toward a person based upon their appearance

Sexual Attraction: The desire to have sexual contact with someone else

Sensual Attraction: The desire to have physical non-sexual contact with someone else

Platonic Attraction: The desire to start a friendship with another person

Emotional Attraction: The desire to bond with someone due to their emotions/personality

Romantic Attraction: The desire to start a romantic relationship {whatever that means} with someone

My problem here is that only aesthetic attraction sounds anything like the attraction I feel, or even what I would describe as attraction at all. It is just a pull. A compulsion. None of the others sound like attractions to me at all. I would call them all desires. So I am left wondering is this attraction sexual? Romantic? Just aesthetic?

Maybe it is that I just don't see "desire" as being the same thing as "attraction." Looking it up in dictionaries I can't find a single one that categorize one as a synonym for the other. If there is a relation in dictionary definitions, it seems like attraction is defined to be the agent that causes desire. If that is the case then desire implies attraction, which means if someone has desire they must experience attraction. But if they experience attraction they might or might not experience desire.

So the idea of the attraction definition being more broad makes no sense to me.

Regardless, having identified as asexual for a few years now, I feel that is the correct way to describe my sexual orientation. But when people insist on defining asexuality in terms of attraction I do feel alienated. Like the rug is being pulled out from under me. And I don't want to cause others to feel the same way. So that is why I support "and/or" definition.

[Star Bit]

I disagree about the definition of emotional attraction; that's the allosexual definition of the word; who also have 3 meanings of physical attraction, if not lumping them all into one (so i hate to generalize, but they're not the greatest with those kinds of terms). Not to mention the definition listed is the same thing as platonic attraction. Emotional attraction is like aesthetic attraction except with someones emotions/personality; like a favorite character or admirance. If someone also wants to know them then that's just two attractions at the same time. I also like to include mannerisms in aesthetic attraction's definition. And I'm not sure the word desire is right. Mental desire? Fixation? Though pull/allure really is accurate because that's literally what attraction means. And attraction and desire to act IRL are two different things. For example, someone can feel romantically/have romantic attraction but not desire to act IRL. There's more to romantic attraction than just wanting to be in a romantic relationship; otherwise Cupioromantic wouldn't be a thing. So sexual attraction is better put as "a pull to be sexual/have sex with someone" as it's already defined in dictionaries. Romantic attraction is the only one that's tricky; as it's an emotion and not really a pull to be romantic with someone. Maybe "a pull of romantic feelings"? But that sounds vague as fuk though. XD

[Lost247365]

I disagree about the definition of emotional attraction; that's the allosexual definition of the word; who also have 3 meanings of physical attraction, if not lumping them all into one (so i hate to generalize, but they're not the greatest with those kinds of terms). Not to mention the definition listed is the same thing as platonic attraction. Emotional attraction is like aesthetic attraction except with someones emotions/personality; like a favorite character or admirance. If someone also wants to know them then that's just two attractions at the same time. I also like to include mannerisms in aesthetic attraction's definition. And I'm not sure the word desire is right. Mental desire? Fixation? Though pull/allure really is accurate because that's literally what attraction means and is. And attraction and desire to act IRL are two different things. For example, someone can feel romantically/have romantic attraction but not desire to act IRL. There's more to romantic attraction than just wanting to be in a romantic relationship; otherwise Cupioromantic wouldn't be a thing. So sexual attraction is better put as "a pull to be sexual/have sex with someone" as it's already defined in dictionaries. Romantic attraction is the only one that's tricky; as it's an emotion and not really a pull to be romantic with someone. Maybe "a pull of romantic feelings"? But that sounds vague as fuk though. XD

That actually makes way more sense on emotional attraction.

Attractions to me are best described as pulls but I can easily understand it as a fixation or allures. I have experienced the sensation of being "pulled" toward someone who is aesthetically pleasant or whose personality is infectious. You just feel drawn to them. No thought involved.

I haven't felt a pull to have sex so I guess I really haven't experienced that. The romance and platonic ones baffles me. Pulls with a emotion/thought attached. That just sounds weird to me. All the pulls I have experienced have all felt the same and have all been without thought. Like a string is wrapped around some part of my body and gently tugging.

[Star Bit]

Platonic attraction is strictly the strong desire/urge to know/befriend someone; that's why aromantics can confuse it with romantic attraction; because it's different from their normal desire to be friends with someone. Romantic attraction is an emotion; so it doesn't translate well into words, but it can be inadequately put as soft/warm/fuzzy feelings with some degree of fixation (at least in comparison to one's normality with others). Some people have a physical reaction to the feeling and others don’t (i.e. butterflies in their stomach, heart rate increase [though those are also symptoms of platonic nervousness], dreamy mindset, anxious euphoria, infatuation, etc.)

[Frigid Pink]

Platonic attraction is strictly the strong desire/urge to know/befriend someone; that's why aromantics can confuse it with romantic attraction; because it's different from their normal desire to be friends with someone. Romantic attraction is an emotion; so it doesn't translate well into words, but it can be inadequately put as soft/warm/fuzzy feelings with some degree of fixation (at least in comparison to one's normality with others). Some people have a physical reaction to the feeling and others don’t (i.e. butterflies in their stomach, heart rate increase [though those are also symptoms of platonic nervousness], dreamy mindset, anxious euphoria, infatuation, etc.)

Yeah, well, I consider myself "demi-romantic," and it's very difficult for me to distinguish friendly from romantic feelings early on, especially since I think I need an emotional bond or connection before romantic feelings develop at all. I just know when I'm drawn towards someone (for any reason) and then what type of feelings I have for that person are more clear to me later on as I get to know them and spend more time with them. It can make "dating" in the general sense a bit more complicated and difficult for me, however, I generally don't break down and specify or even acknowledge what type of attraction I feel for someone, except for romantic attraction, which I'm only aware of once I desire to express my feelings in more physical ways such as cuddles or kisses.

[booksoversex]

I am a bit confused, because it seems to me Plectro wrote much as the same as me in regards to seeking out sex vs. desiring sex, just in much fancier words - yet I don't see anyone ranting against him? Lol.

This is an interesting discussion, but until we agree on for instance what desire means, we're no closer to a better definition.

[Guest]

This is an interesting discussion, but until we agree on for instance what desire means, we're no closer to a better definition.

Couldn't disagree more. First, I don't really see any major confusion about desire... all I see are people trying to play the "hypotheticals" game. Second, quality isn't dependent upon agreement. The desire definition is better regardless of whether there's unanimous agreement (which there never will be)

[Plectrophenax]

I am a bit confused, because it seems to me Plectro wrote much as the same as me in regards to seeking out sex vs. desiring sex, just in much fancier words - yet I don't see anyone ranting against him? Lol.

This is an interesting discussion, but until we agree on for instance what desire means, we're no closer to a better definition.

To be fair, the post hasn't been addressed at all so far, not through agreement or disagreement. The reasons seem to be the focus on making this discussion relevant regarding the front-page revamp. At least I hope that's the reason and people didn't decide to skip the response alltogether.

And while I am in agreement with you regarding the distinction between desiring and 'seeking out', it seems like most people find this unproblematic. I would like to clarify on this because, from what I can tell, the implications of the different people advocating for it aren't all the same [advocating for the specification of desire/seeking out vs not doing so, for example]. But I'm perfectly willing - I'm sure you are too - to adopt a majority concensus in this regard. Though I will try and understand the position as best I can before doing so.

Couldn't disagree more. First, I don't really see any major confusion about desire... all I see are people trying to play the "hypotheticals" game. Second, quality isn't dependent upon agreement. The desire definition is better regardless of whether there's unanimous agreement (which there never will be)

I take it you read my last [longer] post. I'm not working with hypotheticals, let alone 'trying' to do so. Rather I'm trying to grasp implications inherent in the usage of the word 'desire' in this context. If that is playing a game of hypotheticals, then that is what I'm doing, though I consider it to be a process of clarification - first and foremost for myself [even if nobody else deems such a process necessary].

I do completely agree with the second point, though. 'Sexual desire' is less ambiguous than 'sexual attraction'. No contest [so far]. I don't think I'm completely grasping the notion [which can have multiple reasons, the most prominent one surely being that I have no practical experience on the matter], but generally it's not the 'desire' aspect that I have trouble with, but the sexual desire one. Desiring sex for primary goals [i.e. not 'indirectly'] while not primarily desiring the physical or mental stimulus it provides seems like a perfectly adequate thing to say. So does 'desire' always include a component of pleasure, if only assumed and not actually felt [this the nature of my question to Mysticus]? This seems implied sometimes, but not always. Or does 'desire' actually just mean 'wanting [badly]' or something along those lines? If so, then sexual desire would mean something like 'wanting sex [badly]' which again excludes reasons for wanting [and these reasons are not just deemed important by me, but at the very least also by PanFicto]. Though it could also mean 'wanting sexual/genital stimulus [badly]' but the masturbation-partnered sex distinction is another question for another premise - which I'm fine with just accepting.

Perhaps this isn't 'confusion' about desire itself but more a natural vagueness of terms [or me, once more, missing the collective intuition]. But I do think it's uncontestible that the notion of 'sexual desire' could do with some more [explicit] refining. Especially if the purpose is to establsh a clear definition.

[incidentally, as seen in the revamp thread, some seem to think that AVEN isn't about defining asexuality in the first place. Interesting, that..]

[Frigid Pink]

I view "sexual desire" as "the desire for sex" and that's why asexuality is about "no sexual desire for others" or "no desire for sex with others" or "no desire for partnered sex" vs. "no sexual desire" in general, because some people do desire unpartnered sex (aka masturbation).

FYI- I define "partnered sex" as "consensual activity between two or more people where at least one of the people is in pursuit of an orgasm, which means genitals don't even need to be involved or that it is possible only one partners genitals are involved, such as with breast stimulation."

(excerpt below from this scholarly article) (BOLD is mine)

"More research needs to be conducted on the complex relationship between attraction and desire, but recent evidence and theory sugest the lack of desire in asexuals may be primarily a lack of desire for others - not a lack of desire per se; thus again, a lack of sexual attraction/desire for others may be a defining characteristic of asexuality. In short, when there is evidence of a form of desire in asexual people, it is often a "solitary" desire - a desire that is unconnected to others or a nonpartnered desire. For example, there is evidence that a significant number of asexual people masturbate, and thus asexual people may not lack all forms of sexual desire."

[Guest]

I am a bit confused, because it seems to me Plectro wrote much as the same as me in regards to seeking out sex vs. desiring sex, just in much fancier words - yet I don't see anyone ranting against him? Lol.

This is an interesting discussion, but until we agree on for instance what desire means, we're no closer to a better definition.

It's pretty much that we are having to repeat ourselves over and over and over again, with people asking pretty much the same questions as each other, just with different wording. It's always been this way in this thread, and honestly, it's exhausting.

What Pink said above.. that's it... That's pretty much the answer lol. It really isn't any more complicated than that, and no matter how many times people ask the most complicated, in-depth, intricately worded questions they can think of, it won't change the answer.

And yes, we are currently focusing on the revamp thread (well, I know that's why I haven't personally gotten around to answering yet) that thread is I think the most immediate concern when it comes to defining asexuality (or at least, defining "sexual attraction")

Hopefully one of us will at some point get to breaking down Plectros questions and answering each individually, but for now I know I don't have the time or the energy, apologies to Plectro.

[Star Bit]

This is an interesting discussion, but until we agree on for instance what desire means, we're no closer to a better definition.

*facepalm* There is a damn definition of desire, look it up please, because there is no problem with it.

[WhenSummersGone]

Desire (taken from Google) - A strong feeling of wanting to have something.

This doesn't mean for someone else or other reasons. So your partners pleasure or making babies would not count as a desire for partnered sex. It's really only for the sex itself.

[Plectrophenax]

*facepalm* There is a damn definition of desire, look it up please, because there is no problem with it.

There is a definition for "attraction" too.

Here's the one my encyclopaedia offers; The action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something.

A more passive meaning is describes as such; A quality or feature of something or someone that evokes interest, liking or desire.

Note that desire appears here. It does not necessarily have to factor in, which is why an attraction-based approach is perfectly possible independent of desire [depending on where the focus for asexuality iies]. But more often than not, especially from what I recently saw, it seems to be considered to be a sort of explication of desire [when the opposite strikes me to be more plausible]. This is why I, personally, favour the desire-approach over the attraction-approach. Not because "there is no problem with it". I'm sure you'd say the same if someone flaunted in and told you to just 'look up' attraction already.

Nobody is saying that there is no definition of desire. The question is how desire is understood, specifically in the context of defining an entire group of people. The definitions do not suffice for this.

[interestingly, 'sexual appetite' is listed as an alternate meaning for "desire" for me. Otherwise it is indeed just "strong feeling to have something or wish for something (to happen)". Some hybrid of the two seems to be what people have in mind here, unless they flat-out mean 'sexual appetite'.]

@Frigid Pink;

Sexual desire could also mean 'desire for sexual activity', which might include masturbation. It very clearly doesn't state that sexual activity needs to be desired [solely] for its own sake. Hence the usefulness, to me at least, of the addendum PanFicto provided. Sexual desire could also mean 'desire relating to sex' which makes it even more clear that, if 'desire' is understood as loosely as it is, further specification would be extremely helpful.

Also, you basically just smuggled in the 'partnered' there. You say that "some people desire unpartnered sex" and consider this irrelevant to the topic, hence 'partnered' [though I agree with you, this is an untypical use of the word 'sex', and I'm surprised nobody pointed it out so far - though you seem to be using it in both ways through your post, since otherwise 'no sexual desire for others' wouldn't follow from 'no desire for sex'].

That's fine, of course, but do realise that you just added something additional to the meaning of "sexual desire" by doing so. It's something largely uncontentious, but even so.

[The article is great, by the way. It also serves to highlight that a lot of terminology does not take into account asexuality. Leaping from 'desire' to 'masturbation' is one example, but the strength in which sexuality is measured through interpersonal relations is another.]

@WhenSummersGone;

So it does mean "wanting [to have] something for its own sake" I take it? Call me dense, if you like, but I don't see that as a necessary implication of that definition. If I desire [to have] a specific book, I may just want to own it or read it or however far I can go without adding a different 'reason', but I may also want to utilise the insight I gain from it, or to show it to others and make them read it. This feeling can easily be strong too [say, if the book is rather rare, or my friend, who I want to show it to, is about to leave the country].

I realise how pedantic this must seem to people who find the implication obvious, but I implore you to understand that I legitimately do not find it obvious. I have nothing against using desire as a basis, but if it's a more or less unconditioned desire for something primarily [or entirely] for its own sake, then it absolutely needs that specification. I trust this is also what booksoversex means by saying we need to agree on "what desire means".

@PanFicto;

I doubt someone else asked the same questions, but even if they did they are addressed at specific wording and forms of expression, making a long lost reply [by another person, at least] irrelevant. And I hope my questions are 'in-depth', because I do actually think that in-depth questions can make supposedly clear replies all the more clear. A fault of my philosophical background, you might say.

There's no hurry, by the way. It seems as though not only will getting a clear definition be a challenge, but even establishing the importance of a definition in the first place will. I'm not sure how much energy I can pour into that if AVEN would rather limit itself to [informed] identification.

EDIT: @Mysticus;

The "there's no hurry" applies to you as well. Your eloquence was needed elsewhere, ensuring democratic virtues. I would have it no other way ^_^

[Guest]

@Plectro... I haven't forgotten you, I just don't feel up to long answer posts atm.

[Guest]

@WhenSummersGone;

So it does mean "wanting [to have] something for its own sake" I take it? Call me dense, if you like, but I don't see that as a necessary implication of that definition. If I desire [to have] a specific book, I may just want to own it or read it or however far I can go without adding a different 'reason', but I may also want to utilise the insight I gain from it, or to show it to others and make them read it. This feeling can easily be strong too [say, if the book is rather rare, or my friend, who I want to show it to, is about to leave the country].

I realise how pedantic this must seem to people who find the implication obvious, but I implore you to understand that I legitimately do not find it obvious. I have nothing against using desire as a basis, but if it's a more or less unconditioned desire for something primarily [or entirely] for its own sake, then it absolutely needs that specification. I trust this is also what booksoversex means by saying we need to agree on "what desire means".

How is this NOT playing the hypotheticals game?

If you desire sex because you really want to have sex and you want to utilize the insight you gain from it... that's called experimentation. If you experiment over and over again, then I'm going to say you're calling it experimentation but are in reality desiring it innately. If I read a book for a report and cite the info, and then later go back and read the same book 10 more times... at some point it's fair to say I like the book for reasons other than the usefulness of the citations in my report.

Here's the thing, people. It seems asexuals are soooo far from understanding sexuality that they say things that honestly just don't make sense to those of us who experience sexuality. Having sex and not liking it doesn't make you asexual. Lots of sex is unpleasant. It's not the enjoyment you get from it, it's the drive to do it in the first place. Ya'll realize that when you start having sex, it's often quite awkward and weird and sometimes painful, right?? Let's say an asexual and a sexual just had their first sexual experiences. The sexual was like "huh that's not so great I better try again" and the asexual says "Meh no more sex please." There is a drive in us sexuals to make us seek out sex, to get better at it, etc. There's nothing instinctual about the specific motions of foreplay or, really, anything associated with really good sex. That shit is learned. There's nothing magic about being sexual that makes sex enjoyable or non-awkward...

Literally the only distinguishing feature is that we keep doing it because we are drawn to it. Why do you think people have casual sex with random strangers? They're not attracted to the strangers... ever hear of beer goggles/ coyote ugly? Yeah, people bang strangers because they want sex, not because they want sex with a specific person. When people go out at night saying "i'm going to get laid", they are motivated by sex itself, not attraction to a person. If I'm sitting around thinking "dang I need to bang my partner, it's been awhile", I'm probably not thinking of her, her body, touching, etc... I'm probably just thinking about sex generally.

Sexuals are drawn to sex. The whole attraction thing... it'll tell you who they may have sex with, but that's it. It's simply not the driving force for people who aren't demi.

[Lucinda]

From other thread:

I have seen David Jay speaking in the documentary (A)sexual and he says repeatedly ''I want a relationship, I just don't want sex'' .... so it seems very clear to me that by sexual attraction, he originally meant the desire for partnered sex but didn't fully know how to put that into accurate words that would sum everything up.

Earlier stuff:

and he has been quoted as saying ''An asexual is someone who calls themselves asexual'' I couldn't find any actual proof he said that

That would be the Collective Identity Model.

Be clear to state that David Jay is not the ultimate authority on asexuality as a sexual orientation

He is the first person I ever heard to define asexuality as a sexual orientation. The AVEN definition is designed to align with other sexual orientations.

Prior to my awareness of AVEN, we always referred to asexuality as defined in the American Heritage Dictionary: 3.
Lacking interest in or desire for sex. We never thought of it as a sexual orientation. But, then again, we didn't know there was a need for a movement.

From this thread:

There is a definition for "attraction" too.

Here's the one my encyclopaedia offers; The action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something.

For our purposes, that would be experiencing attraction FOR someone.

A more passive meaning is describes as such; A quality or feature of something or someone that evokes interest, liking or desire.

That would be experiencing attraction FROM someone.

It would seem that AVEN's definition is incomplete if it doesn't clarify FOR or FROM or both.

Nobody is saying that there is no definition of desire. The question is how desire is understood, specifically in the context of defining an entire group of people. The definitions do not suffice for this.

If there is no interest, then there is no desire to engage in sex with other people. According to your above definition of attraction, a lack of attraction is caused by the lack of the other person's action or power to evoke such interest. However, if there is no interest to evoke in the first place, then why put the cause/reason on other people??

[interestingly, 'sexual appetite' is listed as an alternate meaning for "desire" for me. Otherwise it is indeed just "strong feeling to have something or wish for something (to happen)". Some hybrid of the two seems to be what people have in mind here, unless they flat-out mean 'sexual appetite'.]

If one has an interest in something, then they may have the desire to manifest that interest by making something happen. A desire for sex with other people is different than sexual desire / sexual appetite / horniness.

Lucinda

[purplemutant]

In short, when there is evidence of a form of desire in asexual people, it is often a "solitary" desire - a desire that is unconnected to others or a nonpartnered desire. For example, there is evidence that a significant number of asexual people masturbate, and thus asexual people may not lack all forms of sexual desire."

Absolutely! I am one of them. I have the desire to masturbate. However I do not have the desire for sex with people. But I do have an interest in sex with people. Where things get confusing is the difference between desire and interest.

Desire is what compels you to do it. I am compelled to masturbate. However I am not compelled to have sex with people. Sex with people is something I am interested in because I like orgasms and best orgasms I have ever had were induced by other people. Getting touched by someone else is more intense than touching your self. If I could get the same level of orgasms and touch sensitivity from masturbation; I wouldn't be interested in sex. My interest is not out of desire; but simply because sex offers something that masturbation doesn't. Of course, since I have no desire for sex; I am fine without having any. Funny enough it seems that these days I only really think about real world partnered sex when the subject of asexuality comes up.

[purplemutant]

@books:

Since I know Ficto and I are just about on the same page there...

Yep, it's a misunderstanding. It's purely the desire for partnered sex that decides whether someone is ace or not, not the enjoyment of it. Someone who doesn't enjoy sex, but does desires it, is not an asexual. Someone who enjoys sex, but doesn't desire it, is ace.

Think of a food item that tastes good to you, but for whatever reason, you simply never spontaneously get the idea of buying it for yourself, and would hardly notice if you never ate it again (because noone randomly ever ends up offering it to you, and as said, you simply don't get the idea of buying it). That's exactly how a sex-enjoying ace feels about partnered sex. If they actually actively do wish to eat that item, and go out to buy it - that's sexual, not ace.

Completely regardless of whether there is "sexual attraction" at play - that term has become so vague and subjective that "feeling sexual attraction" or not simply means absolutely nothing in terms of whether someone is asexual or not. It's time to discard it, and bring back a definition that actually means something (which incidentally, as Ficto correctly stated, is the definition that was the underlying meaning of the "sexual attraction" term all the time, including the way Mr AVEN, David Jay, himself uses it, before a blizzard of snowflakes buried it.)

I will have to disagree SLIGHTLY with you. I think a person can go out of their way for sex and still be ace. Provided their seeking sex isn't out of desire (compulsion). I would like to have sex. However there are various roadblocks in place that makes it difficult. Since I have no sexual desire I don't bother dealing with the bullshit and just go without sex. If I had sexual desire I would be much more likely to deal with the bullshit because I would feel like I needed to have sex. If I couldn't overcome the bullshit I would feel bad because I am not having sex. If getting sex where easy for me; I would be inclined to do it more regularly. Of course in my case "more regularly" means more than once every few years LOL. If I lived in the Netherlands where the government pays for people with disabilities to visit prostitutes; I would be having sex. If only prostitution were legal here in California and they had autism trained prostitutes. :)

Beer is a good analogy to explain sex favorable asexuals. There is a difference between going out and getting a beer because you like beer and going out to get beer because you are an alcoholic (not to say that people are sex addicts). The way you put it; I would only ever drink if someone offered me a beer. I would never go buy one my self.

We are basically on the same page. I just wanted to make a slight clarification.

*edit*

I was just thinking about my relationship with alcohol. It's similar to my relationship with sex. So it's a good analogy for asexuality. I realized that you may in fact be more or less correct in what you said. Sometimes I feel like having a beer. But I normally don't out of my way to go buy it. I only ever really buy it if I already happen to be in the store and walk past the beer section. Then I might think "I haven't had a beer in a while. A beer sounds good. Yea I'll get a beer". When I lived in Washington State they had state run liquor stores. So hard alcohol was only available in those stores. I pretty much never drank hard alcohol because it wasn't presented to me. The same could be said for sex. The only times I have ever had it, a situation presented it's self. So yea it would be fair to say that a sex favorable ace generally wont go out of their way to get sex. They will only have sex if a situation presents it's self.

[Guest]

If I lived in the Netherlands where the government pays for people with disabilities to visit prostitutes; I would be having sex. If only prostitution were legal here in California and they had autism trained prostitutes. :)

Why do you identify as asexual? I would definitely not consider you asexual. Aromantic, sure, but not asexual.

[purplemutant]

Oh, and to avoid people say ''I desire sex but I desire it because of the emotional bond it produces, therefore I am asexual'' maybe a better definition would be:

​''An asexual person does not desire partnered sex for sexual and/or emotional pleasure''

... that kind of wipes all reasons someone might desire sex for their own/shared pleasure and gratification (whether emotional or sexual) but leaves intact the asexuality of those who desire to please their partner, desire to have a baby, or desire to fit in, and have sex for these reasons.

Just an idea.

I see no reason to include reasons in regards to desire. It implies that aces can desire partnered sex for reasons other than sexual/emotional pleasure. The "lack of desire for sex with people" is good enough. The problem I think hat you are confusing desire with interest. A person can have an interest in sex only because they want to procreate. In that case it's not a desire for sex; ti's a desire to procreate that leads to an interest in sex. Same with the others you mentioned. A desire to pleasure ones partner leads to an interest in having sex with them. In all those situations there is NO DESIRE FOR SEX. It's all an interest in sex due to some other desire that necessitates having sex.

I still vote for the definition of asexuality in my sig line. It's simple and to the point. Also, it doesn't exclude sex favorable asexuals. Or any other aces who have sex for reasons other than desire.

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

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

[Plectrophenax]

It's great to see so many people chime in. It's really quite insightful, albeit also confusing. I feel as though most of you are saying very similar things, but none are saying and, by extension, implying quite the same.

If you desire sex because you really want to have sex and you want to utilize the insight you gain from it... that's called experimentation. If you experiment over and over again, then I'm going to say you're calling it experimentation but are in reality desiring it innately. If I read a book for a report and cite the info, and then later go back and read the same book 10 more times... at some point it's fair to say I like the book for reasons other than the usefulness of the citations in my report.

It's not the enjoyment you get from it, it's the drive to do it in the first place.

Literally the only distinguishing feature is that we keep doing it because we are drawn to it.

Sexuals are drawn to sex. The whole attraction thing... it'll tell you who they may have sex with, but that's it. It's simply not the driving force for people who aren't demi.

Sexuals are drawn to sex [not requiring any reasons for engagement at all, not even anticipation of pleasure or even satiation of concrete desire]. Asexuals are not. I take it you would be content with that distinction? I wouldn't consider the desire-approach I've seen put forward here to be identical with that suggestion, though. A 'draw' is something other than a desire, it seems, and arguably even more fundamental. Again, sexual "appetite" leaps to mind. Would you deem that a suitable synonym?

The distinction between experimentation and "desiring it innately" is very important. It doesn't address all instances of 'desire for sex', but it does address a particularly finnicky one - and their categorisation would be solved by having the term asexual first applied to them accordingly [in the absence of striking "innate desire"], but later, through their actions, become increasingly less likely. This goes under the assumption that there's no way to repeatedly seek something out - to the point where an ulterior or additional utility at least becomes implausible - without "desiring it innately". But I think I can follow.

I'm very acutely aware of how this must sound to you [perhaps something like "so does breathing imply desire to live?"], which is why I'm very grateful you are taking the time. But as far as I can tell, gaining pleasure is not a criterion put forward so far. What has been suggested was that sex is sought after for the purpose of gaining pleasure, independent of whether or not pleasure is then actually gained. It is one attempt at clarifying the meaing of "desire" [and as such I find it better than the alternative of not clarifying the meaning at all].

Others have not made any mention of pleasure. Desiring something for its own sake = desiring it innately = being drawn to it [involuntarily]. That seems to be your approach, and apart from confusing terminology, I get that. It's probably the most staightforward conceptualisation, and it's something I myself have considered apt a few times before, but would never have considered even close to factual [surely there's a reason beyond the thing itself, I would say to myself].

[And while I do use hypothetical (but likely) cases, I do not consider it a 'game' but an act of clarification. Maybe I'm connotating your phrasing incorrectly, if so apologies for that.]

If there is no interest, then there is no desire to engage in sex with other people. According to your above definition of attraction, a lack of attraction is caused by the lack of the other person's action or power to evoke such interest. However, if there is no interest to evoke in the first place, then why put the cause/reason on other people??

If one has an interest in something, then they may have the desire to manifest that interest by making something happen. A desire for sex with other people is different than sexual desire / sexual appetite / horniness.

Now 'interest' seems almost the more useful term than desire [purplemutant brings it up as well]. No interest means no desire [i would agree in many cases, though I would make clear that there are cases where one desires something without being interested in the thing one desires directly (means to an end, basically), as well as cases where there's no desire but very much interest]. Since 'desire', provided it isn't understood as an innate involuntary pull, implies a cognitive appraisal [wanting], it seems possible to assert the requirement of interest for this step as well.

I does seem to me that many argue that attraction, as it's 'radiated' off other people, involves a degree of involuntariness, though. Not being receptive to that would be a consequence of a lack of interest, I presume? Like deliciously prepared food making people's mouths water, but having no effect on those not receptive to that particular food.

And you say that a desire for sex with other people is distinct from sexual desire. I would agree it is not necessarily the same [for one, I don't think 'sexual desire' necessarily includes any stance towards other people].

Just a few posts ago, however, Frigid Pink said the very opposite. I assume, given the rest of your post, you deem "desire for sex with other people" to be a willful act, while "sexual desire" is neither willful nor necessarily an act? [supposing, in this case, that interest is always willful.]

AVENs definition of attraction, I will agree, is most definitely incomplete, by the way.

Absolutely! I am one of them. I have the desire to masturbate. However I do not have the desire for sex with people. But I do have an interest in sex with people. Where things get confusing is the difference between desire and interest.

Desire is what compels you to do it. I am compelled to masturbate. However I am not compelled to have sex with people. Sex with people is something I am interested in because I like orgasms and best orgasms I have ever had were induced by other people. Getting touched by someone else is more intense than touching your self. If I could get the same level of orgasms and touch sensitivity from masturbation; I wouldn't be interested in sex. My interest is not out of desire; but simply because sex offers something that masturbation doesn't.

I get the difference between being compelled to masturbate [this, I take, is what could also be called arousal?] and not being compelled to sex. But if you are interested in sex on the basis of orgasm - something that masturbation can also, theoretically, achieve - then isn't it just a difference in scale? Or is your 'drive' to masturbate motivated by something other than orgasm? What would you call that? Arousal, relief, mere bodily necessity/functionality?

Also, while your interest may not be out of desire, I feel as though, according to the suggestions made so far, you would be considered "interested in partnered sex [for its own sake/for orgasm]". No interest, according to Lucinda, results in no desire, but interest can, in the reverse, give rise to desire. Depending on how the word is used, you could be said to "desire partnered sex [for its own sake/for orgasm]" which would make you a sexual under the desire-approach. Even saying that you don't actively seek out sex, being fine not having it, the interest [and potential differing use of 'desire'] could still be said to be there.

This is one of the very cases where the implications of a conceptualisations can be fully demonstrated. Whether or not you fall under the label of asexual or sexual accoring to an approach on the basis of desire seems to be entirely up to the extension of the word "desire" itself. I think it speaks volumes that this is even up for debate.

I will have to disagree SLIGHTLY with you. I think a person can go out of their way for sex and still be ace. Provided their seeking sex isn't out of desire (compulsion). I would like to have sex. However there are various roadblocks in place that makes it difficult. Since I have no sexual desire I don't bother dealing with the bullshit and just go without sex.

I tried to advocate for cases like yours [among other things] in my earlier diatribes. What I didn't do then was utilise the word "compulsion". Like Skullery Maid's "draw", it again seems to imply a degree of involuntary force. If that is how desire is understood, then not only would you not be sexual in spite of accepting sex [due to enjoying it, no less] when offered to you, but presumably a few sexuals would also fall under the umbrella of asexuality, since they don't feel or notice this inconspicuous force [they might, after a while, become to realise it, but not necessarily].

Maybe smoking can serve as an analogy as well [how telling that alcohol and tobacco are used as examples, amirite]. I know of a few people who enjoy smoking, but only as a sort of social activity. They buy cigarettes rarely, when they happen to have the money on them when buying something else [or so they claim] and will gladly accept cigarettes offered to them. While they might feel that a cigarette would be nice, say, on a cold and stormy evening when they are alone, they will most likely not brave the weather in order to get a cigarette. Smokers, on the other hand, will tend to do just that [though mostly they will have cigarettes stacked up to prevent this very thing from happening]. How do they fare on the 'smoker-non-smoker' scale? Do they 'desire' cigarettes? Are they drawn to them, though maybe only very weakly? Is it merely a liking, free from external or internal pressure? It's an interesting case.

[Guest]

I must be missing something because I don't see how purplemutant can be asexual under any desire definition. Stating that, were prostitution legal, purplemutant would freely choose to have tons of partnered sex... well, purplemutant is clearly drawn to it, and is only refraining due to external pressures (the law and money). That's like saying someone is asexual because no one agrees to fuck them.

[how telling that alcohol and tobacco are used as examples, amirite]

The only thing it "tells" is that asexuals have a weird and often negative view of sexuality.

In any case, I really don't get the cigarette analogy either. The frequency with which you smoke could be likened to the strength of your libido, I suppose, but outside of that... if you see a cigarette lying around, you pick it up and smoke it... you're a smoker. You may be a lite smoker if you don't do it very often... you may be a social smoker if you only smoke when you're in groups, but no matter how often you smoke, if you're independently compelled to inhale tobacco smoke, you're a smoker.

The reason both the alcohol and tobacco analogies suck is that nearly everyone who smokes is also addicted. It's hard to separate those two. Can you be a smoker and not an addict? Hell yes. Can you be a sexual and not an addict? HELL. YES.

[That asexual guy]

I saw repeatedly throughout the documentary (A)sexual, he said ''I just don't want sex, I am asexual'', so I would be interested to know where he stands on the definition of ''sexual attraction'' and what he thinks about this whole matter. [/font]

I have found in almost every video or piece of writing no matter what stilted definition anyone chooses to use, when they get to the part where they talk about themselves and personal experiences they almost always circle around to saying similar things about not wanting sex or not being interested in sex.

[booksoversex]

I am not sure I follow Skullery Maid on experimentation. I've slept with 7-8 different men. I wasn't compelled to sleep with anyone of them. It was just what I saw happening around me, when people got along. I didn't even enjoy it at all at first. I found it incredibly boring. I realized I would have to put an effort into it if I were to like it (at this time it didn't even occur to me I could NOT have sex, "everyone" wanted sex / it was simply how it was with people my age). So I did. I enjoyed it, I even had a friends with benefits whom I would meet mostly to have sex with. I was really curious about sex, and trying lots of different stuff. I still found sex boring a lot of the time, but sometimes I could really enjoy it when I got into it. And I liked the idea of having a "friend with benefits", it was exciting in a "forbidden" way. I think my body is quite simple in terms of arousal: If I feel comfortable about someone (IOW they don't appear threatening/rude/et.) and they touch me in certain places, I get turned on. And then I can have sex, and enjoy it. I think this would go regardless of gender, although I never tried having sex with a woman. It has to be said, though, that it didn't really feel natural for me to touch people "there" or take things beyond a kiss. They would usually take the iniative and then maybe I would just sort of go along with it. It hasn't really been until the last couple of years that I've really come to terms with my disinterest in sex. I've noticed I don't mind going without sex. I've only felt like I should have sex to "fit in" and because of societal pressure. I have never understood why it's such an important part of everyone's lives or relationships. Sure, it can be an intimate act with a loved one. But so can kissing. Or cuddling. Or just sleeping next to each other. Why is sex so special?

The point is: Does this disqualify me from being asexual? That I, even after not really liking it with the two first guys I slept with, kept thinking it would get better? It wasn't a part of my understanding of human beings that one could NOT care about sex. This is the point I try to stress: I was never interested in sex, and I never got why people obsessed over it or why it had to "ruin" good parties when people turned from the "philosophical conversations at 2 am" to randomly making out with someone and I was sitting there both confused and feeling a bit awkward. I never had a need to be a part of that, in fact, I didn't want to. Yet it didn't occur to me that I might not want sex the way they did, even if I never thought of guys that way, even if I didn't understand why people were disappointed when a night out did not end with a ONS. To me, the best nights out were the ones where NO ONE cared about getting laid. Where we could just hang out. Of course, a lot of sexual people feel this way about going out too. To this day, I cannot tell for sure if I am asexual. But I think I am. Yet, I still had sex, numerous times, and I am not against having it again. I just have no drive for it, or, I am not DRAWN to it if that's easier to say. I would say I don't have a desire for having sex, yet I have had sex many times. I think I am more indifferent to sex, it can be a fun activity so if someone else makes a move I might go along with it, but I don't really care much for it. I wouldn't say I am seeking out sex, but I know that if I were to have it again I would probably enjoy it. Where does that place me? I don't know. And so even though I would say I NEITHER feel sexual attraction NOR have a desire (or a need for, is a better word) to have partnered sex, I still have had it. I haven't necessarily turned it down, or actively NOT wanted it (although most of the time I turn down advances, if I were to not to it would have to be a person I was really comfortable with and liked talking to. A stranger out on town? Forget it). So if asexuality is about "not wanting sex", that would fit me in the sense that I don't go around caring about sex or feeling an urge for it, but it doesn't fit me in terms of finding it off-putting or knowing for sure I would never have it again. I don't have that drive my friends seem to have to find a partner or a hook-up. I would rather masturbate, which I can get an urge to do, or go home alone enjoying the fact that I have the whole bed to myself and can watch what I like on Netflix. I just don't get the allure of sex or hook-ups. I think I had a certain curiousity about it at first, but that has long since worn off.