How do you define asexuality?

[malacat]

While AVEN's definition of asexuality is a sexual orientation where one does not experience sexual attraction, not everyone defines it the same way.

So my question is, how do you personally define asexuality?

I'm interested in knowing how these definitions vary between individuals.

If you use terms such as sexual attraction or desire, it would be helpful to briefly define them too since these definitions can vary.

[Star Bit]

No desire for partnered sex.

The current attraction based definition was actually dictated by the site's creator and isn't accurate (not that that was his intent). It only became the popular definition for asexuality because AVEN became the main asexual site.

[Hardly any]

See... I like the whole orientation = who you want to have sex with, hetero = opposite, homo = same, ace = no one thing. So I get the "no attraction" definition. I count people who wish they had a desire for partnered sex as ace.

[SkyWorld]

I personally define it as lack of sexual attraction and/or desire for partnered sex... because... I define sexual attraction itself as desire for partnered sex. However, since there are people who have different definitions for sexual attraction, it'd just be more accurate and more clear to say lack of desire for partnered sex.

[Guest]

No (innate/inherent/primary) desire for partnered sex.

[Perissodactyla]

I wonder how many threads there are where people discuss this topic.

Here's the other I saw today:

http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/104713-defining-asexuality-a-better-definition/page-46

[fairytalefanfor1]

As an asexual individual, I simply see it as the lack of sexual attraction and desire to any gender or person.It is the same way with sports for me. Everyone is obsessed with it, many try to pull you into it, but you simply have no interest. You don't hate it, you don't condemn them for liking it, it just simply something you could care less about. It doesn't grab your attention as it gets others.

[Kanenas]

Lack of sexual attraction is the very definition of the word. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. But of course people have their own feelings about this identidy.

[Star Bit]

*sigh* so many people aren't informed on the problems with an attraction based definition

[Beuxx22]

While I'm okay with AVEN's definition, while researching and exploring this site I've decided I connect more with:

A lack of sexual desire or need

[Lost247365]

I have a scientific background so I think my technical definition reflects that:

Asexuality is a lack of sexuality.

Sexuality being defined as a complex interaction between a variety of innate instincts, desires, attractions, and biological and sociological drives in the brain that compel sexual beings to seek out sex with others for its own sake.

So an asexual person is someone who experiences a breakdown of any of the above factors resulting in a loss of sexuality. I feel this is the most accurate and inclusive definition, and also acknowledges the complex neurology of sexual attraction in both people and other animals.

Or when I am being more casual:

Asexuality is the lack of the potential to desire engaging in sexual intercourse with others.

[Gotsu]

For me is like a glass of milk where you can dip your cookies in. A very relaxed snack without the pressure of humans needs.

[Frigid Pink]

Lack of sexual attraction is the very definition of the word. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. But of course people have their own feelings about this identidy.

Yes, people do have their own feelings, and that's because it isn't "nothing more, nothing less, nothing else" to others just because it is to you. Do you know the origins of the "official" AVEN definition for "asexuality"? AVEN was created by one person. AVEN's "official" definition was made when there were less than 3,000 AVEN members. "Asexual" was a term coined by AVEN's creator. We create and define words to identify with and the people who identify with these labels create the definitions. It's not a perfect process and there can certainly be mistakes and inaccuracies.

I highly recommend this recent (scholarly) article about "asexuality." (see excerpts below - BOLD is mine)

"there are a number of definitions of asexuality, although a lack of sexual attraction (or a lack of desire for others) is, arguably, the most common definition in both recent literature and among individuals who support the most popular chat/Web site (AVEN) devoted to asexuality issues. Also notable is that a lack of attraction is, at least to some degree, independent of other facets of pyschosexual functioning (e.g., sexual desire, sexual behavior, pysiological arousal, romantic inclinations)."

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

I define "asexuality" as "no 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 I think it's very important that discussion continues.

[Frigid Pink]

I have a scientific background so I think my technical definition reflects that:

Asexuality is a lack of sexuality.

Sexuality being defined as a complex interaction between a variety of innate instincts, desires, attractions, and biological and sociological drives in the brain that compel sexual beings to seek out sex with others for its own sake.

So an asexual person is someone who experiences a breakdown of any of the above factors resulting in a loss of sexuality. I feel this is the most accurate and inclusive definition, and also acknowledges the complex neurology of sexual attraction in both people and other animals.

I disagree with this view and agree with the view in this recent (scholarly) article. A section titled "Additional Conceptual Issues" addresses this and how "asexuality" can be "construable as a separate, unique category within a sexual orientation framework (direct quote)."

[Star Bit]

Defining asexuality by no sexuality, by dictionary definitions of the word, disqualifies asexuals who masturbate and sexually compromise. So i also disagree.

And since I'm now in the mood to elaborate, sexual attraction (SA) is a problematic definition because it means those who don't find someone sexually attractive yet completely desire to have sex with someone for non-sexual attraction based reasons, and feel incomplete without a sexual relationship; fully desiring a sexual relationship, can call themselves asexual. (and I'm not talking about people who desire to make their partner happy or for child conception) The phrase also creates interpretation problems. Some people are told that kissing is sexual, or think aesthetic attraction is SA, among other things, and wrongly interpret what they're feeling as SA. This can completely discourage people from looking into asexuality and leave them to continue to feel broken, etc. Some people come back to the term years later, others never do.

[Lost247365]

I disagree with this view and agree with the view in this recent (scholarly) article. A section titled "Additional Conceptual Issues" addresses this and how "asexuality" can be "construable as a separate, unique category within a sexual orientation framework (direct quote)."

I don't know why, but it is now only allowing me access to the abstract and hiding the rest behind a pay wall. When you linked the same thing in the consensus thread, I was able to get to the full section and fortunately finished reading it last night (sorry for taking so long, I have been having problems staying focused on technical reading over a few pages long the last couple of weeks). Could you please quote the section or PM it to me if possible?

IIRC, now that only the abstract is accessible, I don't seem to remember anything in that article that really rejected what I was proposing. It discussed various definitions and their strengths and weakness, and why he feels that it should be considered an orientation and that in light of many self described asexuals achieving sexual release on their own that asexuality should be considered lack of desire for "others."

But it was a long section (about 16 pages) and I could be forgetting the section you are mentioning. That said, Let me say that it is a very good article overall.

One thing it mentioned that really caught my attention was that with some asexual might have sexuality but have a target direction error which focuses on themselves as in the case of Autogynophila and cited Blanchard. Being an AGP myself I found this really interesting but have issues with that as 1) Blanchard's work on AGP is not well regarded and 2) My sexuality is not self directed. If so, according to that line of logic, I would be sexually attracted to an opposite sex clone of myself which I can guarantee is not the case.

[Lost247365]

Defining asexuality by no sexuality, by dictionary definitions of the word, disqualifies asexuals who masturbate and sexually compromise. So i also disagree.

That would only be true if masturbation were the entirety of sexuality. That would be like saying, that just because a history book got one date wrong the entire book must be incorrect.

I think there are multiple levers in the pipework of human sexuality and just because one is turned off doesn't mean they are all turned off...but the result is the same. The water doesn't come out. In this particular case we are focused solely on the levers with regards to orientation.

Compromising is not seeking sex as a goal in and of itself. That would be like saying that just because a kid goes to school everyday they must find it enjoyable. I know many people who I grew up with who would strongly disagree with that.

[Frigid Pink]

I disagree with this view and agree with the view in this recent (scholarly) article. A section titled "Additional Conceptual Issues" addresses this and how "asexuality" can be "construable as a separate, unique category within a sexual orientation framework (direct quote)."

I don't know why, but it is now only allowing me access to the abstract and hiding the rest behind a pay wall. When you linked the same thing in the consensus thread, I was able to get to the full section and fortunately finished reading it last night (sorry for taking so long, I have been having problems staying focused on technical reading over a few pages long the last couple of weeks). Could you please quote the section or PM it to me if possible?

I don't feel like copying/pasting or retyping out that section right now as it's actually quite tedius because of the format. I don't know why the article can only be viewed by purchase now. I had the same issue with the link when I retried it. Fortunately, I kept my window open from the original link, so, it's still readable. I just have to remember not to close out that window!

[Lost247365]

I don't feel like copying/pasting or retyping out that section right now as it's actually quite tedius because of the format. I don't know why the article can only be viewed by purchase now. I had the same issue with the link when I retried it. Fortunately, I kept my window open from the original link, so, it's still readable. I just have to remember not to close out that window!

That is fine, I understand. I did read it, and it was a good article. Thanks for giving the link regardless

[Star Bit]

Defining asexuality by no sexuality, by dictionary definitions of the word, disqualifies asexuals who masturbate and sexually compromise. So i also disagree.

That would only be true if masturbation were the entirety of sexuality. That would be like saying, that just because a history book got one date wrong the entire book must be incorrect.

I think there are multiple levers in the pipework of human sexuality and just because one is turned off doesn't mean they are all turned off...but the result is the same. The water doesn't come out. In this particular case we are focused solely on the levers with regards to orientation.

Compromising is not seeking sex as a goal in and of itself. That would be like saying that just because a kid goes to school everyday they must find it enjoyable. I know many people who I grew up with who would strongly disagree with that.

No, that's the entire point. One thing being disqualified makes the whole definition wrong. The definition is supposed to define asexuality, not some asexuals. Your reasoning is like saying "asexuals sexually compromise" is fact, where as the actual fact is that SOME asexuals sexually compromise. Your opinion and actual facts are two different things; just because you take sexuality one way doesn't make it the whole of the definition of sexuality. I don't get your last paragraph; i said nothing like that. Yes, enjoyment, actions, and desire are different things, but that has nothing to do with validating your definition.

[Lost247365]

No, that's the entire point. One thing being disqualified makes the whole definition wrong. The definition is supposed to define asexuality, not some asexuals.

Not the way I have it defined. My definition does not describe "some" asexuals it describes them all. It describes those who are non-libidoist as well as libidoists. It describes sex-repulsed as well as sex favorable. It describes asexuality as an orientation as well as asexuality as a result of other factors. So long as it results in a loss of sexuality it fits.

Your reasoning is like saying "asexuals sexually compromise" is fact, where as the actual fact is that SOME asexuals sexually compromise.

So you are saying that some asexuals are sexual?

Words can have multiple sense, meanings, and degrees. Where they might not work in one sense they can work in another. Asexual could refer to not having sex organs. By my definition, that would apply just as well. However, just because that is one way it is interpreted doesn't mean that one can't mean the same thing in different sense. They could be referring to behavior. They could be referring to orientation. They could be referring to desire. They could be referring to attraction.

To take it the way you are taking it would be like arguing that a man sleeping on a train heading north at 100mph isn't moving. In one sense he is moving, he is going 100mph to the north. But in another sense he isn't moving as his limbs are immobile. You are insisting on the definition of the word only applying in one sense of a word.

Even if he was sleeping on the ground he would still be moving in some senses but not others. The earth rotates and revolves around the sun. The sense of the word depends upon the frame of reference.

Your opinion and actual facts are two different things; just because you take sexuality one way doesn't make it the whole of the definition of sexuality.

Your are right my opinion and fact are two different things. That said, that is the very topic of the thread is our personal opinion:

While AVEN's definition of asexuality is a sexual orientation where one does not experience sexual attraction, not everyone defines it the same way.

So my question is, how do you personally define asexuality?

I'm interested in knowing how these definitions vary between individuals.

If you use terms such as sexual attraction or desire, it would be helpful to briefly define them too since these definitions can vary.

But lets ignore that for sake of discussion. In what sense does my definition not fit the word in fact? If you are referring to attraction it fits. If you are referring to orientation/desire it still fits. If you are talking about different types of creatures it still fits.

I don't get your last paragraph; i said nothing like that. Yes, enjoyment, actions, and desire are different things.

The last paragraph was pointing to the fact that I said sexuality is about seeking sex for its own sake. Therefore, an asexual compromising doesn't actually invalidate my statement because that is NOT a case of them seeking out sex for its own sake.

EDIT:

And I also gave a casual definition specifically referring to the type of asexuality that we commonly discuss on AVEN at the bottom. So I don't get your objection.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Lost247365

[Guest]

No desire for partnered sex.

The current attraction based definition was actually dictated by the site's creator and isn't accurate (not that that was his intent). It only became the popular definition for asexuality because AVEN became the main asexual site.

Yes, I have seen the creator of AVEN say repeatedly ''I am asexual. I want a romantic relationship but I don't want sex'' this is pretty much, I believe, what his intended meaning was when he first used the ''sexual attraction'' definition. Asexuality: a lack of desire for partnered sex.

So many people in the asexual community are utterly ignorant of what it is that makes sexual people sexual (they desire partnered sex with other people, for a huge variation of reasons, and a great deal of those reasons have nothing to do with the physical appearance of other people... Many people here seem to think all sexual people look at other people and develop sexual feelings based on the other persons appearance, and that is what makes sexual people sexual. This is incorrect, and actually, a very offensive idea to many sexual people here. Sexual people themselves (any who discuss this to a great enough length, which fortunately some here on AVEN do) say that what makes them sexual is underlying desire for partnered sex. Who they have sex with, why they have sex with them, and how often they have sex with them,. are all variable, but what all sexual people have in common is that to some extent or another, they desire partnered sex. Everything else is variable.

So lets stop ignoring what actual sexual people say about sexuality, because through a greater understanding of sexuality, we can better understand what asexuality is (as it is the lack of what makes sexual people sexual, that makes someone asexual)

Sexuality = the desire for partnered sex.

Sexual orientation = the gender/s ones desire for partnered sex is directed at.

A-sexuality = without a desire for partnered sex (the A literally means ''without'')

I wish that asexuals (not all, but many) would stop trying to fathom sexuality and define it themselves, when so many of them have so little understanding of what sexuality actually is and refuse to listen to anyone trying to accurately explain it. Start listening to the sexual people on AVEN who go to such lengths to explain that it's the desire for partnered sex that defines sexuality, it has nothing to do with this ''magical sexual attraction feeling that no one can accurately define''.

[malacat]

It seems like people think AVEN's definition is inaccurate. I think we should change the definition so that it is clearer (considering sexual attraction has many definitions itself). Or it should at least be expanded to include definitions like

A lack of inherent desire, drive, whatever, for partnered sexual activity... or something like that.

I personally define asexuality with a definition similar to this. But couldn't someone still desire partnered sex (perhaps it is how they prefer to satisfy their libido) yet not direct this desire at anyone in particular? Couldn't they identify as ace? Then this definition wouldn't really apply to them. Even if I define asexuality this way personally, I don't think it should be the definition that AVEN uses.

The definition used on AVEN should be inclusive for libidoist and non-libidoists, sex favourable and sex repulsed, people who have partnered sex but identify as asexual, and other experiences that asexuals have.

[Star Bit]

It seems like people think AVEN's definition is inaccurate. I think we should change the definition so that it is clearer (considering sexual attraction has many definitions itself). Or it should at least be expanded to include definitions like

A lack of inherent desire, drive, whatever, for partnered sexual activity... or something like that.

I personally define asexuality with a definition similar to this. But couldn't someone still desire partnered sex (perhaps it is how they prefer to satisfy their libido) yet not direct this desire at anyone in particular? Couldn't they identify as ace? Then this definition wouldn't really apply to them. Even if I define asexuality this way personally, I don't think it should be the definition that AVEN uses.

The definition used on AVEN should be inclusive for libidoist and non-libidoists, sex favourable and sex repulsed, people who have partnered sex but identify as asexual, and other experiences that asexuals have.

If they're fine with satisfying their libido with sex, yes, they can be asexual, but if they actually desire sex to satisfy their libido then no, they are sexual/Gray-sexual/Cupiosexual. Defining asexuality as "no desire for partnered sex" completely includes that asexuals can be libidoists and non-libidoists and whatnot. Look up the definition of desire; which some people somehow don't know, because it completely doesn't exclude what you're afraid it does. Desire and enjoy are two different words and aren't always together.

[malacat]

If they're fine with satisfying their libido with sex, yes, they can be asexual, but if they actually desire sex to satisfy their libido then no, they are sexual/Gray-sexual/Cupiosexual. Defining asexuality as "no desire for partnered sex" completely includes that asexuals can be libidoists and non-libidoists and whatnot. Look up the definition of desire; which some people somehow don't know, because it completely doesn't exclude what you're afraid it does. Desire and enjoy are two different words and aren't always together.

This makes sense. Thank's for clarifying what you meant. Desire can have slightly different meanings and I agree with the definition you are using. You mentioned many people do not know the definition of desire; I think part of the problem of defining asexuality is that there are many (perhaps unclear or unknown) definitions for the words commonly used to define it, such as desire and sexual attraction.

Also:

The current attraction based definition was actually dictated by the site's creator and isn't accurate (not that that was his intent).

From my understanding, the reason you consider AVEN's definition inaccurate is because the definition of sexual attraction is vague and varied. Please let me know if I'm incorrect or missing anything else behind this reasoning.

EDIT:

I know what desire means. I have the definition that I agree with but have also seen other definitions which may exclude what I was talking about. I wanted to make sure we were on the same page (it looks like we are).

[Guest]

It seems like people think AVEN's definition is inaccurate. I think we should change the definition so that it is clearer (considering sexual attraction has many definitions itself). Or it should at least be expanded to include definitions like

A lack of inherent desire, drive, whatever, for partnered sexual activity... or something like that.

I personally define asexuality with a definition similar to this. But couldn't someone still desire partnered sex (perhaps it is how they prefer to satisfy their libido) yet not direct this desire at anyone in particular? Couldn't they identify as ace? Then this definition wouldn't really apply to them. Even if I define asexuality this way personally, I don't think it should be the definition that AVEN uses.

The definition used on AVEN should be inclusive for libidoist and non-libidoists, sex favourable and sex repulsed, people who have partnered sex but identify as asexual, and other experiences that asexuals have.

The thing about that is, there are lots of sexual people who desire sex in general, not with anyone in particular though. They just have sex with people who are willing because they enjoy sex, but there is no preference for any type of appearance over another or anything. I know one sexual lady here who openly admits to having advertised for sex on Craigslist, and meeting people from there purely for sex without previously knowing anything about them or how they look or anything. There are lots of sexual people who do this (not all by far, but definitely many - there are lots of places like Craigslist used to be where people literally just look for sex and don't really care who it's with as long as they are willing)

Sexual people who go to any great lengths to discuss this desire vs. attraction definition issue with us here all state that ''attraction'' is often a secondary factor when it is present at all. What all sexual people have in common, is that they all desire partnered sex under some circumstances (who they desire it with, why they desire it, and how often they desire it, is completely variable from person to person)

So if we are going to say that ''an asexual can desire sex without desiring the person they have it with'' .. well.. then at least 20% of the population (probably more) are asexual, because there are sexual people like that all over the place.

There are no people, however, who identify as hetero/bi/pan/homosexual, who do not, ever, under any circumstance, desire partnered sexual contact. It is an extreme minority of humans (ie asexuals) who experience this total lack of desire to connect sexually with other people.

So what I am getting at is that yes, a desire-based definition would exclude people who desire sex but ''don't desire people'' from being able to identify as asexual, but there are many sexual people who desire sex but aren't that fussed on the people they have it with, as it's the sex they desire, not people... so... it's not asexual.

Pretty much, if you have an inherent desire within you for partnered sex (regardless of how you choose who you have sex with) then you are sexual, not asexual.

EDIT: oh and also, if sex is literally just your preferred method of libido release, so it's nothing more than ''masturbating using someone else'' for example, then how is that any different than any other sexual person who prefers having another person present as opposed to going it alone? Again, it's not any different.

So yeah, an inherent desire definition (ie ''An asexual person does not desire partnered sex for sexual and/or emotional pleasure'', or just ''an asexual person has no inherent desire for partnered sex'') is pretty much perfect to define what asexuality actually is. It's the lack of the one thing that all sexual people have in common.

[Star Bit]

The definition of sexual attraction actually isn't vague; it's existed and been defined since the late 1800s (though because of its lack in use, a lot of dictionaries don't define it). People only started saying it was undefinable when AVEN started using it, which i think they were actually trying to define something else; probably sexuality as a whole. All the dictionaries that do define it word it as a pull to be sexual with someone. Maybe the phrase "compulsive thought" is accurate. As PanFicto says, people take this loophole in the definition and say they're asexual. (I never knew people didn't know the definition of desire; only this week have i come across 3 people; including you, who don't know it. And I said some people don't know it, not many, but i suppose that could be accurate.) Sexual attraction and the desire to act on it IRL are also two different things, as well as sexual arousal and sexual attraction and sexual desire.

[Star Bit]

And actually, if we just increase the asexual given percentage by one (which is likely with people being more informed on it now) then asexuality is no less common than homosexuality and bisexuality; which average percent is about 2% each. link (go to Modern Servery Results) Be careful at reading some of the results; some lump bi and gay together in one percentage.

[Guest]

And actually, if we just increase the asexual given percentage by one (which is likely with people being more informed on it now) then asexuality is no less common than homosexuality and bisexuality; which average percent is about 2% each. link (go to Modern Servery Results)

I think the percentage of people who literally have no innate desire for partnered sex is extremely low (often seems like they are even a minority on AVEN with the amount of "sex desiring asexuals" here)

But studies have been done which show that at least 3% of male rats are asexual, and up to 16% of rams (as in male sheep, not a typo of rat haha) sooo, you just never know :o. . I think rats and sheep breed a lot more than humans (is that correct?) so their desire for sex may not be quite as.. um.. word to use.. solidified? in their species as it is in much of the human population (which is why those species would have a higher percentage of asexuality) Humans are quite lazy, pregnancies have a very long gestation period, and their young are the most vulnerable animal for the longest period of time, so it stands to reason evolution would try to program as many humans as possible to desire and love sex: gotta make sure they're pumping those babies out.

[Misery's Fence]

I don't look at anyone--male, female, trans, or other--and think "I'd like to have sex with that person." I cannot even imagine having sex with anyone ever again, in my wildest imagination (OK, I admit, being a code monkey I don't really have an imagination ;) ). I don't desire a romantic relationship either, but I think that's more my practical side than an orientation. I'm stubborn and like things my own way, which is rarely anyone else's way. Being involved in a successful relationship requires compromise, and I won't.

Miz