Wanting To Have Sexual Intercourse For The Purpose of Having A Baby Is Still Sexual Desire

[Guest]

OK so I'm stoned af right now and probably won't organize my thoughts well, but I trust you folk to argue below so we can tear into this topic properly...

So, yes, I believe that if you want to have sexual intercourse for the purpose of getting preggers and having a child, you are experiencing sexual desire. In a technical sense, this makes you a sexual, not asexual (though obviously the sexual desire is so limited, there'd be no practical reason to ID as sexual). Still, I think it matters in a very real sense that we stop acting like the desire to fuck "doesn't count" under ridiculously arbitrary circumstances. If, inside of you, you want to have intercourse, the reasons are irrelevant. Internal desire is internal desire. Below are reasons why I think it's important for us to stop with the parsing of "desire".

1. Sexual attraction/ desire takes as many forms as there are people to experience them. How many sexuals on this board have only ever been attracted to a singular person/ type of person? I know that for me, when I was young, I was attracted to young people. As I aged, I became attracted to older people. I also stopped being as attracted to people's style/aesthetic and, as I aged, became more attracted to people's core traits (patience, optimism, sense of humor, etc). But, how could this be??? If sexuality were fixed, I'd always be attracted to the same type of person, but I'm not. Somehow, my own interests, personality, and morality affects my sexual desires. According to AVEN, if I'm interested in someone because of their style, their trustworthiness, their ability to support a famiy, etc, then that's not attraction at all! Those are all considered "asexual" reasons to be attracted to someone.

If the reason you like someone and want to have sex with them comes down to them having a great car and a lot of cash, so be it! The question is, do you want to have sex? If the answer is "yes", there is no internally-driven reason that isn't sexual in nature. The fact that you want sex makes it sexual in nature. See how that works? I know AVEN has a bitch of a time with this concept, but who we desire, when, and how is completely and totally entangled in our personalities, morals, culture, wants and needs at that particular time in our life... I mean, fuck man, why do you guys think that people who are stylishly dressed are more sexually attractive? It's culture, pure and simple. If you want to have sex with someone, "because I love his sunglasses" is just as sexual a reason as "because I want to feel him inside me". No joke. As far as babies are concerned, it's pretty obvious that it's a biological sexual drive. There are tons of ways to have babies without having sex, and if those aren't available, there's still a huge difference between "I want a child so I'll grin and bear it" vs "I want to have a child via sexual intercourse, specifically".

2. If you want to have sex and you don't care who it's with, that is still internal sexual desire. I find it amusing that AVEN is the one place on the entire interwebs that suggests that frequenting gloryholes is an asexual activity. Or that banging ugly chicks by turning them over and putting a bag on their head would be asexual sex. Because they're not sexually attracted to the entire person, see?! SIGH.

If an entire person is NECESSARY for the sex, it doesn't matter that you're not attracted to the entire person. Lord knows you're not asexual just because you don't love your wife's fat ass. There's no line drawn where, if you're attracted to 72% of their body, it's sexual desire, but if you're only attracted to 71%, it's asexual desire. Nope. Maybe all you want is to perform fellatio and couldn't care who the person is attached to the, uh, unit. Asexual fellatio? Nope. Only care about the feet of the sexual participant, but still want to rub against them and ejaculate on them? Asexual footjob? Nope.

It simply doesn't matter why, or what you're getting out of it, how much of the human you're banging you're actually attracted to... if you want to bang someone and that "want" is coming from you, internally, that's sexual.

3. Compatibility, that's a whole other issue. But for the sake of not being ridiculous, I really think it'd be great if we all knocked it off with the idea that there are sexual vs. asexual desires for sex.

[Snao Cone]

Pedant.

[Guest 80814]

Mehh. Maybe people just can't be arsed/can't afford IVF or they left their turkey baster at their mums during Xmas.

[WinterWanderer]

Not sure I agree with your title statement, but most of the rest I agree with. I think.

[Snao Cone]

Okay, but for real this time, if there's "no practical reason to ID as sexual" then a person would ergo have a practical reason to identify as asexual, whether with a "grey" or "functionally" qualifier if not.

[Guest]

Fully with you on 2) and 3). Not so much on 1).

Sticking with the preggers scenario - if the partner suggests the "turkey baster" method, and the self-identified ace still prefers sex as the method... then I would indeed start getting skeptical of the validity of their asexuality. But the thought that an ace can at best be completely neutral to sex is one I reject; and anything someone is more positive about than strictly neutral can be wanted, even when it isn't desired.

[Sage Raven Domino]

Just for the record, how efficient is turkey baster as a method of getting pregnant?

[Splatacus]

Personally, I don't have any desire to have sex with anybody. That said, I would like kids someday. For reasons I cannot put into words (despite trying and failing many times) I'd prefer them to be biologically "mine" rather than adopted (not that I have any problem with adopted people or would never consider adopting.)

I don't want sex, but it's kind of a necessity for biological children, what does that make me, in your opinion?

(PS: I'm genuinely curious and not trying to argue or anything, and I won't accuse you of labelling me or whatever :) )

[Guest]

Mehh. Maybe people just can't be arsed/can't afford IVF or they left their turkey baster at their mums during Xmas.

If you want to have sex with someone, "because I love his sunglasses" is just as sexual a reason as "because I want to feel him inside me". No joke. As far as babies are concerned, it's pretty obvious that it's a biological sexual drive. There are tons of ways to have babies without having sex, and if those aren't available, there's still a huge difference between "I want a child so I'll grin and bear it" vs "I want to have a child via sexual intercourse, specifically".

I know it's a lot of text, but read it before commenting!

[Guest]

Just for the record, how efficient is turkey baster as a method of getting pregnant?

When done right, apparently the same as with intercourse.

http://www.babymed.com/home-artificial-insemination-get-pregnant-turkey-baster-method

[Snao Cone]

For asexual people who want kids but aren't sex-repulsed, they might just not think it's worth the cost of fertilization services, even if they have the cash.

[Pi(e)]

I had my response all typed up, and then I accidentally deleted it before I could post so I had to retype :( Anyway...

So, yes, I believe that if you want to have sexual intercourse for the purpose of getting preggers and having a child, you are experiencing sexual desire. In a technical sense, this makes you a sexual, not asexual (though obviously the sexual desire is so limited, there'd be no practical reason to ID as sexual).sexual vs. asexual desires for sex.

I agree with a bunch of what you said later but not with this. I'll give an example to try to explain why: If I want to get from Massachusetts to New Jersey to visit my cousins, then I need to ride in the car for five hours to get there. This doesn't mean I like long car rides, as a matter of fact, I hate them. But in order to achieve what I do want, to see my cousins, my only choice is to put up with the car ride. In the same way, someone could want to have children (through sex) and still have no sexual desire. It's just the only means to get what it is they actually want. They don't necessarily want sex anymore than I want to be in a long car ride.

And yes there are other ways to get pregnant if you want biological children, but many of them are even more involved or expensive so someone who is sex indifferent might not want to deal with those. To extend the comparison, I could take a plane to New Jersey to avoid the long car ride, but that would cost more and probably just take even longer in the end and be worse. So for reasons like that you might choose sex over other ways of getting pregnant, not because you want it but because you are even less eager to deal with other ways.

[Guest]

Personally, I don't have any desire to have sex with anybody. That said, I would like kids someday. For reasons I cannot put into words (despite trying and failing many times) I'd prefer them to be biologically "mine" rather than adopted (not that I have any problem with adopted people or would never consider adopting.)

I don't want sex, but it's kind of a necessity for biological children, what does that make me, in your opinion?

(PS: I'm genuinely curious and not trying to argue or anything, and I won't accuse you of labelling me or whatever :) )

Well, my post is really about the way we discuss desire, and not who is or isn't asexual. Just to be clear. As I said, even if that were a "sexual desire", it's so specific and inherently limited that it wouldn't make someone not asexual. My argument is that instead of allowing for the possibility of having the occasional errant desire, AVEN has created weird, contradictory positions on when the specificity of desire is or is not asexual. It seems to me that it makes a lot more sense, honors people's entire life experiences, and meshes with other orientations to simply acknowledge that having a singular sexual desire doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't ID as asexual. How many lesbians have never slept with a man? Virtually none. It's whatever.

As to you, personally? I don't think that would constitute a sexual desire unless you were insistent that it happen via intercourse. Not because you can't afford other options or because you've decided the risks for the other options aren't worth taking... I mean an actual internal drive to have intercourse that leads to pregnancy. Believe it or not, that's a weird desire that I've heard more than a few women express. *shrugs*

[Sage Raven Domino]

For asexual people who want kids but aren't sex-repulsed, they might just not think it's worth the cost of fertilization services, even if they have the cash.

They can fertilise at home for cheap - see the link:

http://www.babymed.com/home-artificial-insemination-get-pregnant-turkey-baster-method

[Guest]

It seems to me that it makes a lot more sense, honors people's entire life experiences, and meshes with other orientations to simply acknowledge that having a singular sexual desire doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't ID as asexual. How many lesbians have never slept with a man? Virtually none. It's whatever.

There's a difference between these though. One is merely about partner choice; the other is about desire in general. (Which some folks on here even consider an important enough distinction to use this as an argument for why asexuality is not an orientation.)

I think Kinsey has (or should have) done away with the Gold Star myth on the former.... but honestly, the entire concept of asexuality doesn't make much sense to me if we don't strictly apply it, to the latter. "Once in a lifetime" is still grey, not ace; it's just deep, deep in the dark end of the greyscale. (And to make it absolutely clear, because the usual suspects will try to spin this into "meemeemee trying to make it about behavior meemeemee" - I'm talking about desiring sex even once in your life, not about having sex even once in your life. Keep the strawmen in your pockets, thx.)

[Guest]

For asexual people who want kids but aren't sex-repulsed, they might just not think it's worth the cost of fertilization services, even if they have the cash.

They can fertilise at home for cheap - see the link:

http://www.babymed.com/home-artificial-insemination-get-pregnant-turkey-baster-method

I'm more talking about someone who really wants the experience of having intercourse to make a baby. Not a "this is the cheapest easiest", but that there's an actual internal desire to experience sexual intercourse leading to fertilization and impregnation. Like, if someone were to suggest to you other alternatives, you don't think "meh, too expensive", but rather you think "no no, I really want to do it the old fashioned way". Or something.

[Splatacus]

Personally, I don't have any desire to have sex with anybody. That said, I would like kids someday. For reasons I cannot put into words (despite trying and failing many times) I'd prefer them to be biologically "mine" rather than adopted (not that I have any problem with adopted people or would never consider adopting.)

I don't want sex, but it's kind of a necessity for biological children, what does that make me, in your opinion?

(PS: I'm genuinely curious and not trying to argue or anything, and I won't accuse you of labelling me or whatever :) )

Well, my post is really about the way we discuss desire, and not who is or isn't asexual. Just to be clear. As I said, even if that were a "sexual desire", it's so specific and inherently limited that it wouldn't make someone not asexual. My position is that instead of allowing for the possibility of having the occasional errant desire, AVEN has taken the position of creating weird, contradictory positions on when the specificity of desire is or is not asexual. It seems to me that it makes a lot more sense, honors people's entire life experiences, and meshes with other orientations to simply acknowledge that having a singular sexual desire doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't ID as asexual. How many lesbians have never slept with a man? Virtually none. It's whatever.

As to you, personally? I don't think that would constitute a sexual desire unless you were insistent that it happen via intercourse. Not because you can't afford other options or because you've decided the risks for the other options aren't worth taking... I mean an actual internal drive to have intercourse that leads to pregnancy. Believe it or not, that's a weird desire that I've heard more than a few women express. *shrugs*

As you mentioned in your first post, everyone experiences desire differently and in the unlikely event that you had two people with literally identical thoughts/feelings/opinions on their desires, they'd probably disagree on what to call it. For me, personally*, I'd say if you don't desire sex then the asexual label probably fits best, even if you want kids. I'm sure there's a word out there for people who want sex solely to procreate, but I don't think labels like that are all that helpful.

As for the second part, I'm not a woman but I think I would probably prefer "traditional" intercourse? I mean, if a potential future partner didn't want to, I'd never attempt to change their mind or anything, but I think it'd be my first choice? In the same way I think I'd like to get married in a church, despite not being religious. It's just how it's traditionally done? I can't rationalise this so I'll just blame my parents and upbringing :lol:

*Above opinions are mine and are not representative of the Admod team, terms and conditions apply, your statutory rights are not affected, you will not own the car.

[Guest]

It seems to me that it makes a lot more sense, honors people's entire life experiences, and meshes with other orientations to simply acknowledge that having a singular sexual desire doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't ID as asexual. How many lesbians have never slept with a man? Virtually none. It's whatever.

There's a difference between these though. One is merely about partner choice; the other is about desire in general. (Which some folks on here even consider an important enough distinction to use this as an argument for why asexuality is not an orientation.)

I think Kinsey has (or should have) done away with the Gold Star myth on the former.... but honestly, the entire concept of asexuality doesn't make much sense to me if we don't strictly apply it, to the latter. "Once in a lifetime" is still grey, not ace; it's just deep, deep in the dark end of the greyscale. (And to make it absolutely clear, because the usual suspects will try to spin this into "meemeemee trying to make it about behavior meemeemee" - I'm talking about desiring sex even once in your life, not about having sex even once in your life. Keep the strawmen in your pockets, thx.)

And that's a different argument... I'm trying to keep this about discussing desire, not who gets kicked out of the asexual club. I do have opinions on that subject as well, but it seems like the "Asexuals Can Still Seek Out Sex" thread is a better place for that argument.

[Guest]

I'm more talking about someone who really wants the experience of having intercourse to make a baby. Not a "this is the cheapest easiest", but that there's an actual internal desire to experience sexual intercourse leading to fertilization and impregnation. Like, if someone were to suggest to you other alternatives, you don't think "meh, too expensive", but rather you think "no no, I really want to do it the old fashioned way". Or something.

Well, okay. If that's what you're on about in 1) - yeah, I agree, that doesn't sound like something an asexual would think and say.

[Guest]

Personally, I don't have any desire to have sex with anybody. That said, I would like kids someday. For reasons I cannot put into words (despite trying and failing many times) I'd prefer them to be biologically "mine" rather than adopted (not that I have any problem with adopted people or would never consider adopting.)

I don't want sex, but it's kind of a necessity for biological children, what does that make me, in your opinion?

(PS: I'm genuinely curious and not trying to argue or anything, and I won't accuse you of labelling me or whatever :) )

Well, my post is really about the way we discuss desire, and not who is or isn't asexual. Just to be clear. As I said, even if that were a "sexual desire", it's so specific and inherently limited that it wouldn't make someone not asexual. My position is that instead of allowing for the possibility of having the occasional errant desire, AVEN has taken the position of creating weird, contradictory positions on when the specificity of desire is or is not asexual. It seems to me that it makes a lot more sense, honors people's entire life experiences, and meshes with other orientations to simply acknowledge that having a singular sexual desire doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't ID as asexual. How many lesbians have never slept with a man? Virtually none. It's whatever.

As to you, personally? I don't think that would constitute a sexual desire unless you were insistent that it happen via intercourse. Not because you can't afford other options or because you've decided the risks for the other options aren't worth taking... I mean an actual internal drive to have intercourse that leads to pregnancy. Believe it or not, that's a weird desire that I've heard more than a few women express. *shrugs*

As you mentioned in your first post, everyone experiences desire differently and in the unlikely event that you had two people with literally identical thoughts/feelings/opinions on their desires, they'd probably disagree on what to call it. For me, personally*, I'd say if you don't desire sex then the asexual label probably fits best, even if you want kids. I'm sure there's a word out there for people who want sex solely to procreate, but I don't think labels like that are all that helpful.

Completely agreed there.

As for the second part, I'm not a woman but I think I would probably prefer "traditional" intercourse? I mean, if a potential future partner didn't want to, I'd never attempt to change their mind or anything, but I think it'd be my first choice? In the same way I think I'd like to get married in a church, despite not being religious. It's just how it's traditionally done? I can't rationalise this so I'll just blame my parents and upbringing :lol:

See, that sounds like sexual desire to me. Not for the orgasm, but because you feel it to have a deeper meaning, and despite other options, it's the one you feel is most... you. Or something :D :lol: But again, I don't think that says much, if anything, about your asexuality.

[Tarfeather]

You really have no clue what asexual means, do you.. Honestly, sometimes I feel bad for the asexuals here, they're at least as misrepresented as sexuals, and they can't even speak up about it because they'll be considered asexual elitists and gatekeepers.

[Grumpy Alien]

I want kids and I'm not fussy about how I get them. I'm also sex indifferent. If I snag a husband and he wants biological children, I'll try naturally first. (Despite medical complications.) I wouldn't mind but I don't desire the intercourse itself.

I've never heard of anyone that actually desires sex but says only for conception... I've heard of those that want kids naturally and therefore "want" intercourse for the results. I think there's a difference.

Is there anyone here that fits the description whether they agree or not? I'd love to hear from someone who has a true desire for sex who reasons it with having biological children naturally.

[Sage Raven Domino]

I'm more talking about someone who really wants the experience of having intercourse to make a baby. Not a "this is the cheapest easiest", but that there's an actual internal desire to experience sexual intercourse leading to fertilization and impregnation. Like, if someone were to suggest to you other alternatives, you don't think "meh, too expensive", but rather you think "no no, I really want to do it the old fashioned way". Or something.

TMI

Even then, I think the 'pull in' method is possible - the opposite of the 'pull out' contraception method - where the male sticks it in only when he feels he's about to climax, the woman uses lube and a possibly a vibrator to get ready to 'host' his fluid at any moment.

[Guest]

Oooh true!!! LOLZ the "pull in".

[Guest]

I want kids and I'm not fussy about how I get them. I'm also sex indifferent. If I snag a husband and he wants biological children, I'll try naturally first. (Despite medical complications.) I wouldn't mind but I don't desire the intercourse itself.

I've never heard of anyone that actually desires sex but says only for conception... I've heard of those that want kids naturally and therefore "want" intercourse for the results. I think there's a difference.

Is there anyone here that fits the description whether they agree or not? I'd love to hear from someone who has a true desire for sex who reasons it with having biological children naturally.

See here, this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. There is no such thing as "true desire". You do or you do not desire. If you want to have sexual intercourse to have a kid, specifically, regardless of options... if you place a value on sexual intercourse leading to fertilization... that no matter what your partner wanted, your vote would be for sexual intercourse as the fertilization method... that's true desire. You can have true sexual desire based on awesome sunglasses, a great set of boobs, or because you think there's something magical about intercourse-based fertilization. It's all "true desire".

[m4rble]

Just for the record, how efficient is turkey baster as a method of getting pregnant?

When done right, apparently the same as with intercourse.

http://www.babymed.com/home-artificial-insemination-get-pregnant-turkey-baster-method

I read this and the process seems very uncomfortable, but less so than pregnancy and child birth, so I suppose if you want biological children this wouldn't be an issue.

[m4rble]

For asexual people who want kids but aren't sex-repulsed, they might just not think it's worth the cost of fertilization services, even if they have the cash.

They can fertilise at home for cheap - see the link:

http://www.babymed.com/home-artificial-insemination-get-pregnant-turkey-baster-method

I'm more talking about someone who really wants the experience of having intercourse to make a baby. Not a "this is the cheapest easiest", but that there's an actual internal desire to experience sexual intercourse leading to fertilization and impregnation. Like, if someone were to suggest to you other alternatives, you don't think "meh, too expensive", but rather you think "no no, I really want to do it the old fashioned way". Or something.

Believe it or not, I can actually somewhat understand this position. Sex where there is no attempt at pregnancy seems somehow less enjoyable to me than Sex in an attempt to get pregnant because I feel like you get nothing out of the former, so it just seems exhausting. You get a baby out of the latter, so it seems more worth doing. Plus, getting pregnant using by injecting yourself with the stuff seems a bit mechanical, gross, and scary to me. Maybe I would have fewer negative emotions about this if I had more experience sticking things up my vagina, but ad it stands, it seems I would rather do it with something of a fleshy quality, because that at least seems softer.

[Guest]

Oh man Marble! Remember with intercourse you have something large and sticky going in and out.. a lot... and the pubic bone of another person smackin' into you... I'd be inclined to believe a turkey baster would be more comfortable by a pretty big margin, but I dunno, having never done it.

[m4rble]

Oh man Marble! Remember with intercourse you have something large and sticky going in and out.. a lot... and the pubic bone of another person smackin' into you... I'd be inclined to believe a turkey baster would be more comfortable by a pretty big margin, but I dunno, having never done it.

Humans don't have penis bones, and I'm a lot more concerned with penetration related discomfort than any other form of discomfort. Getting punched in the stomach seems like no big deal, compared to having something invade your body. Of course, now that you mentioned it, intercourse would likely be just as bad.

[zoom]

Depends how you define the word "want".

Examples:

I want to go to work.

1) YAY, work, we are always doing something interesting, so many cool projects, and my colleagues are so nice, plus the air conditioning actually works

2) no, thank you, I want to go to work on the weekend so I am done with this shit

If someone desires sex because the idea of getting pregnant makes them horny, then it is obviously sexual desire (and IMO impregnation fetish is not unusual).

But if someone desires the outcome and the sex part is "meh" thing you need to do to get it, then no. Example: most people desire driving license, few desire driving school.

I want to have hysterectomy for the purpose of being totally infertile and totally period free. Still, I would not say that I desire big abdominal surgery.