Jump to content

What the....?


Recommended Posts

I didn't intend my previous (or this current) comment to have a possibly rude tone. I was simply stating what would answer your question. But i don't know how else to word it past what I've already said so i guess I have nothing else i can say.

;) :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
TooOldForThis

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'no sex' - by previous comments I'm guessing you just mean that you aren't willing to have sex. Or that you don't want to have sex? Or do you mean you don't have a sex drive/libido?

If the first, than yeah, the best I've heard is 'celibate asexual' or 'asexual who doesn't have sex' or similar combo terms. If the second, then I guess 'sex-negative asexual' (though that one also sometimes has other implications) - I'm not sure about other terms. If the last, then 'non-libidoist' is probably what you're after.

Personally, I just use 'asexual,' since whether or not I'm willing to have sex/want to have sex/have a libido doesn't usually come up, and isn't anyone's business in most cases anyway.

Sorry if this is nitpicky. I merely wanted to clarify your meaning to myself :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'no sex' - by previous comments I'm guessing you just mean that you aren't willing to have sex. Or that you don't want to have sex? Or do you mean you don't have a sex drive/libido?

If the first, than yeah, the best I've heard is 'celibate asexual' or 'asexual who doesn't have sex' or similar combo terms. If the second, then I guess 'sex-negative asexual' (though that one also sometimes has other implications) - I'm not sure about other terms. If the last, then 'non-libidoist' is probably what you're after.

Personally, I just use 'asexual,' since whether or not I'm willing to have sex/want to have sex/have a libido doesn't usually come up, and isn't anyone's business in most cases anyway.

Sorry if this is nitpicky. I merely wanted to clarify your meaning to myself :)

I've had too much sex, in the past. :P

I definitely have a libido.

TMI:

I masturbate and enjoy porn

Sex is just not satisfying for me.

I think my main issue is the fact that by it's own definition, AVEN states that asexual means no sex, yet people here insist asexuals are sexual.

According to the Overview, there are sexuals and asexuals. Clearly opposites.

I've been using 'asexual', and will continue to do so. I'm not an obsessive person, but this is sticking with me. I'm probably over-thinking it. ;)

I guess my lack of clarity comes from the fact that I'm confused by this

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, asexuality purely means a lack of sex drive, not necessarily a lack of sex. No sex would be described as virginity or being a virgin, if you believe in that term. :) That's my understanding of it anyway, I hope I've understood correctly haha...

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONO

That is, not necessarily.

Well, you're right in that it doesn't necessarily mean a lack of sex. But asexuality doesn't necessarily mean a lack of sex drive either. It's just a lack of sexual attraction. You can still have a sex drive with that. It's bloody annoying, but it happens.

OP: (why would asexual mean no sex ...? It's an orientation, not a lifestyle ...) But yeah, for nosexness I like the term 'nothankyousexual'.

^ FoxEars ^

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assumed the majority of asexuals don't have sex. I thought that's what makes us special?!

I'm confused about the posts that insist that asexuals are sexual, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, let's set this straight. (Haha ... sexuality puns ... anyway *clears throat*)

Asexuality is a sexual orientation. It describes to whom we are attracted (i.e., no-one, unless you're grey / demi and then it's more complicated).

Asexuality is not a lifestyle. While many asexuals probably don't have sex, or at least don't have much, plenty of asexuals do have sex. They just don't do it because they're sexually attracted to someone.

^ FoxEars ^

Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't make sense to me though. How can you have sex without sexual attraction? Yeah, I've tried. Doesn't go well.

Yes, it's an orientation which means we aren't sexually attracted to anyone by definition. Where I'm confused is that wouldn't that then be like a straight man having sex with another man purely because he's "horny." I don't think that happens. Ever. So are asexuals an exception?

I totally get some reasons asexuals have sex, like trying to make someone they love happy etc. But purely just to get off makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't make sense to me though. How can you have sex without sexual attraction? Yeah, I've tried. Doesn't go well.

Yes, it's an orientation which means we aren't sexually attracted to anyone by definition. Where I'm confused is that wouldn't that then be like a straight man having sex with another man purely because he's "horny." I don't think that happens. Ever. So are asexuals an exception?

I totally get some reasons asexuals have sex, like trying to make someone they love happy etc. But purely just to get off makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Again -- some asexuals do have libidos of all strengths and types, and for those who aren't sex-repulsed / sex-averse, sex can be a nice way to take care of that and get a nice oxytocin boost to boot.

I think an ace having sex with someone is a little different from a hetero man having sex with another man -- partly because the hetero man is probably heteroromantic too. So in a way, he's deviating from two orientations instead of one. When you're asexual, not sex-repulsed / sex-averse, not aromantic, and you have a libido, sex is often a perfectly viable option.

I'm not saying aromantic asexuals can't / don't have sex either. Although it probably is a lot less common than it is amongst romantic asexuals.

^ FoxEars ^

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always assumed the majority of asexuals don't have sex. I thought that's what makes us special?!

I'm confused about the posts that insist that asexuals are sexual, too.

That doesn't make sense to me though. How can you have sex without sexual attraction? Yeah, I've tried. Doesn't go well.

Yes, it's an orientation which means we aren't sexually attracted to anyone by definition. Where I'm confused is that wouldn't that then be like a straight man having sex with another man purely because he's "horny." I don't think that happens. Ever. So are asexuals an exception?

I totally get some reasons asexuals have sex, like trying to make someone they love happy etc. But purely just to get off makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Also, asexuals are not better than anyone else, nor are they lesser beings of course. Really, any sexual orientation doesn't make one better or worse than the next person.

And there could be endless reasons why an asexual might want/sex. Such as pleasing a partner or wanting biological children, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hehe I was only joking about the part about us being special of course.

And yeah I understand. Some of it's just a bit confusing to me that's all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hehe I was only joking about the part about us being special of course.

And yeah I understand. Some of it's just a bit confusing to me that's all.

Oh! :blush: Sorry, sometimes it's hard to detect in text.

And I completely agree sometimes... Though, I think that's because I lack a libido and I'm also sex-repulsed, so I fail to understand a lot of things... though, I still try to seek some kind of knowledge about the subject, even if it is hard to understand and wrap my brain around. To be honest... I still think it's a bit confusing as well. But I don't want my confusion to come off as invalidating their asexuality. I just want to understand more. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

By your meaning for asexual, "they have no urge to have sex with anyone", this means no sex, yet people are saying that asexuals are sexual. Do you see my confusion?

No no no no no no no. I.e., no.

Asexuals have no desire for partnered sex. However, they sometimes DO have partnered sex, to please their partner or for other reasons. You can, and sometimes do, participate in things that you don't really desire. Sex is sometimes one of those things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, asexuality purely means a lack of sex drive, not necessarily a lack of sex. No sex would be described as virginity or being a virgin, if you believe in that term. :) That's my understanding of it anyway, I hope I've understood correctly haha...

NONONONONONONONONONONONONONO

That is, not necessarily.

Well, you're right in that it doesn't necessarily mean a lack of sex. But asexuality doesn't necessarily mean a lack of sex drive either. It's just a lack of sexual attraction. You can still have a sex drive with that. It's bloody annoying, but it happens.

Sexual attraction! That's what I meant but couldn't think of what it was called at the time haha, just seen my post again and I totally agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By your meaning for asexual, "they have no urge to have sex with anyone", this means no sex, yet people are saying that asexuals are sexual. Do you see my confusion?

No no no no no no no. I.e., no.

Asexuals have no desire for partnered sex. However, they sometimes DO have partnered sex, to please their partner or for other reasons. You can, and sometimes do, participate in things that you don't really desire. Sex is sometimes one of those things.

Yes. But, though you'll go through the process, as a compromise, you're still not interested in having that sex. Not wanting/needing sex makes you a nonsexual.

Are you saying, that merely engaging in a sexual act, as a desperate act to keep a partner, makes you sexual?

Or, am I using the term nonsexual wrong? Is anyone willing/unwilling, to engage in sex, for any reason, sexual? *By unwilling, I am not meaning forced*

Edited by Tja
Link to post
Share on other sites
TooOldForThis

By your meaning for asexual, "they have no urge to have sex with anyone", this means no sex, yet people are saying that asexuals are sexual. Do you see my confusion?

No no no no no no no. I.e., no.

Asexuals have no desire for partnered sex. However, they sometimes DO have partnered sex, to please their partner or for other reasons. You can, and sometimes do, participate in things that you don't really desire. Sex is sometimes one of those things.

Yes. But, though you'll go through the process, as a compromise, you're still not interested in having that sex. Not wanting/needing sex makes you a nonsexual.

Are you saying, that merely engaging in a sexual act, as a desperate act to keep a partner, makes you sexual?

Or, am I using the term nonsexual wrong? Is anyone willing/unwilling, to engage in sex, for any reason, sexual? *By unwilling, I am not meaning forced*

Engaging in a sexual act definitely doesn't make you sexual. I mean, think of the behaviour of a lot of people in prison; they might be straight, but they sometimes engage in same-gender sex while in prison because... I'm not sure... they're horny, or something. But when given the option, they'd always choose to have sex with someone of a different gender. They're still straight, they just happened to engage in gay sex. Similarly, in the olden days many gay people got married to someone of a different gender (sometimes another gay person) for the sake of appearances, and then had affairs - but they might have sex a few times with their spouse for the sake of having children. They were still gay, but they had straight sex.

So, to clear things up, I could go have sex right now, and I'd still be asexual, because I'm still not sexually attracted to people. I'm not going to go have sex, because I really have no reason to, but the point is that I could do so and still be asexual.

I hope that helps clarify things a wee bit. Sorry if it's still confusing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is fascinating.

I suppose, I'm just a cut and dry, black and white, all or nothing kind of person.

This topic certainly won't have this kind of answer. Too many variables.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That asexual guy

According to the other thread, (Why does everyone assume asexual means no sex?), asexual has never stood for "no sex". :huh:

I find that hard to believe, but that's another topic of conversation.

This thread deals with questions:

So... I guess...I'm a Nosexual?...Notsexual?...HoHumsexual??...Humbugsexual?!?

Is there a designation that stands for no sex, or, not sexual? An actual designation that clearly, concisely and only, means not sexual.

Tja, the definition of THIS website is asexual means not having sexual attraction. The actual word asexual has always and will always mean "not sexual" because that's the entymology of the word.

You are asexual. You know what it means to you. If you desire to tell people you are asexual and aren't interested in sex you can go ahead and do that and you can ignore the asexual police on the Internet. AVEN is only one website and is not the end all definitive on what it means to be asexual.

I see people write that asexual means not having sexual attraction but if you then read posts where they talk about their experiences they always circle around to not being interested in sex. The two are very much related.

Bring on the critics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every dictionary defines Asexuality as "Having no sex, or no sexual organs." Also, "having characteristics of both sexes." That is like saying an Athiest is a person who believes in God, but simply does not like churches. I mean, that is the Meaning!

And yes, there would be a spectrum. There is always a spectrum because we are all individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every dictionary defines Asexuality as "Having no sex, or no sexual organs." Also, "having characteristics of both sexes."

That's the meaning in some contexts, but not in the context of asexuality as an orientation.

^ FoxEars ^

Link to post
Share on other sites
CrazyCatLover

Asexual is lack of sexual attraction, but there are other reasons to have sex which is why it doesn't necessarily mean no sex.

Nonlibidoist means a lack of sex drive. But, again, there are many possible reasons to have sex.

Abstantient and celibate both mean no sex, but they do imply a desire for sex.

I'm not sure there is one word to convey both "no sex" and "no desire for sex." I personally just identify as asexual and figure my sex life is no one else's business. At the doctor's office, I check the little box for "not sexually active."

(Edited for grammar)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Abstantient and celibate both mean no sex, but they do imply a desire for sex.

I'm not sure they necessarily do ...? I mean, I think that implication only exists because people assume everyone desires sex on some level. Neither of those words actually suggest desire for sex; it's just that some people think being human suggests desire for sex.

Besides, I think generally if one is successfully abstinent / celibate, if anything the implication is that they have relatively little desire for sex (hence they are able to ignore it). Which is not that far off from no desire.

^ FoxEars ^

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Overview page, it states "there are sexuals and asexuals". This implies they are opposites.

Shouldn't the word "sexuals" be implying the activity only, or, just the act of having sex? Thus "asexuals" don't care for the activity/act?

Link to post
Share on other sites
WünderBâhr

To me, it was never really a question of behavior. An asexual didn't feel sexual attraction, which manifested or influenced their actions as they did per individual. There is no "The One" when it comes to the definition. There can't be.

By sticking to a definition that speaks to the broad range of asexual identities, it allows for inclusion without people needing to feel pressured to "fit that mould". The consequence of this is that it can often times be confusing as hell when one person's interpretation of that doesn't match another's. Sexuality in general isn't that simple, much less any non-normative orientation.

In my mind, it has always been an individual perspective. Who "counts" as asexual? People who don't experience sexual attraction. Those people may or may not engage in sexual activity, but are likely less inclined to do so on their own. Usually mitigating circumstances to reason why that would change, but the initial statement holds true. Now...if you want to discuss how people can engage in said activities without sexual attraction, that's more of an offshoot discussion, imo. Related, but not exactly the same.

I wish I could better explain why it is easy for me to not be as confused, but trying to summarize the old-school experiences of discovery and understanding on AVEN is a bit... much. :p Implication of behavior is not exclusively tied to the definition.. I guess that's the only way I can put it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, it was never really a question of behavior. An asexual didn't feel sexual attraction, which manifested or influenced their actions as they did per individual. There is no "The One" when it comes to the definition. There can't be.

By sticking to a definition that speaks to the broad range of asexual identities, it allows for inclusion without people needing to feel pressured to "fit that mould". The consequence of this is that it can often times be confusing as hell when one person's interpretation of that doesn't match another's. Sexuality in general isn't that simple, much less any non-normative orientation.

In my mind, it has always been an individual perspective. Who "counts" as asexual? People who don't experience sexual attraction. Those people may or may not engage in sexual activity, but are likely less inclined to do so on their own. Usually mitigating circumstances to reason why that would change, but the initial statement holds true. Now...if you want to discuss how people can engage in said activities without sexual attraction, that's more of an offshoot discussion, imo. Related, but not exactly the same.

I wish I could better explain why it is easy for me to not be as confused, but trying to summarize the old-school experiences of discovery and understanding on AVEN is a bit... much. :P Implication of behavior is not exclusively tied to the definition.. I guess that's the only way I can put it.

Well put!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Overview page, it states "there are sexuals and asexuals". This implies they are opposites.

Shouldn't the word "sexuals" be implying the activity only, or, just the act of having sex? Thus "asexuals" don't care for the activity/act?

Again -- 'sexuals' and 'asexuals' refers to people's sexual orientations, not their sexual habits or behaviours. So 'sexuals' just refers to people who have sexual attraction to someone, with 'asexuals' being those who don't. They are opposites, but it has nothing to do with people's attitudes towards sexual activity. Those are even more nuanced and impossible to break down into categories than orientations are.

^ FoxEars ^

Edit: it appears bipolar bear covered it; I didn't see that until after I posted. Sorry! ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites
leena.in.wonderland

As a sexual male getting my head round the whole asexual thing since my wife now appears to be asexual, the whole micro taxonomy obsession seems problematic to me. To an outsider, it seems like the understandable urge to adopt an identity is fracturing the single, big concept till it gets too complicated for anyone to understand, which makes acceptance by already baffled outsiders so much harder.

I honestly don't see the point of going beyond 'asexual' and acknowledging that everyone has their own particular, shifting version of it.

I agree. Even as an ace myself, all of the separate identifies are getting confusing

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a sexual male getting my head round the whole asexual thing since my wife now appears to be asexual, the whole micro taxonomy obsession seems problematic to me. To an outsider, it seems like the understandable urge to adopt an identity is fracturing the single, big concept till it gets too complicated for anyone to understand, which makes acceptance by already baffled outsiders so much harder.

I honestly don't see the point of going beyond 'asexual' and acknowledging that everyone has their own particular, shifting version of it.

I agree. Even as an ace myself, all of the separate identifies are getting confusing

Sorry if this sounds harsh; I don't mean it that way at all but I can't think of a better way to put it. People need to get over their labelphobia. Yes, there may be words for some subcategories of asexuality you don't understand at first glance. (But, pro tip: people who use obscure labels are generally quite aware that their label is obscure and are willing to explain it to people who ask. They wouldn't use it otherwise. Failing that, a quick internet search should do in a pinch, even for many of the really obscure ones.) The fact is, humans are incredibly complex and nuanced, and it's natural for our language to reflect that. On the other hand, to try to stunt the natural development of words and have all asexuals -- a group of enormously varying identities -- simply use the term 'asexual' is to promote oversimplified, black-and-white ways of looking at the world. This is dangerously close to bigotry. Of course I'm not saying labelphobic people are necessarily bigoted; I'm just saying, bigoted people thrive on the idea that enormous, diverse groups of people can be reduced to a single, simple, two-dimensional stereotype. Probably best to stay as far away from that as possible.

Here's the thing. Not all people who fall on the asexual spectrum can be accurately described as just 'asexual' (e.g. grey-asexuals -- well, depending how 'grey' they are -- for one). Not all people who are on the asexual spectrum are alike in their orientations. Asexuality isn't really a single orientation so much as a group of orientations. Saying asexuals should use no futher label than 'asexual' is not like saying (for example) that all heterosexual people should be content with the label 'heterosexual'; it's more like saying, all sexual people should just use the label 'sexual'. A lot of labelphobic people complain that many labels are too specific to be useful; but on the other hand, at that point labels are too vague to be useful.

I mean ... if you're against labels that are 'too' specific ... are you against lengthy chemical names? Should cyclopropanecarboxylic acid and pentaethylene glycol monododecyl ether both just be referred to as 'chemical compound' because it isn't immediately apparent to most people what their names mean?

Of course not. They're totally different substances and to treat them as the same thing is not a good idea. Besides, those to whom their specific meanings matter either know what they mean or can figure it out; those to whom their meanings don't matter don't have to know (although they can look it up if they're curious). The same thing applies to orientation labels, really.

Bottom line: humans are not simple and it's silly (at best) that we should try to treat ourselves as such. Non-basic labels aren't hurting anyone.

^ FoxEars ^

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to bring up the question of whether you use different labels when talking to different people.

Talking to someone who is overall clueless about most orientations I'd simply say "asexual"

If I'm talking to someone, say another AVENite, I would probably use a more refined label...

Something like panromantic demiace would make sense to them but not to the other person. And I'm not even talking about more rare labels.

In the same way, someone familiar with asexuality would most likely know that being asexual means you may have sex with someone and you may have a libido. But for most people clueless about asexuality, those are not the first assumptions.

Is it good, bad? I don't know, it's just more practical imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Some people use sex-drive and libido to mean two different things since english doesn't actually have a word for masturbation-drive, but factually/definition wise they both refer to a desire for sex and not the former. Though these are also old words so it's no surprise the allosexual majority thinks the two are the same thing.)

Asexual is not literal. In the same way any other orientation is not literal. Heterosexuals are not attracted to any sex that isn't their own (i.e. a straight male isn't into females and intersex people since hetero means different and not opposite), gay people aren't attracted to their twin, bi ppl aren't attracted to only two people or have two partners at once. The prefix A means without, it is not the same thing as un which means opposite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You all are wonderful. Thanks for all the great insights. It's truly helping. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...