Jump to content

Am I asexual if...


Recommended Posts

So it is entirely possible to want sex and even have a sexual desire for a specific person(like a spouse) but still be asexual simply because you do not feel the attraction part of the equation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
PeachQueen

Kalidas that's what i got from it! Basically if the desire for sex comes about naturally like any other desire such as hunger (this example was on the asexuality.org faq actually!) instead of from a stimulus then it's not sexual "attraction". If you see someone and that causes the desire to touch that person sexually then that is "sexual attraction". If the desire just comes up while you're sitting around it's "sexual desire" instead of "sexual attraction". I never experience sexual attraction but relatively regularly experience sensual and sexual desire. If i was in a relationship with someone and was really close to them, i enjoy sexual stuff as a way of communicating and sharing that love with them, but just looking at them or something they do doesn't make me want sexual contact. Neither does porn/other stimuli. Unless i already have the desire then i don't want sexual contact no matter the stimuli. I'm therefore still asexual, based on the article plus the description of asexuals with sex drives and who have sex in the faq for asexuality.org!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kalidas that's what i got from it! Basically if the desire for sex comes about naturally like any other desire such as hunger (this example was on the asexuality.org faq actually!) instead of from a stimulus then it's not sexual "attraction". If you see someone and that causes the desire to touch that person sexually then that is "sexual attraction". If the desire just comes up while you're sitting around it's "sexual desire" instead of "sexual attraction". I never experience sexual attraction but relatively regularly experience sensual and sexual desire. If i was in a relationship with someone and was really close to them, i enjoy sexual stuff as a way of communicating and sharing that love with them, but just looking at them or something they do doesn't make me want sexual contact. Neither does porn/other stimuli. Unless i already have the desire then i don't want sexual contact no matter the stimuli. I'm therefore still asexual, based on the article plus the description of asexuals with sex drives and who have sex in the faq for asexuality.org!

Well most of that sounds good to me. Just remember other stimuli can get you aroused without creating sexual desire. Example straight women (and men) have gotten aroused to gay porn. Arousal is just your bodies way of saying "sex is afoot! Lets get ready!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
PeachQueen

Kalidas that's what i got from it! Basically if the desire for sex comes about naturally like any other desire such as hunger (this example was on the asexuality.org faq actually!) instead of from a stimulus then it's not sexual "attraction". If you see someone and that causes the desire to touch that person sexually then that is "sexual attraction". If the desire just comes up while you're sitting around it's "sexual desire" instead of "sexual attraction". I never experience sexual attraction but relatively regularly experience sensual and sexual desire. If i was in a relationship with someone and was really close to them, i enjoy sexual stuff as a way of communicating and sharing that love with them, but just looking at them or something they do doesn't make me want sexual contact. Neither does porn/other stimuli. Unless i already have the desire then i don't want sexual contact no matter the stimuli. I'm therefore still asexual, based on the article plus the description of asexuals with sex drives and who have sex in the faq for asexuality.org!

Well most of that sounds good to me. Just remember other stimuli can get you aroused without creating sexual desire. Example straight women (and men) have gotten aroused to gay porn. Arousal is just your bodies way of saying "sex is afoot! Lets get ready!"

Shoot i meant to reply but i'm on mobile and got confused lol i forget about that, thank you for the reminder and clarification!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
CosineTheCat

So it is entirely possible to want sex and even have a sexual desire for a specific person(like a spouse) but still be asexual simply because you do not feel the attraction part of the equation?

In my personal opinions I've always views Sexual Desire as sex drive or libido, which is something completely different than sexual attraction. Just looking at that definition, it means that you can have a libido and still be asexual because that is not how we describe asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is entirely possible to want sex and even have a sexual desire for a specific person(like a spouse) but still be asexual simply because you do not feel the attraction part of the equation?

In my personal opinions I've always views Sexual Desire as sex drive or libido, which is something completely different than sexual attraction. Just looking at that definition, it means that you can have a libido and still be asexual because that is not how we describe asexuality.

Maybe I should be more specific. I have a desire to actually have sex with people just no one in specific (aside from my spouse).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Frigid Pink
Maybe I should be more specific. I have a desire to actually have sex with people just no one in specific (aside from my spouse).

I define "asexuality" as "no innate desire for partnered sex," however, there's no agreed upon definition of asexuality at this time other than "no sexual attraction" (which has numerous meanings and therefore is an unclear and difficult to understand definition) and "whoever says they're asexual" (which makes it pointless to even use a label if it just means anyone who wants to use the label).

Basically, from the current definitions, anyone can be "asexual" (if they want to be or say they are or define the nebulous "sexual attraction" in a way that fits them even if it's different from the way others define it) and, essentially, "asexuality" (as the current definition stands) doesn't really mean or explain or say anything about a person at all, except that they identify with the label and choose to use it.

Overall, the current "official" definition for "asexuality" isn't really useful or helpful for visibility or education efforts, for being taken seriously by the public at large, or for helping people understand themselves and their own sexuality.

"Asexuality"- what it is, exactly, and how to define it better and more clearly has been discussed at length before and this was one proposed outcome:

POLL 1 : Do you think the definition of asexuality given by AVEN ought to describe asexuality in a way that is both concise and easy to understand?

- Yes

- No (please do elaborate if this is what you vote for)

- Abstain/other

POLL 2 : Do you think AVEN'S current definition ("no sexual attraction") fulfills these criteria?

- Yes, it fulfills them well

- Somewhat, but could do with improvement

- No, it does not fulfill them at all

- Abstain/other

POLL 3 : Which of these proposed definitions do you think fulfills the criteria best? "An asexual person is somebody...

- who does not experience sexual attraction." (current AVEN definition)

- who does not innately desire partnered sex with anyone."

- who does not innately desire partnered sex with anyone and/or does not experience sexual attraction".

- who does not not innately desire partnered sex with anyone and does not experience sexual attraction".

- none of the above fulfills the criteria adequately

- - -

- Main thread text -

- - -

If you have been following the long thread about defining asexuality, you will already be aware of the problems that have been raised about AVEN's current definition ("no sexual attraction"):

  • "sexual attraction" is a vague, ambiguous, and ill-defined concept, that is probably not used outside of AVEN in the same way as it is on here (cf. this poll thread made last year). The multitudes of "What is sexual attraction?" threads/questions on AVEN just confirm this.
  • despite claims to the contrary, attraction is not universally agreed upon as the basis for orientations (cf. German and Dutch Wikipedia, German AVEN)
  • the preference for the term "sexual attraction" in US English is culturally dependent and requires sociological and political background knowledge; since English is the internet language, this site will have readers and members from other countries who speak English as a second language and do not have this background knowledge. If they do not have access to a more understandable definition in their native language, this will hinder their capability to understand the definition.
  • all other sexual orientations do have a strong basis in describing the innate desire for sex with partners of sex/gender X, even in cultures/languages where this is worded as "sexual attraction". To bring asexuality closer to the definition of other orientations, "no innate desire for partnered sex" must become a concept reflected by the definition of asexuality
  • attraction implies that external factors are involved and implies strong situational factors; defining asexuality this way directly provokes the perfectly justified reply "you just haven't met the right person yet". In contrast, the innate desire for sex is a completely internal factor, that is far harder to invalidate as an inherent trait of personality/identity.
  • as a further problem with the previous point, the translations of "sexual attraction" offered by Wikipedia in languages such as German and Dutch - yet again - describe sex appeal and attractivity, traits of people who evoke sexual feelings and flirtatiousness in others. If this is the best translation some languages have to offer, we risk sending the signal that asexuals are mousy geeks who "can't get any".
  • AVEN's main FAQ currently defines sexual attraction as the desire for partnered sex. While this has been a long overdue step forward for clarity of what "sexual attraction" in the main definition is supposed to mean, there have been people who complained right from the start that a blanket equation between these two concepts is incorrect.

Due to these problems, we - the folks who have been regularly active in the thread mentioned above - consider it due time to put the validity of AVEN's definition up for debate on a more official level, to see if a move for a change of AVEN's definition of asexuality is mandated by the community.

Please vote and discuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

So it is entirely possible to want sex and even have a sexual desire for a specific person(like a spouse) but still be asexual simply because you do not feel the attraction part of the equation?

I strongly disagree. Such a person seems like a perfectly normal sexual, and if they're in a relationship with a sexual, their partner probably wouldn't perceive their relationship as a mixed one. In fact, many sexuals on AVEN have said they don't experience sexual attraction the way it's described on AVEN, don't know whether they've experienced it or not, or don't see it nearly as essential as their innate desire for partnered sex. If we told people outside of the asexual community that an asexual can desire sex with a specific person, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the reaction was "Isn't that just like everyone else? You're just being special snowflakes!"

(Sorry, I don't want to start another definition debate, but I couldn't help posting when seeing how far some of the comments went in the "anything but sexual attraction" direction.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is entirely possible to want sex and even have a sexual desire for a specific person(like a spouse) but still be asexual simply because you do not feel the attraction part of the equation?

I strongly disagree. Such a person seems like a perfectly normal sexual, and if they're in a relationship with a sexual, their partner probably wouldn't perceive their relationship as a mixed one. In fact, many sexuals on AVEN have said they don't experience sexual attraction the way it's described on AVEN, don't know whether they've experienced it or not, or don't see it nearly as essential as their innate desire for partnered sex. If we told people outside of the asexual community that an asexual can desire sex with a specific person, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the reaction was "Isn't that just like everyone else? You're just being special snowflakes!"

(Sorry, I don't want to start another definition debate, but I couldn't help posting when seeing how far some of the comments went in the "as long as you don't feel sexual attraction" direction.)

That may be appear like a notmal relationship on the outside but it may not be at home. What about gay men who choose to "live straight lives" because of a multitude of reasons. They are very much attracted to men in a sexual way but only have sex with women. Well it appears like a hetero relationship on the outide so is that person not gay?

For me the desire for sex is only there is I have that strong bond. I dont just feel an innate desire of any human. Its gotta be that special someone. Some may even call this demisexual, but wait that attraction is not there? So im neither demi nor ace? Speaking of demis and greys this deffenition leaves splinter groups for them and they are "no longer welcome at the ace club".

Also this assumes that a desire for sex is all coming from one specific idea or feeling. But someones desire for sex could have a lot of reasons. I personally find just sex for the sake of sex (one night stands, friends with benefits etc etc) to be a waste of time and absolutely boring and has no reason to even exist. Without that love and deep emotional bonding I have ZERO desire. So I go from moments of desire or no desire but never attraction. But how does this effect my relationship?

Sometimes a spouse may not want to "make love" but may want something more primal more animalistic. Yeah aint gonna happen. If that romance isnt there I feel no want for sex at all.

And what of allosexual people who feel attraction but no attraction for their spouse? Often times they will cheat. For me the idea of cheating is insane. Sex for the sake of sex serves no purpose. So saying attraction plays no part has a lot of unintended consequences.

If you want to get real crazy with the label I am (by current deffenition) asexual- demi sexual desire. No attraction ever but feel desire for sexual contact under very special ccircumstances. But this is really an over done debate, that honestly arises from very real problem. Trying to put a label on a very complicated subject. For other sexualities it is simple. For this group of people it is difficult. We are literally tryibg to define something by negation. It would be like instead of calling homosexuals, homosexuals we would instead call them aheteraosexuals etc etc etc. This doesnt even bring into account the "how do I know if I have never..." conundrum.

So to reiterate I never feel attraction and only rarely feel desire, but have a fairly normal labido. This can and have impacts on a relationship. And defining a sexuality by "how it looks on the outside" would have a lot of consequences outside of just asexuality.

About the special snowflake comment. No not everyone is a little snowflake. Snowflakes are not even remotely complicated enough to even match the crazy complicated intricate workings of a human brain, and there in lies the problem. Trying to put a real tangable, specific, label on something that is never going to be that specific or that tangible. Thats why I like and agree with the idea that asexuality is a spectrum. This whole black and white really only helps in alientating and creating more seperation and division. Some people feel attraction but no desire, some feel deire but not attractioon, some feel niether, some feel one or the other sometimes, but we ALL feel a disconnect from sex and sexual activities at some place to some degree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

That may be appear like a notmal relationship on the outside but it may not be at home. What about gay men who choose to "live straight lives" because of a multitude of reasons. They are very much attracted to men in a sexual way but only have sex with women. Well it appears like a hetero relationship on the outide so is that person not gay?

That's not what I talked about at all. Desire doesn't equal behavior. A gay man can have sex with women, but he doesn't desire sex with women. If a self-identified gay man is in a relationship with a woman and actually desires sex with her, she probably won't even notice anything different. Similarly, if a self-identified ace desires sex with their sexual partner, their partner probably won't even notice anything different. It's not just about what the relationship looks on the outside.

For me the desire for sex is only there is I have that strong bond. I dont just feel an innate desire of any human. Its gotta be that special someone. Some may even call this demisexual, but wait that attraction is not there?

I'd say that's demisexuality, but of course you're free to identify however you want. I just don't get it, if you desire sex with a partner, and obviously you feel romantic/emotional attraction toward them, then how do you tell "sexual attraction" isn't there? What does it even mean? How does it change anything?

Also this assumes that a desire for sex is all coming from one specific idea or feeling. But someones desire for sex could have a lot of reasons. I personally find just sex for the sake of sex (one night stands, friends with benefits etc etc) to be a waste of time and absolutely boring and has no reason to even exist. Without that love and deep emotional bonding I have ZERO desire. So I go from moments of desire or no desire but never attraction. But how does this effect my relationship?

Sometimes a spouse may not want to "make love" but may want something more primal more animalistic. Yeah aint gonna happen. If that romance isnt there I feel no want for sex at all.

And what of allosexual people who feel attraction but no attraction for their spouse? Often times they will cheat. For me the idea of cheating is insane. Sex for the sake of sex serves no purpose. So saying attraction plays no part has a lot of unintended consequences.

All these variations exist among sexuals. Some sexuals can have sex with people they don't even like, some need at least some friendship before having sex, and some only enjoy sex in a romantic relationship. Some see sex as a more mechanic thing to satisfy the physical urge, and some see it as a deeply emotional act. Some only cares about their own enjoyment, and some only want sex if their partner is totally up for it too. So these things are more like personality differences than differences between sexuals and asexuals/grey-a's/demis.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Frigid Pink

So it is entirely possible to want sex and even have a sexual desire for a specific person(like a spouse) but still be asexual simply because you do not feel the attraction part of the equation?

I strongly disagree. Such a person seems like a perfectly normal sexual, and if they're in a relationship with a sexual, their partner probably wouldn't perceive their relationship as a mixed one. In fact, many sexuals on AVEN have said they don't experience sexual attraction the way it's described on AVEN, don't know whether they've experienced it or not, or don't see it nearly as essential as their innate desire for partnered sex. If we told people outside of the asexual community that an asexual can desire sex with a specific person, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the reaction was "Isn't that just like everyone else? You're just being special snowflakes!"

(Sorry, I don't want to start another definition debate, but I couldn't help posting when seeing how far some of the comments went in the "as long as you don't feel sexual attraction" direction.)

That may be appear like a notmal relationship on the outside but it may not be at home. What about gay men who choose to "live straight lives" because of a multitude of reasons. They are very much attracted to men in a sexual way but only have sex with women. Well it appears like a hetero relationship on the outide so is that person not gay?

For me the desire for sex is only there is I have that strong bond. I dont just feel an innate desire of any human. Its gotta be that special someone. Some may even call this demisexual, but wait that attraction is not there? So im neither demi nor ace? Speaking of demis and greys this deffenition leaves splinter groups for them and they are "no longer welcome at the ace club".

Also this assumes that a desire for sex is all coming from one specific idea or feeling. But someones desire for sex could have a lot of reasons. I personally find just sex for the sake of sex (one night stands, friends with benefits etc etc) to be a waste of time and absolutely boring and has no reason to even exist. Without that love and deep emotional bonding I have ZERO desire. So I go from moments of desire or no desire but never attraction. But how does this effect my relationship?

Sometimes a spouse may not want to "make love" but may want something more primal more animalistic. Yeah aint gonna happen. If that romance isnt there I feel no want for sex at all.

And what of allosexual people who feel attraction but no attraction for their spouse? Often times they will cheat. For me the idea of cheating is insane. Sex for the sake of sex serves no purpose. So saying attraction plays no part has a lot of unintended consequences.

If you want to get real crazy with the label I am (by current deffenition) asexual- demi sexual desire. No attraction ever but feel desire for sexual contact under very special ccircumstances. But this is really an over done debate, that honestly arises from very real problem. Trying to put a label on a very complicated subject. For other sexualities it is simple. For this group of people it is difficult. We are literally tryibg to define something by negation. It would be like instead of calling homosexuals, homosexuals we would instead call them aheteraosexuals etc etc etc. This doesnt even bring into account the "how do I know if I have never..." conundrum.

So to reiterate I never feel attraction and only rarely feel desire, but have a fairly normal labido. This can and have impacts on a relationship. And defining a sexuality by "how it looks on the outside" would have a lot of consequences outside of just asexuality.

About the special snowflake comment. No not everyone is a little snowflake. Snowflakes are not even remotely complicated enough to even match the crazy complicated intricate workings of a human brain, and there in lies the problem. Trying to put a real tangable, specific, label on something that is never going to be that specific or that tangible. Thats why I like and agree with the idea that asexuality is a spectrum. This whole black and white really only helps in alientating and creating more seperation and division. Some people feel attraction but no desire, some feel deire but not attractioon, some feel niether, some feel one or the other sometimes, but we ALL feel a disconnect from sex and sexual activities at some place to some degree.

I think you missed the point and I don't have the time to get into a debate over this or address everything you've said above.

If someone is okay with whoever or whatever they are, then it really doesn't matter what label they fit into. I think the focus needs to be on accepting ourselves for who we are and understanding ourselves better vs. trying to find a label that fits us.

It's okay to desire sex for the sake of sex only and it's okay not to desire sex at all for any reason (as well as many other variations in between). As long as it's "safe, sane, and consensual," then it's okay, regardless of whatever labels and definitions people want to create and use to describe themselves.

It's okay for people to identify as "asexual" regardless of whether it means anything or not to do so, whether or not anyone knows what it is, whether or not it helps anyone or just confuses people and goes nowhere, however, it doesn't really make sense to do so if that's the case.

I'm at a point where I'm starting to care less about "asexuality" (as an identity) and care less about identifying with the label and the community (what am I really aligning myself with?) and no longer desire to advocate for it (because who knows what it is and what I'm actually advocating for) and have already started to focus my efforts elsewhere on general equality for everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be appear like a notmal relationship on the outside but it may not be at home. What about gay men who choose to "live straight lives" because of a multitude of reasons. They are very much attracted to men in a sexual way but only have sex with women. Well it appears like a hetero relationship on the outide so is that person not gay?

That's not what I talked about at all. Desire doesn't equal behavior. A gay man can have sex with women, but he doesn't desire sex with women. If a self-identified gay man is in a relationship with a woman and actually desires sex with her, she probably won't even notice anything different. Similarly, if a self-identified ace desires sex with their sexual partner, their partner probably won't even notice anything different. It's not just about what the relationship looks on the outside.

For me the desire for sex is only there is I have that strong bond. I dont just feel an innate desire of any human. Its gotta be that special someone. Some may even call this demisexual, but wait that attraction is not there?

I'd say that's demisexuality, but of course you're free to identify however you want. I just don't get it, if you desire sex with a partner, and obviously you feel romantic/emotional attraction toward them, then how do you tell "sexual attraction" isn't there? What does it even mean? How does it change anything?

Also this assumes that a desire for sex is all coming from one specific idea or feeling. But someones desire for sex could have a lot of reasons. I personally find just sex for the sake of sex (one night stands, friends with benefits etc etc) to be a waste of time and absolutely boring and has no reason to even exist. Without that love and deep emotional bonding I have ZERO desire. So I go from moments of desire or no desire but never attraction. But how does this effect my relationship?Sometimes a spouse may not want to "make love" but may want something more primal more animalistic. Yeah aint gonna happen. If that romance isnt there I feel no want for sex at all.And what of allosexual people who feel attraction but no attraction for their spouse? Often times they will cheat. For me the idea of cheating is insane. Sex for the sake of sex serves no purpose. So saying attraction plays no part has a lot of unintended consequences.

All these variations exist among sexuals. Some sexuals can have sex with people they don't even like, some need at least some friendship before having sex, and some only enjoy sex in a romantic relationship. Some see sex as a more mechanic thing to satisfy the physical urge, and some see it as a deeply emotional act. Some only cares about their own enjoyment, and some only want sex if their partner is totally up for it too. So these things are more like personality differences than differences between sexuals and asexuals/grey-a's/demis.

For my first point I probably didnt explain myself very well. I have met gay people(who open identify as gay) but because of reasons(mostly religious but not always) choose to have sex with a spouse of the opposite sex.They know what they are they know how they feel they just choose to "go against the grain". My issue was that as you said "on the outside it appears like a normal sexual relationship". Sure ot looks okay on the outside but dont think for a second it is all rainbows and sunshine on the inside.

And I empathize with these people I really do. Speaking on just MY peraonal experience my poor wife has to jump through hoops for me. I dont just feel a desire for sex with people all the time. Actually the desire is extremely rare and requires a large check list. I need to feel aroused first and foremost(but thats obvious for anyone). I need to feel the desire to even be touched. Sometimes I want to be touched so much and I seek my wife to my cuddle buddy. Sometimes I am touch aversed and cant even hold my wifes hand for more than a few seconds before enough is enough. I need to feel that romantic spark, oh we had a fight earlier that week? Yup no sex. I need to be in a good mood. These are all things I need to even feel the desire to have sex with a person AT ALL. There have been MANY time where I was aroused and my wife wanted sex(any normal man would probably be down, hey im aroused shes aroused lets do this) but I would make an excuse because one of the things on that check list wasnt there so I had no desire for sex with a person. So I would lie to her and then go and masturbate in secret because I was still aroused. And I fucking hated myself for it. I felt sick to my core. What is so hard about just making that one simple sexual act for her? Every other man can do it whats your problem you freak?! I hated myself for doing this to her. But the desire just isnt there, and without the attraction to help me along its just not possible. And those few times I just bit the bullet and did it. The sex felt terrible(orgasm was just impossible to achieve, and I couldnt even keep an erection). It made me hate myself. I thought I must be gay... nope dont find men attractive either... well fuck what is it?! I must be broken I must have a psychological disorder...

But now I came out to her as asexual and it all makes sense. She understands me now. I dont have to lie anymore about my lack of desire. We have made some good comprimises that make me feel comfortable and make her feel fullfilled. It feels like we got married all over again.

The point Im trying to make is just because someone occasionally has a desire for sex with a person whether you be a gay person who fullfills their sexual desires with their hetero spouse, or you feel the desire rarely and work hard to make it happen. It does not mean the attraction is there. In both instances the attraction is not there. While the gay person can find sexual attraction with people of the same gender, I (and others like me) feel no attraction towards men or women. Maybe we feel an attraction some where tgat isnt based on gender, I dont know. But even if that is the case not feeling sexual attraction based on gender sounds like asexuality to me. (A meaning anti sexuality meaning a sexual desire for a gender or genders). And just because you cant concieve that it is possible doesnt mean it isnt. I cant concieve sexual attraction without sexual desire(i cant concieve it at all), but I know people say they feel that, and who am I to say their wrong. I trust them enough to trust they know whats best for them and trust their ability in being able to properly label themself. I will no less call that person an asasexual, why cant the same respect be done for me and my situation?

And with that Im done with this debate. Its been done to death and is of no benefit to any of us.We have it hard enough from the outside world we dont need to tear one another down too.

PS not saying you were tearing anyone down or direspecting anyone. You have your opinion and you shared it elequently and intelligently, with respect and dignity. But I have read other posts and not everyone is as respectable in the way you speak. My hats off to you and I appreciate your ability to speak your mind without being an asshole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CosineTheCat

Moving all Off-topic posts to Asexual Q&A.

Please keep all comments civil.

CosineTheCat

World Watch Moderator

Link to post
Share on other sites
Notte stellata

@Kalidas: I'll just clarify one thing: I never said "on the outside it appears like a normal sexual relationship." I said "their partner probably wouldn't perceive their relationship as a mixed one" (that is, if the asexual has a normal sexual desire, not just a rare desire). A gay man married to a woman may have sex with her or even want to have sex to satisfy her, but he never has an innate desire to have sex with her, so even if their relationship looks normal on the outside, the woman will know her husband doesn't desire her. I'm fully aware of that. However, that's different from an asexual-spectrum person who innately desires sex with their partner, even if the desire is occasional (in which case I'd say they're grey-a).

And thanks for your compliments in the last paragraph. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kalidas: I'll just clarify one thing: I never said "on the outside it appears like a normal sexual relationship." I said "their partner probably wouldn't perceive their relationship as a mixed one" (that is, if the asexual has a normal sexual desire, not just a rare desire). A gay man married to a woman may have sex with her or even want to have sex to satisfy her, but he never has an innate desire to have sex with her, so even if their relationship looks normal on the outside, the woman will know her husband doesn't desire her. I'm fully aware of that. However, that's different from an asexual-spectrum person who innately desires sex with their partner, even if the desire is occasional (in which case I'd say they're grey-a).

And thanks for your compliments in the last paragraph. :)

Ah thanks for the calrification.

No problem. I always enjoy a good intillegent debate as long as people are civil. I feel with that we can both walk away from this knowing a little more and understanding one another. We may not agree but we can at least say we got our points across in a respectful way and that we learned, and that is whats important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I get it, sexual desire is a like hunger, it is not directed anywhere, it just is. When hungry you are just hungry and eating anything will satisfy this.

Sexual attraction which asexual a do not have however is like seeing a cake that looks really tasty and thinking "I want THAT cake, now". So sexual attraction is a craving for sex with a specific person. Not just that you WANT sex with that person, but NEED it.

One night stands might possibly be the clearest example of sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I get it, sexual desire is a like hunger, it is not directed anywhere, it just is. When hungry you are just hungry and eating anything will satisfy this.

Sexual attraction which asexual a do not have however is like seeing a cake that looks really tasty and thinking "I want THAT cake, now". So sexual attraction is a craving for sex with a specific person. Not just that you WANT sex with that person, but NEED it.

One night stands might possibly be the clearest example of sexual attraction.

No it isn't. People have one night stands with partners that not attracted, it happens all the time. Because the desire for sex is strong enough they will sleep with just about anybody.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be appear like a notmal relationship on the outside but it may not be at home. What about gay men who choose to "live straight lives" because of a multitude of reasons. They are very much attracted to men in a sexual way but only have sex with women. Well it appears like a hetero relationship on the outide so is that person not gay?

They are gay because, wholly because, and only because they desire sex with men. "Attraction" is an unneccessary and superfluous criterion for the definition of all orientations, not just for aces.

If they don't desire sex with men, they simply are not homosexual, and are better off not calling themselves "gay" because that would obviously lead to them getting mistaken for homosexuals in the outside world. They're either heterosexual (if they desire sex with women) or ace (if they don't desire sex with either men or women). I can't help but wonder what they are trying to gain from the pretense of "playing gay", and I'd wholeheartedly encourage them to get over it and stop it already. It's offensive to actually real gay people.

And with that Im done with this debate. Its been done to death and is of no benefit to any of us.We have it hard enough from the outside world we dont need to tear one another down too.

Striving for a definition that makes logical sense, is easy to understand, and actually describes the difference between aces and sexies in a way both sides can agree on isn't "tearing one another down". On the contrary, I doubt that asexuality can ever be truly taken seriously by the outside world unless we dump the attraction definition, because that one fails every single one of these criteria.

I, for one, am surely not validating it anymore, and for that exact reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be appear like a notmal relationship on the outside but it may not be at home. What about gay men who choose to "live straight lives" because of a multitude of reasons. They are very much attracted to men in a sexual way but only have sex with women. Well it appears like a hetero relationship on the outide so is that person not gay?

They are gay because, wholly because, and only because they desire sex with men. "Attraction" is an unneccessary and superfluous criterion for the definition of all orientations, not just for aces.

If they don't desire sex with men, they simply are not homosexual, and are better off not calling themselves "gay" because that would obviously lead to them getting mistaken for homosexuals in the outside world. They're either heterosexual (if they desire sex with women) or ace (if they don't desire sex with either men or women). I can't help but wonder what they are trying to gain from the pretense of "playing gay", and I'd wholeheartedly encourage them to get over it and stop it already. It's offensive to actually real gay people.

And with that Im done with this debate. Its been done to death and is of no benefit to any of us.We have it hard enough from the outside world we dont need to tear one another down too.

Striving for a definition that makes logical sense, is easy to understand, and actually describes the difference between aces and sexies in a way both sides can agree on isn't "tearing one another down". On the contrary, I doubt that asexuality can ever be truly taken seriously by the outside world unless we dump the attraction definition, because that one fails every single one of these criteria.

I, for one, am surely not validating it anymore, and for that exact reason.

Well if it makes you feel better I joined the debate over at the proper forum where it is being discussed. I even touched on my example of the gay men. Heres a synopsis: they have a religious desire. Its really that simple. Its not a desire to have sex with women (they probably dont really like it) for the sake of sex with women. They do it for their faith. But that IS a type of desire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres a synopsis: they have a religious desire. Its really that simple. Its not a desire to have sex with women (they probably dont really like it) for the sake of sex with women. They do it for their faith. But that IS a type of desire.

A desire, yes. Just very, very maybe even an innate desire (though I almost regret even mentioning this, because I can feel militant atheists getting huffy at the mere implication *sigh*). But most definitely not a sexual one.

Marrying is just like celibacy - choices of action which you cannot reliably use to deduce partner preference from.

Unless Catholic, Jewish, etc. have suddenly become sexual orientations, I don't see the point of your argument. The presence or absence of religious/spiritual desire has no bearing on whether the man is gay or not. The only relevant factor in the question is whether he innately desires to boink guys. Everything else is fluff at best, smokescreens at worst.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rising Sun

"Attraction" is an unneccessary and superfluous criterion for the definition of all orientations, not just for aces.

:blink:

So if attraction doesn't play a role, you're saying that people can have and enjoy sex with persons they aren't sexually attracted to. In reality, a few sex-obsessed people can, but most people just can't do that. Not just psychologically, but also physically, especially for males, if you see what I mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Attraction" is an unneccessary and superfluous criterion for the definition of all orientations, not just for aces.

:blink:

So if attraction doesn't play a role, you're saying that people can have and enjoy sex with persons they aren't sexually attracted to. In reality, a few sex-obsessed people can, but most people just can't do that. Not just psychologically, but also physically, especially for males, if you see what I mean.

No, I don't really see what you mean, as "sexually attracted" is such a vague term and can mean almost everything at all, and means lots of different things to different people. And because of this, yes, I think the vast majority of people can have and enjoy sex with people for whom they do not feel whatever "sexual attraction" may or may not be.

Btw, a good number of asexuals, by any definition except the elitist nonlibidoist one, can have and enjoy partnered sex. Some of them are even male. *gasp!* Are you saying that this means they aren't asexual (and actually implying they're sex-obsessed, instead)? You'd be on very thin ice there, AVEN ToS wise... Just sayin'.

Seriously, I can't recall ever having heard "sexual attraction" used as a criterion for orientations before I got to AVEN (US/English AVEN, I should add. German AVEN simply does not use "sexual attraction" as a criterion, and I'm still glad I found the German site before the international one, because that way I had already seen a clear and easy definition - " asexuality = no desire for sexual interaction" - before getting subjected to this site's far more confusing one). All this "attraction" stuff still sounds to me like a concept made up for political reasons, more than anything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rising Sun

I'm saying that if a person isn't turned on (and i'm not saying aroused, but more than that, really turned on), especially a man, having sex is very hard. I don't see how being turned on by another person is different from being sexually attracted. It's the same thing !

It's not all sexual desire (which is a general thing), sexual attraction (specific) is a vital component too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying that if a person isn't turned on (and i'm not saying aroused, but more than that, really turned on), especially a man, having sex is very hard. I don't see how being turned on by another person is different from being sexually attracted. It's the same thing !

It's not all sexual desire (which is a general thing), sexual attraction (specific) is a vital component too.

That is a real and easyily understandable defenition of attraction.

FYI she never said asexual cant enjoy sex. No where in her response did she say this. Thats a straw man argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in your opinion, "sexual attraction" equals "fulfilling the partner preference ideal"?

Simple question in return: How do you explain male-on-male sex in prison? Those men that have and enjoy it cannot be true heterosexuals by your standard, right? And if prison can turn a straight man gay, what is the argument against trying to turn gay men straight (conversion therapy, "pray the gay away" etc.)? Isn't it surprising to you that the former has such a higher "success rate" than the former?





FYI she never said asexual cant enjoy sex. No where in her response did she say this. Thats a straw man argument.

No, it is not. It is exactly what she said.

"asexuality = no sexual attraction" + "only a sex-obsessed minority can enjoy sex without sexual attraction" ==> "If someone enjoys sex, it's exceedingly unlikely that they are a true asexual, and they are more likely sex-obsessed." Simple logic.

If you disagree, you've simply stopped making sense and I can't take your contributions seriously anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in your opinion, "sexual attraction" equals "fulfilling the partner preference ideal"?

Simple question in return: How do you explain male-on-male sex in prison? Those men that have and enjoy it cannot be true heterosexuals by your standard, right? And if prison can turn a straight man gay, what is the argument against trying to turn gay men straight (conversion therapy, "pray the gay away" etc.)? Isn't it surprising to you that the former has such a higher "success rate" than the former?

Just because they have sex in prison does not mean they have that attraction. If given a choice they would pick a woman. Thus the attraction is pointed toward women, but the desire is to have sex and only men are around so guess what...

For all you know these prisoners are fantasizing about women the entire time. And getting turned on by the thought of these women.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rising Sun

Bisexuality is much more common than what people imagine. Statistics show that up to 37% of people felt sexually attracted to more than one gender in their life, even if it happened only once. Being absolutely 100% heterosexual isn't that common.

Plus, I'm sure that when the men you're talking about go back home, they largely prefer sex with a woman because theey don't feel the same level of enjoyment with a man at all. Really, the level of enjoyment of sex done with sexual attraction and done without (even with reasons such as sensuality, to please a partner...) is NOT the same. Almost no comparison can't be done, the difference is HUGE (and as a demisexual, I know it, I've experienced the difference). It's as if you like candy, and you compare eating some random candy with eating your favourite candy. Try comparing "it's nice, but not extraordinary" with "it's the best thing I've ever experienced in my life".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bisexuality is much more common than what people imagine. Statistics show that up to 37% of people felt sexually attracted to more than one gender in their life, even if it happened only once. Being absolutely 100% heterosexual isn't that common.

Plus, I'm sure that when the men you're talking about go back home, they largely prefer sex with a woman because theey don't feel the same level of enjoyment with a man at all. Really, the level of enjoyment of sex done with sexual attraction and done without (even with reasons such as sensuality, to please a partner...) is NOT the same. Almost no comparison can't be done, the difference is HUGE. It's as if you like candy, and you compare eating some random candy with eating your favourite candy.

This is all too true. I never understood and STILL dont understand the obsession with sex. Sure it feels okay but its not THAT good. But thats the thing, to sexualy attracted people it IS that good. I just dont get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if they don't really enjoy sex with men, then why are they doing it? Why not just masturbate to the thought of women? Seems so much less of a hassle, especially when you take into account the homophobic prejudices in society making the latter far more socially acceptable.

I really think that "prison makes many men find out they've really been bisexual all along" is a highly problematic stance, one that conflicts with AVEN's stance that behavior doesn't inform orientation.




But thats the thing, to sexualy attracted people it IS that good. I just dont get it.

No, to people who desire it it is that good. I don't see what "attraction" has to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if they don't really enjoy sex with men, then why are they doing it? Why not just masturbate to the thought of women? Seems so much less of a hassle, especially when you take into account the homophobic prejudices in society making the latter far more socially acceptable.

I really think that "prison makes many men find out they've really been bisexual all along" is a highly problematic stance, one that conflicts with AVEN's stance that behavior doesn't inform orientation.

Uummm dominance? No seriosly dominace. Just like in the animal kingdom, if I can over power you and take control I have proven I am bigger, better, and stronger. It IS that simple. Rapist for example rarely feel sexual attractiot to their victims. They want feel powerful, to feel in control, to completely and entirely dominate a person. Thats why many rape victims can become rapists because that power was taken from them so they feel the need to take that power back from someone else.

FYI I am not speaking of date rape.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...