Asexuality, sexual desire and libido

[banana monkey]

Ok, I was reading another thread and got very confused about sexual attraction, desire and libido and asexuality. It has left me questioning my asexuality which I was already doing slightly due to a conversation with a colleague recently. If I keep posting my questions on that thread I risk derailing it so I decided it would be better to start a new one.

On Aven, there is debate over the definition of asexuality. Currently, AVEN defines it as a lack of sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is defined as the desire to have sex with a specific person so asexuality would be the lack of desire to have sex with a specific person. However, some define it as a lack of desire for partnered sex. To me this is less specific. Those who define it as such, indicate desire for partnered sex is not the same as libido at all of which leads me with a few questions.

Can you desire partnered sex but just not with a specific person? ie without sexual attraction. I would think you can and still be asexual as you lack sexual attraction but would people who prefer the 2nd definition would say such a person is sexual?? If so, I may disagree and that is fine.

What is libido? - Previously, I have seen it defined as sexual desire but obviously it is not if a desire for partnered sex is not the same as libido.

What do you define as partnered sex? (possibly TMI) ie. It is well known that some asexuals have a libido and masturbate because of that. I would define partnered sex as intercourse but what about partnered masturbation or other sexual activities with a partner that may proceed intercourse or oral etc.

I also think i'm confusing my definition of sexual desire, because you can desire sex for many reasons, such as wanting to form an emotional bond with a partner or that it feels enjoyable/pleasurable etc. If anyone could clear that up I would appreciate the help.

[Star Bit]

Well, for one, AVEN defines sexual attraction in their FAQ which translates the above banner to "an asexual does not desire to have sex with anyone." However, the "with a specific person" is the correct definition for sexual attraction. So while the translation is the correct definition for asexuality, the use of the word sexual attraction is not. There are a couple holes with it; one, people who desire sex but don't find anyone sexually alluring and have sex for other reasons (that don't include making a partner happy or procreation) can then go by asexual when in fact they are normal sexual people who make up half (if not more) of the sexual population (according to the sexual people on this site). Two, people don't look up its definition and assume it's one thing because that's what they see sexual people do (i.e. they confuse other attractions/ feelings with sexual attraction). A common misconception is that it's aesthetic attraction; the pull to look at someone due to their looks and or mannerisms (which also commonly gets confused with romantic attraction). Sexual desire is the desire to have sex in general. Libido is the desire for sexual pleasure and refers to both masturbation and or sex. So the definition of asexuality that many are trying to get on the banner is "an asexual person is someone who does not innately desire sex with anyone (for their own sexual or emotional pleasure)."

In reply to the questions:

1. Yes, but no to the rest of what you state in that section. Someone who desires sex is sexual; whether it's because of finding someone sexually alluring or not.
2. In a way sexual desire is correct in describing libido. Because of the broad word sexual it can technically include masturbation, but most people and dictionaries define it as desiring sex, where as libido is any sexual pleasure.
3. Any form of physically partnered genital stimulation is sex; that is fact, but it is debated whether partnered masterbation, cyber sex, etc. are sex or not.

[Guest]

Asexuality: lack of an innate desire to engage in partnered sex with others for sexual and/or emotional pleasure. ''Desiring sex but with no one in particular'' is still desiring sex.

Partnered sex: Partnered genital stimulation for sexual pleasure and/or orgasm.

Libido: becoming aroused and needing to orgasm, some do it for pleasure, some literally just to get rid of arousal. For an asexual, this is not connected in any way with a desire for partnered sex. HOWEVER, sexual people can still desire partnered sex even if they have low to no libido. They still desire that partnered sexual connection, their body just isn't reacting to that desire in the way they need it to.

Sexual attraction: AVEN defines it as ''the desire for sexual contact with someone else'' (as in, desiring sex with another person, to differentiate it from masturbation, it does not mean''a specific someone'' but just another person in general. a general desire for partnered sex as opposed to having a libido and masturbating) Many sexual people on AVEN say sexual attraction is not really that (desire to connect sexually with someone else) because they can feel it without desiring sex, but they also say that not all sexual people feel it and it's not what makes them sexual. What makes them sexual is that they innately desire partnered sex, for sexual and/or emotional pleasure. Sexual attraction is just something that some sexual feel sometimes.

Many, many asexuals admit to experiencing something that is a lot like how sexuals define sexual attraction, yet what makes them asexual is that they have no desire to engage in partnered sex with anyone. If an asexual could ''desire partnered sex'' just not with anyone specifically, or ''only for intimacy'' (as some here put it) or ''only for the sex itself because it feels good, not out of the desire for the person I have it with'' (as some here put it) then *at least* 60% of the population is asexual, because there are all normal expressions of sexuality.. rendering asexuality a meaningless and pointless orientation label. Yet, the people who literally have no innate desire for partnered sexual contact, regardless of their libido or what attractions they feel or anything else, literally only make up about 1-3% of the entire population (because that is extremely, extremely rare)

[Star Bit]

@Panficto

Shouldn't asexuality be the "complete lack" or just "no desire"

[Star Inkbright]

@Panficto

Shouldn't asexuality be the "complete lack" or just "no desire"

I would assume "lack of sexual desire" meant "no sexual desire," rendering the "complete" unnecessary, but maybe putting the "complete" in would be useful just to disencourage misinterpretation.

[banana monkey]

I think I understand a bit more after what panficto said. However, a few more questions. I think I have a libido, but I currently don't desire partnered sex because i don't experience an a sexual attraction (find them sexually alluring) to a specific other person, so I currently identify as asexual and would be so according to AVEN's definition.(which i dont know if i agree with) However, are you saying that if, in the future, I was to get into a relationship in which I wanted to mutually masturbate or have other sexual contact with my partner (but not necessarily intercourse) for reasons other than I had a sexual pull or found them sexually alluring. ie because it feels good and I know they like it, and I wanted a way to express my love and intimacy for them. (That hasn't happened in my previous relationship) I would then be sexual by AVEN's definition as i would effectively suddenly desire partnered sexual contact even though I don't desire it now? Only, even though, I can never imagine having intercourse with anyone, I may imagine some sexual contact because of intimacy and because I experience sensual attraction.

Edited for clarification.

[Star Bit]

@Panficto

Shouldn't asexuality be the "complete lack" or just "no desire"

I would assume "lack of sexual desire" meant "no sexual desire," rendering the "complete" unnecessary, but maybe putting the "complete" in would be useful just to disencourage misinterpretation.

The word lack has two meanings; zero and near zero, which are two very different things. Yes, i know what she meant but the fact remains that it can still be read by others and there should be no holes like that in the definition of asexuality (otherwise we'll go through the sexual attraction thing all over again i.e. go through definition debates if it were to be up at the top of the page).

@OP

By your use of libido i take it you mean you desire sex but not atm because you're not sexually attracted to anyone. That's not asexual then. If anything that's Gray-sexual or just a normal sexual person. If desiring sex is rare for you then that is also a type of Gray-sexual.

if, in the future, I was to get into a relationship in which I wanted to mutually masturbate or have other sexual contact with my partner (but not necessarily intercourse) for reasons other than I had a sexual pull or found them sexually alluring. ie because it feels good and I know they like it, and I wanted a way to express my love and intimacy for them. (That hasn't happened in my previous relationship) I would then be sexual

Correct, that is a completely normal sexual person. Asexuality is not simply not desiring sex right now, it is entirely not having the ability to desire sex at all.

@Panficto

I guess we need to add that "enduring" detail to the definition now. (other options are abidingly, steadfastly, constantly)

[Tripp]

@Panficto

Shouldn't asexuality be the "complete lack" or just "no desire"

I would assume "lack of sexual desire" meant "no sexual desire," rendering the "complete" unnecessary, but maybe putting the "complete" in would be useful just to disencourage misinterpretation.

The word lack has two meanings; zero and near zero, which are two very different things. Yes, i know what she meant but the fact remains that it can still be read by others and there should be no holes like that in the definition of asexuality (otherwise we'll go through the sexual attraction thing all over again i.e. go through definition debates if it were to be up at the top of the page).

@OP

By your use of libido i take it you mean you desire sex but not atm because you're not sexually attracted to anyone. That's not asexual then. If anything that's Gray-sexual or just a normal sexual person. If desiring sex is rare for you then that is also a type of Gray-sexual.

if, in the future, I was to get into a relationship in which I wanted to mutually masturbate or have other sexual contact with my partner (but not necessarily intercourse) for reasons other than I had a sexual pull or found them sexually alluring. ie because it feels good and I know they like it, and I wanted a way to express my love and intimacy for them. (That hasn't happened in my previous relationship) I would then be sexual

Correct, that is a completely normal sexual person. Asexuality is not simply not desiring sex right now, it is entirely not having the ability to desire sex at all.

@Panficto

I guess we need to add that "enduring" detail to the definition now. (other options are abidingly, steadfastly, constantly)

So, would you consider masturbation uncharacteristic of an asexual?

[Guest]

On 3/15/2016 at 6:34 PM, ASRIEL said:

So, would you consider masturbation uncharacteristic of an asexual?

Asexuals masturbate, yeah, they just don't have any innate desire to connect sexually with other people. That's what makes them asexual. They (often) still have ''working parts'', have a libido. and are able to experience orgasm etc, yet they still have no innate desire to connect sexually with others for sexual and/or emotional pleasure.

On 3/15/2016 at 5:00 PM, Star Bit said:

@Panficto

I guess we need to add that "enduring" detail to the definition now. (other options are abidingly, steadfastly, constantly)

I'm super tired so may have read you wrong, but I think you're saying we need to add ''complete'' or ''enduring'' or whatever into the definition, to make it clear asexuality isn't just a lack of a desire to have sex right now, it's also not thinking ''I might want sex in the future when I meet the right person'' ..bcause yes that is an inherently sexual trait.

However I think it's less clunky just to add ''ever'' at the end, which I often do anyway (I have been accused of being elitist multiple times for that hah so try to keep it to a bear minimum)

So full def would go like this: An asexual person has no innate desire to connect sexually with other people for sexual and/or emotional pleasure, ever. (whereas someone who thinks they do want sex in the future could be grey, demi, or just sexual depending on the circumstances)

or in place of connect sexually: who has no innate desire to engage in partnered sex with other people etc etc.. connect sexually just takes up less space hah.

On 3/15/2016 at 7:44 AM, banana monkey said:

I think I understand a bit more after what panficto said. However, a few more questions. I think I have a libido, but I currently don't desire partnered sex because i don't experience an a sexual attraction (find them sexually alluring) to a specific other person, so I currently identify as asexual and would be so according to AVEN's definition.(which i dont know if i agree with) However, are you saying that if, in the future, I was to get into a relationship in which I wanted to mutually masturbate or have other sexual contact with my partner (but not necessarily intercourse) for reasons other than I had a sexual pull or found them sexually alluring. ie because it feels good and I know they like it, and I wanted a way to express my love and intimacy for them. (That hasn't happened in my previous relationship) I would then be sexual by AVEN's definition as i would effectively suddenly desire partnered sexual contact even though I don't desire it now? Only, even though, I can never imagine having intercourse with anyone, I may imagine some sexual contact because of intimacy and because I experience sensual attraction.

Edited for clarification.

Well, the bolded part is a relatively normal sexual experience (many sexual people only desire sex once in a relationship with someone they love, as an intimate pleasurable experience with someone they have that emotional connection to, they don't have to find that person specifically sexually arousing/alluring, the sex is just an emotionally and physically pleasurable expression of their love for each other) ..But I am not sure exactly what you are referring to when you personally say ''sexual intercourse''.. if you just mean penis-in-vagina sex, then obviously there are many ways to have sex that don't include that (oral, hand stimulation, toys etc) ..I define sexual intercourse as pretty much anything that leads to one or both partners having an orgasm, or, more importantly (imo) partnered stimulation of each others genitals. However if it isn't done with any intention of the genitals becoming involved, and doesn't lead to that (though yes arousal may happen on it's own by accident, I know an asexual who gets aroused during sensual activity, kissing and touching, but he would still never engage in sex, just go to another room and masturbate, Just experiencing arousal does not stop someone from being asexual) then that would just be sensual activity.. ie kissing, touching, even being naked together etc etc, and kink like whipping, biting, spanking, any of that can be non-sexual if it is never done with the intention of the genitals/genital stimulation and/or orgasm of at least one partner becoming involved.

[Fire & Rain]

Can you desire partnered sex but just not with a specific person? ie without sexual attraction. I would think you can and still be asexual as you lack sexual attraction but would people who prefer the 2nd definition would say such a person is sexual?? If so, I may disagree and that is fine.

Because sexual people experience this longing innate desire to have sex with a hypothetical someone. Some people just want to get laid. It's not a sexual attraction towards a specific person. If we were the same as sexual people, what would the point of labeling as asexual? Whereas, Asexuals should be more than satisfied with masturbation in my opinion.

What is libido? - Previously, I have seen it defined as sexual desire but obviously it is not if a desire for partnered sex is not the same as libido.

It's a desire for sexual release. How frequent you want a sexual release will determine your level of sex drive. This might be tied to how frequent a sexual person experiences this longing innate desire to have sex with a hypothetical someone. For asexuals this would the desire to masturbate. Which brings us back to an asexual not feeling innate desire for partnered sex. If they did and if this was tied with the libido, asexuals would be the same as sexuals. So what would be the point?

What do you define as partnered sex?

If it involves another person.

[Telecaster68]

Can you desire partnered sex but just not with a specific person? ie without sexual attraction. I would think you can and still be asexual

That's the problem with the whole 'attraction' thing. If I'm not in a relationship, I still want to have sex with someone, I just haven't identified whom. I don't turn asexual just because there's no one specific I'm interested in.

[banana monkey]

Can you desire partnered sex but just not with a specific person? ie without sexual attraction. I would think you can and still be asexual

That's the problem with the whole 'attraction' thing. If I'm not in a relationship, I still want to have sex with someone, I just haven't identified whom. I don't turn asexual just because there's no one specific I'm interested in.

I would agree but Would you mind explaining more? If its too personal thats fine, I understand. However, I don't really understand how you can desire sex without having a person you desire it too or with. (for whatever reason) Surely, as sex (in whatever form) is a 2 person (or more) act, you would need to have a person to desire it to/with. For example, I don't desire sex at all but given that I have never desired sex with anyone ever (including my ex who was more like a QP) for any reason. I do wander if, if I get into a relationship which I am close enough to the person to make that sacrifice for them because I want them to be happy, I may then desire it for that reason and so become sexual. This contradicts what I have previously read on AVEN. Maybe my brain isn't wired as such to be able to understand.

[banana monkey]

By your use of libido i take it you mean you desire sex but not atm because you're not sexually attracted to anyone. That's not asexual then. If anything that's Gray-sexual or just a normal sexual person. If desiring sex is rare for you then that is also a type of Gray-sexual. -

if, in the future, I was to get into a relationship in which I wanted to mutually masturbate or have other sexual contact with my partner (but not necessarily intercourse) for reasons other than I had a sexual pull or found them sexually alluring. ie because it feels good and I know they like it, and I wanted a way to express my love and intimacy for them. (That hasn't happened in my previous relationship) I would then be sexual

Correct, that is a completely normal sexual person. Asexuality is not simply not desiring sex right now, it is entirely not having the ability to desire sex at all.

@ Starbit - you misunderstood slightly, I occasionally desire to masturbate but I have never had the desire to have partnered Sex ever, but I am wondering if this will change if I fall in love and want to express that by doing it because I know they need it/enjoy it- I won't know until I do (fall in love).

Unlike Telecaster, I have never had the desire to have sex inside or outside of a relationship (ie regardless of not knowing who I would want to have it with.) As said above I don't really understand how that phenomenon is possible but it obviously is for many sexuals)

"Correct, that would be a completely normal sexual, Asexuality is not simply not desiring sex right now, it is entirely not having the ability to desire sex at all"

Whilst I respect that it is only each induvidual who can determine their orientation, that would mean loads of the asexuals on AVEN are in fact sexual. (I am not saying that such people should not identify as they do here) There are many examples on AVEN of people who identify as asexual who have sex because they find the physical sensation of it pleasurable, and their partners need it and they want to express there love and intimacy (eg. by catering for that need) aren't there? or am I mistaken?

[Telecaster68]

Sex with another person is almost always better than masturbation, it's as simple as that. It's like the difference between playing tennis with an opponent vs knocking a ball against a wall, so I'm still interested

It can be more or less about emotions and bonding, or fun, or sheer eroticism... but having another person involved is a whole different ball game (forgive the pun) than masturbation. That's why sexuals go out to pick someone up, either for sex that night, or to start a relationship which sex will be part of.

[Star Bit]

Can you desire partnered sex but just not with a specific person? ie without sexual attraction. I would think you can and still be asexual

That's the problem with the whole 'attraction' thing. If I'm not in a relationship, I still want to have sex with someone, I just haven't identified whom. I don't turn asexual just because there's no one specific I'm interested in.

I would agree but Would you mind explaining more? If its too personal thats fine, I understand. However, I don't really understand how you can desire sex without having a person you desire it too or with. (for whatever reason) Surely, as sex (in whatever form) is a 2 person (or more) act, you would need to have a person to desire it to/with. For example, I don't desire sex at all but given that I have never desired sex with anyone ever (including my ex who was more like a QP) for any reason. I do wander if, if I get into a relationship which I am close enough to the person to make that sacrifice for them because I want them to be happy, I may then desire it for that reason and so become sexual. This contradicts what I have previously read on AVEN. Maybe my brain isn't wired as such to be able to understand.

As Panficto said, sexual people can just desire sex in general. Do you have to be hungry to feel like eating? No. Do you have to be romantically attracted to someone to have the urge to be in a romantic relationship? No. As Panficto also said, sexual people desire sex for their own sexual/emotional pleasure, and desiring to make a partner happy is exactly that; it is not desiring sex itself.

@OP

Correct, there are people on AVEN who misidentify as asexual due to the poor sexual attraction definition, but i think you're mixing up enjoy and desire; which wile typically together are actually two different things. As repeatedly said, an asexual cannot desire sex for their own sexual and or emotional pleasure. Asexuals can still enjoy sex, they just never desire it. They can like making a partner happy or simply orgasming, but never desire sex despite these enjoyable qualities.

[nanogretchen4]

If I'm going through a period when I'm not attracted to anyone, I can only have a desire for sex in the most abstract way. I can think that in theory it would be nice if I fell in love with someone and they fell in love with me and we had a relationship and then we could have sex, which I dimly remember enjoying the last time I was in a relationship. But I think this is probably a little different from how some sexuals can desire sex without a specific object. For one thing, I can be celibate for however many years and I would never think to pick someone up.

Sex with someone I'm in love with is a wonderful experience.

Sex with someone I'm not in love with is like being trapped at a wild party when I'm depressed and feeling horribly lonely and uncomfortable.

Masturbation is more like doing something pleasant while actually alone, like reading a book. Okay, it's not as interesting as a really good book, and sometimes it's like reading a book so boring I don't bother to finish it, but it's preferable to casual sex any time.

[Guest]

Whilst I respect that it is only each induvidual who can determine their orientation, that would mean loads of the asexuals on AVEN are in fact sexual. (I am not saying that such people should not identify as they do here) There are many examples on AVEN of people who identify as asexual who have sex because they find the physical sensation of it pleasurable, and their partners need it and they want to express there love and intimacy (eg. by catering for that need) aren't there? or am I mistaken?

This is absolutely correct. There are many, many people here identifying as asexual who are actually just experiencing completely normal aspects of sexuality, but due to multiple myths and misunderstandings about sexuality perpetuated throughout the asexual community, they have no concept of what sexuality is, so think they must be asexual based on misunderstandings about sexuality as opposed to actually being asexual.

However someone who just gives their partner sex because their partner needs it to be happy, but doesn't actually desire sex themselves (for their own sexual and/or emotional pleasure) can still be asexual, even if they do enjoy the sensations of the sex when it happens (I don't actually think it's very common but yeah it does happen) They aren't ''desiring sex'' they are ''desiring to please their partner'' .. An asexual in this situation would still be perfectly happy if their partner never wanted sex again, they wouldn't miss sex or miss the sensations of it or anything, they wouldn't feel anything is missing in the relationship due to the lack of sex, and would actually prefer it this way if they could wave a magic wand and turn their partner asexual all of a sudden (without causing their partner any negative effects of course!). ..They would also not initiate sex out of a desire to experience sexual pleasure themselves, they'd only initiate it for the sake of their partner if they know that will make their partner happy (i've been there, he still was never happy though because I just couldn't enjoy the sex)