Jump to content

Anyone know the history and or "politics" of the standard definition of asexuality?


Recommended Posts

Hi! I would like to know about the history and or politics of the standard definition of asexuality, "lack of sexual attraction". I am new to the ace community. I am asexual and have been my whole life, just didn't know it. In my 40's now. I have been trying to read threads about the definition, but there is so much to wade through. Anyone want to give me a summary of it? I am most interested in why that definition is generally preferred over this one, "no innate desire for partnered sex". I personally prefer the latter. I am very interested in having asexuality be known about by the public and professionals. I would love to see many good studies done on us. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi! I would like to know about the history and or politics of the standard definition of asexuality, "lack of sexual attraction". I am new to the ace community. I am asexual and have been my whole life, just didn't know it. In my 40's now. I have been trying to read threads about the definition, but there is so much to wade through. Anyone want to give me a summary of it? I am most interested in why that definition is generally preferred over this one, "no innate desire for partnered sex". I personally prefer the latter. I am very interested in having asexuality be known about by the public and professionals. I would love to see many good studies done on us. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically David Jay made it up; he's the one that originally created it at the top of the page and dictated the inclusion of attraction in it. It did not originally say what it does now, but over several years and a few editions of it along the way it became what it is now due to input he received on this site in those early years. The reason that definition is the most popular is simply because AVEN ended up being the main asexuality site. He never intended for it to be the only/most popular definition of the orientation.

As for its current standings, many disagree with it and are pushing for a desire based definition. Because of its current loophole (i.e. sexual attraction being different from sexual desire) people who are completely normal sexuals consisting of half the population can then call themselves asexual because they find no one sexually alluring/sexually attractive but desire sex for other reasons (there are many reasons sexuals desire sex). To a lesser degree, people also frequently misinterpret what the phrase sexual attraction is supposed to mean. One of the most common is interpreting sexual peoples behavior and thinking aesthetic attraction is sexual attraction. And considering sexuals use it to mean everything about their sexuality; even things it can clearly not refer to, the term has become meaningless. So while every dictionary that defines sexual attraction words it exactly the same ("attractiveness on the basis of sexual desire"; some of which define attraction and make it "a quality about someone that evokes the interest in having sex with them"), colloquially the term has no use for us. And eventhough the US and a few other countries have this fixation on defining orientations with the hip word "attraction", that's factually a cultural thing and other countries define it by desire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot! Very helpful. What was Jay's original definition?

And do you know if I can delete my double posts? Had computer problems. Lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was originally "does not experience attraction"; it was of course extremely inaccurate. The mods take care of duplicates.

(and edited my post so dunno if you got to read it all)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, thanks I will have to read it a few times to let it digest. Oh, I did send a pm to mod to delete my accidental multi posts. Yeah that original definition was bad. When you said one half of the sexual population, do you mean women? I prefer the word desire in the definition. Why would people be against "no innate desire for partnered sex"? I think that is perfect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David Jay (the founder of AVEN) came up with the sexual attraction definiton of asexuality due to the fact that other orientations are defined as "sexually attracted to women" etc. However no one really put a whole lot of thought into what that definition actually *means* because obviously not all sexual people base their orientation around "who they look and experience a sexual reaction to, in relation to that persons appearance" (thats one of the variations of the standard definition of sexual attraction) ..When it comes down to, sexual orientation is *which gender/s you innately desire partnered sex with, for various reasons".. like, some sexual people are only romantically attracted to men, and desire sex as an expression of romantic love..but appearance really doesn't matter to them. That person would still say "I'm sexually attracted to men" without actually meaning "I look at men and get horny" or "I want to fuck hot men" or "I desire sex based on appearance". David Jay himself also says *repeatedly* in the (A)sexuality documentary "I just don't want sex" ..Which makes it pretty clear that he interpreted his defintion as meaning "I don't desire partnered sex". It's worth noting that AVENs definition *of* sexual attraction is "the desire for sexual contact with someone else, to share your sexuality with them"

However many people disagree with the desire-based definition because theu say they *do* desire sex, but are still asexual. Some examples are "I desire sex because I just love sex, I'm not attracted to people though.. I'd rather have sex with friends or other people I'm close to and appearance doesn't matter" and "I love having sex as a pleasurable deeply intimate expression of love with my partner, but I don't look at my partner and get horny "I have a libido and I just prefer partnered sex to masturbation, that doesn't mean I'm attracted to the people I have sex with though" ..There are many other variations too.

However, if you've spoken to a lot of sexual people about this (I have) you'll know that these are all very normal aspects of sexuality. There are a lot of sexual people who don't care about appearance, and who don't "look at their partner and get horny" but still desire sex as an act of intimacy. Sadly though, people say that if we make the definition a desire-based one, these "asexuals" won't be asexual anymore, and that isn't fair. They should be allowed to ID as asexual if they want, and the definition should cater to that.

Which is why there is such a push to keep the current definition. It's all-inclusive, so anyone can be asexual depending on how they define "sexual attraction" (even sexual people define it differently from person to person). Even a hypersexual person who seeks sex out with 15 people a day because they just love and desire sex so much can still be asexual if they don't find anyone they have sex with "attractive", if that's how they define sexual attraction. If we made it a desire-based definition, only about 1% of the population would really be able to call themselves asexual, because it's very rare that someone literally has no desire to have partnered sex (for their own sexual and/or emotional pleasire) ever.

And of course, that's not saying people with no innate desire for partnered sex don't *have* sex, of course they do! To have a baby, to try to make a sexual partner happy, to try to "fit in", all sorts of reasons! They just don't innately desire that sex for sexual and/or emotional pleasure.

But yeah, there is so much resistence to a desire-based definition (because it's not inclusive enough) that I don't think AVEN will ever adopt one (despite the fact that by AVENs definition of sexual attraction, the definition at the top of the page sort of is a desire-based one already)

So thats all the thousands of discussions about this argument in a nutshell

Sorry about typos etc, I typed it in a hurry on my phone (I'm on my way out the door for a meeting) ..I'll fix it on my comp when I get back :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

(I'll post this here too as there are other replies here)

David Jay (the founder of AVEN) came up with the sexual attraction definiton of asexuality due to the fact that other orientations are defined as "sexually attracted to women" etc. However no one really put a whole lot of thought into what that definition actually *means* because obviously not all sexual people base their orientation around "who they look and experience a sexual reaction to, in relation to that persons appearance" (thats one of the variations of the standard definition of sexual attraction) ..When it comes down to, sexual orientation is *which gender/s you innately desire partnered sex with, for various reasons".. like, some sexual people are only romantically attracted to men, and desire sex as an expression of romantic love..but appearance really doesn't matter to them. That person would still say "I'm sexually attracted to men" without actually meaning "I look at men and get horny" or "I want to fuck hot men" or "I desire sex based on appearance". David Jay himself also says *repeatedly* in the (A)sexuality documentary "I just don't want sex" ..Which makes it pretty clear that he interpreted his defintion as meaning "I don't desire partnered sex". It's worth noting that AVENs definition *of* sexual attraction is "the desire for sexual contact with someone else, to share your sexuality with them"

However many people disagree with the desire-based definition because theu say they *do* desire sex, but are still asexual. Some examples are "I desire sex because I just love sex, I'm not attracted to people though.. I'd rather have sex with friends or other people I'm close to and appearance doesn't matter" and "I love having sex as a pleasurable deeply intimate expression of love with my partner, but I don't look at my partner and get horny "I have a libido and I just prefer partnered sex to masturbation, that doesn't mean I'm attracted to the people I have sex with though" ..There are many other variations too.

However, if you've spoken to a lot of sexual people about this (I have) you'll know that these are all very normal aspects of sexuality. There are a lot of sexual people who don't care about appearance, and who don't "look at their partner and get horny" but still desire sex as an act of intimacy. Sadly though, people say that if we make the definition a desire-based one, these "asexuals" won't be asexual anymore, and that isn't fair. They should be allowed to ID as asexual if they want, and the definition should cater to that.

Which is why there is such a push to keep the current definition. It's all-inclusive, so anyone can be asexual depending on how they define "sexual attraction" (even sexual people define it differently from person to person). Even a hypersexual person who seeks sex out with 15 people a day because they just love and desire sex so much can still be asexual if they don't find anyone they have sex with "attractive", if that's how they define sexual attraction. If we made it a desire-based definition, only about 1% of the population would really be able to call themselves asexual, because it's very rare that someone literally has no desire to have partnered sex (for their own sexual and/or emotional pleasire) ever.

And of course, that's not saying people with no innate desire for partnered sex don't *have* sex, of course they do! To have a baby, to try to make a sexual partner happy, to try to "fit in", all sorts of reasons! They just don't innately desire that sex for sexual and/or emotional pleasure.

But yeah, there is so much resistence to a desire-based definition (because it's not inclusive enough) that I don't think AVEN will ever adopt one (despite the fact that by AVENs definition of sexual attraction, the definition at the top of the page sort of is a desire-based one already)

So thats all the thousands of discussions about this argument in a nutshell

Sorry about typos etc, I typed it in a hurry on my phone (I'm on my way out the door for a meeting) ..I'll fix it on my comp when I get back :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, thank you, perfect! I guess I am a one percenter, lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...