Definitions of asexuality

[aussiekirkland]

So as you may be aware tumblr has been a bit of a toxic place for us aces and aros recently because there's a group of people constantly harassing us about the legitimacy of our experiences. Anyway this means that all the meaningful discussions people were having have been replaced by everyone constantly defending our community so I decided to come to AVEN to spark a discussion.

With all the awareness that we've been receiving in recent years (which is fantastic) I have seen a significant difference between the way we define asexuality as a community and how allosexuals are defining asexuality. It usually looks like

Asexuals: asexuality means you don't experience sexual attraction towards any gender

Allosexuals: asexuality means you don't experience sexual feelings/desires

This is frustrating because these people go to the effort to find aces to interview yet can't even use the right definition. It's also possible they googled it as even the Google definition is vastly different to AVEN's. I find some allosexuals have a habit of conflating sexual attraction with general libido/desire. This completely erases asexuals with libidos/urges that aren't directed at other people which is actually quite common according to a poll I did last year (which admittedly I had a look at today and it had some stupid assumptions strewn through it so I apologise for that) as well as the immense popularity of a recent tumblr post I made supporting asexuals with libidos, which I NEVER see. Anyway I feel like this subtle message has been seeping its way through the community and has turned into a commonly held belief that "real" asexuals don't have any sexual feelings at all or that only these "pure" asexuals are in need of support and encouragement. What are your thoughts on this?

[Guest]

Actually many in the ace community want the definition changed to "an asexual does not desire partnered sex for sexual and/or emotional pleasure" (variations of a desire-based definition, that's the one I personally use) ..That doesn't mean we think asexuals don't have libidos, don't masturbate, or don't have sex for reasons other than desiring it for their own pleasure (ie they have sex to make a sexual partner happy) It just means asexuals don't have an inherent desire within them to seek/have partnered sex for their own pleasure/to satisfy their own libido/to experience sexual intimacy with someone else. ..

But yeah I don't like the basic "no sexual feelings/desire" definition because it does sound like we don't experience arousal or whatever (many aces do!)..it's still more accurate than an attraction-based definition though.

Lots of sexual people don't experience sexual attraction the way it's commonly defined, and many that do don't base their sexual orientation around it.. So yeah it's a flawed definition when all it really means to be asexual is that you don't innately desire partnered sex for sexual and/or emotional pleasure. May as well have a definition that clearly explains that instead of one based around something no one can even accurately define or agree upon.

Also AVEN itself (in the General FAQ on the front page) defines sexual attraction *as* "the desire for sexual contact with someone else" ..so while sexual people here tell us that isn't an entirely correct definition of sexual attraction, many people (sexuals and asexuals) agree that AVENs definition *of* its definition is a much more accurate definition of asexuality (just take away the term sexual attraction) ..Anyway what I'm getting at is that AVEN itself defines asexuality as a lack of desire for partnered sexual contact when you take into account AVENs definition *of* sexual attraction.

[Guest]

Asexuals: asexuality means you don't experience sexual attraction towards any gender

Allosexuals: asexuality means you don't experience sexual feelings/desires

Sorry to tell you, but I am asexual and think that while neither of these definitions is perfect, the second one - the one you ascribe to sexuals - is still closer to a correct, solid definition than the former is.

I'm pretty much in agreement with Ficto here - my preferred wording of the definition is: Asexuality = no inherent desire for partnered sex. IMO, and I know I'm not alone with that perception, the vagueness of the attraction-based definition is the core of a lot of problems.

[Fire & Rain]

I use "no innate desire for partnered sex" myself because "sexual attraction" is ambiguous and people keep insisting sexual attraction is "you see someone, you want to have sex with them" even though all sexuals say that it's not always like that.

Lacking the desire to have sex with someone is not related to the desire a libidoist asexual has to get sexual release by masturbating. Isn't that kind of the point and probably even the cause for why some of us are asexual? A disconnection between one's libido and one's desire to have sex?

[Akira Jumps]

I'd agree with Fire&Rain in that we don't feel sexual attraction towards others. Words to notice: 'attraction' and 'others'. That means asexuals can have a libido, can feel the need for sexual release, can desire sex/sexual encounters, can feel sexually aroused, just not towards or about other people.

At least, that's how I define it.

[Star Bit]

I prefer the addition of "does not desire sex (even after foreplay)"

(and to clarify, they are using libido to refer to a desire to masturbate, not a desire for partnered sex; since it can refer to both)

I use "no innate desire for partnered sex" myself because "sexual attraction" is ambiguous and people keep insisting sexual attraction is "you see someone, you want to have sex with them" even though all sexuals say that it's not always like that.

That's because sexual people use it in whatever way they want while trying to refer to many things that it clearly does not refer to. Break down the term and its meaning is obvious; sexual=sex, and attraction=a quality that evokes interest (straight from the dictionary), which translates to a quality that evokes sexual interest, and dictionaries define it exactly as such. They go off on the meaning of physical attraction too; they use it to refer to aesthetic attraction, sensual attraction, sexual attraction, or all 3 (though i normally see it used toward a singular attraction). Sexual people even have many sexual misconceptions, but just because its common doesn't mean it's right. Sexual people experience sexuality differently person by person, so they're all trying to use one word to describe all that and it's obviously not accurate; that's like trying to only use the phrase spontaneous desire to describe everyone's sexuality when responsive sexual desire is just as popular and as valid. And this obvious 50/50 divide isn't widely noticed because people don't talk about sexuality in depth. Their mentality is probably "It's such a common thing so why talk about it that way?" Just like most people don't know that the faint taste in water is due to different minerals. But once they realize that they can then tell you what they're tasting (by mineral). Or someone with alexithymia getting therapy to identify emotions.

[Guest]

That means asexuals can can desire sex/sexual encounters

Some sexual people desire sexual encounters without being attracted to anyone specifically, they just enjoy having sex for the pleasure of sex itself. Some sexuals desire partnered sex when they develop a romantic connection without experiencing "sexual attraction" the way it's most commonly defined (the just enjoy sex as an intimate expression of their love for their partner) ..are all these people asexual too now? Because we are getting up to at least 30-40% of the population being ace now if we include all those sexual people.

This is how we've ended up with people very vocally identifying as ace who love having sex and can't be happy without sex in their relationships and/or life in general: Due to interpretations like this of the "sexual attraction" definition. Pretty much anyone can be ace no matter how much they love and desire partnered sex, as long as they have it for the sex itself and don't care who they have it with.

Actively desiring sexual encounters with other people (for sexual and/or emotional pleasure) is sexual, not asexual. The main thing that makes sexual people 'sexual' is the fact that they desire sexual encounters with other people, for varying reasons.

[Lost247365]

Look, as you are seeing from all the posts here, there is no single agreed upon definition of asexuality even in the asexual community despite what tumblr would have you believe.

There are a huge number of asexual who find the term horribly confusing (because it is) or find it meaningless. Dictionary-wise it means an attraction that form from desiring sex with another person. But, that can be misconstrued in so many ways and is often at odds with more colloquial meaning. Its just a really bad way of describing asexuality on its own.

So when you say the "right" definition you are asserting that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. That is a very infuriating thing to do to people; and, it is possible that you could be wrong. No one person gets to dictate what is the true defintion of a word.

I mean, when I first learned about asexuality and thought I might fit the definition, that term gave me fits and kept me from fully accepting my asexuality for months. I mean, how do you know if you are experiencing something you never felt? That makes no sense and it is not like attractions go up to you and slap you across the face and say "Im aesthetic attraction you dipshit! Not sexual attraction." :P

So you end up with tons of people like me who just can't figure it out.

Desire, on the other hand, not only lets you know what it is for, but to whom it is directed toward. When I am desiring a piece of cake I know it is because I am hungry and I know what it is I desire. Because it is so much clearer to me that I have never ever desired sex, the desire definition allowed me to realize that, yeah I am asexual.

And, no the desire definition doesn't erase libidoist asexuals at all. Libido was coined by Sigmund Freud to compete with the term sex drive. Where sex drive referred to the desire to have sex with others, libido referred to the need for orgasmic release. So, the former does NOT include masturbation, and the latter, libido, does. So saying you have no sexual desire does not mean you don't have a libido. I know I have one, and I find it annoying. <_<

That said, I prefer to be inclusive myself. I don't want to risk invalidating someone just because I can't see things from their point of view. So I personally prefer to define asexuality as:

Asexuality:

The sexual orientation in which a person either does not posses the potential to experience sexual attraction, or does not have the potential to intrinsically desire sex with another person.

There, everyone is included. ^_^

[Guest]

I'd agree with Fire&Rain in that we don't feel sexual attraction towards others. Words to notice: 'attraction' and 'others'. That means asexuals can have a libido, can feel the need for sexual release, can desire sex/sexual encounters, can feel sexually aroused, just not towards or about other people.

At least, that's how I define it.

So who or what can asexuals desire sexual encounters with? Animals? Plants? Inanimate objects?

I'm not even sarcastic here, I literally don't understand how you can say the two bolded things in the same sentence and expect it to make sense, unless "sex/sexual encounters" refers simply to masturbation... which I'd consider a vague and misleading use of the term, then.

[WhenSummersGone]

I agree with the second definition about desire as well. Lack of innate desire means you probably don't seek out partnered sex or want to have. I feel that is the difference between asexuals and sexuals.

[WinterWanderer]

I also agree with having a definition that mentions desire and not attraction.

Attraction is too ambiguous, especially when so many people confuse sexual attraction with aesthetic attraction (thinking people are cute). You can think someone is cute without wanting to bang them.

[gekkosan]

Asexuality = no inherent desire for partnered sex.

My vote goes to the desire based definition as well. The above from Mysticus is probably as concise as you can get. It comes down to asking yourself a very unambiguous question and then answering with either a yes or a no.

Do I have an inherent desire for partnered sex?

• Yes (it doesn't matter if just sometimes or all the time) - you're on the sexual spectrum
• No (never, ever, although you might sometimes participate) - you're on the asexual spectrum

To me, it just makes sense and is very easy to figure out.

[Guest]

Asexuality = no inherent desire for partnered sex.

My vote goes to the desire based definition as well. The above from Mysticus is probably as concise as you can get. It comes down to asking yourself a very unambiguous question and then answering with either a yes or a no.

Do I have an inherent desire for partnered sex?

• Yes (it doesn't matter if just sometimes or all the time) - you're on the sexual spectrum
• No (never, ever, although you can still participate) - you're on the asexual spectrum

To me, it just makes sense and is very easy to figure out.

unfortunately people often say ''AH but whats inherent eh??? I do desire sex but it's not inherent, it's just because it feels good... so yeah I'm still asexual'' (I have actually seen that happen on AVEN) heh.. which is why I always add ''for sexual and/or emotional pleasure'' and often don't bother with the ''inherent'' ..It makes it clear that you can have sex for other reasons (ie to make a partner happy, to have a baby etc) as long as the motivation to have partnered sex doesn't come from a personal desire to experience pleasure (sexual or emotional, because the emotional pleasure of sex is often desired more than the physical pleasure) ..I do agree though Mysticus' definition is the most concise definition and to me does sound the best.. People just loooove finding every way they can to twist it so people who desire sex for pleasure can still be ''ace'' (why it's so important to them I just don't know, lol) but yeah, any desire-based definition is easier to understand than an attraction one, regardless of the exact wordage used ^_^

[gekkosan]

I certainly agree with you. Your definition "an asexual does not desire partnered sex for sexual and/or emotional pleasure" actually helped me figure things out for myself. You mention it often in your posts (which does help, haha).

But I'm not really in a position to argue semantics here since English is my third language. And I can see that twisting words and definitions is a favorite pastime of many in this community.

[Salted Karamel]

To be fair, I have found AVEN to be a pretty toxic place for graysexuals (and probably some asexuals as well), but I haven’t delved too deeply into the ace parts of Tumblr for comparison. I don’t doubt your claim that it’s worse, as I have seen a lot of ugliness in other parts of Tumblr and blame it at least partially on the mechanics of the website.

There seem to be a fair number of asexuals here who define asexuality by your second definition, and insist that asexuals who experience asexuality as the first definition are wrong. Some of these individuals can be found on every thread that attempts to discuss variations in the asexual experience, telling people that the answer has already been conclusively arrived at and that answer is (usually) the type of asexuality that they themselves experience, and all other answers are wrong and “aren’t asexual.”

These people should generally be taken with a grain of salt. Even if they reached a majority, they can’t vote a minority’s asexual experience out of legitimacy. None of us need someone else’s approval to validate our experiences, much less the approval of a majority vote.

I'd agree with Fire&Rain in that we don't feel sexual attraction towards others. Words to notice: 'attraction' and 'others'. That means asexuals can have a libido, can feel the need for sexual release, can desire sex/sexual encounters, can feel sexually aroused, just not towards or about other people.

At least, that's how I define it.

So who or what can asexuals desire sexual encounters with? Animals? Plants? Inanimate objects?

I'm not even sarcastic here, I literally don't understand how you can say the two bolded things in the same sentence and expect it to make sense, unless "sex/sexual encounters" refers simply to masturbation... which I'd consider a vague and misleading use of the term, then.

No one?? Hence the "a-" in "asexual"? ;)

Have you ever been hungry and nauseous at the same time? "I am experiencing a bodily compulsion to eat...but there is absolutely no food that I want. Every single type of food sounds unappealing. But I wish there was some type of food that I wanted so that I could eat."

Maybe a lot of people have the luxury of simply feeling nauseous and that being that. I assure you that people who feel hungry while they are nauseous still do not want to eat and would be defining themselves as a-fooduals or whatever if that was a thing.

Maybe this is a bad analogy. Maybe it's more like a vampire who doesn't need to eat, maybe can't even digest food, and every time they're presented with food that food doesn't even seem appealing to them, but still every now and then that longing to eat crops up. Not a specific food, just the act of eating. And they know they don't actually want any food that exists, because all of it is unappealing to them. They just wish that some mythical food that they would like would exist and that they could eat it. But they are still a person who doesn't eat and finds no foods appealing.

I promise you there are asexuals who experience this, and that they are still asexuals. I also promise you that they don't need you or anyone else to agree that they are asexual in order to still be asexuals, and that they are the reigning authority on their own experiences.

I also propose this question to you (and anyone else who feels similarly):

person who is sexually attracted to opposite sex/gender = heterosexual

person who is sexually attracted to same sex/gender = homosexual

person who is sexually attracted to both sexes/two genders = bisexual

person who is sexually attracted to all sexes/genders = pansexual

person who is sexually attracted to no sexes/genders = ???

If your answer is that those people can't possibly exist, then congratulations, you've just invalidated someone's asexuality. Not unlike all those allosexuals who have claimed throughout the years "But all humans have to want sex; It's impossible to not want sex."

[Guest]

No one?? Hence the "a-" in "asexual"? ;)

So, you agree with me. People who desire partnered sex are not asexual.

If someone "desires sex with no one", then they don't desire sex.

I also propose this question to you (and anyone else who feels similarly):

person who is sexually attracted to opposite sex/gender = heterosexual

person who is sexually attracted to same sex/gender = homosexual

person who is sexually attracted to both sexes/two genders = bisexual

person who is sexually attracted to all sexes/genders = pansexual

person who is sexually attracted to no sexes/genders = ???

I don't agree with any of these definitions, so the whole point is moot.

No orientation makes sense to define by "sexual attraction"; your sexual orientation is who you desire to have sex with, a.k.a. your sex partner preference.

So, if you want to define asexuality solely and insistently like this, then congrats - you'll just convince me that this "asexuality" thing you are talking about, if it is a real thing at all, is most definitely not a valid, legitimate orientation.

Have you ever been hungry and nauseous at the same time? "I am experiencing a bodily compulsion to eat...but there is absolutely no food that I want. Every single type of food sounds unappealing. But I wish there was some type of food that I wanted so that I could eat."

Maybe a lot of people have the luxury of simply feeling nauseous and that being that. I assure you that people who feel hungry while they are nauseous still do not want to eat and would be defining themselves as a-fooduals or whatever if that was a thing.

Maybe this is a bad analogy. Maybe it's more like a vampire who doesn't need to eat, maybe can't even digest food, and every time they're presented with food that food doesn't even seem appealing to them, but still every now and then that longing to eat crops up. Not a specific food, just the act of eating. And they know they don't actually want any food that exists, because all of it is unappealing to them. They just wish that some mythical food that they would like would exist and that they could eat it. But they are still a person who doesn't eat and finds no foods appealing.

I promise you there are asexuals who experience this, and that they are still asexuals. I also promise you that they don't need you or anyone else to agree that they are asexual in order to still be asexuals, and that they are the reigning authority on their own experiences.

It sounds to me like you're describing sex-repulsed sexuals there, and/or sexuals who just haven't found the right partner yet. That is not asexuality. We should not pretend that it were.

Repulsion to sex does not make a person asexual - it's neither a neccessary nor a sufficent criterion. And it gets constantly pointed out on here that not having found the right partner yet is not asexuality, either.

The only thing that makes a person asexual is that they do not desire partnered sex. But that is the one criterion that must be fulfilled; it is both sufficient and neccessary. If someone does desire partnered sex, then whatever their orientation is, asexuality it is not. We should not be afraid to tell them so, if we want A-VE-N to do its job; and it's less than optimal that AVEN's TOS makes this a very difficult line to tread, what with the super-inclusivity dogma.

So, no, I don't believe your promise. I do not think that there are asexuals who experience this; I certainly do believe that there are quite a bunch of sexuals who experience this and draw the false conclusion that they were asexuals, which they're really not.

If you want to call this "invalidating asexuals", go ahead. It won't change that I am convinced that in doing so, I am furthering AVEN's goal of education about asexuality, because such "invalidation" is an absolutely neccessary component of that. Any definition worth its salt must be able to exclude. Deal with it.

[Sage Raven Domino]

To begin with, is there an 'official' rigorous definition of (partnered) sex in the first place? If there's an ongoing discussion of it on AVEN, could anyone please throw a link to such a thread? So far, I've only managed to find a locked 2013 thread.

Here's an example of what I struggle to classify as either sex or non-sex. TMI:

A bio-male masturbates (not being touched by anyone else), ejaculates onto his hands and then lets someone else lick the semen off the hands.

[Lost247365]

To begin with, is there an 'official' rigorous definition of (partnered) sex in the first place? If there's an ongoing discussion of it on AVEN, could anyone please throw a link to such a thread? So far, I've only managed to find a locked 2013 thread.

Oh god, please no.

Asexuality definitions are contentious enough as is, but if you bring up how horribly defined sex is in the same thread, you are gonna start WWIII here on AVEN.

[Guest]

Heck, I'll bite anyway. I'd say no, the spoilered bit is not sex... if it turns someone on (I guess would work for a sizeable number of folks? *shrugs* ), I'd rate that as a fetish/kink - an action that is in itself not sex, but leads to sexualized enjoyment (possibly up to and including release/orgasm).

Sex = stimulation of another person's genitals (no matter if mutual or one-sided) with the goal of achieving pleasure and/or release of libido for at least one person involved.

Good enough for ya? (Open for improvement, as usual... but personally, I think it's rather solid.)

EDIT: And I see that I posted an almost identical definition back in that three year old thread, already. :D

[Sage Raven Domino]

Sex = stimulation of another person's genitals (no matter if mutual or one-sided) with the goal of achieving pleasure and/or release of libido for at least one person involved.

Good enough for ya? (Open for improvement, as usual... but personally, I think it's rather solid.)

I basically agree with your definitions of both sex and asexuality

[Lost247365]

TMI WARNING:

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED PERSON WHO COMES TO A SITE ABOUT ASEXUALITY BUT DOES NOT WANT TO READ ABOUT SEX

Heck, I'll bite anyway. I'd say no, the spoilered bit is not sex... if it turns someone on (I guess would work for a sizeable number of folks? *shrugs* ), I'd rate that as a fetish/kink - an action that is in itself not sex, but leads to sexualized enjoyment (possibly up to and including release/orgasm).


Sex = stimulation of another person's genitals (no matter if mutual or one-sided) with the goal of achieving pleasure and/or release of libido for at least one person involved.

Good enough for ya? (Open for improvement, as usual... but personally, I think it's rather solid.)



EDIT: And I see that I posted an almost identical definition back in that three year old thread, already. :D

Quick question.

Lets say there are two people, A and B. Both are biological and identified males.

A gives B a hand job. B does nothing for A.

So by this definition, A had sex even though they didn't have their own genitals touched and only used their hand to get B off. B did not have sex as he didn't stimulate another person's genitals.

Is this a correct summation?

[Guest]

No, I'd certainly say both A and B had sex. It was one-sided sex, but that does not change that both were involved in a situation where sex was had. :)

In fact, with me being A, and a woman as B, you just happened to describe is the only form of sex I, personally, can ever see myself agreeing to have. :D

[Sage Raven Domino]

A and B both had sex: A as an active partner, B as a passive one.

Alas even in a significant part of heterosexual intercourses, the woman does a lot to help the man have an orgasm but not vice versa :p

[Lost247365]

No, I'd certainly say both A and B had sex. It was one-sided sex, but that does not change that both were involved in a situation where sex was had. :)

In fact, with me being A, and a woman as B, you just happened to describe is the only form of sex I, personally, can ever see myself agreeing to have. :D

Cool. I thought that didn't quite sound right based upon other posts of yours I read.

Maybe, to prevent that type of misunderstanding it should be rephrased as:

Sex = an activity of at least 2 persons wherein at least one person stimulates the other persons's genitals (no matter if mutual or one-sided) with the goal of achieving pleasure and/or release of libido for at least one person involved.

I suggest this as it does sound, to me at least, like the scenario I outlined above. Of course it could just be poor reading comprehension on my part (I blame me being dyslexic).

I would give my definition of sex, but the last time I did that it caused a shit storm and I am not in the mood to fight that again.

[scarletlatitude]

I've been a mod of The Gray Area for nearly a year, and this argument comes up at least once a month. I don't think anyone is ever going to have an answer that everyone can agree with. There will always be exceptions. Discussions are great. Just don't let it get you all twisted up. :)

[Guest]

Heck, I'll bite anyway. I'd say no, the spoilered bit is not sex... if it turns someone on (I guess would work for a sizeable number of folks? *shrugs* ), I'd rate that as a fetish/kink - an action that is in itself not sex, but leads to sexualized enjoyment (possibly up to and including release/orgasm).

Sex = stimulation of another person's genitals (no matter if mutual or one-sided) with the goal of achieving pleasure and/or release of libido for at least one person involved.

Good enough for ya? (Open for improvement, as usual... but personally, I think it's rather solid.)

EDIT: And I see that I posted an almost identical definition back in that three year old thread, already. :D

Yeah I agree 100% with your definition of sex Mysticus, it's the same definition I use though that's a lot clearer than my usual wording. I usually word it ''partnered genital stimulation for the sexual and/or emotional pleasure of one or both partners'' and by that I mean, either person stimulating the others genitals or both doing it at the same time, but I may have to steal your wording now!! :lol:

The thing that I question is whether or not two people masturbating in the same bed without touching each others genitals, are ''having sex'' or not.. haha. Like if you have two asexuals, both have high libidos, both masturbate in bed.. and they sleep together because they're in love, for example... So they both masturbate themselves at the same time without touching each others genitals.. and this is a regular nightly thing because both would masturbate in bed at night regardless of whether or not the other was there. I mean, I would do that (it would just be inconvenient to get out of bed and go into the other room, when the easiest place to do it is in bed) as long as I knew the other person had no interest in having sex with me.

EXTREME TMI FOR ANYONE WHO CAN'T HANDLE BODY FLUIDS OR FETISHES

(just start reading again at ''end of TMI'')

A bio-male masturbates (not being touched by anyone else), ejaculates onto his hands and then lets someone else lick the semen off the hands.

I would lick it off his hands and would expect him to be happy to give that to me (or I wouldn't be with him) ...Why waste something so inherently cannibalistic? *.* .. I mean there is so much life in it and you're consuming it.. how awesome is that?

..Anyway yeah that's the main reason I identify as grey because while I have no desire for or interest in partnered sex, I would be okay to self-masturbate in the same bed IF we shared a bed as long as the other person was ace (if we slept in different beds I'd just do it in my own bed) And the semen thing I would want to lick off the hands (or drink out of a cup) even if we slept in separate rooms, I'd still want to be able to consume it ..It's not 'sexual' for me, there is just something so inherently cannibalistic about consuming that much potential life.. there are like millions of potential humans in there :o It's like, you're consuming a part of a human being (cells that were once inside them, a part of them) without killing or hurting that person, is there anything more intimate than that? Consuming your lover in a way that will never hurt or kill them, and having that inside your body? digesting it? and you have the added bonus of that fluid containing millions of cells used in the formation of human beings all who would have been a part of your lover, had his genetics and his blood inside them.. like, those are all potential humans in there made by that one person. I don't know... it's just so powerful and intimate.

So yeah, that's why I say I'm in the grey area.

END OF TMI.

I have found AVEN to be a pretty toxic place for graysexuals

I identify as grey-a, but even if I identified as say, demisexual, I wouldn't find it a toxic environment (in relation to my sexual identity anyway).

The fact is, demisexual and greysexual (or even grey-asexual) are not asexual, so the definitions debates aren't even about greys or demis. No one is denying they exist. We just want to get the definition of asexuality clear because right now, anyone who isn't a hypersexual horn-dog could be asexual by the 'sexual attraction' definition and even hypersexuals who have to sex 20 times a day to be happy could still be ace as long as they don't find anyone they have sex with ''attractive'' ... Why is that an issue for me? Because I want people to take asexuality seriously and stop treating it like a joke. Most people accept that homosexuality is an actual thing now, homosexuals desire sex with people of the same gender and they're not ''sick'' or ''wrong'' or ''confused'' ..it's just who they are. I want people to be able to view asexuality in the same light. But until we start taking the definition of asexuality seriously and draw lines in the sand as to what asexuality actually is and is not, asexuality is just going to continue to be seen as the snowflake label that confused teens and ''people who want to be special'' identify with.

Anyway Myticus reply to you covered everything I would said, so I'll leave it at that.

[gekkosan]

And the semen thing I would want to lick off the hands (or drink out of a cup) even if we slept in separate rooms, I'd still want to be able to consume it ..It's not 'sexual' for me, there is just something so inherently cannibalistic about consuming that much potential life.. there are like millions of potential humans in there

OMG, aren't you afraid they will start GROWING in your belly? I have SEEN such women with my very eyes!!! I mean, how else could they have gotten in there? asexualy confused

[Guest]

And the semen thing I would want to lick off the hands (or drink out of a cup) even if we slept in separate rooms, I'd still want to be able to consume it ..It's not 'sexual' for me, there is just something so inherently cannibalistic about consuming that much potential life.. there are like millions of potential humans in there

OMG, aren't you afraid they will start GROWING in your belly? I have SEEN such women with my very eyes!!! I mean, how else could they have gotten in there? asexualy confused

They'll only grow if you consume them with your vagina ;)

[Star Bit]

Forgot to look back at your edited first comment

it's not like attractions go up to you and slap you across the face and say "Im aesthetic attraction you dipshit! Not sexual attraction." :P

XD LMAO, I LOVE THIS.

But as for your definition of asexuality, the "and/or" or just "or" definition of asexuality doesn't work because it still means the above banner is correct and it's not. You can't always have your cake and eat it too. You have to draw a line somewhere and that definition literally means half the sexual population in the word is asexual. No. The ONLY definition that works is the desire based one.