Any other Asexuals interested in sex with people?

[purplemutant]

And in your earlier posts, about especially wanting sex with other asexuals, I know that was pretty offensive for me (and probably plenty of other asexual people here as well) because the whole purpose of us identifying as asexual is *because* we don't desire sexual relationships.. seriously that whole asexual sex club thing just blew me away.. just what? If you love sex that much, go to a regular sex club? (they exist, you know, for people who love sex and really don't mind who it's with)

I was under the impression that the whole point of identifying as asexual is because you aren't sexually attracted to other people. Again this all comes down to definitions. I would argue that someone who isn't interested in sexual activities is a nonsexual. Because as I have tried to argue you can be asexual (not sexually attracted to people) and still be interested in sex that may involve other people. Like I said "you don't have to turn me on to get me off". My mention of a asexual sex club was simply thinking that it would be nice to have a place to meet people who have the same sexual interests as I do. I have considered going to a regular sex club. But due to my disability (Autism) it might not be safe. I do have some issues with verbal speech. So if someone is doing something I am not comfortable with; I might have some difficulties saying no.

I understand that some commenters don't understand where this negativity is coming from, but I know I personally was just extremely offended by some of the things you said earlier in this thread. There was a sexual person in AVEN chat one day saying "I'm sexual but I have a fetish for asexual women, I'd love to be able to fuck them with no strings attached" (yes the person was banned from AVEN) and honestly, what you have said here, it felt like that. Predatory almost. I understand that's not how you meant it (not intentionally anyway) but it really did come across that you'd just prefer to fuck asexual people.. and also felt like you were in a way comparing us to robots or sex dolls (well you actually pretty much said outright: A ''RealDoll'' - a true to life looking sex doll - is too expensive so I'll settle for the next best thing; an asexual!'' which is objectifying asexuals for sexual purposes as far as I am concerned). So yeah, I'm generally pretty accepting here, but that's where my negativity is coming from in this thread. You also pretty much put yourself (and other people who have sex just because they love sex and/or for reasons other than 'sexual attraction' - there are sexual partners/allies on AVEN like that) in the same category as rapists, sexual predators, and people who have sex with drug-addicted hookers because they 'can't get a free lay' which was probably pretty offensive for them too.

I feel like you may as well have just titled this thread: ''I want to fuck asexuals!'' because really, that's the jist I got from your initial comments.

The reason I mentioned sex with asexuals is because having sex with someone who isn't attracted to people would be more comfortable. They would understand that I am not sexually attracted to them and just interested in engaging in a fun activity. I mentioned sex dolls because it's the closest thing we have to holograms or terminator style cyborgs. I mentioned that my views might seem dehumanizing and to some extent they are. If I had sex with someone they would be in many respects just a sex toy. I am interested in orgasms not an intimate human connection. I am not sexually attracted to people and I am not interested in a romantic relationship. Which brings me back to sex with asexuals. Having sex with someone who understands that I am not interested in an intimate human connection would be more comfortable. If I could clone my self and have sex with my self I would do that. But again we come to the limits of modern technology.

My mention of rapists and people who seek prostitutes was to illustrate that sexual attraction and sexual desire are not intimately connected. A person can desire to have sex with someone without being attracted to them. Unfortunately I those were the only major examples I could think of. Speaking of prostitutes; if I lived somewhere where prostitution were legal, I would probably partake of that. In the Netherlands the government pays for people with disabilities to visit a prostitute a few times a year. If I lived in the Netherlands I would absolutely take advantage of that. Perhaps the best real world alternative to holograms and cyborgs is prostitutes. It's too bad that prostitution isn't legal in more places. That would solve a lot of problems in the world.

[dash]

"Having sex with someone who understands that I am not interested in an intimate human connection would be more comfortable."

But there are lots of sexual people like that, who like to meet up just for sex, no strings attached. Way more by the numbers I would bet than there are asexual people who like those sort of hookups.

There are entire websites devoted to just those types of hookups. I'm the last person to be able to tell you which sites are safe and effective for finding that, but I do know there's a lot of demand out there, and it has nothing to do with asexuality or asexual people.

Anyway, it's been said before: We're people, not sex toys, we don't exist to be a more "comfortable" lay than an allosexual person because we somehow don't come with strings attached (when did I stop having feelings?), and some of us aren't comfortable with these characterizations.

[Guest]

I still think Cupiosexual is the best label for those who have desire without attraction. I just read that it is part of the asexual spectrum which makes sense because there are people here who desire sex.

I agree with this. The only reservation I have about the term is that it was Tumblr-coined, but all terms have to start somewhere I guess. Also, all the descriptions of Cupiosexual that I can find say that a cupiosexual person desires an actual sexual relationship, as opposed to just sex with anyone for the sake of enjoying sex, but meh, still pretty close. Again though, people are free to identify as they wish, I just think it's a good term for people who say the desire partnered sex, yet don't feel sexual attraction (ignoring of course whole issue of AVENs definition of sexual attraction actually being: the desire for partnered sex)

I am confused by "wants partnered sex + also wants relationship with that person/those people" (in other words, not "sex just for the sensations of it") but also "does not experience sexual attraction." What is the difference between this and allosexual? What does "sexual attraction" mean in this context? (Sure, my sexuality isn't physical, but I would never describe myself as sexually attracted to someone I didn't want to have sexual interactions with at least on SOME level, even though for me "sexual interactions" doesn't mean the same things it means for most other folks.)

Assuming yes there is a significant difference between cupiosexual and allosexual, why are cupiosexuals under the asexual umbrella, rather than a different GRSM (gender/romantic/sexual minority) category?

I do agree with you Dash and yes, I am rather confused also, by this entire thread (as clearly illustrated by my other numerous posts here) I was just trying to be politically correct: Some people just seem to *really* feel an affinity with the asexual label, no matter how allosexual they seem to everyone else (which is fine as I have said numerous times, people are free to identify as they wish) I just kind of think it's nice for them to have their own 'special' term too, that's not exactly asexual, but that still can fit under the ace umbrella as long as we ignore AVENs definition of sexual attraction (the desire for partnered sex) ..that way, these people don't have to feel quite so excluded despite being very different from the majority of asexuals, who have no innate desire for partnered sex (which is clearly very different from someone wanting sex with anyone, regardless of gender or appearance etc).

I was just trying to take the middle ground here after the negativity in my previous posts, despite still being very offended by the OP's repeated comparisons of asexuals to sex toys. I know one person who has already reported this thread, and am actually coming close to reporting it myself. We aren't sex toys, we are human beings who, despite what you seem to think OP, don't want to ''fuck randoms for fun'' ... that's a sexual activity. The A in asexual stands for 'no' as in 'non-sexual'

You say you are interested in orgasms and not people, yet clearly you must have some interest in people if you see them as a necessary tool for orgasms?

[romantic-woman]

well said

i wonder why is so difficult for people to accept another label and try to fit by force in something that obviously is different

It is not that bad to be a greysexual or something like cupiosexual or even sexual

People can still be here no matter what is their sexual orientation.

If we accept that asexuals go out cause they want sex with other asexuals and they would like to experiment new techniques but they are not attracted then how we can define attraction?

There are sexuals who want to have only one night stand in clubs but still don't do it cause they have attraction but cause they want to have sex a night and then go away

If we also say that asexual ones are people who like and crave for sex with other people then who will be the grey or the demi one?

And after all sexuals will be appeared like aliens who although that they do the same things with the previous said.. they have attraction and wow they are so different than asexuals who want sex....this is not good for me

What is this word finally? Everyone has another meaning for attraction that is why it will be great if we accept that asexuals DON'T want anyone to satisfy their SEXUAL needs (if they feel any) and can still be alone or masturbate without feeling that something is missing

[purplemutant]

I still think Cupiosexual is the best label for those who have desire without attraction. I just read that it is part of the asexual spectrum which makes sense because there are people here who desire sex.

I agree with this. The only reservation I have about the term is that it was Tumblr-coined, but all terms have to start somewhere I guess. Also, all the descriptions of Cupiosexual that I can find say that a cupiosexual person desires an actual sexual relationship, as opposed to just sex with anyone for the sake of enjoying sex, but meh, still pretty close. Again though, people are free to identify as they wish, I just think it's a good term for people who say the desire partnered sex, yet don't feel sexual attraction (ignoring of course whole issue of AVENs definition of sexual attraction actually being: the desire for partnered sex)

I am confused by "wants partnered sex + also wants relationship with that person/those people" (in other words, not "sex just for the sensations of it") but also "does not experience sexual attraction." What is the difference between this and allosexual? What does "sexual attraction" mean in this context? (Sure, my sexuality isn't physical, but I would never describe myself as sexually attracted to someone I didn't want to have sexual interactions with at least on SOME level, even though for me "sexual interactions" doesn't mean the same things it means for most other folks.)

Assuming yes there is a significant difference between cupiosexual and allosexual, why are cupiosexuals under the asexual umbrella, rather than a different GRSM (gender/romantic/sexual minority) category?

I do agree with you Dash and yes, I am rather confused also, by this entire thread (as clearly illustrated by my other numerous posts here) I was just trying to be politically correct: Some people just seem to *really* feel an affinity with the asexual label, no matter how allosexual they seem to everyone else (which is fine as I have said numerous times, people are free to identify as they wish) I just kind of think it's nice for them to have their own 'special' term too, that's not exactly asexual, but that still can fit under the ace umbrella as long as we ignore AVENs definition of sexual attraction (the desire for partnered sex) ..that way, these people don't have to feel quite so excluded despite being very different from the majority of asexuals, who have no innate desire for partnered sex (which is clearly very different from someone wanting sex with anyone, regardless of gender or appearance etc).

I was just trying to take the middle ground here after the negativity in my previous posts, despite still being very offended by the OP's repeated comparisons of asexuals to sex toys. I know one person who has already reported this thread, and am actually coming close to reporting it myself. We aren't sex toys, we are human beings who, despite what you seem to think OP, don't want to ''fuck for fun'' ... that's a sexual activity. The A in asexual stands for 'no' as in 'non-sexual'

You say you are interested in orgasms and not people, if this was the case, why not just use your hand like other asexuals do? Clearly you must have some interest in people if you see them as a necessary part of orgasms?

Perhaps this thread should be shut down. Some people clearly aren't understanding the points I am trying to make. So there isn't really any point in continuing the discussion if it's just going to piss people off.

As for masturbation, I do that every day. But there are sexual activities I would like to try out that I can't do by my self. Hence the desire for sex with other people. But as I have said I don't feel a great need to have sex with other people. If I went for the rest of my life without having sex with anyone, that would be ok. However tt would be nice if had the opportunity to try some things out.

[purplemutant]

I was just looking at the AVEN FAQ and found this. I added emphasis to the parts that are applicable to me.

Just as sexual people can form asexual relationships, asexual people can participate in sexual relationships for a variety of reasons. So long as you're comfortable and happy with that then it's cause for celebration rather than a reason to doubt your 'asexual purity.' Celibacy and asexuality need not go hand-in-hand.

Besides wishing to connect with a sexual partner, there are other reasons why some asexuals choose to participate in sexual activity. The motivation might be curiosity or experimentation (a good proportion of asexuals have tried sex at some point in the past). Certain aspects of sex might be sensual and enjoyable enough to be motivation for some people even without sexual attraction or drive. Even if it is not immediately desired, sexual release can certainly be pleasurable for an asexual; think of it as not being hungry but still enjoying an ice cream cone. In a loving relationship, some asexuals may enjoy giving sexual pleasure to their partner without the need for any sexual gratification in return. If sex makes their partner feel loved, then some asexuals may wish to take part in consensual sex acts if only because they desire their partner's happiness.

So it would seem that the AVEN definition of asexuality is in fact compatible with my sexuality.

[Excandesco]

So it would seem that the AVEN definition of asexuality is in fact compatible with my sexuality.

The point is, that either sexual attraction solely determines whether or not someone is asexual or it's sexual desire. (or both) I think what people are trying to say is that it should be sexual desire and therefore you are not asexual. Hence all the talk about sexuals who will have sex with 'anyone.'

I have to say that even within that definition it seems like it is implied that an asexual does not desire sex, for sex's sake?

I think some sexual people desire sex but do not need it either.

Like gray-asexuals or demisexuals, you have more in common with 'standard' asexuals. If people want to kick you out, well why not kick out all those other orientations too? I get this weird vibe that there's a sense of 'asexual purity' here. (I won't try to defend any of these points)

[Rising Sun]

I find this topic very interesting, as it shows that not only sexual desire matters. It's actually convincing me more and more that there is probably a mix of sexual attraction and sexual desire involved, and that these two components don't always go hand in hand.

[Moon Ace]

I haven't read everything in this thread by a long shot, but in answer to the original question in the title... my answer is no. Speaking for myself, if I were to be interested in sex with other people (by objectifying them or not), then I would find it very difficult to impossible to call myself asexual. I would feel calling myself asexual if I felt like that would be a lie...

[Guest]

Re. asexual purity

I don't think it's "asexual purity" going on here. I think a great deal of the negativity here is extreme offense from asexual people at being objectified as sex objects by someone claiming to be asexual: "I am asexual because I want to fuck asexuals, they are not like real people they don't have emotions attached to sex though if prostitution was legal here I'd just fuck a prostitute"

Understandably some people are very offended by this.

[WhenSummersGone]

I feel there might be sexuals who are sexual just because they desire sex and enjoy it. I think lack of sexual desire should be the difference between sexual and asexual if we want a clear definition for Asexuality. Are those who are sexual because they desire sex suddenly asexual?

[Excandesco]

Re. asexual purity

I don't think it's "asexual purity" going on here. I think a great deal of the negativity here is extreme offense from asexual people at being objectified as sex objects by someone claiming to be asexual: "I am asexual because I want to fuck asexuals, they are not like real people they don't have emotions attached to sex though if prostitution was legal here I'd just fuck a prostitute"

Understandably some people are very offended by this.

I agree with you there.

[Guest 80814]

I don't really understand the need for so many labels for (a)sexuals, is it that difficult to say 'I'm an (a)sexual, but may be open to ____ after ____' rather than having a different label for ever minor thing that probably requires a google search to see what it means.

[eched]

Orientation is based on what you are attracted to, not what you enjoy. If a gay man hates anal sex that doesn't make him not gay. That's a preference. How silly is it for someone to call themselves sexual if they can't think of anyone that they find sexy? I actually would find that more confusing.

Ya, I'm sexual, but I don't find you attractive or anybody else! :D

I would be just like, huh???

As for the offensive stuff in the first post, the OP was trying to describe their own sexuality, not anyone else. I took the asexual sex club as a joke myself. The only thing that bugged me was the comment against sex workers by suggesting they are all on drugs, but I wasn't going to derail this thread over that.

Honestly, most new members here are sexually confused and describe their sexuality wrong all the time. When I came on here at the start I called myself sexual, didn't understand how attraction worked, and was very confused by my sex driving spiking. Everyone here though at the time cut me some slack, did not label me, and didn't get mad at me when I started to call myself asexual. Don't we owe this new poster the same right?

[purplemutant]

I don't really understand the need for so many labels for (a)sexuals, is it that difficult to say 'I'm an (a)sexual, but may be open to ____ after ____' rather than having a different label for ever minor thing that probably requires a google search to see what it means.

Yep. Too many labels just complicates things. Maybe I am gray or demi or cupio or whatever; but asexual simplifies things. I have no (or nearly no) sexual attraction to people; so asexual fits. Perhaps I fit into some sub category of asexual because I have a desire (however little it might be) to have sex with other people. But where is dividing line? Where is the line between straight and bisexual? If a man likes women 90% and men 10%; I am sure most people would consider him straight. How little sexual attraction or desire does a person have to have to be asexual? By some people's standards any amount of sexual attraction or desire means you aren't asexual. But I would bet that there are asexuals out there who, by some standards are more asexual than me; have had more sex than I have. I am 35 and I have had sex twice in my life. I wonder how many unquestionably asexual people on here have had more consensual sex than I have? I understand that how much sex you have (or haven't had) doesn't have any real bearing on whether you are are asexual or not.

[purplemutant]

Orientation is based on what you are attracted to, not what you enjoy. If a gay man hates anal sex that doesn't make him not gay. That's a preference. How silly is it for someone to call themselves sexual if they can't think of anyone that they find sexy? I actually would find that more confusing.

Ya, I'm sexual, but I don't find you attractive or anybody else! :D

I would be just like, huh???

As for the offensive stuff in the first post, the OP was trying to describe their own sexuality, not anyone else. I tool the asexual sex club as a joke myself. The only thing that bugged me was the comment against sex workers by suggesting they are all on drugs, but I wasn't going to derail this thread over that.

Honestly, most new members here are sexually confused and describe their sexuality wrong all the time. When I came on here at the start I called myself sexual, didn't understand how attraction worked, and was very confused by my sex driving spiking. Everyone here though at the time cut me some slack, did not label me, and didn't get mad at me when I started to call myself asexual. Don't we owe this new poster the same right?

I mentioned drug addicts because drug addicts tend to not be what society considers attractive. The point was that if someone desires sex with someone who is ugly by societal standards; then attraction and desire are not intimately linked or they have really poor taste in women. I understand that not all sex workers are drug addicts. I worked briefly in the sex industry shaking my money maker in front of my webcam.

Yea I was trying describe my own sexuality. Posting things on here can help sort things out. This is all stuff I am still sorting out; so perhaps the way I have described it isn't quite accurate.

[WhenSummersGone]

Orientation is based on what you are attracted to, not what you enjoy. If a gay man hates anal sex that doesn't make him not gay. That's a preference. How silly is it for someone to call themselves sexual if they can't think of anyone that they find sexy? I actually would find that more confusing.

Ya, I'm sexual, but I don't find you attractive or anybody else! :D

I would be just like, huh???

That's true but I find it hard to believe that someone can be asexual if they want to have sex.

At this point the definition of Asexuality should be: Someone who feels they are asexual.

[purplemutant]

Re. asexual purity

I don't think it's "asexual purity" going on here. I think a great deal of the negativity here is extreme offense from asexual people at being objectified as sex objects by someone claiming to be asexual: "I am asexual because I want to fuck asexuals, they are not like real people they don't have emotions attached to sex though if prostitution was legal here I'd just fuck a prostitute"

Understandably some people are very offended by this.

I am asexual because I have no (or close to no) sexual attraction to people. You seem to be continuously dismissing my lack of sexual attraction to people. People don't turn me on sexually. Considering how often sexual society dismisses asexuality as a valid orientation; it's sad that someone who identifies as asexual would be so dismissive of someone else's sexual orientation. But I guess you see that sort of thing in other communities too. "You're not a real lesbian because X". In the past people have accused me of not being a real transsexual.

The reason I would want to have sex with another asexual because they would understand what it's like to not be attracted to people. I wouldn't be attracted to them and they wouldn't be attracted to me. It would just be two (or more) people having fun. Sure I could have sex with a a sexual and I have. As far as I can tell both the people I messed around with were sexuals. But I bet sex with an asexual would be more enjoyable because they wouldn't have the same expectations as a sexual would. I understand that asexuals are real people; even I don't feel like a person sometimes. When it comes to sexuality I have the utmost respect for people. I would never do anything someone wasn't comfortable with. Doing sexual things you don't want to do; just to please someone is not cool in my book. If you don't want to do something sexual, you shouldn't have too EVER!

Chances are I may never find someone to experiment with. Asexuality and Autism are pretty good recipe for not getting laid. An asexual fuck buddy would be awesome. But considering the fact that most asexuals aren't interested in sex; I may never find one. So I may just be stuck with masturbation or a sex doll.

[Rising Sun]

From what I understand, you seem to consider sex more as an outlet for your libido as physical sensations from partnered sex are stronger and more diverse than masturbation, am I right ? If it's the case, it makes sense.

[Guest]

I am asexual because I have no (or close to no) sexual attraction to people. You seem to be continuously dismissing my lack of sexual attraction to people. People don't turn me on sexually. Considering how often sexual society dismisses asexuality as a valid orientation; it's sad that someone who identifies as asexual would be so dismissive of someone else's sexual orientation. But I guess you see that sort of thing in other communities too. "You're not a real lesbian because X". In the past people have accused me of not being a real transsexual.

The reason I would want to have sex with another asexual because they would understand what it's like to not be attracted to people. I wouldn't be attracted to them and they wouldn't be attracted to me. It would just be two (or more) people having fun. Sure I could have sex with a a sexual and I have. As far as I can tell both the people I messed around with were sexuals. But I bet sex with an asexual would be more enjoyable because they wouldn't have the same expectations as a sexual would. I understand that asexuals are real people; even I don't feel like a person sometimes. When it comes to sexuality I have the utmost respect for people. I would never do anything someone wasn't comfortable with. Doing sexual things you don't want to do; just to please someone is not cool in my book. If you don't want to do something sexual, you shouldn't have too EVER!

You seem to be constantly dismissing the fact that AVEN defines sexual attraction, word for word, as: A desire to have sexual contact with someone else.
By AVENs definition *of* sexual attraction, you desiring sex with other people *IS* sexual attraction, regardless of what your reasons for wanting partnered sex are.

And regardless of whether or not you disagree with AVENs definition of sexual attraction (you clearly have your own idea of sexual attraction that is separate from AVENs idea of it and that's completely fine) I already clearly stated, multiple times, that what I disagree with is your objectification of asexual people for sexual pleasure. That's not "discrimination" against you; it's just that as an asexual person, I find your "preference for aces because they are cheaper than RealDolls and more legal than prostitutes" extremely offensive.

Also, I would say an aromantic lesbian woman who only wants sex with straight men and sees sex with women as a last resort, or inferior to sex with men, but says she just isn't "sexually attracted to men" and that's why she's a lesbian (which is what I see here, you seeing masturbation as inferior to partnered sex, *wanting* partnered sex as a fun, pleasurable activity etc, just not finding "people hot") probably would experience a lot of resistance in the Gay community. She is the one putting herself out there identifying as lesbian for very different reasons than most other women identify as lesbian. Sure she is still free to identify as lesbian, but she also needs to *expect* quite a bit of resistance and be ready to roll with that. The resistance won't change the fact that she identifies as lesbian for her own personal reasons, but it's pretty inevitable that she'll experience a little backlash every time she says "I much prefer having sex with men, women are just a last resort for me, I just don't find men 'sexually attractive', men don't arouse me to look at, women are hot! ..men are 'meh' but damn I really love having sex with them!.. a woman could never hit the spot the way men do for me, and honestly, I'd prefer not to have sex with women when it really comes down to it, they are just a last resort for me" ..

[Guest]

Orientation is based on what you are attracted to, not what you enjoy. If a gay man hates anal sex that doesn't make him not gay. That's a preference.

No not liking anal sex does not make the gay man ''not gay'' ..but only wanting sex with women (and seeing men as a much less preferable last resort if no woman is available) regardless of how sexy he thinks men are (or how little attraction he has toward women) may make people question his innate homosexuality. He is of course still free to identify as Gay, he just needs to expect a little backlash every now and then, because his idea of homosexuality seems very different from how most other homosexuals experience it.

How silly is it for someone to call themselves sexual if they can't think of anyone that they find sexy? I actually would find that more confusing.

Ya, I'm sexual, but I don't find you attractive or anybody else! :D

I would be just like, huh???

I find people sexy, and stilettos too (they don't have to be ON a person, it's just the stilettos themselves I think are damn fine especially when they are very thin and sleek) .. I just don't want to have sex with people I find sexy, or the stilettos I find sexy.. I don't even want to have sex with an exceptionally sexy woman who is wearing exceptionally sexy stilettos, as I have no innate desire for partnered sex. Yet by some peoples definition I may very well be a full-blown allosexual (and yes, I have been on the receiving end of ''you are not asexual'' plenty of times because I use words like 'sexy' to describe people and things that I find very aesthetically and sensually attractive) so I get how it is. People just need to not take backlash they experience too seriously, it happens sure, but it doesn't change how you personally identify yourself.

By AVEN's definition, sexual attraction *is* desiring sex with another person, so if no desire for sex is present, it's not sexual attraction, no matter how 'sexy' you think they are. This is why 'finding people sexy' seems to be an inaccurate measure of asexuality (or sexuality).. Plenty of sexual people *do* have sex with people they don't think are 'sexy' this doesn't make them asexual by default. They just love partnered sex and appearance just isn't that important (as long as the person isn't repulsive, which the OP has clearly stated is a requirement for them when it comes to sex as well)

Honestly, most new members here are sexually confused and describe their sexuality wrong all the time. When I came on here at the start I called myself sexual, didn't understand how attraction worked, and was very confused by my sex driving spiking. Everyone here though at the time cut me some slack, did not label me, and didn't get mad at me when I started to call myself asexual. Don't we owe this new poster the same right?

Some people will naturally start to get a little aggro when you start objectifying them as tools for sexual pleasure. I know plenty of homo/bi/pan/hetero sexual people on FetlLife who do actually want that (as a sexual fetish fantasy) but most asexuals are seeking the opposite (ie to not be objectified as tools for sexual pleasure) especially on AVEN. Hence where a lot of the negativity here is coming from.

I was actually only initially making this comment in reply to you, eched, to point out that this person has actually been a member on AVEN for 18 months, longer than you or I (re. your mention of cutting new members some slack) which again is why I haven't reserved too much of my polite juices for this thread. The OP didn't just walk in the door yesterday.

[purplemutant]

I am asexual because I have no (or close to no) sexual attraction to people. You seem to be continuously dismissing my lack of sexual attraction to people. People don't turn me on sexually. Considering how often sexual society dismisses asexuality as a valid orientation; it's sad that someone who identifies as asexual would be so dismissive of someone else's sexual orientation. But I guess you see that sort of thing in other communities too. "You're not a real lesbian because X". In the past people have accused me of not being a real transsexual.

The reason I would want to have sex with another asexual because they would understand what it's like to not be attracted to people. I wouldn't be attracted to them and they wouldn't be attracted to me. It would just be two (or more) people having fun. Sure I could have sex with a a sexual and I have. As far as I can tell both the people I messed around with were sexuals. But I bet sex with an asexual would be more enjoyable because they wouldn't have the same expectations as a sexual would. I understand that asexuals are real people; even I don't feel like a person sometimes. When it comes to sexuality I have the utmost respect for people. I would never do anything someone wasn't comfortable with. Doing sexual things you don't want to do; just to please someone is not cool in my book. If you don't want to do something sexual, you shouldn't have too EVER!

You seem to be constantly dismissing the fact that AVEN defines sexual attraction, word for word, as: A desire to have sexual contact with someone else.

By AVENs definition *of* sexual attraction, you desiring sex with other people *IS* sexual attraction, regardless of what your reasons for wanting partnered sex are.

And regardless of whether or not you disagree with AVENs definition of sexual attraction (you clearly have your own idea of sexual attraction that is separate from AVENs idea of it and that's completely fine) I already clearly stated, multiple times, that what I disagree with is your objectification of asexual people for sexual pleasure. That's not "discrimination" against you; it's just that as an asexual person, I find your "preference for aces because they are cheaper than RealDolls and more legal than prostitutes" extremely offensive.

Yes I do disagree with the AVEN definition of sexual attraction. By that definition anyone who wants to reproduce the way nature intended experiences sexual attraction and thus isn't asexual. But I would say that "I want to make a baby with you" and "You turn me on" are not the same thing.

Yea maybe I am objectifying people (in general, not just aces). As far as sex goes, people the next best thing to holograms or cyborgs. So yea I do see artificial sex partners as preferable to people sex partners. Sex dolls aren't ideal because they are static as opposed to active. I would want a sex partner who could do stuff to me as opposed to just me doing stuff to them. If holodecks existed that would be my first choice. But they don't. So for sex acts other than masturbation people are the best option in the world we live in. In fact if I did have access to a holodeck I would probably go for some kind of humanoid that doesn't entirely resemble an earth human. What (I think) I am interested in doesn't exist, so a human is the next best option.

[passionatefriend61]

1. I've never in my life heard of or met an allosexual person who identified themselves in contradiction to their actual sexual attraction pattern, who wasn't:

a) in denial

b) in the closet

And I've definitely never heard of an allosexual person who wants to have sex with the gender they aren't attracted to, while rejecting the gender they are attracted to. There are people who choose to have sex with others they're not attracted to--because they're sex workers or because they're closeted queers trying to pass as straight or because they're experimenting--but they don't have an abstract, ongoing DESIRE to have sex with these people or gender they are never attracted to. That sex they're having is for some ulterior motive, like aces who choose to have sex to please a romantic partner. And it's usually a temporary phase in their life that they have that sex in, not a lifelong thing.

So the whole "aromantic lesbian who prefers sex with men" example doesn't work. I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist, and if a woman tried to pull that stuff, LGBQ people would strongly object to her IDing as a lesbian or else say, "Yeah, honey, you're bisexual with a preference for men, get your terms right." If she doesn't want to fuck women and if she doesn't fall in love with women, she's not a lesbian. If a lesbian likes being penetrated, that's what strap-ons are for, and I can guarantee no real lesbian would ever say, "Well, I just like being penetrated so much that I have sex with men and not women." If she's attracted to women exclusively but repulsed by gay sex, she's either:

a) a gray-asexual, because of the general sex-repulsion; again, that's another type of gray-a: experiences sexual attraction, doesn't want to have partnered sex

b) she's deeply internalized homophobia that is creating the repulsion and can be dissolved if she works at it.

2. Cupiosexual is a useless and somewhat problematic word. If you don't experience sexual attraction but you want sex, you're gray. Period. You don't need to invent or take on some new label, especially when that label implies you're 100% asexual despite needing/wanting sex, because that just doesn't make sense. And gray-asexuality exists for reasons like this, to cover people who aren't experiencing sexuality like the average allosexual person but who isn't completely asexual either. I don't understand why there is so much resistance and reluctance to the gray-asexual identity by some of these self-proclaimed aces who are clearly more gray- than not. The most common definition of gray-asexual already describes a person who "rarely experiences sexual attraction," so there you go.

3. Aromantic sexual people exist, and while not all of them are cool with totally emotionless, uncaring, unfriendly, unattached sex, some of them are. If you want to have sex with people but don't want romantic relationships with them or anyone else, you're aromantic. An aromantic sexual person. And that's fine. If it's not that cut-and-dry regarding no romantic attraction, you could be gray-romantic. If you want romantic nonsexual relationships and nonromantic sex, you could be a cross-orientation sexual person, assuming your romantic and sexual orientations don't match.

4. The VAST majority of asexuals don't want to have sex and don't need sex. 55% are sex-repulsed, I think 40-something percent are sex-indifferent (and some of them are unwilling to have sex too), and only 2% or something like that are "sex-favorable." This is according to the 2014 census. So the idea of targeting other asexuals for NSA sex doesn't make any sense and frankly is a little disturbing to me, because you can't objectify human beings, especially asexuals, for sex just because you want to fuck without romantic relationships. Like someone else said, there are plenty of sexual people who like NSA sex, there's a teeming hookup culture, etc. And most of these sexual people DO identify as romantic, so it's not even an aromantic sexual-only thing. If you want NSA sex, I don't see why it matters if the other person experiences sexual attraction in general/to you. Just because they're capable of romantic attraction in addition to sexual attraction doesn't mean they're going to feel or want any kind of a romantic or intimate relationship with you. There's always going to be someone out there who would be down to have sex with you, with no other interest beyond that. Considering 75% of aces are romantic and most aces neither want, like, nor need sex and only ever consider it to please romantic partners, I don't understand your logic behind thinking that have sex with other aces would solve your "no intimate connection, just sex" desire. The aces who have sex, usually only do it BECAUSE of the intimate connection they have with the other person.

In conclusion: gray-asexuality fits your experiences.

[Guest]

Orientation is based on what you are attracted to, not what you enjoy. If a gay man hates anal sex that doesn't make him not gay. That's a preference.

Oh come on, not that stupid strawman again. Desire. Does. Not. Equal. Enjoyment. In neither direction. Why does this have to get stated over and over again??

Desire does inform orientation. You absolutely can tell someone's orientation by looking at their desires.

Enjoyment does not. You can hate partnered sex with every fiber of your being and see losing your virginity as a fate worse than death, and still desire it. And if so, that makes you 100% sexual (a sex-repulsed sexual, in this case). You will have to struggle to abstain to remain happy, whereas an asexual can easily remain celibate for any amount of time without any struggle at all.

How silly is it for someone to call themselves sexual if they can't think of anyone that they find sexy? I actually would find that more confusing.

Ya, I'm sexual, but I don't find you attractive or anybody else! :D

I would be just like, huh???

I wouldn't find that strange or silly at all. And yep, I'd see them as 100% sexual - they desire partnered sex, that means they're sexual, end of story. "Sexual attraction" really isn't a relevant factor in it, no matter how much AVEN (and pretty much nowhere else I've been) obsesses over it.

If you "find noone sexy", the only thing this proves is that you have not found the right partner yet. Whether or not such a partner exists in the world for you to find is pure speculation; and for me, such guesswork feels far too flimsy to base one's orientation on. (Actually, this would bring it to the point where I'd have to wonder how much "orientation" would, indeed, have to be described as a choice. If you just lower your standards, then you won't be "asexual" anymore; the higher your standards, the more asexual you become. ) It tells us nothing of any worth about your actual orientation, and it certainly doesn't make you any less sexual, if the cold, hard, observable fact of desire for partnered sex is there.

Yes I do disagree with the AVEN definition of sexual attraction. By that definition anyone who wants to reproduce the way nature intended experiences sexual attraction and thus isn't asexual. But I would say that "I want to make a baby with you" and "You turn me on" are not the same thing.

That's nonsense.

Desiring parenthood and choosing against involving meditech =/= desiring sex.
"I want to make a baby with you" =/= "I want to have sex."

"You turn me on" is a sentence extraneous and unrelated to either, and I don't think it has anything to do with one's orientation who, if anyone, folks might say this to.

[Guest]

So the whole "aromantic lesbian who prefers sex with men" example doesn't work. I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist, and if a woman tried to pull that stuff, LGBQ people would strongly object to her IDing as a lesbian or else say, "Yeah, honey, you're bisexual with a preference for men, get your terms right." If she doesn't want to fuck women and if she doesn't fall in love with women, she's not a lesbian.

Indeed. "Lesbian" would become an utterly meaningless term, if a (very hypothetical) woman like her would get validated in using it... a hipster/snowflake label with no logical, semantic substance behind it.

(Well, unless she happens to live on the island of Lesbos... :P)

2. Cupiosexual is a useless and somewhat problematic word. If you don't experience sexual attraction but you want sex, you're gray. Period.

I don't even see that as gray. Cupiosexual sounds a lot like an (unneeded) synonym for sexual, IMO.

3. Aromantic sexual people exist, and while not all of them are cool with totally emotionless, uncaring, unfriendly, unattached sex, some of them are. If you want to have sex with people but don't want romantic relationships with them or anyone else, you're aromantic. An aromantic sexual person. And that's fine. If it's not that cut-and-dry regarding no romantic attraction, you could be gray-romantic. If you want romantic nonsexual relationships and nonromantic sex, you could be a cross-orientation sexual person, assuming your romantic and sexual orientations don't match.

Agreed again. (And biting my tongue not to go off into a "best of both worlds" rant. ^^ )

4. The VAST majority of asexuals don't want to have sex and don't need sex. [...]

And agreed again. With the addendum that even the small minority (the ones missing from 100% when you subtract that "vast majority") may want sex, and may even enjoy sex, they do not innately desire sex. If they did, they would simply not be asexual in the first place.

[Guest]

So the whole "aromantic lesbian who prefers sex with men" example doesn't work. I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist, and if a woman tried to pull that stuff, LGBQ people would strongly object to her IDing as a lesbian or else say, "Yeah, honey, you're bisexual with a preference for men, get your terms right." If she doesn't want to fuck women and if she doesn't fall in love with women, she's not a lesbian. If a lesbian likes being penetrated, that's what strap-ons are for, and I can guarantee no real lesbian would ever say, "Well, I just like being penetrated so much that I have sex with men and not women." If she's attracted to women exclusively but repulsed by gay sex, she's either:

a) a gray-asexual, because of the general sex-repulsion; again, that's another type of gray-a: experiences sexual attraction, doesn't want to have partnered sex

b) she's deeply internalized homophobia that is creating the repulsion and can be dissolved if she works at it.

uuum yeah exactly, I was trying to come up with an example that goes as against the general definition of homosexuality as ''wanting sex with anyone of no particular gender'' does for asexuality. Make sense?

[Bad_Mr_Tree]

What is the difference between masturbation and sex?

This is the actual definition we should be trying to define, not the OP as a person.

Does a circle jerk of men make everyone gay?

[Guest]

What is the difference between masturbation and sex?

This is the actual definition we should be trying to define, not the OP as a person.

Does a circle jerk of men make everyone gay?

Masturbation = one person stimulation themselves alone; sex = genital interaction with another person.

What kind of circle jerk do you mean? Everyone masturbating by themselves over shared porn? Or mutual handjobs to the guy on the right/left? Someone who desires (not "enjoys", not "partakes in", DESIRES) the latter would be neither straight nor ace... it would require a lot more info to decide whether they're bi/pan or gay, but they'd clearly be 1) sexual, and 2) not on the far left end of the Kinsey scale.

[Bad_Mr_Tree]

I

What is the difference between masturbation and sex?

This is the actual definition we should be trying to define, not the OP as a person.

Does a circle jerk of men make everyone gay?

Masturbation = one person stimulation themselves alone; sex = genital interaction with another person.

That is how you have defined it, but if you investigated even superficially online, you'd see that many dictionaries don't even agree with your definition.

I am not arguing that the dictionaries are correct and you aren't, but that the definition of these terms is much more fluid than you believe them to be.

And my primary issue with label-based interactions, is that a label is shorthand, and functions effectively and healthily to communicate ideas when the understanding is mutual between parties. For something so involved and human as sex, masturbation and romance, labels, no matter how narrowly or exhaustively defined, alone cannot lead to a mutually respectful relationship. Only constant communication between partner(s) can make that a reality.

The original poster opened a dialogue about these terms and about their own experiences. And what happened? Immediately and rapidly the conversation became burdened with choosing the appropriate shorthand, the appropriate label.

So many aspects of humanity are on a spectrum, not a set of disjointed points. When people so vehemently argue that there are discrete points, that does little to create the understanding of a spectrum and will cause the same types of harm that embracing a binary understanding does.

[Guest]

That is how you have defined it, but if you investigated even superficially online, you'd see that many dictionaries don't even agree with your definition.

Oh please. If we can't even agree on that much, this entire thread is a waste of my time and anyone else's unlucky enough to be reading it. In this specific case, I consider any opinion different than mine as both factually wrong, and ornery for conflict's sake. Fullstop.

And as my mood is already and speedily getting worse by the hour today, I hereby proclaim myself done with this thread. Ta. <_<