Jump to content

Asexuality and wanting sex/relationship


Recommended Posts

I'm reading a lot about asexuality as I am confused about my own orientation.

I know all the basics and most asexuals don't care about sex etc, but is it possible for an asexual to want a sexual relationship but just not be sexual attracted to anyone?

I've heard that's called cupiosexual but I wondered if that was also a type of asexuality and whether it was common.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, because that's a normal sexual person consisting of half the population. Sexual people desire sex for many reasons, and desiring it period means someone is sexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But some asexual people enjoy sex due to the stimulation etc, but having sex doesn't define their orientation if they're not attracted to the person they want to have sex with.

I feel that this fits me too, but I know that the majority of asexuals don't feel the urge to have sex, and so the information I'm getting is a little unclear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, asexuals can enjoy sex, but they cannot desire/yearn for it. Enjoyment and desire are two different things that are just typically paired. Everyone has had a food where the taste was fine yet the food just wan't their thing. This is enjoyment without desire.

NO asexual has the urge to have sex; as said, that is a normal sexual person.

The reason the information you're getting is unclear is because you've been misinformed. The banner definition of asexuality is wrong and is why many on here are pushing for a desired based definition. As said, half of sexual people do not experience sexual attraction and desire sex for other reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, thank you that makes more sense.

It's a weird feeling having a desire for something you also don't want and aren't attracted to. I don't think that's normal, but if it's not asexual then I'm back to being confused again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Confused? I said that's a normal sexual person, so where's the confusion??

Unless you want sex but don't want to want sex? Do you pursue sex?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not all sexual folk experience "sexual attraction" so using this as a basis for determining orientation is really dumb. What all sexual folk do have in common though, and what isn't present in asexuals, is the desire for sex, be it in a general "I could really go for some sex right now" way or directed at someone in particular, which is probably caused by sexual attraction.

The cupio label came about as a result of a gross misunderstanding of very normal human sexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual attraction is different from sexual desire.

People typically are sexually attracted to people, and genders (eg gay and straight people are sexually attracted to people of the same / opposite sex).

I get what you're saying that if you desire sex then you're a sexual person, but that doesn't determine your orientation.

I want a relationship in all aspects with someone but I'm not sexually attracted to people. Just because I have a sexual desire that doesn't mean my orientation is normal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone has sexual desire, i.e. the need/yearning for sexual contact with someone, but it isn't directed at anyone in particular, that's still sexual and I'd suggest that they're pansexual, so gender, biological sex or whatever doesn't matter.

Like I said, not all sexual folk experience attraction, but their desire is still there regardless of whether or not it's directed at someone in particular.

Asexuals don't experience sexual desire but can still experience attraction in some form. It just never culminates in sexual desire. That's the difference between sexual and asexual folk, not who the attraction is towards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anime Pancake

Yes an asexual person can desire a sexual relationship.

Being asexual means that you are not interested in sex or have no desire for sex and no need to have sex.

However, it is possible for someone asexual to want sexual relationship (this would not happen very often though, since most asexuals are not interested in sex at all)

Edit: If someone desires sex though, as in they want to have sex to enjoy it, that would probably not be considered asexual.

In my opinion, being asexual has nothing to do with "attraction" it is basically if you want to have sex or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
banana monkey

I get what you're saying that if you desire sex then you're a sexual person, but that doesn't determine your orientation.

What in your opinion does determine orientation then? (That's not meant in a criticising manner) There is a debate about this (see other threads), but the majority of people on here agree sexuality is defined in terms of desire not attraction and as such believe that it is sexual desire (usually for partnered sex) not attraction that defines orientation. Otherwise, a lot of sexual people would be asexual. That is said, whilst remembering that sexuality is a spectrum (including graysexual for example) and I understand that people need to find the term they feel best fits them. Therefore, if you feel you are more towards the asexual end and as such feel that is the best way for you to identify, use that term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone has sexual desire, i.e. the need/yearning for sexual contact with someone, but it isn't directed at anyone in particular, that's still sexual and I'd suggest that they're pansexual, so gender, biological sex or whatever doesn't matter.

Like I said, not all sexual folk experience attraction, but their desire is still there regardless of whether or not it's directed at someone in particular.

Asexuals don't experience sexual desire but can still experience attraction in some form. It just never culminates in sexual desire. That's the difference between sexual and asexual folk, not who the attraction is towards.

I accept what you say for asexuals, but I disagree about the rest.

Homosexual means having a sexual attraction towards people of the same sex. Heterosexual means sexually attracted to people of different sex.

Being pansexual means I would be sexually attracted to everyone, which I'm not. Desire is more physiological, whereas attraction is related to orientation. I don't act on my desires because I'm not attracted to anyone enough to be with anyone. That's not 'normal' desire/attraction.

Typical sexual folk are sexually attracted to others and have a desire to sleep with them. They're usually together but still are different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes an asexual person can desire a sexual relationship.

Being asexual means that you are not interested in sex or have no desire for sex and no need to have sex.

However, it is possible for someone asexual to want sexual relationship (this would not happen very often though, since most asexuals are not interested in sex at all)

Edit: If someone desires sex though, as in they want to have sex to enjoy it, that would probably not be considered asexual.

In my opinion, being asexual has nothing to do with "attraction" it is basically if you want to have sex or not.

Thank you for your reply :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't believe i'm the only one who agrees with Sarah02h on this. what they said is exactly what my understanding of my asexual identity is. from my understanding what you guys are referring to is having a low libido, which also plays a role in whether or not you desire sex and which does not equal asexuality. for example, an asexual with a high libido, who has enjoyed sex in the past, can desire sex. not because they are sexually attracted to anyone and lust after them, but because they want to get off, enjoy sex in general and like the intimacy and close bond that comes with having sex with someone you trust. suggesting Sarah02h might be pansexual also doesn't seem right to me, as being pansexual means being sexually attracted to people regardless of gender, which doesn't seem to be the case here. besides that, using normal as a synonym for zedsexual/sexual, just doesn't seem right for me, since it implies that asexuality is abnormal. asexuality might not be common, but it's normal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying that if you desire sex then you're a sexual person, but that doesn't determine your orientation.

What in your opinion does determine orientation then? (That's not meant in a criticising manner) There is a debate about this (see other threads), but the majority of people on here agree sexuality is defined in terms of desire not attraction and as such believe that it is sexual desire (usually for partnered sex) not attraction that defines orientation. Otherwise, a lot of sexual people would be asexual. That is said, whilst remembering that sexuality is a spectrum (including graysexual for example) and I understand that people need to find the term they feel best fits them. Therefore, if you feel you are more towards the asexual end and as such feel that is the best way for you to identify, use that term.

Thank you. And okay, I can see now why people are disagreeing with me.

I believe that sexual attraction relates to orientation. Sexual desire can separate sexual people from non sexual people, but attraction determines who you are most likely to desire in a sexual way, and so that determines orientation.

In my case I've gone back and forth between bisexual and greysexual. I want a typical relationship and have desire, but because I have no attraction to people I therefore don't act on it because I have no interest in people I'm not attracted to (aka everyone).

So I can see why people think orientation and desire correlate, but from my experiences (and other books/sites I've read about asexuality) I still believe sexual attraction determines orientation. Like romantic attraction becomes homo-romantic etc, it's the attraction which defines people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i can't believe i'm the only one who agrees with Sarah02h on this. what they said is exactly what my understanding of my asexual identity is. from my understanding what you guys are referring to is having a low libido, which also plays a role in whether or not you desire sex and which does not equal asexuality. for example, an asexual with a high libido, who has enjoyed sex in the past, can desire sex. not because they are sexually attracted to anyone and lust after them, but because they want to get off, enjoy sex in general and like the intimacy and close bond that comes with having sex with someone you trust. suggesting Sarah02h might be pansexual also doesn't seem right to me, as being pansexual means being sexually attracted to people regardless of gender, which doesn't seem to be the case here. besides that, using normal as a synonym for zedsexual/sexual, just doesn't seem right for me, since it implies that asexuality is abnormal. asexuality might not be common, but it's normal.

Thank you so much for your reply!

Link to post
Share on other sites
banana monkey

an asexual with a high libido, who has enjoyed sex in the past, can desire sex. not because they are sexually attracted to anyone and lust after them, but because they want to get off, enjoy sex in general and like the intimacy and close bond that comes with having sex with someone you trust.

Some people on here, (i'm not sure if I agree) would say that such a person was sexual if they desired partnered sex, regardless of whether they were sexually attracted to that person or not. (apparently a lot of sexuals are like the above example as they do not necessarily lust after there partner, but desire sex with them for other reasons.) The key word is desire, by this desire is meant long for/yearn for rather than "I need to get off because I dont like the arousal and I might as well do it by having partnered sex because I like the intimacy and its on offer" "but if you said that it wasnt on offer it wouldnt matter to me at all (I would masturbate instead) even though I enjoy it when it does happen."

Link to post
Share on other sites
banana monkey

I get what you're saying that if you desire sex then you're a sexual person, but that doesn't determine your orientation.

What in your opinion does determine orientation then? (That's not meant in a criticising manner) There is a debate about this (see other threads), but the majority of people on here agree sexuality is defined in terms of desire not attraction and as such believe that it is sexual desire (usually for partnered sex) not attraction that defines orientation. Otherwise, a lot of sexual people would be asexual. That is said, whilst remembering that sexuality is a spectrum (including graysexual for example) and I understand that people need to find the term they feel best fits them. Therefore, if you feel you are more towards the asexual end and as such feel that is the best way for you to identify, use that term.

Thank you. And okay, I can see now why people are disagreeing with me.

I believe that sexual attraction relates to orientation. Sexual desire can separate sexual people from non sexual people, but attraction determines who you are most likely to desire in a sexual way, and so that determines orientation.

In my case I've gone back and forth between bisexual and greysexual. I want a typical relationship and have desire, but because I have no attraction to people I therefore don't act on it because I have no interest in people I'm not attracted to (aka everyone).

So I can see why people think orientation and desire correlate, but from my experiences (and other books/sites I've read about asexuality) I still believe sexual attraction determines orientation. Like romantic attraction becomes homo-romantic etc, it's the attraction which defines people.

Yeah, I used to define asexuality in terms of attraction, and by this definition would certainly be asexual. Now I am questioning it, but if you add the partnered bit in it still applies so still identifying as such. In some ways, I would prefer to define in terms of attraction, but after reading the threads can kinda see the arguement for not doing so, so am a bit up in the air about it. I think in someways I am similar to you in that, I've never had sexual attraction, and cant imagine having sexual desire for someone I'm not attracted to (but I know it is the case for many sexuals) so I've never had sexual desire either. However, i've heard that for some females sexual desire only comes as responsive sexual desire, so it could be possible that I am sexual but just dont know it yet as I've never been in a situation where that could happen (cant imagine that either but you never know)

" Like romantic attraction becomes homo-romantic etc, it's the attraction which defines people"

Yeah, there is debate about that as well, some think it should be the romantic desire, that defines not the attraction and as such believe cupioromantics are greyromantic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

Listen, there are sexual people on this site telling us that sexuality is not "seeing someone and wanting to bang them", many sexuals don't even experience that so it is a poor way to judge sexuality (and there are even aces who do experience sexual attraction but have no desire to act on it). There are soooo many misconceptions about sexuality, skewed by research almost completely on young cis males (who tend to exhibit primary desire which is getting horny out of the blue), that other types of sexuality (responsive desire, which means someone must have some sort of foreplay to trigger their desire, as most women have) are seen as "unusual". They are not. Desiring sex for pleasure, bonding, or just to satisfy your libido makes you sexual; most sexuals do not have sex just for pleasure but as a bonding activity and to solidify their relationship. The one thing sexuals can all agree on is that they all want sex at some point in their lives (not all the time or with random attractive people!); asexuals lack this, which is why they're very rare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen, there are sexual people on this site telling us that sexuality is not "seeing someone and wanting to bang them", many sexuals don't even experience that so it is a poor way to judge sexuality (and there are even aces who do experience sexual attraction but have no desire to act on it). There are soooo many misconceptions about sexuality, skewed by research almost completely on young cis males (who tend to exhibit primary desire which is getting horny out of the blue), that other types of sexuality (responsive desire, which means someone must have some sort of foreplay to trigger their desire, as most women have) are seen as "unusual". They are not. Desiring sex for pleasure, bonding, or just to satisfy your libido makes you sexual; most sexuals do not have sex just for pleasure but as a bonding activity and to solidify their relationship. The one thing sexuals can all agree on is that they all want sex at some point in their lives (not all the time or with random attractive people!); asexuals lack this, which is why they're very rare.

I can see where you're coming from, I just don't agree entirely based on personal experience.

For me, I would like a physical relationship, but in all of my life I have never felt attraction to anyone, and therefore the desire has never surfaced because there was never anyone I wanted to be with. So does that make me sexual if I have never wanted to act on it, and never felt it?

I know plenty of straight/gay people who are sexually attracted to specific people and who have desire for certain people, and not just the act itself.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions is the definition of asexuality. It seems that people either think it's lack of sexual attraction, or lack of sexual desire.

Those are completely different things. Desire is more physiological and asexual people and sexual people can each have high or low libidos. (Which then ties in to what you said and it makes sense - actively desiring to sleep with another person separates sexuals from non sexuals).

Take demisexual for example. They have desire for sex, but this desire is mainly for people they have formed close bonds with. Their attraction/desire is about the person, as well as their sexual desires. Taking away their attraction takes away their orientation.

Another misconception is the word 'desire'. From the comments above it seems to be either a desire for a particular person or just the desire for sex itself. Again, those are completely different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone has sexual desire, i.e. the need/yearning for sexual contact with someone, but it isn't directed at anyone in particular, that's still sexual and I'd suggest that they're pansexual, so gender, biological sex or whatever doesn't matter.

Like I said, not all sexual folk experience attraction, but their desire is still there regardless of whether or not it's directed at someone in particular.

Asexuals don't experience sexual desire but can still experience attraction in some form. It just never culminates in sexual desire. That's the difference between sexual and asexual folk, not who the attraction is towards.

I accept what you say for asexuals, but I disagree about the rest.

Homosexual means having a sexual attraction towards people of the same sex. Heterosexual means sexually attracted to people of different sex.

Being pansexual means I would be sexually attracted to everyone, which I'm not. Desire is more physiological, whereas attraction is related to orientation. I don't act on my desires because I'm not attracted to anyone enough to be with anyone. That's not 'normal' desire/attraction.

Typical sexual folk are sexually attracted to others and have a desire to sleep with them. They're usually together but still are different things.

So you consider "sexual attraction" to be what, exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen, there are sexual people on this site telling us that sexuality is not "seeing someone and wanting to bang them", many sexuals don't even experience that so it is a poor way to judge sexuality (and there are even aces who do experience sexual attraction but have no desire to act on it). There are soooo many misconceptions about sexuality, skewed by research almost completely on young cis males (who tend to exhibit primary desire which is getting horny out of the blue), that other types of sexuality (responsive desire, which means someone must have some sort of foreplay to trigger their desire, as most women have) are seen as "unusual". They are not. Desiring sex for pleasure, bonding, or just to satisfy your libido makes you sexual; most sexuals do not have sex just for pleasure but as a bonding activity and to solidify their relationship. The one thing sexuals can all agree on is that they all want sex at some point in their lives (not all the time or with random attractive people!); asexuals lack this, which is why they're very rare.

I can see where you're coming from, I just don't agree entirely based on personal experience.

For me, I would like a physical relationship, but in all of my life I have never felt attraction to anyone, and therefore the desire has never surfaced because there was never anyone I wanted to be with. So does that make me sexual if I have never wanted to act on it, and never felt it?

I know plenty of straight/gay people who are sexually attracted to specific people and who have desire for certain people, and not just the act itself.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions is the definition of asexuality. It seems that people either think it's lack of sexual attraction, or lack of sexual desire.

Those are completely different things. Desire is more physiological and asexual people and sexual people can each have high or low libidos. (Which then ties in to what you said and it makes sense - actively desiring to sleep with another person separates sexuals from non sexuals).

Take demisexual for example. They have desire for sex, but this desire is mainly for people they have formed close bonds with. Their attraction/desire is about the person, as well as their sexual desires. Taking away their attraction takes away their orientation.

Another misconception is the word 'desire'. From the comments above it seems to be either a desire for a particular person or just the desire for sex itself. Again, those are completely different things.

Sexual attraction doesn't exist. Please, try to define it otherwise. And make sure it incorporates all the different variations of sexuality, including fetishes, responsive sexual desire, etc. (btw desire is not synonymous with libido)

I cannot wait for this definition.

EDIT: Desire for Matt and desire for Kevin are two different things, but they're still both desire. Desire for penises is different than the desire for orgasms, the desire for women is different than the desire for men, the desire for a specific person is different than desire for sex in general...

DOESN'T MATTER. STILL ALL DESIRE.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen, there are sexual people on this site telling us that sexuality is not "seeing someone and wanting to bang them", many sexuals don't even experience that so it is a poor way to judge sexuality (and there are even aces who do experience sexual attraction but have no desire to act on it). There are soooo many misconceptions about sexuality, skewed by research almost completely on young cis males (who tend to exhibit primary desire which is getting horny out of the blue), that other types of sexuality (responsive desire, which means someone must have some sort of foreplay to trigger their desire, as most women have) are seen as "unusual". They are not. Desiring sex for pleasure, bonding, or just to satisfy your libido makes you sexual; most sexuals do not have sex just for pleasure but as a bonding activity and to solidify their relationship. The one thing sexuals can all agree on is that they all want sex at some point in their lives (not all the time or with random attractive people!); asexuals lack this, which is why they're very rare.

I can see where you're coming from, I just don't agree entirely based on personal experience.

For me, I would like a physical relationship, but in all of my life I have never felt attraction to anyone, and therefore the desire has never surfaced because there was never anyone I wanted to be with. So does that make me sexual if I have never wanted to act on it, and never felt it?

I know plenty of straight/gay people who are sexually attracted to specific people and who have desire for certain people, and not just the act itself.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions is the definition of asexuality. It seems that people either think it's lack of sexual attraction, or lack of sexual desire.

Those are completely different things. Desire is more physiological and asexual people and sexual people can each have high or low libidos. (Which then ties in to what you said and it makes sense - actively desiring to sleep with another person separates sexuals from non sexuals).

Take demisexual for example. They have desire for sex, but this desire is mainly for people they have formed close bonds with. Their attraction/desire is about the person, as well as their sexual desires. Taking away their attraction takes away their orientation.

Another misconception is the word 'desire'. From the comments above it seems to be either a desire for a particular person or just the desire for sex itself. Again, those are completely different things.

Re. the bolded part of your quote. This doesn't make you asexual.* This mean that you are a sexual person on the lookout for a partner, i.e. you want to fall in love with someone and have a fulfilling sexual relationship with them. Just because you haven't met that person yet it doesn't make you asexual. Sexuals don't always fancy someone, a lot of the time a lot of single people are just like, nah, haven't met anyone recently who floats my boat.

Same deal with romantic attraction. I had a gf at university and after her was single for a few years cus I hadn't met anyone I fancied, I didn't suddenly become aromantic during that time, I was always romantic, and when I met another girl I fancied then my general desire for a romantic relationship became romantic attraction towards that girl.

* ETA - I mean you in the collective sense here, not the individual one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything I've ever read about asexuality including on AVEN says that it's defined exclusively by lack of sexual attraction and has nothing to do with whether or not you actually have sex, so some of these comments make no sense to me....

It sounds like a some people are describing "asexual" as "someone who is sexually attracted to people but doesn't want to act on it" which sounds no different from the majority of non-asexuals (not everyone wants to have sex with every person they're attracted to).

"Just because you haven't met that person yet it doesn't make you asexual. "

This is very confusing and makes it sound like there's no difference between sexual and asexual people after all? Because if you can't know if you're asexual because you might want sex with someone later, how can anyone call themselves asexual?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I would like a physical relationship, but in all of my life I have never felt attraction to anyone, and therefore the desire has never surfaced because there was never anyone I wanted to be with. So does that make me sexual if I have never wanted to act on it, and never felt it?

I know plenty of straight/gay people who are sexually attracted to specific people and who have desire for certain people, and not just the act itself.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions is the definition of asexuality. It seems that people either think it's lack of sexual attraction, or lack of sexual desire.

Those are completely different things.

Another misconception is the word 'desire'. From the comments above it seems to be either a desire for a particular person or just the desire for sex itself. Again, those are completely different things.

Again, yes, that would make you a normal sexual person. And again, sexuality widely varies, so there is no real normal for it. Thinking you need attraction to act on your desire is a misconception. But if you genuinely never want to have sex then that'd be more Gray-A. And let me guess, these straight and gay people who do experience sexual attraction, are they men? Sexual attraction is a male thing; it happens to a majority of men and a minority of women. Also, have you ever had foreplay/made out? Perhaps you have responsive sexual desire.

No, sexual attraction and sexual desire are not completely different things. Desiring sex with someone specific and desiring sex in general are still THE SAME THING; desiring sex. WE are not misinformed YOU are. Sexual people should know what sexuality is, and we have been informed by them. Desiring sex period means someone is SEXUAL never ASEXUAL.

Yes, orientations are commonly defined by this phrase called sexual attraction, but that's just a popular hip phrase as well as cultural. In other cultures it's defined by desire. Sexual people now use sexual attraction to refer to everything about their sexuality; even things it doesn't actually refer to. The phrase has only existed since the late 18th century. What do you think they defined things by before it even existed?

Everything I've ever read about asexuality including on AVEN says that it's defined exclusively by lack of sexual attraction and has nothing to do with whether or not you actually have sex, so some of these comments make no sense to me....

It sounds like a some people are describing "asexual" as "someone who is sexually attracted to people but doesn't want to act on it" which sounds no different from the majority of non-asexuals (not everyone wants to have sex with every person they're attracted to).

"Just because you haven't met that person yet it doesn't make you asexual. "

This is very confusing and makes it sound like there's no difference between sexual and asexual people after all? Because if you can't know if you're asexual because you might want sex with someone later, how can anyone call themselves asexual?

1) Again, you are misinformed on the sexual attraction part.

2) We are not saying asexuals cannot have sex/sexually compromise, we are saying they cannot D-E-S-I-R-E it.

3) They are not saying an asexual can occasionally not desire to act on their sexual attraction, they are saying someone who identifies as asexual can never desire to act on their sexual attraction. But technically this is a type of Gray-A in a virtually asexual sense.

4) What they most likely mean by what you quoted is that the OP already desires sex, so most likely they'll eventually desire to act on it. I'm not saying it's for certain but just most likely. And if someone ends up desiring sex in the future then they just go by a different label then. Some demisexuals desire sex in general but only feel sexual attraction/desire to act after a bond, so there's also that possibility. The required bond for demis also widely varies; for some it's as far as marriage ready level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Going by the AVEN definition of sexual attraction it says it IS the desire for partnered sex. Also some people believe sexual attraction is what causes sexual arousal for/during sex. It's the desire for sex that is different between asexuals and sexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An asexual cannot desire any type of sex for sexual or emotional pleasure; not even after foreplay.

Sexual people desire any type of sex for sexual or emotional pleasure; half of them only being triggered for this desire after foreplay (i.e. a majority of women and a minority of men).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by the AVEN definition of sexual attraction it says it IS the desire for partnered sex. Also some people believe sexual attraction is what causes sexual arousal for/during sex. It's the desire for sex that is different between asexuals and sexuals.

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I would like a physical relationship, but in all of my life I have never felt attraction to anyone, and therefore the desire has never surfaced because there was never anyone I wanted to be with. So does that make me sexual if I have never wanted to act on it, and never felt it?I know plenty of straight/gay people who are sexually attracted to specific people and who have desire for certain people, and not just the act itself.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions is the definition of asexuality. It seems that people either think it's lack of sexual attraction, or lack of sexual desire.

Those are completely different things.

Another misconception is the word 'desire'. From the comments above it seems to be either a desire for a particular person or just the desire for sex itself. Again, those are completely different things.

Again, yes, that would make you a normal sexual person. And again, sexuality widely varies, so there is no real normal for it. Thinking you need attraction to act on your desire is a misconception. But if you genuinely never want to have sex then that'd be more Gray-A. And let me guess, these straight and gay people who do experience sexual attraction, are they men? Sexual attraction is a male thing; it happens to a majority of men and a minority of women. Also, have you ever had foreplay/made out? Perhaps you have responsive sexual desire.

No, sexual attraction and sexual desire are not completely different things. Desiring sex with someone specific and desiring sex in general are still THE SAME THING; desiring sex. WE are not misinformed YOU are. Sexual people should know what sexuality is, and we have been informed by them. Desiring sex period means someone is SEXUAL never ASEXUAL.

Yes, orientations are commonly defined by this phrased called sexual attraction, but that's just a popular hip phrase as well as cultural. In other cultures it's defined by desire. Sexual people now use sexual attraction to refer to everything about their sexuality; even things it doesn't actually refer to. The phrase has only existed since the late 18th century. What do you think they defined things by before it even existed?

Everything I've ever read about asexuality including on AVEN says that it's defined exclusively by lack of sexual attraction and has nothing to do with whether or not you actually have sex, so some of these comments make no sense to me....

It sounds like a some people are describing "asexual" as "someone who is sexually attracted to people but doesn't want to act on it" which sounds no different from the majority of non-asexuals (not everyone wants to have sex with every person they're attracted to).

"Just because you haven't met that person yet it doesn't make you asexual. "

This is very confusing and makes it sound like there's no difference between sexual and asexual people after all? Because if you can't know if you're asexual because you might want sex with someone later, how can anyone call themselves asexual?

1) Again, you are misinformed on the sexual attraction part.

2) We are not saying asexuals cannot have sex/sexually compromise, we are saying they cannot D-E-S-I-R-E it.

3) They are not saying an asexual can occasionally not desire to act on their sexual attraction, they are saying someone who identifies as asexual can never desire to act on their sexual attraction. But technically this is a type of Gray-A in a virtually asexual sense.

4) What they most likely mean by what you quoted is that the OP already desires sex, so most likely they'll eventually desire to act on it. I'm not saying it's for certain but just most likely. And if someone ends up desiring sex in the future then they just go by a different label then. Some demisexuals desire sex in general but only feel sexual attraction/desire to act after a bond, so there's also that possibility. The required bond for demis also widely varies; for some it's as far as marriage ready level.

I think it's really arrogant for you to assume all those things about me.

No, when I said I knew a lot of people who were sexually attracted to people I meant women just as much as men (if not more). I think we have different definitions of attraction and desire if that's what you believe. Why would you assume men when women are more likely to need an emotional connection to be stimulated?

Again, desire for sex and desire for a person are two different things. Saying that one day I'll sleep with someone I'm not attracted to just because I desire sex is stupid considering everything I've already mentioned. It's not a choice that I'm holding off, it's because I've never been interested and i don't think I ever will.

The book I'm reading now from Julie Decker simply defines asexuality as lack of sexual attraction.

You seem to be majorly misinformed, as you think I apparently am. Talking to a few sexual people doesn't mean you know all there is to know about the subject. As you said, sexuality is incredibly varied and it's a huge spectrum. After all of this I still don't know what I am, saying that I'll finally have sex in the future feels the same way as if I told you you'll eventually find someone who 'desire' in the end.

Edit: I've read what you said again and I'll just answer with this: I agree with you for discrimination between sexual and non sexual people. I'm talking about orientation however, which I think is why we're getting confused.

This isn't going anywhere, I only wanted help with an orientation question :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen, there are sexual people on this site telling us that sexuality is not "seeing someone and wanting to bang them", many sexuals don't even experience that so it is a poor way to judge sexuality (and there are even aces who do experience sexual attraction but have no desire to act on it). There are soooo many misconceptions about sexuality, skewed by research almost completely on young cis males (who tend to exhibit primary desire which is getting horny out of the blue), that other types of sexuality (responsive desire, which means someone must have some sort of foreplay to trigger their desire, as most women have) are seen as "unusual". They are not. Desiring sex for pleasure, bonding, or just to satisfy your libido makes you sexual; most sexuals do not have sex just for pleasure but as a bonding activity and to solidify their relationship. The one thing sexuals can all agree on is that they all want sex at some point in their lives (not all the time or with random attractive people!); asexuals lack this, which is why they're very rare.

I can see where you're coming from, I just don't agree entirely based on personal experience.

For me, I would like a physical relationship, but in all of my life I have never felt attraction to anyone, and therefore the desire has never surfaced because there was never anyone I wanted to be with. So does that make me sexual if I have never wanted to act on it, and never felt it?

I know plenty of straight/gay people who are sexually attracted to specific people and who have desire for certain people, and not just the act itself.

I think one of the biggest misconceptions is the definition of asexuality. It seems that people either think it's lack of sexual attraction, or lack of sexual desire.

Those are completely different things. Desire is more physiological and asexual people and sexual people can each have high or low libidos. (Which then ties in to what you said and it makes sense - actively desiring to sleep with another person separates sexuals from non sexuals).

Take demisexual for example. They have desire for sex, but this desire is mainly for people they have formed close bonds with. Their attraction/desire is about the person, as well as their sexual desires. Taking away their attraction takes away their orientation.

Another misconception is the word 'desire'. From the comments above it seems to be either a desire for a particular person or just the desire for sex itself. Again, those are completely different things.

Re. the bolded part of your quote. This doesn't make you asexual.* This mean that you are a sexual person on the lookout for a partner, i.e. you want to fall in love with someone and have a fulfilling sexual relationship with them. Just because you haven't met that person yet it doesn't make you asexual. Sexuals don't always fancy someone, a lot of the time a lot of single people are just like, nah, haven't met anyone recently who floats my boat.

Same deal with romantic attraction. I had a gf at university and after her was single for a few years cus I hadn't met anyone I fancied, I didn't suddenly become aromantic during that time, I was always romantic, and when I met another girl I fancied then my general desire for a romantic relationship because romantic attraction towards that girl.

* ETA - I mean you in the collective sense here, not the individual one.

Thank you :) I do get what you mean, I'm just wondering if it means something that in all my life I've never been attracted to anyone, and therefore I've had no desire. (A general desire about the concept, yes, but an external desire, no).

I understand you saying it takes time etc, but at this time in my life I think it's unusual not to have experienced any attraction at all. I don't care about dating because I don't want to be with anyone. When I think about getting close to people I find it unpleasant. I'm finding it weird how my thoughts and my body can be so completely different.

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...