Definition discussion.

[Homer]

The German definition would make things sooo much easier for everyone to understand. German is my mother tongue, so aven.de was where I ended up first. It took all of 1.5seconds for me to figure out that this desire-based definition fits me 100%.

 

Then I came here. "Attraction", okay... first thought: Sounds like '[Person] is hot.' That would "disqualify" me because I sure as hell know astonishingly 'hot' people, yet wouldn't want to bang them. I assumed that 'sexual attraction' must be the 'trigger' to provoke sexual interaction; then I learned that a lot of sexuals don't experience that either *confused*

 

So yeah, make it plain and simple already.

 

Considering Skulls... I can totally see her point. Asexuality is the absence of something. That's an absolute, not a spectrum. If that something is there, however rare it might occur, that's not ace. (Again, this does NOT mean that grey folks or plain sexuals should be excluded from here or anything.)

One could certainly argue whether autism etc. would rule out asexuality, as there might indeed be "a cause" or "a cure" for it; or if it all doesn't matter and it's all about the result (the absence of something). That is something I still have to make up my mind about.

 

Furthermore - I said it before and I'll say it again: The decline of vocal sexual folks on here is deeply harmful. This place is in desperate need for actual sexual input.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, Pramana said:

As for your second case, I'm not that hung up on the concept of "true asexual". Maybe many asexuals are slightly gray-area in the way you've described, although by generally accepted usage it's not significant enough for them to even identify as gray-asexual. I'm not sure that's the only or even the best explanation, but it seems like a reasonable one.

I am, because every definition must exclude someone, otherwise it's simply not a definition in the first place. It's the mark of a correct definition of asexuals that it excludes the correct people, those who logically deserve being excluded. If it excludes all homo- and heteroromantic people, I think most folks on here will agree that it's a bad definition.

 

If it excludes "cupios" (self-identified "asexuals" who innately desire partnered sex), I hold that it's a pretty good definition. That's exactly the group that should be excluded. I can't recall any single sexual on this site ever agreeing with the idea that they were anything other than simple, bog-standard sexuals. It's time an official definition takes this into account.

[Pramana]

1 minute ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

I am, becuase every definition must include someone. It's the mark of a correct definition of asexuals that it excludes the correct people. If it excludes all homo- and heteroromantic people, I think most folks on here will agree that it's a bad definition.

 

If it excludes "cupios" (self-identified "asexuals" who innately desire partnered sex), I hold that it's a pretty good definition. That's exactly the group that should be excluded. I can't recall any single sexual on this site ever agreeing with the idea that they were anything other than simple, bog-standard sexuals. It's time an official definition takes this into account.

Partly, it depends on how you conceive of the phenomenon from the start. I recently quoted an article on the Announcements definition thread which found that a fair percentage of asexuals masturbate to fantasies of real people and fictional characters. The researchers weren't too sure how to explain that. I'd suggest that may be another slight gray-area phenomenon analogous to how I'd explain your example above. Or you could define sexual attraction to only encompass sexual desire directed towards real life behaviour, which is what the researchers do, but they don't seem too confident about it. Or you could say it's because they lack desire for real life partnered sex, even though they have fantasies and masturbate to thoughts of partnered sex. But whatever you choose, the facts remain the same, so there is something different about these asexuals compared to those who don't fantasize/masturbate in this way. Rather than a clear cut distinction between asexuals and gray-asexuals, it's a scale with numerous small gradations. There are different ways we can model this, but all models are conceptual tools, none of which are perfect reflections of reality. In my view, we should accept the fact that many asexuals may nevertheless experiences small traces of sexuality, rather than try to paper over it because we feel we have to in order to look legitimate.

Besides that, I would like to extend an invitation, once again, for you to remain active on AVEN. I find these discussions productive; it would be sad for that to end.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Besides that, I would like to extend an invitation, once again, for you to remain active on AVEN. I find these discussions productive; it would be sad for that to end.

Noted with gratitude ( ), but my mind is set, and announcements have been made of my decision that I'm sticking with, out of ethical conviction. 

[Zendalis]

17 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Noted with gratitude ( ), but my mind is set, and announcements have been made of my decision that I'm sticking with, out of ethical conviction. 

Damn it, Mysticus, you are needed here. Your very willingness to engage in battle for your convictions have opened the proverbial can of worms in this matter that will, most likely, trigger the changes you (and many others here) are striving for. Sure, the process is contentious as fuck, but it is happening. Consensus will be reached. To hell with announcements and such.

 

Stay.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, MistySpring said:

@Pan. I imagine that for some people their different preferences only has to do with who they can get romantic feelings for, who they would be in a relationship with.The attractions does not intertwine with the desire to have partnered sex like it usually does. In their wish for partnered sex, for the sake of sex, if they have someone that they are romantically attracted to that they are in a relationship with then why would they look elsewhere for sex? It would not be logical. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have a preference for having sex with their partner. 

 The thing is, 1) this isn't really uncommon and 2) there were still preferences involved (many sexual people fall in love with people based on romantic preferences and enjoy sex with their partner as a result of that love, it's quite common - the preferences are in relation to the romantic interest)

 

Oh and 3, I'm pretty much what you described in this quote. And I'm sexual, not asexual.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

Partly, it depends on how you conceive of the phenomenon from the start. I recently quoted an article on the Announcements definition thread which found that a fair percentage of asexuals masturbate to fantasies of real people and fictional characters. The researchers weren't too sure how to explain that. I'd suggest that may be another slight gray-area phenomenon analogous to how I'd explain your example above. Or you could define sexual attraction to only encompass sexual desire directed towards real life behaviour, which is what the researchers do, but they don't seem too confident about it. Or you could say it's because they lack desire for real life partnered sex, even though they have fantasies and masturbate to thoughts of partnered sex. But whatever you choose, the facts remain the same, so there is something different about these asexuals compared to those who don't fantasize/masturbate in this way. Rather than a clear cut distinction between asexuals and gray-asexuals, it's a scale with numerous small gradations.

It's common for asexuals to have fantasies and masturbate (sometimes even have fantasies about and masturbate to specific people) they just have no desire to actually connect sexually with those they fantasize about. It's not hard to understand if you look at sexuality as a lack of an innate desire to connect sexually with others. Asexuals can still be "normal" in every other way, they just have no desire to actually have sex with anyone for pleasure. Asexuals: no innate desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure, ever. Sexuals: desire under some circumstances to connect sexually with others for pleasure. That's the difference and it's the only one that really matters.

[binary suns]

1 hour ago, Homer said:

 rule out asexuality, as there might indeed be "a cause" or "a cure" for it; or

sure 'cause there's no possible chance that an asexual person happens to be autistic!

 

and if cause and cure rule out asexuality. then all repulsed people are sexual. and actually everyone is sexual because the cure is a combination of hormone boosts therapy and taking goddamn time to learn how to enjoy sex and live a normal life.

[Pramana]

3 minutes ago, Pan. said:

It's common for asexuals to have fantasies and masturbate (sometimes even have fantasies about and masturbate to specific people) they just have no desire to actually connect sexually with those they fantasize about. It's not hard to understand if you look at sexuality as a lack of an innate desire to connect sexually with others. Asexuals can still be "normal" in every other way, they just have no desire to actually have sex with anyone for pleasure. Asexuals: no innate desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure, ever. Sexuals: desire under some circumstances to connect sexually with others for pleasure. That's the difference and it's the only one that really matters.

But who says? This is just a subjective choice you're making. Clearly, there's something more sexual going on when someone masturbates with respect to thoughts of sexual acts with real life people, than it to masturbate without fantasy, and that is more sexual than it is to never masturbate at all. There is no particular reason why we couldn't draw the conceptual line somewhere else if we wanted to. The number of "true asexuals" might be very small indeed.

[Pramana]

1 hour ago, Homer said:

Considering Skulls... I can totally see her point. Asexuality is the absence of something. That's an absolute, not a spectrum. If that something is there, however rare it might occur, that's not ace. (Again, this does NOT mean that grey folks or plain sexuals should be excluded from here or anything.)

One could certainly argue whether autism etc. would rule out asexuality, as there might indeed be "a cause" or "a cure" for it; or if it all doesn't matter and it's all about the result (the absence of something). That is something I still have to make up my mind about.

 

Furthermore - I said it before and I'll say it again: The decline of vocal sexual folks on here is deeply harmful. This place is in desperate need for actual sexual input.

What's the value to her point, though? With regard to this recent study I referenced on asexuals who masturbate with sexual fantasies of real life people/fictional characters but who do not desire actual sex, the researchers suggest that maybe factors such as personality and social circumstances are what make these people not actually want to go through with their fantasies. If that's the case, then according to Skullery Maid's views which I cited earlier, these people would not even be "true asexuals". And keep in mind, the study found these people formed a fair percentage of regular non-gray, self-identified asexuals. So following the "true asexual" ideal, you find that hardly anyone actually is asexual. Who cares? Is this productive? By the same logic, any heterosexual person who has ever experienced sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is not heterosexual. We might find there are a lot less heterosexuals than we normally think.

I would suggest instead that the ideal of "asexual" as a zero on the spectrum is more of a hypothetical that's conceptually useful for understanding the phenomenon, even if many – perhaps even most – asexuals aren't actually right on that zero point.

[Homer]

Funnily enough, I had this very discussion with this exact Skulls. She was of the opinion that people who masturbate to porn aren't ace. I couldn't grasp where the "interactive" part in this would be, as the actors don't react to the ones watching them. Interesting idea. Again, I can see her point.

 

I agree with you on the "What's the point" question, yet not the way you might assume. If it "turns out" that only these "true aces" are entitled to keep their label, supported by scientific evidence, a LOT of people would have to drop their label. But then again, what's the point in this label bs to begin with. So what? No big deal.

[Star Bit]

45 minutes ago, Pramana said:

But who says? This is just a subjective choice you're making. Clearly, there's something more sexual going on when someone masturbates with respect to thoughts of sexual acts with real life people, than it to masturbate without fantasy, and that is more sexual than it is to never masturbate at all. There is no particular reason why we couldn't draw the conceptual line somewhere else if we wanted to. The number of "true asexuals" might be very small indeed.

Polls do; according to them like 80% of aces masturbate and use erotica to do so. They're still asexual because they don't mentally or physically desire themselves to have sex with that person.

 

@Homer It's common for sexual people to not understand why aces masturbate (especially to erotica). It's also why alot of sexual people think your taste in erotica reflects your sexuality (when it doesn't; a ton of sexual ppl/most of women, prove that otherwise).

[Mundane Mesh]

2 minutes ago, Star Bit said:

Polls do; according to them like 80% of aces masturbate and use erotica to do so. They're still asexual because they don't mentally or physically desire themselves to have sex with that person.

 

@Homer It's common for sexual people to not understand why aces masturbate (especially to erotica).

Not even I fully understand it, and I do it myself...

[Homer]

38 minutes ago, Meow. said:

sure 'cause there's no possible chance that an asexual person happens to be autistic!

That's why I explicitly said "might"

[binary suns]

13 minutes ago, Homer said:

That's why I explicitly said "might"

so you mean, someone not being asexual disqualifies asexuality?

[binary suns]

46 minutes ago, Pramana said:

the researchers suggest that maybe factors such as personality and social circumstances are what make these people not actually want to go through with their fantasies.

(warning - there is no sarcasm in this and I am dead serious)

 

 this is exactly right. a person with a libido is a sexual who lacks some sort of "right push" to bloom them into a sexual. and someone without a libido is someone without the "right push" to help them discover and explore it. 

 

the reality that is largely refused to be acknowledged - let alone I doubt people even see it despite it staring them right in the face with all the evidence all over the place - 

 

is that there is nothing that separates an asexual from a sexual. nothing at all! and likewise there is nothing that separates a gay person from a straight either! a person who does something they like, will only find new ways of liking it. and people avoid things they don't like, therefore sealing the fact they don't like it!

 

really the only things that differ all come down to how they have developed. this is all there is too it. your brain is a certain way because that's how it developed. and genes do not force your brain to develop a certain way. there are influences that do exist and do lead to people differing in orientation, but in the end the brain is incredibly plastic and emotions and desire and hormones are either directly coming from the brain or regulated by it - the same thing that regulates our thoughts also regulates our emotions. there is no escaping this fact. 

 

 

 

why is it so meaningful that desiring sex is the thing that differentiates an asexual from a sexual? because that is literally the very thing that is there that differs. because what is attraction other than what a person's brain has manipulated into existence? it is just a combination of emotion and thought. and no - humans do not directly control their brain. brains directly control the human. so no - a human cannot on whim just change what is going on for them in their brain. if a human is successful in that it is over time - a lot of it! 

 

while in comparison - desire, this is measurable. oh look you enjoy something and are making decisions that pursue it! that is clear evidence of desire! no need to be wishy washy about trying to capture what subjective terminoly that damn "attraction" is. 

 

 

 

 

and just to be clear - the reason that attraction is so important is because while desire is directly measurable. attraction is the only very thing that makes sexuality so addictive to people. wanting isn't addictive. the emotions of our brains is. what is it that makes sexuality? it. is. attraction. plain and simple. what Marks sexuality? it is desire. plain and simple. 

 

 

 

and - finally let us complete the picture as I started with. what is sexuality? it is arbitrary measurements we attribute to various stages of the "skill" of having and pursuing sexual emotional feedback. Everybody starts with zero of that. and over time they happen by chance upon it and their actions and experiences directly influence this over time until their sexuality blooms into something measurable. 

 

 

[Pramana]

1 hour ago, Homer said:

Funnily enough, I had this very discussion with this exact Skulls. She was of the opinion that people who masturbate to porn aren't ace. I couldn't grasp where the "interactive" part in this would be, as the actors don't react to the ones watching them. Interesting idea. Again, I can see her point.

 

I agree with you on the "What's the point" question, yet not the way you might assume. If it "turns out" that only these "true aces" are entitled to keep their label, supported by scientific evidence, a LOT of people would have to drop their label. But then again, what's the point in this label bs to begin with. So what? No big deal.

Here's a more developed version of my idea. We have:

1. Asexuals who have no libido, don't get aroused, don't masturbate.
2. Asexuals who have a libido, masturbate, but don't have sexual fantasies.
3. Asexuals who have a libido and masturbate to sexual fantasies.

Now, all three groups lack attraction/desire for partnered sex. But it's clear that #2 is still expressing a higher degree of sexuality than #1, and #3 is expressing a higher degree of sexuality than #2. Therefore, if asexuality is a zero on a scale with everything higher than that being sexual, only group #1 is actually asexual. But furthermore, if we really interrogate group #1, we may find that some members of that group actually do manifest some slight expressions of sexuality, so they can't be true asexuals either.

My point is that we're chosen to make the cutoff point at the level where sexuality becomes directed towards real life activities with other people because we find that creates a useful category, but we could have chosen to make the division elsewhere. I'm somewhat sceptical if the hypothetical of the "zero point" asexual is at all common within asexual communities, and it's clear from the above reasoning that most asexuals don't meet that standard.

It doesn't really matter that much to me which way one goes on this issue. You could just say that almost all asexuals are in fact gray-asexuals. But I would suggest that using partnered sex as a demarcation point makes sense for describing the phenomenon and communicating our experiences. Say I masturbate to porn but don't desire partnered sex, if I create a profile on a dating website, should I call myself asexual or sexual? I strongly suspect that most sexuals would much prefer that I call myself asexual, so that they know to run for the hills. I'm sure they care far more about the fact that I don't want to have sex with real life people than the fact that I masturbate to porn. Hence, my objection to Skullery Maid's interpretation.

[Homer]

 You know what? I agree for the most part. That's why I stumbled upon the "interaction" bit. Yet at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if 2 & 3 fail to "qualify" as ace as I'd assume that there would be another Term for it.

 

@Meow. I'm not sure I follow. All I wanted to say is that there might be self-IDing aces who discover an intetest in partnered sexual activity once their mental condition gets treated. I simply didn't want to rule it out. I'd assume that it would be purely individual anyway. That wasn't supposed to be judgemental whatsoever.

[binary suns]

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

Here's a more developed version of my idea. We have:

1. Asexuals who have no libido, don't get aroused, don't masturbate.
2. Asexuals who have a libido, masturbate, but don't have sexual fantasies.
3. Asexuals who have a libido and masturbate to sexual fantasies.

Now, all three groups lack attraction/desire for partnered sex.

why is it that arousal is not sexual desire? why is it that fantasy are not desire for something? 

 

[binary suns]

19 minutes ago, Homer said:

 You know what? I agree for the most part. That's why I stumbled upon the "interaction" bit. Yet at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if 2 & 3 fail to "qualify" as ace as I'd assume that there would be another Term for it.

 

@Meow. I'm not sure I follow. All I wanted to say is that there might be self-IDing aces who discover an intetest in partnered sexual activity once their mental condition gets treated. I simply didn't want to rule it out. I'd assume that it would be purely individual anyway. That wasn't supposed to be judgemental whatsoever.

you said that a certain circumstance might disqualify asexuality. you emphasized might. what is that may condition? that may condition is what really disqualifies asexuality, not the certain circumstance. maybe it is a subdivision of said circumstance. 

 

either it is subjective. or it is not a may condition, but a must condition. so if it is not autism that must disqualify asexuality, then it is lack of asexuality that disqualifies asexuality! and autism is not relevant, except as a red herring which distracts people as they try to figure out what they desire. 

[Member54880]

Since the AVEN wiki was mentioned in this thread, I checked the pages for sexual attraction, attraction, and sexual desire. The sexual desire page is only a stub, while the attraction and sexual attraction pages could be reviewed since they haven't been updated in 2 years. There's also a stub page for the definition debate: http://wiki.asexuality.org/The_Definition_Debate

 

When I joined AVEN, I used to only use the attraction definition, because I thought it was concise, and easier to understand what sexual attraction is rather than sexual desire. The lack of sexual desire definition confused me a bit at first, because sexual desire seemed harder to define to me, but over time, I understood why that definition gained popularity. I saw quite a few sexual people say they didn't experience "sexual attraction" as it was being defined here. At first, I didn't quite understand why they identified as sexual, but they explained that they still experienced the desire for sex, and that was why.

 

I've then thought that sexual attraction and sexual desire were the same things, but that the desire definition was more clear. However, I've also heard that sexual attraction as desiring sex with a specific person, while sexual desire is more general.

 

To complicate things further, the pages for attraction and sexual attraction mention primary and secondary sexual attractions. I haven't seen those terms be widely used within the past couple of years. Is the primary vs. secondary model, or its definitions obsolete? I know that's one of the models of asexuality and I remember it still being used to some extent around the time I joined.

 

Primary sexual desire is defined on the sexual desire page as the desire for sex, for the sake of it, while secondary sexual desire is defined as desiring sex for other reasons. Some asexuals may be willing to have sex for other reasons, but I don't think that's desiring sex, but rather desiring something else, but sex is the means for it. Primary sexual attraction is defined in the sexual attraction page as attraction to physical characteristics. Secondary sexual attraction is defined as an attraction that develops over time.

 

Please pardon me for opening another can of worms with the primary vs. secondary distinctions, but I think it's important to address too, to ensure information on the wiki can be up to date.

[Mundane Mesh]

2 minutes ago, Meow. said:

why is it that arousal is not sexual desire? why is it that fantasy are not desire for something? 

To the second question: I can only speak for myself, but I can imagine myself eating a raw pineapple right now and almost make myself a bit hungry. But I don't like pineapple in reality. It's just a fantasy. The same goes for any other food item that I don't like. Likewise, I can fantasize about skydiving from space or something. But I really don't want to do any of that in reality. But in the pineapple-example I wouldn't fantasize about that because I'd rather fantasize about eating some food that I do like (although I don't know why I would fantasize about eating at all, but let's disregard that for now). But if you want to fantasize about something sexual, but don't like anything sexual in reality, then you have no choice but to pretend that you like it. Which works perfectly fine, at least for me. Does that make sense??

 

Now I almost want that fantasy version of pineapple... Why isn't real pineapple as delicious and desirable as I imagine those fantasy pineapples to be? I want those fake pineapples! D:

[Mundane Mesh]

(Although I don't really fantasize about sex that much in my "sexual fantasies". They are usually really abstract.)

[binary suns]

3 minutes ago, Mundane Mesh said:

(Although I don't really fantasize about sex that much in my "sexual fantasies". They are usually really abstract.)

lol yeah same.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Aqua-ace said:

To complicate things further, the pages for attraction and sexual attraction mention primary and secondary sexual attractions. I haven't seen those terms be widely used within the past couple of years. Is the primary vs. secondary model, or its definitions obsolete? I know that's one of the models of asexuality and I remember it still being used to some extent around the time I joined.

 

Primary sexual desire is defined on the sexual desire page as the desire for sex, for the sake of it, while secondary sexual desire is defined as desiring sex for other reasons. Some asexuals may be willing to have sex for other reasons, but I don't think that's desiring sex, but rather desiring something else, but sex is the means for it. Primary sexual attraction is defined in the sexual attraction page as attraction to physical characteristics. Secondary sexual attraction is defined as an attraction that develops over time.

 

Please pardon me for opening another can of worms with the primary vs. secondary distinctions, but I think it's important to address too, to ensure information on the wiki can be up to date.

No, that's fine. The primary/secondary terms seem to have fallen a good bit out of use on AVEN lately, but primary, in this sense, is exactly the same as what I, Pan., and pretty much all of the "desirists" mean when we say innate/inherent desire for partnered sex.

 

So, not a new can of worms, really... for those who followed the last four (?) years of discussion, it's very old news.  

[binary suns]

9 minutes ago, Mundane Mesh said:

To the second question: I can only speak for myself, but I can imagine myself eating a raw pineapple right now and almost make myself a bit hungry. But I don't like pineapple in reality. It's just a fantasy. The same goes for any other food item that I don't like. Likewise, I can fantasize about skydiving from space or something. But I really don't want to do any of that in reality. But in the pineapple-example I wouldn't fantasize about that because I'd rather fantasize about eating some food that I do like (although I don't know why I would fantasize about eating at all, but let's disregard that for now). But if you want to fantasize about something sexual, but don't like anything sexual in reality, then you have no choice but to pretend that you like it. Which works perfectly fine, at least for me. Does that make sense??

 

Now I almost want that fantasy version of pineapple... Why isn't real pineapple as delicious and desirable as I imagine those fantasy pineapples to be? I want those fake pineapples! D:

ah right that is some way to mean fantasy. but then I guess really what matters is why the person has the fantasy lol - a subjective term. 

 

I keep mentioning how this whole orientation thing is loaded with subjectivity!

[Mundane Mesh]

1 minute ago, Meow. said:

ah right that is some way to mean fantasy. but then I guess really what matters is why the person has the fantasy lol - a subjective term. 

 

I keep mentioning how this whole orientation thing is loaded with subjectivity!

Subjectivity and interpretations.

[binary suns]

1 minute ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

No, that's fine. The primary/secondary terms seem to have fallen a good bit out of use on AVEN lately, but primary, in this sense, is exactly the same as what I, Pan., and pretty much all of the "desirists" mean when we say innate/inherent desire for partnered sex.

 

So, not a new can of worms, really... for those who followed the last four (?) yesr of discussion, it's very old news.  

I have a question regarding primary actually. I have heard it say that having sex for the purpose of a partner's needs are secondary. but I don't understand why this is - 

 

"sex for sex's sake" would be, I am assuming, anything that happens during sex, or because of sex. so if a partner's happiness comes about because of sex, and you want that - then you are primary desire! and it isn't even really true that this is a reasone external to sex - the hapiness is a direct aspect of sex. so you are wanting a direct aspect of sex, if you are wanting to have sex in order to make your partner happy. 

[Sally]

21 minutes ago, Meow. said:

"sex for sex's sake" would be, I am assuming, anything that happens during sex, or because of sex. so if a partner's happiness comes about because of sex, and you want that - then you are primary desire! and it isn't even really true that this is a reasone external to sex - the hapiness is a direct aspect of sex. so you are wanting a direct aspect of sex, if you are wanting to have sex in order to make your partner happy. 

No.  No.  No.   I'll use my case, since it stretched over many decades.  I NEVER had sex because I wanted sex itself.  I ALWAYS had sex only to make my partner happy.  That was not primary desire for sex.  

 

There were other things I did to make my partner happy.   The fact that I did them, including having sex with him, showed my desire was to make him happy.  

 

Surely you can understand the difference between wanting to please a person, and wanting to participate in an activity, Meow.   It's the same reason people go to movies they don't want to see because their partner wants to go with them.  It's the same reason people visit their partner's family with their partner, when they have no desire to do so.  It's pleasing someone else, not yourself.   

[binary suns]

2 hours ago, Sally said:

No.  No.  No.   I'll use my case, since it stretched over many decades.  I NEVER had sex because I wanted sex itself.  I ALWAYS had sex only to make my partner happy.  That was not primary desire for sex.  

 

There were other things I did to make my partner happy.   The fact that I did them, including having sex with him, showed my desire was to make him happy.  

 

Surely you can understand the difference between wanting to please a person, and wanting to participate in an activity, Meow.   It's the same reason people go to movies they don't want to see because their partner wants to go with them.  It's the same reason people visit their partner's family with their partner, when they have no desire to do so.  It's pleasing someone else, not yourself.   

no I cannot understand it. what is wanting? what is desire? when it comes to my vocabulary. wants and desires are either an expectation of doing, or an expression of feeling bad for not having it, or in the now - literally doing something. the only emotions that happen for me for things that I call wants and desires are either minute feelings which I know from experience and observation, are literal represent a preference regarding that minute detail. such as, the texture of the cheese as I bite into it I like, or the bitterness of carrots I don't like. and then even then it is, for me, an observation of liking/preference/decision-making on the detail-specific level. and the other time I use the word want is when I am talking about what I have decided to actively pursue, or what I am actively pursuing despite a lack of a specific decision point. 

 

 

the word "want" in my vocabulary - if any emotion is involved, it is either frustration or sadness due to the conflict of anticipating something, or it is the subtle confidence and pride of knowing what I have decided. And - wanting is action, doing, or decision. This is the use that that word has for me. because people constantly ask me what I want and I have to make a decision on how to reply - because I do not have any emotion that makes sense to call wanting, except for frustration over conflict, or a comparison of how much I like the options. 

 

 

desire - that word has actually never been in my active vocabulary before aven. everyone yells about how it is SO important but I honestly do not really understand what exactly it is they talk about. the only time that the word "desire" was relevant to me in any way before aven, was in Harry Potter with the Mirror of Erised.

 

 

 

so to answer your question - no I cannot tell the difference between wanting to please a person and wanting to have sex, if both result in having sex. in both ways they are actively deciding to have sex. and this is the only practical thing that I can attribute to the word "want" - considering the options, and then doing one of them over the other. especially if consistently or without hesitation, then it is more clear that it is a want. 

 

I literally fail to identify anything in my experience that makes sense to call wanting other than that. wanting is just a fancy word for choice and/or action and/or anticipation thereof. and so far whenever someone tries to explain wanting to me it sounds like a subjective expression to me - and so far does not perfectly overlap between confessors thereof. 

 

 

ps. even if wanting is a lacking of reluctance - I have often seen people hesitate or reluctant over things they claim to want. in fact in my observation most things people talk about wanting - there is always more to it than just some emotional drive - they always talk about conflict, and are trying to figure out how to make a decision thereof.