Definition discussion.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Star Bit said:

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."

 

horny

ˈhɔːni/

adjective

1. 1.

   of or resembling horn.

   "a horny beak"

    
2. 2.

   informal

   feeling or arousing sexual excitement.

   "she was making him very horny"

That's just a random Google definition. Whenever I've seen anyone using it, they just mean they're sexually aroused (which may or may not include a desire to actually have sex with another person) and that's the way I've always used it too. It's much easier to say "right now I'm feeling pretty horny" or "I'm horny" or "I get horny often in the week before my monthly starts" than saying "I'm feeling aroused in my genital region" or whatever. haha. Maybe people in different countries use the term differently?

 

Slang: Vulgar.

• lustful.

• sexually excited.

^from Dictionary.com

 

informal sexually excited:

She'd had a couple of drinks and was feeling horny.

uk informal sexually attractive:

You look horny in that skirt.

 

^From Cambridge dictionary (I've never heard that second one there) :S

1. [horn erect penis + ¹-y]a :  desiring sexual gratification : 

2. excited sexually

^ From Merriam-Webster 

 

informal Feeling or arousing sexual excitement.

 

^Oxford Dictionaries 

 

Pretty much what AVEN was saying is that asexuals don't get sexually aroused from seeing attractive people, and that all sexual people DO get aroused (horny) from seeing attractive people which is what makes them sexual (AVEN is obviously incorrect, lol) . I think they should just remove that entire paragraph from the FAQ because asexuals can definitely find people attractive and can definitely get horny.. they just don't desire to connect sexually with anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Star Bit]

Hmm, yes, but it does seem likely that they're (especially the dictionary definition) assuming arousal = interest in acting sexually.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Star Bit said:

Hmm, yes, but it does seem likely that they're assuming arousal = interest in acting sexually.

I'd hit enter by accident before I was finished responding lol, darn phone keypad! I was still editing it when you responded.

 

From what I can make of that quote from the FAQ, they were saying that asexuals don't find people attractive in a way that makes them horny/sexually aroused (even though I've met plenty of aces who do get horny/aroused when looking at attractive naked people or whatever - they just don't want to have sex with them).

 

I've seen self-identifying sex-favourable asexuals use this part of the FAQ to explain why they're still asexual: "see? sexual people look at attractive  people and get horny.. I don't though, no one makes me horny. I still desire partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure though, it feels great and can be a really fun experience. I just don't get turned on by the people I have sex with". This is exactly what the girl in Pramana's links was saying As well as every other sex-favourable ace I've seen on here. As we know, that idea comes from the misunderstanding (perpetuated by AVEN) that all sexual people "look at attractive people and get horny and that's what makes them sexual". Obviously it's actually quite common for sexual people (especially many women) to not get "turned on" by other people, but to still desire partnered sexual activity for other reasons (ie pleasure, an expression of love, intimacy, fun, etc). So yeah, AVEN needs to delete that part of the FAQ and replace it with some info about normal sexuality for the sake of education.

[Guest]

After giving it some thought, I think the "problem" with sexual attraction is not how it is defined, but rather the apparent confusion between objective and subjective aspects in how people experience things.

 

From what I understand the "sexual attraction should not be used to define asexuality" argument is based on how the interpretations of sexual attraction differ from each person, and yet the interpretations are taken as a valid definition. I don't think is a problem of the attraction-based definition itself but more to how human mind works; even if you had a clear-cut super-scientific brain-brain definition of asexuality, you can't really tell if the attraction (note the absence of adjective) you're feeling is sexual or not. You will always use your subjective feelings and experiences to interpret the meaning of sexual attraction (unless you had some kind of techy bioscan thing with you) to interpret the meaning of the term sexual attraction, yet interpretations are not objective definitions.

 

Also, when you take yourself as asexual you'll be more inclined to judge your attraction experience as not a sexual attraction. And maybe make another term for it. (not judging it as right or wrong, just pointing that there seems to be a fundamental limit and we don't really have any other option)

 

These can't be really said as a problem of the attraction-based definition. Supplementing with a desire-toward-sex definition, or changing it to, are not going to work I think, as "desiring sex" will also raise differences in subjective experience and interpretation. Example: I'm desiring something with this person I've met, but am I desiring sex? And there's also the problem with how would you define partnered sex.

[Sally]

49 minutes ago, butterflo said:

From what I understand the "sexual attraction should not be used to define asexuality" argument is based on how the interpretations of sexual attraction differ from each person, and yet the interpretations are taken as a valid definition. I don't think is a problem of the attraction-based definition itself but more to how human mind works

When you use as a definition "asexuality means not desiring partnered sex", there's no dependence on how the human mind works.  I'd think every human mind knows what "partnered sex" means.  

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Sally said:

When you use as a definition "asexuality means not desiring partnered sex", there's no dependence on how the human mind works.  I'd think every human mind knows what "partnered sex" means.  

Yes, I agree with you to some point, though I kind of lost confidence in assuming that. I thought "sexual attraction" was quite clear in meaning "not desiring partnered sex" but there seems to be other interpretations. 21st century.

[Tofer]

4 hours ago, Pan. said:

(even though I've met plenty of aces who do get horny/aroused when looking at attractive naked people or whatever - they just don't want to have sex with them)

I certainly sometimes get aroused by the appearance of attractive people. I don't quite identify with the word horny ... when I hear people use it, I feel they are reporting something not quite the same as what I experience. Maybe it is because I really don't want to have sex with the people I'm looking at, or maybe that's irrelevant, I'm not sure. Edit: I think it's because my arousal lacks the urgency that people seem to include in the concept of horny.

 

1 hour ago, butterflo said:

you can't really tell if the attraction (note the absence of adjective) you're feeling is sexual or not. You will always use your subjective feelings and experiences to interpret the meaning of sexual attraction ... yet interpretations are not objective definitions

I don't find this any more problematic for attraction/sexual attraction than for anything else in life. I don't have to be certain at every moment whether I'm feeling something sexual or not, nor do have to determine how objectively I'm understanding my experience. Reflecting on my life, over time, I can use my own judgement as to whether sexual feelings / desire / attraction is a significant part of my experience. It's not complicated.

 

1 hour ago, butterflo said:

Also, when you take yourself as asexual you'll be more inclined to judge your attraction experience as not a sexual attraction.

When I was a teen, "asexual" was not an available word or identity, so I didn't take myself as asexual, but the same dynamic was operative: I was definitely inclined to judge my attraction experience as not a sexual attraction. I guess that's because I was able to compare my experience to what I could understand of other people's, and to sexuality as depicted in media and literature. Not that hard to judge, actually.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I don't find this any more problematic for attraction/sexual attraction than for anything else in life. I don't have to be certain at every moment whether I'm feeling something sexual or not, nor do have to determine how objectively I'm understanding my experience. Reflecting on my life, over time, I can use my own judgement as to whether sexual feelings / desire / attraction is a significant part of my experience. It's not complicated.

Agree with you, no one has to understand their experiences objectively at all times (nor they will ever be able to, which was my point). What I've figured was that things get complicated when people take subjective experiences to the objective realm. Subjective experiences are still perfectly valid; conceptually they can't be not valid because they are subjective. Compared to the subjective validity, objective validity is a different matter though.

 

@Tofer For the "inclined" part: hehe, I share those experiences too. I could tell the difference, just the word was not available back then.

What I meant was if one has already self-identified as asexual, they will be inclined to judge their experiences in a consist way with their label, because human mind does not like internal inconsistency. This is actually not problematic at all to me, but combined with how people take subjective experiences to the objective realm, then things get messy.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, butterflo said:

These can't be really said as a problem of the attraction-based definition. Supplementing with a desire-toward-sex definition, or changing it to, are not going to work I think, as "desiring sex" will also raise differences in subjective experience and interpretation. Example: I'm desiring something with this person I've met, but am I desiring sex?

An asexual person has no innate desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure.

 

I can't see how that's difficult to understand, and it's obviously a LOT clearer than the "sexual attraction" definition which means something different to everyone depending on their own personal definition of sexual attraction.

 

Sure someone may initially be unsure about whether they desire sex with others or not, especially If for example they're romantic and have a libido etc.. However plenty of sexuals are also unsure about their orientation initially and explore for a while until they can finally work out exactly which gender they desire sexually etc..That's pretty common especially in someone's teens.

 

Most people interpret sexual attraction as some form of "looking at attractive people and having a sexual reaction to their appearance, which leads to you wanting sex with them" ...I say "most people" because in the four years I've been discussing this topic and reading discussions about this topic, that's how I've seen it defined upwards of 80% of the time. This reflects REALLY badly on normal sexual people, because only SOME sexual people "look at attractive people and get horny" or "want sex with attractive people because of some sexual reaction we had to their appearance" ..whereas on the other hand, ALL sexual people desire partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure with certain people, sometimes. That doesn't reflect badly on sexual people because it's a fact. So it's a much better way to define asexuality.

 

11 hours ago, butterflo said:

And there's also the problem with how would you define partnered sex.

Partnered sex is (obviously) sex.. But we added the term "partnered" to differentiate it from masturbation. It's sexual stimulation with *another person* for sexual and/or emotional pleasure. The stimulation of at least one partners genitals for the purpose of achieving pleasure and/or intimacy.

 

That could obviously be explained in the FAQ for people confused over what sex is. *smh*

 

EDIT: as this post seems to have been slightly confusing, I'm referring to partnered sexual interaction/connecting sexually etc, which is how I always word it when defining asexuality (see my definition at the beginning of this same post)

 

I only said "partnered sex" above because that was the way butterflo phrased their question. It feels like some people really want to jump on individual words and phrases here without taking said words and phrases in context with everything else that has been said. :S

[Xenobot]

@Pan. "the innate desire for partnered sexual activity," would probably make more intuitive sense, actually. I can't imagine needing a FAQ to outline what sexual activity is. People have a lot of differing opinions on what is and isn't sex, on the other hand. By your own definition, being groped would be sex, even if it was a relatively shortlived/over-the-clothes action. That's certainly sexual but very, very few people would perceive that as sex. 

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Xenobot said:

@Pan. "the innate desire for partnered sexual activity," would probably make more intuitive sense, actually. I can't imagine needing a FAQ to outline what sexual activity is. People have a lot of differing opinions on what is and isn't sex, on the other hand. By your own definition, being groped would be sex, even if it was a shortlived/over-the-clothes action. That's certainly sexual but very, very few people would perceive that as sex. 

Sexual activity is technically being groped (genitally) as well.

 

Let's use a little common sense here people. If you had your hands down a womans pants stimulating her clitoris and vagina until she orgasms, you had a partnered sexual interaction for pleasure/sexual activity for pleasure/connected sexually for pleasure (they're all the same thing).. You both connected sexually even if only one of your genitals was stimulated. You didn't have "full-on" sex (and yes, people define that differently) but you still connected sexually for pleasure/had a sexual interaction.

 

[Tofer]

1 hour ago, Pan. said:

Most people interpret sexual attraction as some form of "looking at attractive people and having a sexual reaction to their appearance, which leads to you wanting sex with them" ...I say "most people" because in the four years I've been discussing this topic and reading discussions about this topic, that's how I've seen it defined upwards of 80% of the time. This reflects REALLY badly on normal sexual people, because only SOME sexual people "look at attractive people and get horny" or "want sex with attractive people because of some sexual reaction we had to their appearance" ..whereas on the other hand, ALL sexual people desire partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure with certain people, sometimes. That doesn't reflect badly on sexual people because it's a fact. So it's a much better way to define asexuality.

Thank you. This is the clearest way you've expressed the same argument yet IMO.

 

10 hours ago, butterflo said:

What I meant was if one has already self-identified as asexual, they will be inclined to judge their experiences in a consist way with their label, because human mind does not like internal inconsistency. This is actually not problematic at all to me, but combined with how people take subjective experiences to the objective realm, then things get messy.

You are pointing out something important. A related point is that with wisdom we know that we define our labels rather than that our labels define us. That's nominalism about labels. But I'm not saying that to deny the value of objectivity. (My thought is not fully formed here, but I've gotta go right now, so to be continued sometime I'm sure.)

[Xenobot]

1 minute ago, Pan. said:

Sexual activity is technically being groped (genitally) as well.

 

Let's use a little common sense here people. If you had your hands down a womans pants stimulating her clitoris and vagina until she orgasms, you had a partnered sexual interaction for pleasure/sexual activity for pleasure/connected sexually for pleasure (they're all the same thing).. You both connected sexually even if only one of your genitals was stimulated. You didn't have "full-on" sex (and yes, people define that differently) but you still connected sexually for pleasure/had a sexual interaction.

 

That's what I said. It's sexual activity, but that's not what most people think of when they think of sex. That's my whole point. If you just say "partnered sex" many people think you mean penetrative sex, and nothing else. That's why sexual activity or sexual interaction will be clearer than the word sex.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Xenobot said:

That's what I said. It's sexual activity, but that's not what most people think of when they think of sex. That's my whole point. If you just say "partnered sex" many people think you mean penetrative sex, and nothing else. That's why sexual activity or sexual interaction will be clearer than the word sex.

 

I didn't say partnered sex, I phrased it "the desire to connect sexually with others" in my definition.

 

It was butterflo who asked "what is partnered sex?"

 

Here:

 

11 hours ago, butterflo said:

And there's also the problem with how would you define partnered sex.

and I replied using their terminology but I'm obviously referring to the overall concept of sexual interactions which is how I always phrase it when I'm defining asexuality. It's pointless to leap on individual phrases like that when someone has clearly been referring to partnered sexual interaction/partnered sexual activity/connecting sexually with others this entire time. I was responding to butterflo's comment is all T_T

 

Context.

 

Edit: The FAQ would be worded "what is partnered sexual activity?" or "what does the desire to connect sexually with others actually mean?" or something along those lines, obviously.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Tofer said:

When I was a teen, "asexual" was not an available word or identity, so I didn't take myself as asexual, but the same dynamic was operative: I was definitely inclined to judge my attraction experience as not a sexual attraction. I guess that's because I was able to compare my experience to what I could understand of other people's, and to sexuality as depicted in media and literature. Not that hard to judge, actually.

Well, lots of other people have defined their asexuality (before they knew the term asexual) as things like "naturally celibate" "nonsexual" "frigid" (yes that one seems mean but it's just what some people come up with without having a better word) and I defined myself as "bisexual without the sexual part" (because I knew I didn't want sex with anyone but I can find both men and women aesthetically attractive). I had actually heard the term asexual years before defined as a lack of sexual attraction - and like many other asexuals, assumed that couldn't possibly be me because it was just partnered sexual activity I had no desire for or enjoyment of. Other than that I still had romantic preferences, (for meat people, not fictional ones) aesthetic appreciation (again, only for meat people) and had a very high libido. So the sexual attraction definition meant nothing to me and the idea of asexuality in reference to myself never crossed my mind. I just assumed I was someone who was like everyone else but broken so they couldn't desire sex. Then eventually I saw an asexual couple on TV who were madly in love, were very loving and intimate etc (and the guy got erections and masturbated) they just had no desire to actually have sex).. it was then I finally clicked that's what my "issue" had been all those years. They had what I'd been dreaming of but thought wasn't possible (a loving, intimate, sexless relationship)

 

Now (many years later) I've realised there are certain sexual acts I can probably enjoy enough to actively choose to have them (ie giving oral sex) so I'm not IDing as ace regardless. Though I still don't care if I never have any type of sex again and haven't had it in like 6 years now. But there are a lot of people who fit asexuality in every way (as I did when I was a teen and through most of my 20's) who hear the term "asexuals don't experience sexual attraction" and assume they must not be asexual because they do experience "attraction", they just have no desire to actually have sex. Others in this thread have already said this same thing. They assumed they're not asexual because while they have no desire to connect sexually with others, they do experience "attraction".

 

So while the sexual attraction definition may have made perfect sense for you, there are 1) many asexuals who do not relate to it at all and 2) many sexual people who see that definition and come to the conclusion they are asexual because they don't get a sexual reaction to people's appearance. I've seen that so many times here, on the AVEN Facebook page, and on Tumblr that I've lost count. It's been hundreds of times now, regardless. So not only does the sexual attraction definition not work for many aces, it also confuses many sexual people into thinking they must be ace: "I never realised I was different, I love sex! But then I saw the definition of asexuality and realised I desire sex for totally different reasons than most people - I don't get turned on when I see attractive people! I'm asexual!!" 

 

So again, another reason why "no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure" is a much better definition. People who are asexual won't see it and think they're not ace, and it won't confuse sexual people into thinking they are ace.

[Xenobot]

@Pan. I wasn't trying to jump on anyone. I was only trying to point out that "partnered sex" could be misunderstood. I've noticed many people say "partnered sex" instead of "partnered sexual activity" which is what undoubtedly led to @butterflo's question. If the goal is to create the most clear, most intuitive definition of asexuality, then it's only fair to address an unclear component which people have been using interchangeably with "partnered sexual activity" or some other equivalent. "Partnered sex" is not equivalent.

 

If the thing people remember is "partnered sex" and not "partnered sexual activity" we'll end up with the "asexual" version of "it's not gay if the balls don't touch".

[Tofer]

56 minutes ago, Pan. said:

I had actually heard the term asexual years before defined as a lack of sexual attraction - and like many other asexuals, assumed that couldn't possibly be me because it was just partnered sexual activity I had no desire for or enjoyment of. Other than that I still had romantic preferences, (for meat people, not fictional ones) aesthetic appreciation (again, only for meat people) and had a very high libido. So the sexual attraction definition meant nothing to me and the idea of asexuality in reference to myself never crossed my mind.

My teen years were decades before I first ran across the term asexual as identifying an orientation. I honestly don't remember whether the articles about asexuality that I skimmed 5, 10, 15 years ago (I don't remember when exactly) defined asexuality in terms of sexual attraction or not. I just remember that the way asexuality was defined or described didn't make sense to me or mean anything to me personally. It seemed like people were claiming that sexuality was absent from their being, and yet their self-description included things that seemed obviously sexual. So I just skimmed and moved on. After all, by then I was way past the time in my life that I would have identified as asexual if I had been exposed to an asexual community. 

 

It wasn't until I randomly came across an article about demisexuality (an article whose headline and first few graphs didn't mention demisexuality or any sexual orientation label, or I would have been turned off because at the time I had a thing about not wanting a label), that I felt I was reading about something that related to me. I Googled demisexuality, found a lot more, and then discovered that demisexuality is often considered to be part of the asexual spectrum, or under the asexual umbrella. That's when I ended up poking around on AVEN. When I found AVEN's typology of attractions, that discourse mapped amazingly well onto the way I remember thinking about things when I was a teen.

 

Early in my teens I went to my mother and said that I was worried about myself because was not attracted to girls. I didn't have to say "sexually attracted" or say anything more specific about desiring partnered sexual interaction and so on. To speak simply of "attraction" seemed perfectly adequate and normal. My mother understood exactly what I was saying. There was no confusion. 

 

The possibility that I might be attracted to boys in the way that I was concerned about not being attracted to girls was not on the horizon for either myself or my mother at the time either. If by that time I had felt I was gay I would not have approached my mother with the same question; I probably wouldn't have said anything to her at all. 

 

So when I first saw the "attraction definition" on AVEN it just took me back to the way I was questioning myself when I was young. Easy for me to relate to.

 

Edit: for some reason I never felt like I needed to put a sexual orientation label on myself when I was a teen.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Xenobot said:

@Pan. I wasn't trying to jump on anyone. I was only trying to point out that "partnered sex" could be misunderstood. I've noticed many people say "partnered sex" instead of "partnered sexual activity" which is what undoubtedly led to @butterflo's question. If the goal is to create the most clear, most intuitive definition of asexuality, then it's only fair to address an unclear component which people have been using interchangeably with "partnered sexual activity" or some other equivalent. "Partnered sex" is not equivalent.

 

If the thing people remember is "partnered sex" and not "partnered sexual activity" we'll end up with the "asexual" version of "it's not gay if the balls don't touch".

I can see what you're saying (had this same discussion many times before in the other definitions threads over the years) but if the official definition that people see and read is "an asexual person has no desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure" (as one example) then it's not like people are automatically going to think "that means penis in vagina sex and if you want anything other than that then you're asexual" for example (well Some might for arguments sake, some people will do that no matter what the definition is)

 

Anyway, it's only because this is a discussion that is thousands and thousands of words long that butterflo may have assumed we were talking about "partnered sex" as opposed to partnered sexual interactions (due to skim-reading for example, or not being aware of everyone's opinions). Or more likely may have even just used the term "partnered sex" in passing without thinking people would pick it apart. Generally anyone in this discussion is referring to partnered sexual activity even if they're in a hurry and only type "partnered sex". But if you take everything people are saying in context, you can see that we are talking about sexual interactions, not just sex.

 

I myself never said the official definition should be something as basic as "an asexual doesn't desire partnered sex" (I only use that term in passing sometimes in these discssions) and yes I agree that the FAQ should explain what "partnered sexual interactions" are for people who are confused over what that means.

 

 

[Arctangent]

I've been using "lack of innate/intrinsic desire for partnered sex" as a shorthand, but I have a broader idea of what counts as "sex" compared to most people. At least when I use the phrase "partnered sex," I'm referring to a lot more than just PIV or penetrative sex in general. I know there are disagreements over what constitutes "sex," though, with some people having a much narrower view than me. I'd be perfectly happy with phrasing like "partnered sexual activity" or "sexual interaction with others" if people find that to be clearer. In my case, substituting the phrase "partnered sex" with "partnered sexual activity" doesn't really change the intended meaning, so when I say "partnered sex," you can assume that's what I mean.

[Xenobot]

@Pan. @Law of Circles, fair enough. I try to be really cognizant of not using the shorthand "partnered sex" because it may be misunderstood, but I've probably done it myself. The only thing that really threw me, Pan, is when you specifically defined "partnered sex" for butterflo, which is why I brought up the subject. When I see people use "partnered sex" around here I generally just assume they mean it as a shorthand for sexual behavior, but in butterflo's case I guess you could say I interpreted it as a reinforcement of the shorthand, which could lead to more misunderstandings. That's all. Does that make sense?

[Star Bit]

The only problem is that alot of sexual people call making out a sexual activity; even if there's only kissing.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Xenobot said:

The only thing that really threw me, Pan, is when you specifically defined "partnered sex" for butterflo, which is why I brought up the subject. When I see people use "partnered sex" around here I generally just assume they mean it as a shorthand for sexual behavior, but in butterflo's case I guess you could say I interpreted it as a reinforcement of the shorthand, which could lead to more misunderstandings. That's all. Does that make sense?

Yes I did define it that way to butterflo because that's what it is. Partnered sex isn't just "vaginal" sex (to me anyway, or any other sensible person). I enjoy giving oral enough to choose to do it for pleasure under some circumstances (only with my partner of course). To me, that's still partnered sex even if my own clothes stay on the entire time. I explained how partnered sex would be defined and I don't CARE if some people think only full penetrative sex between a man and a woman counts as "real sex" or whatever. Butterflo asked "how would you define partnered sex" and I answered with how I define it, even though yes I'd generally call it partnered sexual activity/sexual interactions/partnered sexual connection to avoid this EXACT situation: Someone getting all hung up on the terminology.

 

1 hour ago, Star Bit said:

The only problem is that alot of sexual people call making out a sexual activity; even if there's only kissing.

Yes because for sexual people "making out" will often lead to sex. Not always, but often enough that it's considered an integral part of sexual activity. However (I discussed this with Skullery a while back now) it's a fact that if two sexual people "made out" all night and that *didn't* lead to any form of genital stimulation by either partner, they wouldn't say "I had sex with Jess last night".. because nothing actually sexual happened.  That's why it's important to define partnered sexual interactions as anything involving genital stimulation for the purpose of sexual pleasure in at least one partner (in the FAQ I mean). If someone literally only EVER desires to make out and has no desire for that to ever lead to genital stimulation of either themselves or their partner, then they'd still be asexual. Many sexual people just consider it an innately sexual activity because for them, making out will definitely lead to sex (genital stimulation for sexual pleasure) under some circumstances. For an asexual, it never will.

[Snao Cone]

34 minutes ago, Pan. said:

Many sexual people just consider it an innately sexual activity because for them, making out will definitely lead to sex (genital stimulation for sexual pleasure) under some circumstances. For an asexual, it never will.

Much like how "attraction" is lumped into sexuality. For most people they are intertwined. For asexual people it's not. If I want to make out with someone but I never desire sex with anyone, it's much like how I want to look at a gorgeous person. There's a significant overlap between making out and intending to have sex at some point, so it makes sense for it to be associated with sex. An asexual person just has no desire for things to go that way. That is an anomaly in the asexual person, not some flaw in the logic if sexual people for associating the activities.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Pan. said:

Anyway, it's only because this is a discussion that is thousands and thousands of words long that butterflo may have assumed we were talking about "partnered sex" as opposed to partnered sexual interactions (due to skim-reading for example, or not being aware of everyone's opinions). Or more likely may have even just used the term "partnered sex" in passing without thinking people would pick it apart. Generally anyone in this discussion is referring to partnered sexual activity even if they're in a hurry and only type "partnered sex". But if you take everything people are saying in context, you can see that we are talking about sexual interactions, not just sex.

Ah, I'm aware that the phrase in desired-based definition is referring to partnered sexual activity in general, and I agree that the desire-based definition is still a clearer one than the attraction-based definition. (even though I said I'm an attractionist at the other topic I've started. That was due to skim-reading this topic which had like 20 pages back then hehe). I understand @Pan.'s point in that since to common sense "sex" means sexual activity in general, I shouldn't be too worried about it causing a whole lot of confusion.

 

However, when the definition is actually put it in shorthands partnered "sex", what I'm worried is that some people are going to take it literally, because they are not well aware of the context, or have different or unsensible definitions on what constitutes "sex" rather than sexual activity. What I suggested was that even though the desire-based definition is a better one, changing the word "sex" into "sexual activity" might make it a even better one by reducing potential misunderstandings, as @Pan. @Xenobot @Law of Circles too said.

[Guest]

And now I'm worried about that the suggested definition from AVENde was actually using the term "sexual activity" and everyone else was just referring it to as "sex" as shorthand. Yikes.

[Pramana]

I was looking at my copy of Julie Sondra Decker's book The Invisible Orientation again, and noticed how she uses an attraction-based definition throughout. She defines asexuality as: "A sexual orientation currently estimated to describe 1 percent of the population. Asexuality is usually defined as the experience of not being sexually attracted to others. Less commonly, it is defined as not valuing sex or sexual attraction enough to pursue it." It's interesting to consider how – given that I read her book before I joined AVEN – this originally seemed unremarkable and unproblematic to me. She doesn't define sexual attraction, and at the time of reading I never had any reason to think she needed to. Now at that time, I wouldn't have been able to provide a good explanation of sexual attraction, nor did I have any real idea of how sexual attraction compares to sexual desire. Nevertheless, I didn't seem to have any trouble understanding what she meant, or why that choice of definition seemed to make sense. Perhaps the more we try to explain concepts like "sexual attraction" and "sexual desire" so as to try to avoid every conceivable potential misunderstanding, we actually create far more misunderstandings than there'd ever be to start with.

I also think that her second definition is an interesting way of looking at asexuality. It portrays asexuality in terms of a cost benefit analysis, whereby asexual people are those who don't perceive that partnered sexual activity provides enough benefit to be worth the cost of pursuing. I like this definition because I find that it expresses how many people – especially people like myself who are gray-asexual and/or gray-aromantic – experience their orientations.

[Tofer]

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

not valuing sex or sexual attraction enough to pursue it

I'd just leave it at "not valuing sex enough" ... I've never contemplated pursuing attraction. 

 

But yeah ... not valuing it enough to pursue it applies to various situations for me, from not even caring enough to get out of the house, to physically being with someone who I'm generally interested in having sex with, who is ready, and then I decide I'd rather talk more because I haven't finished my thought ... and the moment passes.

[Pramana]

3 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I'd just leave it at "not valuing sex enough" ... I've never contemplated pursuing attraction. 

 

But yeah ... not valuing it enough to pursue it applies to various situations for me, from not even caring enough to get out of the house, to physically being with someone who I'm generally interested in having sex with, who is ready, and then I decide I'd rather talk more because I haven't finished my thought ... and the moment passes.

I agree that the "sexual attraction" bit from the second definition should be dropped. Although maybe that's another sign that we're getting too analytic about this. Perhaps it's one of those things you can just read past.

[Snao Cone]

Plus "pursuing sex" can be misinterpreted just as much as "sexual attraction". Pursuing sex can be seen as going to the bar every weekend to find someone to hook up with casually. It makes it sound like sex is the primary goal, while the vast majority of people want to incorporate sex into emotionally fulfilling relationships.

 

Plus, this again ignores responsive desire that is very very common in sexual people, especially women. To pursue sex do you have to initiate it, or is being awaiting initiation to respond to also pursuing? Are people in committed relationships with routine sex still in pursuit of it? This yet another word used in asexual discourse that seems to ignore the mundane side of the lives of people who become accustomed to a certain pattern of sex.

[Tofer]

27 minutes ago, Snovocado said:

Plus, this again ignores responsive desire that is very very common in sexual people, especially women. To pursue sex do you have to initiate it, or is being awaiting initiation to respond to also pursuing? Are people in committed relationships with routine sex still in pursuit of it? This yet another word used in asexual discourse that seems to ignore the mundane side of the lives of people who become accustomed to a certain pattern of sex.

True, "pursuing" isn't a good word to use in a definition!