Why do people assume Asexual means no sex or no sexual drive?

[Trolleri]

I'm still trying to understand things as well as possible. I identify as asexual (possibly on the very lowest level of gray-a). I have almost NO sex drive at all personally. I would probably be more than satisfied if my partner and I only had sex maybe once or twice a year, even then I wouldn't care if we never had sex again. Sex or masturbation to me is just kinda something to do if it hasn't been done in a long time. Sort of like "well, it might be fun to go for a hike, we haven't done that in a while!" but with sex. Sex is enjoyable, but I in no way have desire or need for it.

I see a lot of posts on various forums and discussions about people fearing they may never find a relationship or be able to satisfy a partner if their partner is sexual. But from what I understand, being asexual does not mean someone has no sexual desire or drive. Identifying as asexual has nothing to do with how much or how little sex you want or are willing to have. Being asexual just means you are not sexually attracted to other people. Is this correct? So why does everyone seem to default to the idea that asexual=no sex?

Being afraid of future relationships and relationship issues is totally understandable and very real. But if the person is not aromantic or sex repulsed, and has a sex drive/libido then why are they worried? Is it that they have never had sexual contact and are nervous that they won't like it? Have they had sexual experiences and didn't like it so they decide sex isn't for them(but still have a sex drive maybe satisfied through masturbation)? I know this is a case by case basis and it is entirely different for each individual. Would anyone be willing to share their reasonings or ideas with me?

I'm still trying to understand things so I'm sorry if this sounds a little ignorant or if I maybe worded things incorrectly. Hopefully the general idea of what I'm trying to ask is clear. Please help me understand! :redface:

[Trolleri]

Oh and one more thing. The funny asexual motto is "we'd rather have cake" or something. Meaning we'd rather have some sweets instead of sex. But that isn't relevant to asexuality at all though, is it? Again, personal sex drive is totally different from sexual attraction.. right?

I've been thinking about posting these questions for a long time, and It's been gnawing at me enough lately that I finally did. Or am I just over thinking it..?

[Philip027]

Because that's what it sounds like?

It's what I thought asexual meant when I first came here, and honestly I still have a hard time shaking off that old internalized definition.

For me personally, speaking as a nonlibidoist (or at most, demilibidoist) ace, sex drive isn't something that exists on its own (meaning, with no other person involved at all), because I really can't comprehend why it would exist. It seems like it would be pointless.

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

You don't need sexual attraction to reproduce, just desire for that particular stimuli.

[Trolleri]

I appreciate you trying to help, but I don't see how reproducing is involved with romantic relationships or any of my questions in this post?

[Spectre/Ex/Machina]

I appreciate you trying to help, but I don't see how reproducing is involved with romantic relationships or any of my questions in this post?

Because we as humans make those connections out of a drive to breed. I know it sounds very bio-deterministic but things sometimes are that way, you know, driven by evolution.

[Guest]

Even if an asexual person has a sex drive/libido and masturbates regularly, it doesn't mean that they will want to have sex... Judging by threads on here, many asexual people simply aren't interested in having partnered sex, despite having an active sex drive, either because they find it boring, because I makes them uncomfortable, or because they are sex repulsed.

While some people may be willing to compromise and have sex for the sake of their partner, despite not really being 'into it' themselves, many are not willing to compromise and do something they don't enjoy. which brings us to the concern of not being able to satisfy romantic partner. Even those that are willing to occasionally have sex may worry that it will not be enough for a sexual person.

In my case, I have an active libido and masturbate regularly. However, I have no interest in having partnered sex at all. I tried it once and it was boring and awkward, despite the man I was with putting in a lot of effort to make it good for me. I would never be willing to have sex for the sake of meeting a romantic partners needs.

[Anyina]

Yeah, I was pretty much going to say what ohdearlzzy just said. The fact that some asexuals do have a sex drive doesn't necesarily mean they want to engage in sex (with and/or without another person), for some it's boring, for some it's awkward, for some it's... Whatever the reason, some just don't like doing it, and being in a relationship with a sexual person usually means compromising to stuff. That may be harder on those people, so I think it's noraml that they worry.

[That asexual guy]

Because that's what it sounds like?

It's what I thought asexual meant when I first came here, and honestly I still have a hard time shaking off that old internalized definition.

For me personally, speaking as a nonlibidoist (or at most, demilibidoist) ace, sex drive isn't something that exists on its own (meaning, with no other person involved at all), because I really can't comprehend why it would exist. It seems like it would be pointless.

Yeah, I also have a hard time understanding fellow aces who say they have a sex drive and enjoy sex but aren't sexually attracted to anyone. Because with me personally, I'm not attracted to them and therefore I have no kind of drive to be with them because of that. So for me the no sexual attraction and no interest in sex go hand in hand. We are all different and I guess that causes confusion.

[Guest]

I have had a boyfriend who tried to have sex with me but it only disguisted me and i kicked him off me. I said my goodbye and left his house I just hate the whole touching,kissing and all that comes along with it its just not my cup of tea, if people want to do that thats just fine but not in my sight and i dont want to be part of it and i learned after years that its ok not to want it and that its ok to have no libido.

For me sex is just boring, annoying, awkward and it disguists me, only thinking about it makes me wanna gag, I cant imagine for the life of me to have someone elses genitials touching mine while not knowing where that person has been with his genitials thats just Ew to me, kissing is from what i experienced just sharing eachothers germs and thats gross.

The cake is better then sex means to me that not all asexuals dont want sex, some do and some even enjoy it and thats ok, the difference is that they just dont prefer to have (partnered) sex but rather do other things thats what the cake part stands for in my opinion.

and yeah cake is always better then sex in my opinion!

[Mandarina]

I think people asume asexual = no sex, because sexual attraction is taken for granted. I mean, most people feel sexual attraction towards someone, there's a vast majority that feels attracted towards the opposite sex, others the same, both, any sex... and so on. And as far as I've been able to comprehend, sexual attraction is something intrinsic, like comes naturally, that they don't have to think about it to feel it, so it's hard to explain and being understood what asexuality means. It's easier to get the idea. asexual = no sex, than sexual attraction isn't a thing for some poeple, because i've said, sexual attraction is something that most people feel whether they want it or not, they feel it and is part of their lifes, (i'm not saying that they want to have sex all the time either), but it's like is something that it's always there no matter they pay attention to it or not.

It could be like socializing. There are people that do not need to socialize. At first, understanding these people is easier to say like, it's just they don't like to socialize, or they don't want to socialize and that all. Further explanation or thinking will be needing to reach to the conclusion that these people don't socialize not because they don't want or like it, simply because they don't need it. They can socialize if they choose to, but they don't naturally have the need to be sorrounded by others.

[Tja]

How can you have sex with no sexual attraction? *This may seem stupid, but I'm confused, as I have always thought asexual=no sex*

[Garin]

How can you have sex with no sexual attraction? *This may seem stupid, but I'm confused, as I have always thought asexual=no sex*

the body can respond to stimuli even if you do not feel sexual attraction; the plumbing works so to speak, one may even have a desire to flush the plumbing out, the frequency thereof does not alter one's sexual orientation.

If one is sexually repulsed that's a bit different, regardless of why they are that way, they may end up identifying as asexual.

Note: If we were to follow the Kinsey model, which includes behaviour, then yeah, a huge chunk of people here would not technically be the "x" group or asexual, but that isn't what we use here, nor in the community at large, to identify ourselves.

[Guest]

How can you have sex with no sexual attraction? *This may seem stupid, but I'm confused, as I have always thought asexual=no sex*

Because sexual attraction =/= arousal or actions. It possible to be aroused by engaging in sexual acts with another person, and enjoy it, even if you are not attracted to them. Same as how gay people can have sex with the opposite sex. The physical stimulation can still feel good. Also some asexuals enjoy sex because they like making their partner feel good, or they simply enjoy the physical intimacy.

[Tja]

How can you have sex with no sexual attraction? *This may seem stupid, but I'm confused, as I have always thought asexual=no sex*

the body can respond to stimuli even if you do not feel sexual attraction; the plumbing works so to speak, one may even have a desire to flush the plumbing out, the frequency thereof does not alter one's sexual orientation.

If one is sexually repulsed that's a bit different, regardless of why they are that way, they may end up identifying as asexual.

Note: If we were to follow the Kinsey model, which includes behaviour, then yeah, a huge chunk of people here would not technically be the "x" group or asexual, but that isn't what we use here, nor in the community at large, to identify ourselves.

How can you have sex with no sexual attraction? *This may seem stupid, but I'm confused, as I have always thought asexual=no sex*

Because sexual attraction =/= arousal or actions. It possible to be aroused by engaging in sexual acts with another person, and enjoy it, even if you are not attracted to them. Same as how gay people can have sex with the opposite sex. The physical stimulation can still feel good. Also some asexuals enjoy sex because they like making their partner feel good, or they simply enjoy the physical intimacy.

While I understand arousal, isn't the fact that you don't experience sexual attraction mean you do not want to have sex? I mean, if you're not attracted to something, you don't want anything to do with it, right?

*I think that I'm missing something here. Maybe I just don't get it?*

[Unlabeled]

Think the spectrum of human sexuality is sorta like Abraham Lincoln's quote about religion. "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion." Except for sexuality it's like, "When I have sex with men I'm gay. When I have sex with women I'm straight. That's my sexuality." :)

My opinion is the various terms describing sexual orientation and gender are more for other people's comfort and ability to understand others than for the individual labelling themself. Our sexual orientation can change at any moment given the right circumstances, enviroment, or level of innebriation. So I've come to believe 'sexual orientation' is moot at best and most likely a total fabrication. It's all just so subjctive (how we in the US define straight and gay isn't how it's defined everywhere so what's the point?)

If I have a boyfriend I'm happy with being gay. If a girlfriend I'm happy with straight or bisexual. If none (as for the last 2 years and counting) I'm fine with asexual. But this can change any moment along with the definition I'd describe myself with for other people's comfort. For myself though 'sexual' or 'not sexual/asexual' is accurate. But the very idea of having labels for something subject to change seems silly.

[Guest]

How can you have sex with no sexual attraction? *This may seem stupid, but I'm confused, as I have always thought asexual=no sex*

Because sexual attraction =/= arousal or actions. It possible to be aroused by engaging in sexual acts with another person, and enjoy it, even if you are not attracted to them. Same as how gay people can have sex with the opposite sex. The physical stimulation can still feel good. Also some asexuals enjoy sex because they like making their partner feel good, or they simply enjoy the physical intimacy.

While I understand arousal, isn't the fact that you don't experience sexual attraction mean you do not want to have sex? I mean, if you're not attracted to something, you don't want anything to do with it, right?

*I think that I'm missing something here. Maybe I just don't get it?*

Unfortunately that is the limit of my understanding :P The one time I tried sex it was purely out of curiosity. I wanted to know what it felt like, so I 'pulled' a guy who I had been informed by several female friends was great in bed (probably due the the reputedly extensive practise with the majority of the female population of the university ;) ). Turns out sex it really bloody boring. Other motives are beyond my personal experience and understanding.

Edit: I think of it like this... an alternate definition of asexuality is someone who "does not have an innate desire for partnered sex". I don't have an innate desire to play tennis. I don't even enjoy tennis, it's a boring sport. But I play tennis with a good friend of mine every few weeks because I like spending time with them, they really enjoy it, I get some satisfaction from the exercise... So... same sort of thing but with sex? Maybe?

[SorryNotSorry]

How can you have sex with no sexual attraction?

Seems like a lot of people do so nevertheless, though TBH I suspect many of them so so just to give others the impression that they're really enjoying it and accomplishing something in the bargain.

[Nidwin]

Edit: I think of it like this... an alternate definition of asexuality is someone who "does not have an innate desire for partnered sex". I don't have an innate desire to play tennis. I don't even enjoy tennis, it's a boring sport. But I play tennis with a good friend of mine every few weeks because I like spending time with them, they really enjoy it, I get some satisfaction from the exercise... So... same sort of thing but with sex? Maybe?

This for me. There's something I've never sensed or felt or whatever (sexual attraction) leading to sex being extremely boring for me. That non innate desire for sex.

[Tja]

Thanks, folks. Very helpful. :)

[That asexual guy]

How can you have sex with no sexual attraction? *This may seem stupid, but I'm confused, as I have always thought asexual=no sex*

the body can respond to stimuli even if you do not feel sexual attraction; the plumbing works so to speak, one may even have a desire to flush the plumbing out, the frequency thereof does not alter one's sexual orientation.

If one is sexually repulsed that's a bit different, regardless of why they are that way, they may end up identifying as asexual.

Note: If we were to follow the Kinsey model, which includes behaviour, then yeah, a huge chunk of people here would not technically be the "x" group or asexual, but that isn't what we use here, nor in the community at large, to identify ourselves.

How can you have sex with no sexual attraction? *This may seem stupid, but I'm confused, as I have always thought asexual=no sex*

Because sexual attraction =/= arousal or actions. It possible to be aroused by engaging in sexual acts with another person, and enjoy it, even if you are not attracted to them. Same as how gay people can have sex with the opposite sex. The physical stimulation can still feel good. Also some asexuals enjoy sex because they like making their partner feel good, or they simply enjoy the physical intimacy.

While I understand arousal, isn't the fact that you don't experience sexual attraction mean you do not want to have sex? I mean, if you're not attracted to something, you don't want anything to do with it, right?

*I think that I'm missing something here. Maybe I just don't get it?*

Yes I agree. I have had sex but it was forced and I didn't want to and I would have so rather be doing something else at the time. It can be done but it's not enjoyable to me so yeah being asexual includes not wanting to have sex. And I honestly don't think we should be chopping people's heads off so quickly if that's how they associate it.

[Guest]

While I understand arousal, isn't the fact that you don't experience sexual attraction mean you do not want to have sex? I mean, if you're not attracted to something, you don't want anything to do with it, right?

*I think that I'm missing something here. Maybe I just don't get it?*

This is basically the ongoing AVEN fight between sexual attraction and sexual desire. They aren't the same thing... you can desire sex and not be particularly bothered about who it's with. I would call those people "indiscriminate sexuals", but it's a source of constant tension with the asexual definition. Hence why i also prefer the "does not innately desire partnered sex" definition.

[Tja]

Something I thought was simple, yet seems to be very complicated.

[Keels]

Edit: I think of it like this... an alternate definition of asexuality is someone who "does not have an innate desire for partnered sex". I don't have an innate desire to play tennis. I don't even enjoy tennis, it's a boring sport. But I play tennis with a good friend of mine every few weeks because I like spending time with them, they really enjoy it, I get some satisfaction from the exercise... So... same sort of thing but with sex? Maybe?

Yes, this, exactly. My experience is that I've always had sex (and enjoyed it) at the beginning of romantic relationships, but then it always trails off to nothing within a couple of months. What I finally realized upon learning about asexuality is that, indeed, I have no innate desire for partnered sex. What I have had is a desire to get to know my partners, do "normal" romantic-partner stuff with them, do something fun and intimate with them, establish some kind of atavistic proof that the relationship is real and progressing, that kind of thing. I have relationship-related desires that, in context, happen to lead to sex, but they're not sexual desire itself.

And, yeah, it's confusing! It was damned confusing for me all those years! Finally having a concept that explains myself to myself is a pretty great feeling.

[Guest]

Unfortunately that is the limit of my understanding :P The one time I tried sex it was purely out of curiosity. I wanted to know what it felt like, so I 'pulled' a guy who I had been informed by several female friends was great in bed (probably due the the reputedly extensive practise with the majority of the female population of the university ;) ). Turns out sex it really bloody boring. Other motives are beyond my personal experience and understanding.

Edit: I think of it like this... an alternate definition of asexuality is someone who "does not have an innate desire for partnered sex". I don't have an innate desire to play tennis. I don't even enjoy tennis, it's a boring sport. But I play tennis with a good friend of mine every few weeks because I like spending time with them, they really enjoy it, I get some satisfaction from the exercise... So... same sort of thing but with sex? Maybe?

I do agree with everything you said, totally. But also just wanted to quickly say that sex with a random just because you have heard they are good at sex, is certainly not a surefire way to test whether you enjoy sex. For many people, even fully sexual people, they can't just enjoy sex with a random (sure some can and that's fine, I'm just saying many cannot) .. For many sexual people I've talked to, sex was just a 'meh okay I guess' experience until they had it with someone they loved then it was like the heavens opened and angels came out and sang for them lol. For many people, sex with someone they have a deep emotional connection to who isn't at all experienced in bed, is a million times better than with someone they don't care about in any way, but who can ''get any woman off using just his tongue or whatever'' lol. Sex is a hugely emotional thing for many people, and without the emotional factor, the sensations can just mean nothing and not even be that enjoyable.

So yeah, I personally think the ''sex with a random'' is never a very reliable way to measure whether or not you'll like sex.

[Tja]

Edit: I think of it like this... an alternate definition of asexuality is someone who "does not have an innate desire for partnered sex". I don't have an innate desire to play tennis. I don't even enjoy tennis, it's a boring sport. But I play tennis with a good friend of mine every few weeks because I like spending time with them, they really enjoy it, I get some satisfaction from the exercise... So... same sort of thing but with sex? Maybe?

Yes, this, exactly. My experience is that I've always had sex (and enjoyed it) at the beginning of romantic relationships, but then it always trails off to nothing within a couple of months. What I finally realized upon learning about asexuality is that, indeed, I have no innate desire for partnered sex. What I have had is a desire to get to know my partners, do "normal" romantic-partner stuff with them, do something fun and intimate with them, establish some kind of atavistic proof that the relationship is real and progressing, that kind of thing. I have desires that happen to lead to sex, but they're not sexual desire itself.

And, yeah, it's confusing! It was damned confusing for me all those years! Finally having a concept that explains myself to myself is a pretty great feeling.

Would this be considered demisexual, or, grey ace?

[Guest]

Unfortunately that is the limit of my understanding :P The one time I tried sex it was purely out of curiosity. I wanted to know what it felt like, so I 'pulled' a guy who I had been informed by several female friends was great in bed (probably due the the reputedly extensive practise with the majority of the female population of the university ;) ). Turns out sex it really bloody boring. Other motives are beyond my personal experience and understanding.

Edit: I think of it like this... an alternate definition of asexuality is someone who "does not have an innate desire for partnered sex". I don't have an innate desire to play tennis. I don't even enjoy tennis, it's a boring sport. But I play tennis with a good friend of mine every few weeks because I like spending time with them, they really enjoy it, I get some satisfaction from the exercise... So... same sort of thing but with sex? Maybe?

I do agree with everything you said, totally. But also just wanted to quickly say that sex with a random just because you have heard they are good at sex, is certainly not a surefire way to test whether you enjoy sex. For many people, even fully sexual people, they can't just enjoy sex with a random (sure some can and that's fine, I'm just saying many cannot) .. For many sexual people I've talked to, sex was just a 'meh okay I guess' experience until they had it with someone they loved then it was like the heavens opened and angels came out and sang for them lol. For many people, sex with someone they have a deep emotional connection to who isn't at all experienced in bed, is a million times better than with someone they don't care about in any way, but who can ''get any woman off using just his tongue or whatever'' lol. Sex is a hugely emotional thing for many people, and without the emotional factor, the sensations can just mean nothing and not even be that enjoyable.

So yeah, I personally think the ''sex with a random'' is never a very reliable way to measure whether or not you'll like sex.

Yeah I get that, while most of my friends are from the 'in-discriminant sex is awesome with anyone' group, I have 1 friend who claims that sex is completely mind blowing with someone you love... Alas, since I'm aromantic and wouldn't have sex with friends just for curiosities sake, I guess I'm stuck ^_^ Not that I mind, what with being asexual and all :p

[Rising Sun]

Something I thought was simple, yet seems to be very complicated.

I like, no I love these 2 posts (in spoiler because they're big) :

I was reading through the finding people sexy thread and it really showed off the two camps that are starting to form with asexuality. The first camp is like the person who started the thread who says they don't find anyone sexually attractive at all, but might still have sex with their partner sometimes cause they think the sex itself is fun. And the second camp, people that found plenty of people sexy, but never wanted to have sex for any reason.

Now, I think it's safe to say I'm part of camp number 1. I've never found anyone sexually attractive(so I'm asexual), but sex doesn't seem bad to me. Now, of course I have the plus of never having sex, so I've likely built it up in my mind(it might very well suck). But, I still find it interesting, I just don't relate it to others cause I don't find other people sexy. But since I find it interesting my mind thinks, it's fine for an asexual to enjoy sex.

This seems to cause a lot of conflict between camps 1 and 2 because camp 2 feels like they DO find people sexy, but since they still don't want to have sex, they are using that as the base to describe their sexuality. This, honestly, is fine to do, but the people in camp 1 are using their attraction to define their sexuality.

Then we got people in camp 3 that don't find anyone sexy and aren't interested in sex at all and are wondering why everyone else is fighting(sorry camp 3! You my bros!)

So, the fight simply breaks down to this.

Camp 1: I don't find anyone sexy! But sex sounds fun so I have it with my partner sometimes. My partner is sexual and we both have a blast, but I'm just into the act.

Camp 2: But we find people sexy we just don't want sex with our partners! You do! So that's not being asexual.

Camp 1: But I thought asexual was about attraction not desire?

Camp 2: Well we feel plenty of attraction. We're not attraction void! And since we do find people really hot being asexual must be about desire.

Camp 1: That's dumb.

Camp 2: No you're dumb.

Camp 3: Oh for the love of God, you're both dumb!

And around and around we go. We seem to be talking completely different dialogs and it struck me that, well, maybe we are.

Just go with me on this. What if attraction is just like sexuality. What if it works on a spectrum. On one end you just think someone is meh, and then at the very other end you find someone sexually attractive. Well, if that's the case, it would only make sense that there is something RIGHT before sexual attraction. Something that feels just like it, but isn't quite the same thing. So, you would see someone, think they are sexy, might even get aroused by them and such, but since it's RIGHT before sexual attraction it just stops there and you aren't sexually attracted enough to move any farther with them. If someone had this high version of attraction, that did not result in actually wanting to have sex with someone, then of course that person would relate not wanting to have sex with anyone to being asexual and of course they would think an asexual that thinks sex is fun is just silly. To them they do feel sexual attraction, it just doesn't result in wanting sex, so they use no desire to define themselves.

So, isn't it more easy to believe camp 1 that camp 2 isn't making stuff up. They simply experience attraction higher then you do but don't relate it to sex. We could say this is intense attraction, or mistaken attraction.

Now as for camp 1. Well if an asexual can have a fetish for kink, or animal role play, or any other crazy fetish there is, it's not that hard to buy that an asexual could have a sex based fetish and find something about having sex fun. Just like with any other fetish, it's the activity the asexual is into and not being sexually into someone else.

Camp 3: But wouldn't that make both camp 1 and 2 grey?

Nope! Because neither one is actually experiencing sexual attraction. Sure, someone from camp 1 or 2 could call themselves grey cause it makes them feel more comfortable, but they don't have to. It's up to them to decide what they are.

Camp 2 and 3: But doesn't suggesting some asexual people might like sex some times put other asexual people at risk! People will think all asexual people want to have sex and our sexuality will be a joke!

Nope. Anyone that assumes someone wants to have sex without asking is a dick to start with. It doesn't matter that a few asexual people might have a sex based fetish, that person would still be a dick. Anyone that actually respects our sexuality will find out after reading up on us that every asexual is different and a lot don't want to have sex and compromise is always important, as is talking things out.

So, in closing, people from camp 1 are asexual people with a sex based fetish. People from camp 2 have a high from of attraction, but still don't find other people attractive in a sexual way so don't want to have sex. And camp 3 still doesn't care. We've all been describing our own sexualities instead of listening to one another, but isn't it more easy to believe that an asexual calls people sexy because their attraction makes it seem that way and that an asexual may like sex simply cause it might seem fun, then believing that everyone is lying about being ace?

I'm going to go with option number one and say, no, we aren't all lying. We're just different kinds of asexuals and that's fine.

All three definitions are valid because at some point there is a disconnect from the action of sex in some form. This disconnect may come in the form of Attraction (Camp 1), Sex desire (Camp 2) or both (Camp 3). The current definition of sexual attraction on the wiki supports this as follows:

Sexual attraction is an emotional response that sexual people often feel that results in a desire for sexual contact with the person that the attraction is felt towards. (Link)

This definition holds two component. The emotional response and the desire for sexual contact. If there is a lack of either component, I feel the person fills the definition of asexuality. Therefore a person lacking the attraction aspect (Emotional response/ Camp 1) will be labeled as asexual because they don't find other people sexy. A person lacking a desire for sexual contact may find people sexy, but don't have the mental desire to engage in sex (Camp 2). Both are missing something that prevents them from getting a full experience that an allosexual person would.

Therefore, all camps appear valid to me. They just lack in different areas which are still covered in asexuality.

http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/112822-new-term-ideaslets-stop-fightingps-long-post/

[Guest]

How can you have sex with no sexual attraction? *This may seem stupid, but I'm confused, as I have always thought asexual=no sex*

Depends on what you mean by sexual attraction.

If you mean: looking at someone on the street and finding them attractive in a way that makes you want sex with them, then the vast majority of sexual people have sex without sexual attraction all the time, for all sorts of reasons. Sexual attraction as far as this definition is a pretty meaningless term, as many sexual people just don't experience it.

If you mean sexual attraction as: the desire for partnered sexual contact.. well people have sex all the time without actually desiring it, asexual and sexual. Like I never wanted or desired sex, but gave it to my sexual ex partner because I figured it was expected of me. Some asexual people will have sex to make a baby, to keep their partner happy, to make money, all sorts of reasons, and sexual people will do the same. It doesn't mean you want the sex itself, just because you desire an outcome it will produce (ie baby, happy partner, money etc)

Asexual doesn't equal no sex. Asexual = no desire to have partnered sexual contact for your own sexual pleasure, ever. Pretty much.

[Keels]

Edit: I think of it like this... an alternate definition of asexuality is someone who "does not have an innate desire for partnered sex". I don't have an innate desire to play tennis. I don't even enjoy tennis, it's a boring sport. But I play tennis with a good friend of mine every few weeks because I like spending time with them, they really enjoy it, I get some satisfaction from the exercise... So... same sort of thing but with sex? Maybe?

Yes, this, exactly. My experience is that I've always had sex (and enjoyed it) at the beginning of romantic relationships, but then it always trails off to nothing within a couple of months. What I finally realized upon learning about asexuality is that, indeed, I have no innate desire for partnered sex. What I have had is a desire to get to know my partners, do "normal" romantic-partner stuff with them, do something fun and intimate with them, establish some kind of atavistic proof that the relationship is real and progressing, that kind of thing. I have desires that happen to lead to sex, but they're not sexual desire itself.

And, yeah, it's confusing! It was damned confusing for me all those years! Finally having a concept that explains myself to myself is a pretty great feeling.

Would this be considered demisexual, or, grey ace?

Well, I'm not very good at the subcategories, but as far as I know, it's not demi. My understanding of the term is that a demisexual person would develop a persistent sexual attraction to the object of their affections over time.

And I'm afraid I really don't understand gray-ace in the first place.