Definition discussion.

[Xenobot]

2 minutes ago, Pan. said:

I'm talking about all the different ways people define the experience of sexual attraction: finding others attractive in a "sexy" way, having gender and appearance preferences as to who they desire to be intimate with/who they desire relationships with, drooling over abdominal muscles.. even getting spontaneously aroused when they see breasts or think about sex or whatever, or some who get aroused when thinking about the person they love. I've known many, many asexuals in my time here who experience all these things that many would commonly define as aspects of sexual attraction, but not one of those people desired to connect sexually with others..no matter how aroused they were or how in love they were or how attractive they found someone. They just had no desire to connect sexually with anyone, ever.. and that's what makes them asexual.

Wait... I think I must be misunderstanding you, but I'm really not sure. Are you using "desire to be intimate with" as a euphemism for sex, or do you just mean emotional intimacy? If an asexual person has a gender preference in regard to who they want to be emotionally intimate/in a relationship with, how can that possibly be construed as sexual attraction? That's just romantic attraction. There are no sexual feelings involved. Also, lots of people have gender preferences on a purely platonic level (see: homosocial). No sexual feelings involved. If you are using it as a euphemism, and you're referring to asexuals who have a gender preference when it comes to who they'd be willing to compromise sexually for, I don't know. I tried to consider whether it would be more tolerable to have sex with a woman or a man and both options seem pretty unbearable. I'd prefer not to think about it.

 

I would leave genital arousal out of it, considering it's an involuntary response to stimuli caused by a very primitive part of the brain. Genital arousal can and does occur under very unfortunate circumstances against the person's wishes, so it can actually be insensitive to assume they're experiencing sexual attraction. Mental sexual arousal (being "turned on") in response to a person is worth contemplating though. I've felt that once.

[Tofer]

3 minutes ago, Pramana said:

who still desire partnered sex due to causes other than sexual attraction

I'd be content to omit such from the definition of demisexuals.

 

4 minutes ago, Pramana said:

even though you could omit attraction from the definition, attraction is still important for understanding the phenomenon because it explains why it is that the desire for partnered sex develops.

Something like that. But I think we're slicing things too fine here. "Close enough" is good for word definitions, except maybe when drafting laws and regulations!

[Pramana]

31 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

First, a person who in real life actually ever desires sex with another person is not gray asexual, they are sexual. Call them gray sexual if you wish, if the desire for sex is extremely rare. Demisexuals are sexual. It does not matter whether you say that demisexuals have a desire difference or an attraction difference, since it would not be relevant to the definition of asexuality either way. 

Do you think there are gray-asexuals? If not, why not? Do you think people who identify as gray-asexual should use asexual dating sites, or sexual dating sites?

 

12 minutes ago, butterflo said:

I've just read a tweet about a place where you could have sex with sex dolls. Considering the AVENde originated definition of asexuality is "having no urge to partnered sex", I wonder how one would see a person who occasionally goes to that place to have "sex" rather than with human partners.

 

And for the clarity sake I think the original (well, a translation of it) word "urge" is better than "desire" because the "desire" word kind of makes you to automatically think about libido and libidoist asexuals and be confused. Also, if we were to put it as "desire", as time passes on there might be people saying that they have some urge to partnered sex but that urge is not sexual desire. Ridiculous but, still possible.

This is an interesting question. It provides evidence to support the notion that asexuality should be viewed on a spectrum. If asexuality is a zero on the sexuality scale, then only non-libidoist asexuals could be that zero, because obviously asexuals who masturbate are more sexual than those who don't, etc. There's nothing really special about drawing a line at the point where one desires sex with other real life people, except for the fact that it has a major impact with respect to how one socializes and how one forms relationships. So if one has a very low level of desire for partnered sex, such that one is functionally asexual in terms of one's social interactions and one's relationships, then it makes sense to use a term like gray-asexual.

[Tofer]

17 minutes ago, butterflo said:

"urge" is better than "desire" because the "desire" word kind of makes you to automatically think about libido

I haven't researched this, but my reaction based on my background with American English is that "urge" makes me think of libido more than "desire" does.

[Pramana]

28 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I'd be content to omit such from the definition of demisexuals.

 

Something like that. But I think we're slicing things too fine here. "Close enough" is good for word definitions, except maybe when drafting laws and regulations!

I guess I should ask whether demisexuals ever desire casual sex with people they're not attracted to? Or is it that for demisexuals – and unlike many sexual people – sexual attraction is the only cause of sexual desire? Also, the assumption made in many descriptions of demisexuality is that once an emotional connection has formed, sexual attraction develops as the cause of sexual desire. But maybe that's not always the explanation for why sexual desire arises at this point.

[nanogretchen4]

People who are using a dating site hoping to find a relationship that will eventually include sex should use sexual dating sites regardless of how they identify. People who are using a dating site hoping to find a relationship that will never include sex should be using an asexual dating site. This seems obvious. 

 

Some asexuals are so scrupulous to err on the side of not falsely identifying as asexual that they count fantasies that they don't actually want to realize or that are intrinsically impossible to realize as desire for partnered sex. For example, let's say that someone says they only want to have sex with cartoon characters. Well, it's impossible to have sex with a cartoon character, and in my opinion if someone wanted to have sex they would not choose a fantasy scenario so safely removed from ever being acted on. However, if such people like calling themselves gray asexual, it will do no harm.

[Tofer]

51 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I guess I should ask whether demisexuals ever desire casual sex with people they're not attracted to? Or is it that for demisexuals – and unlike many sexual people – sexual attraction is the only cause of sexual desire? Also, the assumption made in many descriptions of demisexuality is that once an emotional connection has formed, sexual attraction develops as the cause of sexual desire. But maybe that's not always the explanation for why sexual desire arises as this point.

I'm not going to speak for demisexuals, only for myself.

 

By the way, this is related to why I'm a nominalist about identities. I don't reify identities, as if there is a Platonic ideal of demisexuality, or a permanent essence of demisexuality in a pseudo-mathematical theory-space. The definition of demisexual is a description, and the description is a heuristic. It's kind of reference point that helps me understand myself and other people. I also understand that I and every other person diverges from that reference point. I could go theoretically deeper with this ... and probably will sometime but not now.

 

The idea of demisexuality as a heuristic lets me answer your question better. 

 

I've never desired casual sex, even with people I'm "casually" attracted to, if I can put it that way (I mean, with no emotional connection). Another angle on this: for me, any but routine, superficial social interaction with persons I don't know well enough to be comfortable with is stressful and I tend to get emotionally wound up. That pretty much destroys my ability to be either casual or sexual, let alone both!.

 

However, once I was able to go from feeling "undefined" to identifying as "demisexual," that alone started to make me more comfortable and able to better appreciate different ways of experiencing sexuality. Does this make sense? Being better anchored in the harbor of demisexuality might give me leave for more extraneous explorations, because I have a safe harbor to go back to. In other words, casual sex now seems more like something I can feel how people can get into; the idea no longer seems quite so foreign to me. I don't know if I'll ever go there.

 

If I do go there, you can call me fluid I guess. What I'm saying is that identifying as demisexual doesn't lock me into a script.

 

Edit: actually, now that I think of it, I did try a casual sex encounter once, and it didn't work.

[Tofer]

31 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

People who are using a dating site hoping to find a relationship that will eventually include sex should use sexual dating sites regardless of how they identify. People who are using a dating site hoping to find a relationship that will never include sex should be using an asexual dating site. This seems obvious.

I suppose people who feel that either a relationship that will eventually include sex or one that won't may fulfill their hopes may use either or both types of site.

[Pramana]

2 minutes ago, Tofer said:

By the way, this is related to why I'm a nominalist about identities. I don't reify identities, as if there is a Platonic ideal of demisexuality, or a permanent essence of demisexuality in a pseudo-mathematical theory-space. The definition of demisexual is a description, and the description is a heuristic. It's kind of reference point that helps me understand myself and other people. I also understand that I and every other person diverges from that reference point. I could go theoretically deeper with this ... and probably will sometime but not now.

I'm a nominalist about everything (Buddhist apoha theory says that things are described in our language according to the use value they have for us, and are only real to that extent – since we don't know what reality is outside this linguistic mediation).

I'm finding that some of these disagreements over definitions boil down to disagreements about how language works.
 

[Xenobot]

3 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I'm a nominalist about everything (Buddhist apoha theory says that things are described in our language according to the use value they have for us, and are only real to that extent – since we don't know what reality is outside this linguistic mediation).

I'm finding that some of these disagreements over definitions boil down to disagreements about how language works.
 

No kidding. So much of this debate has been about arguing over semantics to the point of absurdity.

[Tofer]

7 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I'm a nominalist about everything

But if you're a nominalist about everything, you're practically an essentialist about nominalism.

 

This deserves to be stated as a koan but I'm not there.

[Pramana]

1 minute ago, Tofer said:

But if you're a nominalist about everything, you're practically an essentialist about nominalism.

 

This deserves to be stated as a koan but I'm not there.

No, I'm a nominalist about nominalism. It's like the emptiness of emptiness.

[Tofer]

2 minutes ago, Pramana said:

No, I'm a nominalist about nominalism. It's like the emptiness of emptiness.

Keep your head on straight by applying a tetralemma.

[Tofer]

7 minutes ago, Xenobot said:

No kidding. So much of this debate has been about arguing over semantics to the point of absurdity.

It's all fun and games.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Tofer said:

I'm like that, and I call it "attraction" -- not aesthetic attraction, but we're not talking about aesthetics here. I think I understand better now why I think an attraction based definition is not really different from a desire based definition: I'm using a definition of attraction that's compatible with that equation.

Depends. If you define attraction as "the desire for partnered sex" then no, it's not different. But when you take into account ALL the asexuals who experience different types of attraction without having any desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure, then desire and attraction are very clearly extremely different things, and each definition has vastly different meanings.

[Tofer]

1 minute ago, Pan. said:

Depends. If you define attraction as "the desire for partnered sex" then no, it's not different. But when you take into account ALL the asexuals who experience different types of attraction without having any desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure, then desire and attraction are very clearly extremely different things, and each definition has vastly different meanings.

Everything you say is helpful. I need to think more about it. I'm still new to all this and I understand things well enough for my own personal purposes at the moment, but I don't pretend to understand the entire scope. I'll keep absorbing more and learning.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

I guess I should ask whether demisexuals ever desire casual sex with people they're not attracted to? Or is it that for demisexuals – and unlike many sexual people – sexual attraction is the only cause of sexual desire? Also, the assumption made in many descriptions of demisexuality is that once an emotional connection has formed, sexual attraction develops as the cause of sexual desire. But maybe that's not always the explanation for why sexual desire arises at this point.

No. Demisexuals ONLY desire to connect sexually with others once a very deep bond has formed, and for demisexuals, that bond takes a LONG time to form, and happens very rarely. They can't desire casual sex as they're *effectively* asexual outside of a romantic/deeply emotional bond. Demisexuals are still sexual though, they just have a lot in common with aces outside of that bond.

 

And yes there are many sexual people who cannot actively desire sex with someone else unless they have an emotional bond with that person, and sexual people like this are unable to desire or enjoy casual sex. The difference between this relatively common experience and demisexuality is the time it takes. Demisexuals take a loooong time to form that bond and sometimes even once the bond has formed, still don't desire partnered sex with that person. 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Xenobot said:

Wait... I think I must be misunderstanding you, but I'm really not sure. Are you using "desire to be intimate with" as a euphemism for sex, or do you just mean emotional intimacy? If an asexual person has a gender preference in regard to who they want to be emotionally intimate/in a relationship with, how can that possibly be construed as sexual attraction? That's just romantic attraction. There are no sexual feelings involved. Also, lots of people have gender preferences on a purely platonic level (see: homosocial). No sexual feelings involved. If you are using it as a euphemism, and you're referring to asexuals who have a gender preference when it comes to who they'd be willing to compromise sexually for, I don't know. I tried to consider whether it would be more tolerable to have sex with a woman or a man and both options seem pretty unbearable. I'd prefer not to think about it.

 

I would leave genital arousal out of it, considering it's an involuntary response to stimuli caused by a very primitive part of the brain. Genital arousal can and does occur under very unfortunate circumstances against the person's wishes, so it can actually be insensitive to assume they're experiencing sexual attraction. Mental sexual arousal (being "turned on") in response to a person is worth contemplating though. I've felt that once.

No I was referring to all the different ways different people define sexual attraction, and saying that asexuals experience all those things. To you, one may just be romantic attraction or aesthetic attraction or whatever,  and arousal may be an unfortunate accident, but guaranteed there are people on this site who define those exact same things as variations of sexual attraction: I'm talking about aesthetic preferences, becoming aroused by someone's appearance, actively becoming aroused when you think about intimacy with someone.. etc etc. There are people here who define those things as aspects of sexual attraction, and many asexuals experience those things in some form or another.

 

"Sexual attraction" is made up of a number of extremely varied experiences and many overlap with all the other forms of attraction..ergo it's just pointless and quite useless attempting to define it and trying to use it as the defining factor for asexuality.

 

Quote

 Are you using "desire to be intimate with" as a euphemism for sex, or do you just mean emotional intimacy?

 

I meant a desire for non-sexual intimacy.. any type of intimacy that doesn't involve the genitals.

 

16 hours ago, Pramana said:

Do you think there are gray-asexuals? If not, why not? Do you think people who identify as gray-asexual should use asexual dating sites, or sexual dating sites?

A grey-asexual (as far as I'm concerned) is 

 

1) someone who does desire sexual intimacy with others but has literally no desire to actually act on that. So they may masturbate imagining themselves having sex with people etc, but would never actually take the step to act on it because they just have no interest in actually *having* sex.

 

2) someone too sexy to be asexual (ie into all sorts of kinky things for arousal) but too asexual to actually have a sexual relationship. This is what I used to think I was. I'm into hardcore kink and fetish, and do find those things extremely arousing to think about and talk about etc, but had no interest in actually *having* sex with anyone so I never would have been able to have a sexual relationship with anyone. They'd end up miserable due to lack of sex, or I'd end up miserable having to give sex (NOPE). But I was also waaay too sexual to be with someone fully ace, as a lot of my kinks and fetishes would freak out even sexual people, let alone an ace who has no interest in those things. To me, that's a pretty straightforward example of grey-asexual. Too ace to be sexual, too sexual to be ace.

 

In either case I'd use an asexual dating site (if I was someone who is interested in that sort of thing, I'm not) and just make it VERY clear I'm extremely kinky but still don't want sex, so ideally would be looking for another grey-a. Absolutely no point in dating on a sexual site because you're only going to find someone who will actively desire sex with you.

 

Edit: I met my partner on AVEN and at the time we met he was identifying as asexual and I was identifying as grey. I wouldn't have given him the time of day if he was identifying as sexual, but as neither of us care at all about sex we were able to find a way to be comfortable desiring certain forms of sex with each other while both knowing neither of us care if we never actually do any of those things. Someone like me could never find someone like my partner on a sexual dating site.

 

[Xenobot]

Quote

No I was referring to all the different ways different people define sexual attraction, and saying that asexuals experience all those things. To you, one may just be romantic attraction or aesthetic attraction or whatever,  and arousal may be an unfortunate accident, but guaranteed there are people on this site who define those exact same things as variations of sexual attraction: I'm talking about aesthetic preferences, becoming aroused by someone's appearance, actively becoming aroused when you think about intimacy with someone.. etc etc. There are people here who define those things as aspects of sexual attraction, and many asexuals experience those things in some form or another.

I still don't understand how you can classify things that are in no way resultant in sexual feelings as sexual attraction, but okay. Also, I know my point about genital arousal probably sounds strange to you, but hear me out. There was a study almost 10 years ago (and probably more since) that found women's genitals respond to seeing imagery of sexual couplings. Even if it's outside of their orientations. Even if it's non-human animals. Are we really going to imply that women are sexually attracted to animals because their genitals responded to sexual stimuli?

 

...and quite frankly, a significant hunk of my academic background was focused on abuse/trauma, which includes sexual trauma. After hearing story upon story, person upon person express their deep shame and self-hatred over genital arousal during sexual assault, one learns that genital arousal is not a worthwhile gauge for actual sexual interest.

 

Dismiss it as a personal pet peeve of mine if you wish, but it's an important distinction. For both men and women, but particularly for women, as they experience far more arousal nonconcordance than men.

[lec16]

23 minutes ago, Xenobot said:

I still don't understand how you can classify things that are in no way resultant in sexual feelings as sexual attraction, but okay. Also, I know my point about genital arousal probably sounds strange to you, but hear me out. There was a study almost 10 years ago (and probably more since) that found women's genitals respond to seeing imagery of sexual couplings. Even if it's outside of their orientations. Even if it's non-human animals. Are we really going to imply that women are sexually attracted to animals because their genitals responded to sexual stimuli?

 

...and quite frankly, a significant hunk of my academic background was focused on abuse/trauma, which includes sexual trauma. After hearing story upon story, person upon person express their deep shame and self-hatred over genital arousal during sexual assault, one learns that genital arousal is not a worthwhile gauge for actual sexual interest.

 

Dismiss it as a personal pet peeve of mine if you wish, but it's an important distinction. For both men and women, but particularly for women, as they experience far more arousal nonconcordance than men.

I think Pan's point here, correct me if I'm wrong, was that sexual attraction still has no concrete meaning and will change from person to person. Pan is agreeing with you, that genital arousal may not indicate sexual interest; however, because the definition of sexual attraction is not uniform across everyone, /some/ people define it as having to do with genital arousal. Therein lies the problem (yet again) with trying to include sexual attraction as part of the definition.

 

[Xenobot]

10 minutes ago, lec16 said:

I think Pan's point here, correct me if I'm wrong, was that sexual attraction still has no concrete meaning and will change from person to person. Pan is agreeing with you, that genital arousal may not indicate sexual interest; however, because the definition of sexual attraction is not uniform across everyone, /some/ people define it as having to do with genital arousal. Therein lies the problem (yet again) with trying to include sexual attraction as part of the definition.

 

Ah, that makes more sense.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Xenobot said:

Ah, that makes more sense.

Yeah I wasn't saying that's how *I* define it, but that many people DO define it by those things, which is just another reason why it shouldn't be part of the definition.

 

Many asexuals CAN and do often experience all those things that many people define as "sexual attraction", but they're still very clearly asexual (have no desire to have partnered sex with anyone, ever) .. Which is just another of the many reasons why the term "sexual attraction" needs to be *removed* from the definition completely. No one can agree on what it is, and most of the things people say it is are things asexuals *do* experience.

 

As I pointed out, I used to be in favour of an and/or definition.. then I realised what a cluster#!&@ the term sexual attraction actually is and I was like "nope". Haha. It just needs to be gone from the definition of asexuality.

 

Sexual people desire partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure under certain circumstances. "Sexual attraction" helps indicate to many of them which gender/s they prefer sexually - though of course

there is a whole lot of emotional, physical, and psychological factors tied up in that. Asexuals have no desire to connect sexually with anyone, so whether or not they experience sexual attraction is besides the point, regardless of how you define it. May as well just stick to the basics and define asexuality as the lack of desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure. No need to complicate matters by trying to include a term literally no one can define accurately (as everyone has a different definition) or agree upon.

 

 

 

 

Edit: here we go, part of the AVEN FAQ explaining that sexual attraction is "looking at people and getting horny".

 

Quote

I find people attractive and I get horny, but I dislike sex and would never do it. Am I asexual?

 Asexuality is about lack of attraction to other people, not about lack of activity. 
 

Asexuals do not get horny toward other people, most would feel completely satisfied if they never shared a single sexual experience for the rest of their lives.

 

 

Here, the FAQ writer is equating the experience of being "horny" (arousal) with a desire to connect sexually with other people. Obviously they're extremely different things, you can become aroused by someone or something without wanting to have sex with it.. But some people think that becoming aroused by something is an indication that you are sexually attracted to it, as AVEN states in that part of it's FAQ.   Yes, they're obviously incorrect.. But I'm just pointing out the flaws with even bothering including the term "sexual attraction" in the definition of asexuality. The way it's defined by many (ie AVENs definition there) makes many asexual people not actually ace. And supports the idea that all sexual people "look at people and get horny, and that's what makes them sexual" (which is obviously utter nonsense, and indicates an innately antisexual perspective) 

 

Sexual attraction is just a ridiculous term that people have all sorts of wild definitions for depending on how they personally want to define asexuality.

[Snao Cone]

43 minutes ago, Pan. said:

"Sexual attraction" helps indicate to many of them which gender/s they prefer sexually - though of course

there is a whole lot of emotional, physical, and psychological factors tied up in that.

Yes, exactly. Establishing whether there is a desire for sex to begin with needs to come first, to determine if attraction is even relevant to the orientation. This isn't commonly understood, because 99% of people (or at least most of the 99% who are sexual) don't come across the need to ask that question.

[Tofer]

On 3/27/2017 at 8:11 AM, Pan. said:

Maybe you see how sexual attraction is intrinsically somehow related to a desire for sexual interaction (and Pramana seems to as well) BUT many, many people do not see it that way at all.

I've read this many times and I'm still not quite sure what you're getting at. 

 

I didn't say and would never say, "I see how sexual attraction is intrinsically related to a desire for sexual interaction." But perhaps I'm being too picky about the exact phrasing.

 

On 3/27/2017 at 8:11 AM, Pan. said:

That might be how you understand it personally and that's technically how AVEN actually defines sexual attraction. AVEN defines sexual attraction as "desire for sexual contact with someone else" (in one part of the FAQ anyway). And I saw an interview with David Jay today where he said "asexual means you don't experience sexual attraction - You lack an intrinsic desire for sex to be a part of your relationships, regardless of whether you choose to have sex" (something like that anyway). He also repeatedly said in the (A)sexual documentary "I'm asexual - I just don't want sex" and even at one point something like "I still experience attraction, I've just never wanted to have sex" (many, many asexuals feel this way)

Here it seems like you understand perfectly why, as I believe, AVEN's definition of asexuality using the term "sexual attraction" as defined by AVEN (at least, the better examples of definitions found on AVEN), doesn't mean anything significantly different from the AVENde type definition, based on lack of desire for sexual interaction.

 

Rather than saying, "I see how sexual attraction is intrinsically related to a desire for sexual interaction," I would say that the helpful AVEN definitions of "sexual attraction," by definition, entail an intrinsic desire for sexual interaction. 

 

Let me know if you think I'm misunderstanding something ... am I misunderstanding your objection to my POV? Am I misunderstanding what David Jay meant by "sexual attraction" when he said "asexual means you don't experience sexual attraction"? Am I misunderstanding the dynamics of attraction and/or desire in human sexuality?

 

Please clarify.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tofer said:

I've read this many times and I'm still not quite sure what you're getting at. 

 

I didn't say and would never say, "I see how sexual attraction is intrinsically related to a desire for sexual interaction." But perhaps I'm being too picky about the exact phrasing.

 

Here it seems like you understand perfectly why, as I believe, AVEN's definition of asexuality using the term "sexual attraction" as defined by AVEN (at least, the better examples of definitions found on AVEN), doesn't mean anything significantly different from the AVENde type definition, based on lack of desire for sexual interaction.

 

Rather than saying, "I see how sexual attraction is intrinsically related to a desire for sexual interaction," I would say that the helpful AVEN definitions of "sexual attraction," by definition, entail an intrinsic desire for sexual interaction. 

 

Let me know if you think I'm misunderstanding something ... am I misunderstanding your objection to my POV? Am I misunderstanding what David Jay meant by "sexual attraction" when he said "asexual means you don't experience sexual attraction"? Am I misunderstanding the dynamics of attraction and/or desire in human sexuality?

 

Please clarify.

I feel my most recent comment here answers what you're asking.

 

And in my examples that you quoted, I was trying to show how many people (including David Jay) explain "desire for partnered sex" when they're trying to define sexual attraction (even though sexual attraction and the desire to connect sexually with others are two *different* things).

 

Ergo, taking into consideration all the issues with the term 'sexual attraction' that I outlined in my above comment, this is just another of many reasons why asexuality needs to be defined by a lack of desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure.

 

Please read my above comments as I really do feel they thoroughly explain my stance on all this and why I and many others take so much issue with the term 'sexual attraction' being used (ridiculously) as the defining factor for asexuality.

[Arctangent]

7 hours ago, Xenobot said:

I still don't understand how you can classify things that are in no way resultant in sexual feelings as sexual attraction, but okay. Also, I know my point about genital arousal probably sounds strange to you, but hear me out. There was a study almost 10 years ago (and probably more since) that found women's genitals respond to seeing imagery of sexual couplings. Even if it's outside of their orientations. Even if it's non-human animals. Are we really going to imply that women are sexually attracted to animals because their genitals responded to sexual stimuli?

 

...and quite frankly, a significant hunk of my academic background was focused on abuse/trauma, which includes sexual trauma. After hearing story upon story, person upon person express their deep shame and self-hatred over genital arousal during sexual assault, one learns that genital arousal is not a worthwhile gauge for actual sexual interest.

 

Dismiss it as a personal pet peeve of mine if you wish, but it's an important distinction. For both men and women, but particularly for women, as they experience far more arousal nonconcordance than men.

The issues you mentioned are some of my biggest problems with the way people often define "sexual attraction" on AVEN. Defining it in terms of genital arousal ignores the fact that sometimes people (particularly women) report feeling arousal that is not detected by physiological measures. On that point, I completely agree with you.

 

If AVEN is going to stick to their current definition, I really wish they would at least do something to address common misconceptions like these. Even though overtly antisexual opinions and asexual elitism are discouraged (and often against the rules) here, I think people also have a lot of fairly innocent misunderstandings that, when not corrected, contribute to unfair stereotypes about sexual people. It's not helping that some of these problematic assumptions are also reflected in some parts of the FAQ, as some people just pointed out.

 

Maybe it would help to have a pinned thread somewhere with accounts from sexual members about how they actually feel and experience their sexuality. It doesn't need to support any particular definition - I just think it might help to combat some common false assumptions. A lot of them seem like they could be easily corrected if people just sat down and talked to a sexual person for a little while.

 

I think recognition of asexuality offers a great chance for us to learn more about sexuality and potentially broaden how we conceive sexuality. Asexuality forces us to think about what it fundamentally means to be sexual in a new light. If it's possible (and okay!) for people to be asexual, then that opens the door for other ways of experiencing sexuality to gain recognition (like sex-repulsed sexuals, or people with discordant romantic and sexual orientations). That's why I feel especially disheartened when so much dialogue in asexual communities seems to perpetuate a narrow, oversimplified view of what a "normal sexual" is. The asexual community could be challenging that, but instead it seems to buy into a lot of the same problematic ideas (ironically, perhaps some of the very same ideas that drove asexuals to form a community in the first place). Maybe it's none of my business - maybe I'm being too idealistic - but it does seem like a missed opportunity to me.

[Zendalis]

2 hours ago, Pan. said:

Yeah I wasn't saying that's how *I* define it, but that many people DO define it by those things, which is just another reason why it shouldn't be part of the definition.

 

Many asexuals CAN and do often experience all those things that many people define as "sexual attraction", but they're still very clearly asexual (have no desire to have partnered sex with anyone, ever) .. Which is just another of the many reasons why the term "sexual attraction" needs to be *removed* from the definition completely. No one can agree on what it is, and most of the things people say it is are things asexuals *do* experience.

 

As I pointed out, I used to be in favour of an and/or definition.. then I realised what a cluster#!&@ the term sexual attraction actually is and I was like "nope". Haha. It just needs to be gone from the definition of asexuality.

 

Sexual people desire partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure under certain circumstances. "Sexual attraction" helps indicate to many of them which gender/s they prefer sexually - though of course

there is a whole lot of emotional, physical, and psychological factors tied up in that. Asexuals have no desire to connect sexually with anyone, so whether or not they experience sexual attraction is besides the point, regardless of how you define it. May as well just stick to the basics and define asexuality as the lack of desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure. No need to complicate matters by trying to include a term literally no one can define accurately (as everyone has a different definition) or agree upon.

This.

[Star Bit]

Last time I checked, sexual people use horny to mean a desire to have sex (or masturbate), not just getting aroused by something. So what AVEN is trying so say is "no, asexuals don't mentally desire sex with others but not IRL, or prefer to fap in someone's presence". But I agree that it needs to be explicit. They can keep the question as is; since it's how alot of people phrase things, but they would need to say "Horny can be used to mean several things. If you mean X, no. If you mean Y, yes."

[Tofer]

1 hour ago, Law of Circles said:

Maybe it would help to have a pinned thread somewhere with accounts from sexual members about how they actually feel and experience their sexuality. It doesn't need to support any particular definition - I just think it might help to combat some common false assumptions. A lot of them seem like they could be easily corrected if people just sat down and talked to a sexual person for a little while.

Here's a thread that pretty well fits your description:

 

[Tofer]

2 hours ago, Pan. said:

I feel my most recent comment here answers what you're asking.

 

And in my examples that you quoted, I was trying to show how many people (including David Jay) explain "desire for partnered sex" when they're trying to define sexual attraction (even though sexual attraction and the desire to connect sexually with others are two *different* things).

 

Ergo, taking into consideration all the issues with the term 'sexual attraction' that I outlined in my above comment, this is just another of many reasons why asexuality needs to be defined by a lack of desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure.

 

Please read my above comments as I really do feel they thoroughly explain my stance on all this and why I and many others take so much issue with the term 'sexual attraction' being used (ridiculously) as the defining factor for asexuality.

Yes, yes. Now I've read your most recent comments.

 

All you're saying is that different people mean so many different things by "sexual attraction" that when used to explain asexuality it just causes too much confusion. And by now I have to agree.

 

I had a hard time seeing that because "attraction" and "sexual attraction" weren't problematic terms for me when I first started poking around on AVEN. I think that's all there is to it. I don't think I was really misunderstanding anything other than how many different ways people use the term "sexual attraction" and how many problems that causes on AVEN.