Jump to content

Sex-favourable Asexuals and the Asexual Community


Pramana

Recommended Posts

binary suns
On 3/9/2017 at 8:35 PM, Law of Circles said:

 

I think it's possible to accept someone's experiences as real and valid while also believing that they should be classified differently. People talk about how asexuals are diverse, but sexuals can be very diverse in their experiences too. The fact that someone falls outside the norm for sexuals doesn't necessarily make them asexual.

 

*sings* everyone is GRAAAAYYYYYY <3 :D:wub:

 

ps. ok seriously tho. please yes. please everyone, actively remember to mention that Greysexual exists. because a LOT of the controversy would be absolved if we all (we all being the people in between ace and sexual) were just like "lol I'm grey oh well. I'll figure it out if it ever actually matters. so frustrating but wait so is all of life and I love it LIFE ADDICT HERE" 

 

 

 

.... I'm sooo off my rocker. adieu good fellows and ... um, fellowettes.... er,, :unsure:  *awkward exit*

Link to post
Share on other sites

@CBC Well, good! I'm glad I didn't offend, I was getting worried for a minute, though. Guess I should have gone with a partying metaphor. Eh?

 

But I do disagree. Not about anyone trying to help people, of course. I'm glad you're there to offer answers when people need them and I know you have lots of insight to provide.

 

I just don't think orientations need to be so rigid and that it can be potentially damaging to be more than suggestive. Especially for people who are new to the 'inner journey' experience. But maybe that's just my approach; try to guide the person towards making discoveries on their own. At least that's what I hope I do, but who the fuck knows. It's so hard to know if you're helping or not in a format like this. 

 

Anyway, I appreciate your response! Sorry if I misunderstood initially, I sometimes have issues communicating and get hung up on certain details. It's annoying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, lIIIIIllIIlI said:

*sings* everyone is GRAAAAYYYYYY <3 :D:wub:

 

ps. ok seriously tho. please yes. please everyone, actively remember to mention that Greysexual exists. because a LOT of the controversy would be absolved if we all (we all being the people in between ace and sexual) were just like "lol I'm grey oh well. I'll figure it out if it ever actually matters. so frustrating but wait so is all of life and I love it LIFE ADDICT HERE" 

 

I don't see why "greysexual" *needs* to exist, personally. Because almost every time I see people describing "greysexuality" or "grey asexuality" they seem to be implying that the requirement to be "a regular sexual" is wanting to bang every attractive person you see and caring about sex more than most other things. I bet if we got like 100 sexuals to actively participate in this convo, many of them would be what we think of as "grey sexual", and only the particularly hypersexual ones would be considered regular sexual.

 

Not saying people can't identify as grey if they wish, just saying that I think the way most people define it seems to suggest that they think to be a "regular" sexual, someone has to be hypersexual. :S (I know that was a massive issue Skullery as a hypersexual, had here as well - the idea that to be a "regular sexual" someone has to be hypsersexual, or else they are on some unique spectrum)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

I don't see why "greysexual" *needs* to exist, personally. Because almost every time I see people describing "greysexuality" or "grey asexuality" they seem to be implying that the requirement to be "a regular sexual" is wanting to bang every attractive person you see and caring about sex more than most other things. I bet if we got like 100 sexuals to actively participate in this convo, many of them would be what we think of as "grey sexual", and only the particularly hypersexual ones would be considered regular sexual.

 

Not saying people can't identify as grey if they wish, just saying that I think the way most people define it seems to suggest that they think to be a "regular" sexual, someone has to be hypersexual. :S (I know that was a massive issue Skullery as a hypersexual, had here as well - the idea that to be a "regular sexual" someone has to be hypsersexual, or else they are on some unique spectrum)

I tend to think of it more as a highly reduced sexual in comparison to most of the sexuals out there. Or maybe even the person who doesn't feel sexual attraction, but is still capable and willing to have sex with their partner(s) for love/romantic reasons. 

 

Of course, whether a person is ace, grey, or not, there's all sorts of sex drive levels out there. And there are so many different possible explanations for why one might be low and another might be high that I don't want to write them for fear of carpal tunnel setting in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Moophie said:

I tend to think of it more as a highly reduced sexual in comparison to most of the sexuals out there. Or maybe even the person who doesn't feel sexual attraction, but is still capable and willing to have sex with their partner(s) for love/romantic reasons. 

 

Of course, whether a person is ace, grey, or not, there's all sorts of sex drive levels out there. And there are so many different possible explanations for why one might be low and another might be high that I don't want to write them for fear of carpal tunnel setting in.

Well there are plenty of asexuals who have no desire to have sex for their own pleasure but give sex to their partner to keep their partner happy.. that's not grey, that's regular asexual.

 

And yes exactly, there are so many variations in sexual drive, desire, consistency, enjoyment and so many different explanations for all these things from person to person. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. That's all part of normal sexuality, one doesn't only have to be an appearance-based hypersexual to be considered "sexual". The way many people here view "normal sexuals" in my experience actually constitutes a minority of the sexual population. Pretty much 60% of sexuals fall in the "grey area" the way it's most commonly defined here. Why can't all these people just be sexual? What's so scary about that word? :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/10/2017 at 3:49 PM, Xenobot said:

Maybe instead of dismissing me out of hand you should go look for yourself or at least ask for clarification on my methodology. I do see now how saying I "picked out relevant terminology" could be misinterpreted, but if I could hone in on the relevant terminology prior to translation in every case, particularly for the cases where the language is very dissimilar from english, then that would be very impressive indeed.

I didn't dismiss anything; I just pointed out that GT is pretty flawed. There is also some kind of variation to translations; words can mean slightly different (or even entirely different) things even though they appear to be the same at first glance. One would have to be familiar with all the languages "tested" to determine wether the first impression of a term is accurate.

 

Generally I think that "sexual attraction" is to broad a term to narrow things down enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2017 at 0:11 AM, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

The way many people here view "normal sexuals" in my experience actually constitutes a minority of the sexual population. Pretty much 60% of sexuals fall in the "grey area" the way it's most commonly defined here. Why can't all these people just be sexual? What's so scary about that word? :o

It is true that on AVEN "normal sexuality" is sometimes viewed in terms of cliches which don't correspond to the complexity of "normal" sexual experience. My impression, though, is that the term "gray-asexual" is one that people might want to use when they experience sexual attraction/desire in a way that separates them from the broader sexual population, such that they have challenges forming sexual relationships or do not wish to form sexual relationships, and therefore on balance feel they have more in common with asexuals, or at least something important in common with asexuals which they do not share with sexuals.

For example, I describe myself as gray-asexual, to denote the facts that I experience low levels of sexual attraction and desire, while being strongly sex/body repulsed. For me, sex is too gross, to awkward, and too much work to be something I'd actually want to do. When I talk about human sexuality with my sexual friends, it's obvious they don't think I'm a normal sexual person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

Well there are plenty of asexuals who have no desire to have sex for their own pleasure but give sex to their partner to keep their partner happy.. that's not grey, that's regular asexual.

 

And yes exactly, there are so many variations in sexual drive, desire, consistency, enjoyment and so many different explanations for all these things from person to person. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. That's all part of normal sexuality, one doesn't only have to be an appearance-based hypersexual to be considered "sexual". The way many people here view "normal sexuals" in my experience actually constitutes a minority of the sexual population. Pretty much 60% of sexuals fall in the "grey area" the way it's most commonly defined here. Why can't all these people just be sexual? What's so scary about that word? :o

Is it? According to some people here I was under the impression that's not the case.

 

I feel the same way, to be honest. I wish we could just go around and feel free to say 'no, my sex drive is just nonexistent'. I don't have much love for labels, never really have. Even if I have to acknowledge their use as a guideline. I mean, if I hadn't come across asexuality I may have never realized that, no, I don't just not want to do it with guys, I don't want to do it with anyone.

 

But the thing is we need them. With the way things are now, the fact that sexual education and general knowledge ignores that these things exist, these labels and terms can help people who are questioning. They know something's up but no one around them can provide an answer, maybe they're even afraid to ask. So they hit the internet and try to find out for themselves. These terms with their short definitions can be like a lighthouse during a storm, a starting point to guide them to their destination.

 

I wish we didn't need them. But I firmly believe we do. At least for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns
13 hours ago, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

I don't see why "greysexual" *needs* to exist, personally. Because almost every time I see people describing "greysexuality" or "grey asexuality" they seem to be implying that the requirement to be "a regular sexual" is wanting to bang every attractive person you see and caring about sex more than most other things. I bet if we got like 100 sexuals to actively participate in this convo, many of them would be what we think of as "grey sexual", and only the particularly hypersexual ones would be considered regular sexual.

 

Not saying people can't identify as grey if they wish, just saying that I think the way most people define it seems to suggest that they think to be a "regular" sexual, someone has to be hypersexual. :S (I know that was a massive issue Skullery as a hypersexual, had here as well - the idea that to be a "regular sexual" someone has to be hypsersexual, or else they are on some unique spectrum)

I define grey as the awkward area between an ace who prefers not to have sex, and a sexual who prefers to have it at least some day. 

lol idk really. grey is a difficult thing to define. it's difficult to define it without referring to both ace and sexual, because otherwise it's too specific. On aven it's definied usually, "someone who rarely desires sex or desires sex under specific circumstances" but that is only like. 10% of the ground which I feel that grey can cover. 

 

like, I would consider someone who looves porn and even feels attracted to the actors or fantasy characters, or even feels a desire for sex but only in fantasy, would be a grey person. that is not what I imagine when I think of a libido'd ace. and A lithsexual does not desire sex, I would actually define lith slightly more broad, the common definition is "someone who loses attraction if it is reciprocated" but I find that misleading because one aspect of attraction is infatuation, which is hard to maintain in a relationship - so instead I would define it something like "a person who feels attraction or desire but either or both - dislikes reciprocation - or desires not to be in a sexual relationship anyway" and I def. consider lith to be in the grey area, but it is not really covered by either "sexual desire sometimes" or "under certain circumstances" because they don't desire sex at all lol. 

 

 

like well it's easy to say it this way. there is first the idea of an asexual. then there is the idea that some asexuals are sex indifferent, some are libido'd, and some are romantic.

 

then you imagine that some people are, either sex-positive, or libido'd and indifferent, or libido'd and romantic, and at that point it's - individual case, whether that person "makes more sense" as grey or as ace. to clarify with examples -

    sometimes it really is a case that a person has a libido and romantic feelings, but it's easy for someone to hear those concepts separately and say "oh that's me" - but not notice that they themselves actually have the experiences connected in some way, which once there is interaction between libido and romantic interest, it would be at least partially sexual attraction and/or desire then. And some libido'd people in general are grey, but not ace, because their libido experience - I would call libido a tide of arousal that comes and goes on its own, and/or a drive for self-stimulation - involves a quasi-attraction or quasi-desire, where perhaps they have fantasy involving attraction or desire or they have attraction and desire which stimulates their libido's "tide" but that when it comes to a real encounter they just prefer not to act with another, just with themselves. such a person is grey by my books. 

    But in contrast, imagine a person who sometimes wakes up in the morning slightly aroused, and feels that annoying arousal all day even if they masturbated in the morning. but it never gets directed anywhere, and they don't even tell their partner except maybe to rant about it being annoying. then completely independantly of the effects of their libido, they have romantic regard towards their partner. and on top of that - their partner is a grey person who, maybe once a year, wants to have sex - and the libido'd person doesn't super want it so when it comes up it's usually inconvenient and they delay it for a while, but eventually say "hey I know you've had sex on your mind - I'm free today if you want to mess around some and see where it goes" and they have sex and it involves satisfactory stimulation. but the person in question - they don't feel desire for the sex itself, either before or during, outside of maybe closing their eyes and focusing on the feeling of being stimulated, blotting out the fact that it's someone else. not because it's repulsive but because it is distracting or of not consequence to them. they are fine with sex but it doesn't mean much to them. 

in my mind with that longer example, I described the most a person can be all - libido'd, romantic, and sex-indifferent/sex positive without toeing the line of grey. 

and I would not go "oh wow when you have sex once a year, during the encounter you ask for it enthusiastically? such a grey! no. technically "sure" they would be grey. but if that particular person who only has desire for sex during sex, but only consents to sex once a year - so what if they say ace or grey. it is immaterial and does not impact the overall message in anyway. Yes some people are idiots who think asexuals can want sex enthusiastically - but the case of one person enthusiastically wanting sex ONLY once a year and NEVER any other time - whatever. not going to contribute or take away from the people who are idiots in any way. 

 

Sorry for the long asside. so then after you see that - "oh! - some libido'd people are grey and not ace, but some are ace and not grey." and you also have considered how - "libido influenced by romance is grey", and how - "sometimes but not always a sex-indifferent or sex-positive person behaves with a romantic partner in ways which reveal that they have enough sexual drive or interest that they could - perhaps even should - ID as grey." Then past that - you imagine things like, an "asexual" who wants to be in a sexually active relationship for some reason -logical or emotional either way - such a person is grey necessarily. Or a "sexual" person who - for some reason, whether logically or emotionally - prefers to not have sex very often, if not never at all - they also would be grey too. And etc. These are example to establish where we are on the spectrum - people who normally appear one way or the other, but something about their choices, emotional experience, or behavior reveals that they aren't really quite that way in practicality. That it's clear there is significant aspects of both poles in them. (unlike the previous examples where it "makes sense" why someone might be in denial of it, or perhaps might find that it just isn't enough to matter.)

 

and then you get people who are mostly sexual but something isn't quite agreeable - someone who is mostly sexual, such as someone who likes sex a lot but doesn't feel like anyone ever sticks out as special - such a person realistically could (in some individuals due to their circumstances regarding) be considered grey, but some people individually on the flip side would be just normal sexual. and really, whether they claim grey or sexual is a moot point - it's too close to say. 

 

 

and then sure a "normal sexual" both feels at least some amount of sexual attraction/admiration/infatuation as well as at least some amount of sexual desire/excitement. notice I said at least some - it is often that a person could deny that they feel desire or that they feel attraction, because it just isn't powerful enough - I would consider such people definitely sexual. And really- it is often even the case that some people feel only one or the other, and still call themselves sexual - sexual is the default, so the "line" between grey and sexual doesn't need to be as definitive as most people toeing that line default to sexual. but the line between grey and ace is a little more controversial - so discussion of that line is more impactful. 

 

 

 

this is what I see as grey. when you only have ace or sexual - there are WAY too many people who are not quite either way - and all these people create hot debates because of rigid oppinions. but when you see that there is so many people in the world that are grey - I think there are more grey people than ace people - but still probably only 3% or something - once you realize it's easy to say "there is some in-between area" then the border between ace and grey is not controversial - because the border is less broad - it is not a difference between a person wanting no sex and a person not feeling attraction - and the border between grey and sexual is a little harder to really define, but at that point the people who ID as grey have a real benefit in doing so - the benefit in self-acceptance. and most otherwise if there is a sexual person who id's "incorrectly" as grey - it is just a stepping stone in their path to finding their health in their sexuality. so the controversy is not controversy but instead positive growth towards self-understanding. there is no more overlap between the extremes, when there is leeway ground in the middle. and that leeway ground is "greysexual" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Galactic Turtle

This might kind of be beside the point but when I first heard the term "sex favorable" in an asexual setting, I assumed the definition was different. I thought to be sex favorable overall meant that while sex isn't really your thing, you support other people having it and deriving good experiences from it.

 

I'm someone who's even repulsed by the thought of seeing the image of a naked body yet at the same time I encourage my friends to approach sexual topics with their partners if they feel like they're ready to make that step, to talk it out if a particular sexual encounter made them feel not good, and generally cheer them on in the ups and downs of their various romances while at the same time feeling comfortable that the things they're going through simply isn't something I'm naturally inclined to do personally. 

 

So in the beginning I thought sex favorable was a term that applied to me when people quickly jumped in saying I was sex repulsed... which I thought was funny. :P 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

I think you are sex positive rather than sex favorable. But if sex favorable means wanting to have sex rather than not really minding having sex to please a partner, "sex favorable asexual" sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

It's fun to revisit the thread where I accidentally stumbled into the Definition Debate, and then proceeded to spend the next fews months arguing it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, why not graysexual instead of asexual?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎.‎3‎.‎2017 at 0:33 PM, Pramana said:

For the record, I'd be willing to abandon my previous views and adopt the "sex games" definition!

But this shows that relying on a direct translation from one language to another is a dubious proposition, without knowing how sexuality is talked about in that language. I thought I would investigate Sanskrit terminology concerning the matter (if ever there was a language that has words for love and sex, it's Sanskrit). And in Sanskrit, you don't just have words for attraction and desire, you have words specifying various minute differentiations between various forms of desire, attraction, and love. For example, there's "matta," defined as being mad or drunk with sexual passion in the manner of a rutting elephant. And there's "kama," which connotes sexual pleasure and longing/love connected to aesthetic/sensual enjoyment. And hundreds of other terms. Sanskrit terminology tries to define just about every kind of subjective experience. If it's difficult to get people to agree on whether they experience a broad concept such as "sexual attraction," imagine trying to validate any particular Sanskrit term by crowdsourcing whether or not people agree they experience it.

So, I just took a look at Czech AVEN and the definition really is like that. More precisely: "An asexual: A person who has no interest in sex games." There is no mention about sexual attraction or desire. I must admit I would prefer a different definition than this one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR I am a fan of meeting at least one of the two criteria to be considered Ace spectrum. If the goal is community, wouldn't it be better to include the odd sexual rather than potentially exclude any asexuals?

 

So I'm a big lurker here (hi everyone!), have *thought* I was demi or gray sexual for some time, and have been looking for clarification on some points, because of conversations like this one. 

 

My experience: I experience no sexual attraction outside a meaningful, monogamous relationship, but I happily enjoy sex with my spouse, and did look forward to that development in our relationship when we started dating. I do not masturbate since partnering with my spouse. I am repulsed by the existence of sexual attraction, even between other people, but not the act of sex.

 

My definition of sexual attraction: having sexual feelings toward a specific person due to non-aesthetic factors. It can be fleeting and instant, almost subconscoius, or it can lead into full-blown desire. To clear up confusion that seems to be occurring, if sexual attraction was the same as aesthetic attraction, only the most beautiful people would get laid! I used to conflate these too, but having had some seriously enlightening convos with sexuals, there is no rhyme, reason, or patterns to the attraction. I have a theory, but that's for another day... But it's well-known in the scientific community, for example, that women closer to the fertile part of their cycle are seen as more sexually attractive by potential partners, so we're clearly dealing with something beyond visual beauty or intense aesthetic attraction.

 

Am I a sexual? Well, I have encountered "normal sexual" experiences that include how, for example, everyone has thought about a different person during sex with their monogamous partner, or the act of role-playing during sex (dressing up as other people). This is physically repulsive to me. I am reacting just typing it out right now, and I would not be able to be with a partner who did this. I am repulsed by the thought of my partner being sexually attracted to another person, and I have had to deal with this situation in the past. It is a non-negotiable deal-breaker for me, and believe me, I've tried to compromise. A compromise doesn't exist. I can't help my revulsion any more than a partner can keep from experiencing the attraction.

 

These are not normal things for a sexual. Whether or not I am this-or-that specific labeled thing, I at least felt like I had a safe place here, where those of us who can not relate to the public sexual world could enjoy each other's company. I've seen it tossed out that "everyone is welcome here" regardless of label, but truth be told, I don't feel welcome in this space much anymore. I experienced a tremendous relief at the discovery of gray sexual; that, holy shit, I'm not alone with my experience. The discussion over which definition is valid is as crushing as the realization that I wasn't a normal sexual person. 

 

The thing is, language is descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't understand the point of deciding the ace population is exactly 1%, so we should keep the definition narrow to keep it that way. Anyone familiar with psychology knows how increased awareness and better methodology, education, and technology can drastically alter the statistics, definitions, and diagnoses of a particular slice of human experience. I am disappointed to see rigidity where I initially encountered acceptance and community. The Facebook page is infinitely warmer than the forums here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, junobass said:

The thing is, language is descriptive, not prescriptive. I don't understand the point of deciding the ace population is exactly 1%, so we should keep the definition narrow to keep it that way. Anyone familiar with psychology knows how increased awareness and better methodology, education, and technology can drastically alter the statistics, definitions, and diagnoses of a particular slice of human experience. I am disappointed to see rigidity where I initially encountered acceptance and community. The Facebook page is infinitely warmer than the forums here.

I think you would find a lot of people would agree with you on here :P The fact is that the definition debates have been going on for nearly as long as the forum has existed. Many of our frequent users have tired of them and so no longer participate. So those who do are not representative of the whole community. This is a large community and plenty of us don't spend time in every subforum nor on every thread, so you might not see the diversity of viewpoints that actually exists.

 

I am very sorry you don't feel welcome, but I'm glad you feel safe enough to post your story :) I am sure you will find others that think similarly to you. I think it's sometimes just tricky to find them when so many people with so many different experiences come together.

 

Glad you have a great partner that accepts your needs!

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Puck said:

I think you would find a lot of people would agree with you on here :P The fact is that the definition debates have been going on for nearly as long as the forum has existed. Many of our frequent users have tired of them and so no longer participate. So those who do are not representative of the whole community. This is a large community and plenty of us don't spend time in every subforum nor on every thread, so you might not see the diversity of viewpoints that actually exists.

Thanks for a quick reply. I've identified as gray sexual for years, though I've not been on the forums consistently. Usually just when I have a question and lurk old threads for a couple days. It's been shocking to see how many threads I've found, in several subforums even, that include this sentiment of "who belongs". It's not just one person either. I find it sad, because either way, someone's experience is being denied. Oh well. The Facebook page really does feel more accepting for a more casual observer like myself, so I'll probably stick to that. Thanks again!

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, junobass said:

Thanks for a quick reply. I've identified as gray sexual for years, though I've not been on the forums consistently. Usually just when I have a question and lurk old threads for a couple days. It's been shocking to see how many threads I've found, in several subforums even, that include this sentiment of "who belongs". It's not just one person either. I find it sad, because either way, someone's experience is being denied. Oh well. The Facebook page really does feel more accepting for a more casual observer like myself, so I'll probably stick to that. Thanks again!

That's fair, stick to where you feel most welcome. I wish it was AVEN but it's totally understandable if AVEN isn't so.

 

The important part is that you have somewhere where you feel valid and accepted :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 3/9/2017 at 9:47 AM, CBC said:

I'm sure there a few one-off cases where I'd say, "Okay, what you're describing as a lack of sexual attraction sounds pretty asexual to me," but for the most part, I respectfully disagree. I do think there are people who could be described as "sex-favourable aces", but if you're desiring sex, as opposed to willingly engaging in it now and then to make your non-asexual partner happy (i.e., you're not repulsed and have overall positive views regarding sex, despite having no innate drive to have it yourself, so you're willing to compromise), you're not asexual. I would call such people something else: sexual.

 

 

I strongly disagree with this principle.

 

 

 

Well, misuse of terminology seems like a pretty valid justification to me. Why are we so afraid to tell people, "No, you're wrong"? I don't mean it has to be done in a hostile way, just something like, "Based on the way you describe your sexuality, you don't appear to fit the definition of asexual because [reason x, y, z, etc.]." If I told you, with complete sincerity, that I was a turtle, would you believe me and tell me it's up to me to decide whether I'm a turtle or not? No? Why not? Maybe because I don't fit the accepted definition of 'turtle'? Because if you think I can just declare myself a turtle when evidence suggests I'm not, you're insane. (Yes, that's a ridiculous example, but often ridiculous examples get the point across more clearly.)

Hi! I feel like if someone wants to be a turtle and it makes them happy and be a better person/turtle in the world and isn't harming anyone, then go ahead and be that turtle even if it only makes sense to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2017 at 11:45 PM, FictoVore. said:

AVEN itself, in the General FAQ of this site, defines sexual attraction as "the desire for partnered sexual contact with someone else" ... So, going by the way AVEN defines it, asexuals don't actually desire sex for pleasure.

 

And in other languages (ie German) asexuality is defined as a lack of desire for partnered sex, the German version of AVEN states this very clearly on their front page. It's only English that uses such a weird definition that's so open to misinterpretation and manipulation.

 

I ask how an asexual who desires sex is different than a sexual person attracted to to the act of sex but not to people? They desire sex, love sex, enjoy sex, but don't care who it's with and feel no emotional or sexual reaction to appearance or body-types or whatever, I've known many "pansexuals" like this, and having worked in the sex industry for two years when I was younger have been exposed to many more people who fit this category than the average person probably would be. Or how are they different from someone who desires sex as a result of falling in love with someone, but who doesn't "look at that person and get horny" or whatever.

 

How are asexuals who say they desire sex, defining sexual attraction? And are they sure their definition of sexual attraction applies to all sexual people, or only a select type of sexual people who experience a specific type of sexuality? (ie looking at people and getting horny, wanting sex based on appearance etc - predominantly experienced by teenage boys and hypersexual adult males, and I think about 30% of females based on some studies linked here a while ago)

You ask some interesting questions. All I can say is I've been identifying with sex favorable gray asexuality lately because I have hardly felt sexual attraction in my life that I know of. I have no desire for sex and definitely don't need it and would be perfectly happy without it. I also happen to have a low libido. Yet, I love my partner so I don't mind so much having it with him and I look at it as more of a fun learning adventure and getting to know each other on a different level. I never initiate, but I can get in the mood when I work to make an effort or my partner touches me. I feel like I'm a good definition of what I'm gathering a sex favorable gray asexual person is, but who knows? All I can say is I strongly relate to my idea of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2017 at 11:11 PM, FictoVore. said:

Well there are plenty of asexuals who have no desire to have sex for their own pleasure but give sex to their partner to keep their partner happy.. that's not grey, that's regular asexual.

 

And yes exactly, there are so many variations in sexual drive, desire, consistency, enjoyment and so many different explanations for all these things from person to person. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. That's all part of normal sexuality, one doesn't only have to be an appearance-based hypersexual to be considered "sexual". The way many people here view "normal sexuals" in my experience actually constitutes a minority of the sexual population. Pretty much 60% of sexuals fall in the "grey area" the way it's most commonly defined here. Why can't all these people just be sexual? What's so scary about that word? :o

I guess the main reason I don't identify as sexual is because well I don't relate to it. Reading about gray asexuality I can relate to it because I pretty much feel asexual, yet I can get curious about and have sex if I think there are good reasons for it. I also think that maybe I have felt sexual attraction and a little bit of passion like twice in my life, so there is that. My current partner,  I feel some sexual attraction, but not as strongly as the two times it's been clearer. By feel some sexual attraction, I mean he is aesthetically attractive to me and i don't mind having sex with him, and when he kisses me sometimes I can feel tingly inside which is huge for me! With past partners, I felt like sex was a chore, didn't feel anything from kissing, or was not great about by them touching me sexually (no sexual attraction, my usual scenario). Basically, as a sexual person, do you ever have to question what it feels like to be sexually attracted to someone or what that means? Because I do. I've gotten in more than enough relationships where it got far down the line and then we have sex and I realize that I love the person for who they are, but have no desire to have sex with them because lack of attraction and lack of desire.   I've never had the desire for sex. Strong curiosity at times, but not desire or need or yearning. I feel like sexual people do get sexually attracted to others at least more than a couple times in their lives and do occasionally or often or anything in between desire sex with another person. I don't feel I operate that way. I also don't get turned on by naked bodies or private areas. They are just another part of the body. They are interesting though. Ha ha.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Hi! I feel like if someone wants to be a turtle and it makes them happy and be a better person/turtle in the world and isn't harming anyone, then go ahead and be that turtle even if it only makes sense to you.

I'm down for this if it means I get to treat them like the 4-year olds they essentially are.

 

Otherwise, I feel they need to wake up and smell the coffee, as it were.  I'll certainly never be able to take them seriously on anything, that's for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/06/2017 at 7:10 PM, GLRDT said:

 Basically, as a sexual person, do you ever have to question what it feels like to be sexually attracted to someone or what that means? Because I do. I've gotten in more than enough relationships where it got far down the line and then we have sex and I realize that I love the person for who they are, but have no desire to have sex with them because lack of attraction and lack of desire.   I've never had the desire for sex. 

I definitely desire certain forms of sexual interaction for pleasure with the right person (someone I am emotionally bonded to) ..but sexual attraction? Depends on how you're defining it!! My libido drives my sexuality, and with my libido can come the desire for sexual interaction with that special someone. My sexuality isn't driven in any way though by my partners appearance or a sexual response to aspects of them as a person or anything like that though. I've never looked at a stranger and assessed their potential as a sexual partner, or become horny from seeing an attractive person naked, or ever been aroused and thought "I'd love to have sex with someone hot right" (that idea actually repulses me.. I can ONLY desire sexual interactions for pleasure with someone I have an emotional bond with)..these are all ways that 'sexual attraction' is commonly defined around here, yet myself and some other sexuals who are members on AVEN (as well as some sexuals I've known in person, especially women) don't experience those things. Just a desire for partnered sexual connection for pleasure. That's what makes us sexual, the fact that sometimes we desire partnered sexual interaction for (sexual and/or emotional) pleasure. Going by the way 'sex favourable asexual' is defined by most around here, myself and these other sexuals are technically sex favourable asexuals, but no.. we are just normal sexual people who desire partnered sexual activity for pleasure under some circumstances. :)

 

I'm not labeling you, you can call yourself whatever you want of course, but you don't sound sex favourable to me (sex favourable means you actively desire sex for pleasure and enjoy it when you have it) ..you sound like a sex-neutral and sometimes sexually curious asexual (meaning you don't get a lot out of sex but don't necessarily hate it every time, sometimes don't even mind it too much, when you do have it). Again though I'm not labeling you, whatever label you feel most comfortable with is the one you should go with ^_^:cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

I definitely desire certain forms of sexual interaction for pleasure with the right person (someone I am emotionally bonded to) ..but sexual attraction? Depends on how you're defining it!! My libido drives my sexuality, and with my libido can come the desire for sexual interaction with that special someone. My sexuality isn't driven in any way though by my partners appearance or a sexual response to aspects of them as a person or anything like that though. I've never looked at a stranger and assessed their potential as a sexual partner, or become horny from seeing an attractive person naked, or ever been aroused and thought "I'd love to have sex with someone hot right" (that idea actually repulses me.. I can ONLY desire sexual interactions for pleasure with someone I have an emotional bond with)..these are all ways that 'sexual attraction' is commonly defined around here, yet myself and some other sexuals who are members on AVEN (as well as some sexuals I've known in person, especially women) don't experience those things. Just a desire for partnered sexual connection for pleasure. That's what makes us sexual, the fact that sometimes we desire partnered sexual interaction for (sexual and/or emotional) pleasure. Going by the way 'sex favourable asexual' is defined by most around here, myself and these other sexuals are technically sex favourable asexuals, but no.. we are just normal sexual people who desire partnered sexual activity for pleasure under some circumstances. :)

 

I'm not labeling you, you can call yourself whatever you want of course, but you don't sound sex favourable to me (sex favourable means you actively desire sex for pleasure and enjoy it when you have it) ..you sound like a sex-neutral and sometimes sexually curious asexual (meaning you don't get a lot out of sex but don't necessarily hate it every time, sometimes don't even mind it too much, when you do have it). Again though I'm not labeling you, whatever label you feel most comfortable with is the one you should go with ^_^:cake:

Sweet! Thanks! I will start looking up sex-neutral more. Yeah, I'm hit with a double whammy in that I don't think I'm sexually attracted to people often and I have a way low libido so I pretty much have never desired sex. You are right though I can be sexually curious or do it for my partner and then have fun and enjoy it while I'm doing it for a variety of reasons. Although I'd enjoy doing other things more. ha ha.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...