Definition discussion.

[Sally]

^^^  I give up.

[Member54880]

3 hours 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 (?) years of discussion, it's very old news.  

I assumed it was in the past 4 years that the desire definition started to gain a lot of popularity, and challenge the attraction definition. I remember seeing a lot of threads about it emerge in 2013, when I can't remember seeing many earlier than that.

 

Right now, I'm in the process of drafting the definition debate page. From what I've read from other sources, and from what I've seen here, it seems like the attraction definition was largely accepted on AVEN without question until 2013, and that's when the attraction vs. desire debate emerged. I'm still checking for more sources and looking for input to verify if that's correct before I write about that.

 

When writing about it, I'd need to be impartial, and address why both definitions are popular.

[Zendalis]

4 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

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

Ok, perhaps that was the wrong choice of words. How about "the latest areation of the compost pile"  instead 

 

Oh, and Goddammit...stay.

[Xenobot]

31 minutes ago, Aqua-ace said:

I assumed it was in the past 4 years that the desire definition started to gain a lot of popularity, and challenge the attraction definition. I remember seeing a lot of threads about it emerge in 2013, when I can't remember seeing many earlier than that.

 

Right now, I'm in the process of drafting the definition debate page. From what I've read from other sources, and from what I've seen here, it seems like the attraction definition was largely accepted on AVEN without question until 2013, and that's when the attraction vs. desire debate emerged. I'm still checking for more sources and looking for input to verify if that's correct before I write about that.

 

When writing about it, I'd need to be impartial, and address why both definitions are popular.

I'm looking forward to reading this!

[a minor triad]

14 hours ago, Pramana said:

If you never experience sexual attraction, it's likely you also never experience sexual desire, as the two are closely interrelated. True, sexual people often experience desire in the absence of attraction, but there are very few if any sexual people who never experience attraction, so one would expect that an asexual person who never experiences attraction would also never experience desire. Essentially, it seems like the capacities to experience sexual attraction and sexual desire are codependent. One must have both in place to experience either, and only if both are in place can one then experience desire in the absence of attraction.

I'm still really caught up on this. I just don't understand how someone can experience sexual attraction without innate sexual desire. This is why I don't like the and/or definition. I find it to be redundant (as I said in my first post here). I think it was @Xenobot not you, who told me people could experience sexual attraction without sexual desire, but honestly, I'm having trouble finding anything on that subject. Maybe researchers just think it's a given or it would be useless to study. Or maybe there isn't a good way to study it. I really don't know.  And for what it's worth, I spoke with a few sexuals on the subject and they agree with me.

 

I also think we are using "sexual desire" in two different ways. When I use sexual desire, I mean this innate thing that drives people to want to engage in sexual activity. Earlier you challenged my idea that sexual attraction is emergent from sexual desire because you believe sexual attraction causes sexual desire...and I think that is where we diverge. Because, yes, I assume a person would want to engage in sexual activities with something/someone they are sexually attracted to...but doesn't that all go back to the fact that this person has innate sexual desire in the first place? I'm not articulating myself very well. Let me try again. As I understand it, you seem to be using sexual desire as more of a superficial thing...like a want, and I, and other desire-based supporters, am using it to mean the deeper innate thing. I think maybe that is our problem.

 

I feel like we are looking at this issue from opposite directions. (I think) you seem to think, for the most part, that sexual attraction is a prerequisite to sexual desire, whereas I think sexual desire is a prerequisite for sexual attraction. And I know you wrote that you think they are codependent, but I've come to this conclusion from the way you describe/use desire, so I am sorry if I have seriously misinterpreted you.

 

Your last sentence (specifically the last clause) gets my head spinning, though. I feel like we almost agree.

 

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 6:10 PM, Pramana said:

I meant the "sexual desire in the absence of attraction phenomenon" just as shorthand for cases where people experience sexual desire without ever experiencing sexual attraction, which is very rare. I realize that people often experience sexual desire without experiencing sexual attraction; I've stated that many times and it's a major part of how I understand sexual attraction to work.

Then again, you do say this, which actually goes with what I'm trying to say, so now I'm confused all over again.

 

11 hours 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.

Slightly unrelated, but I once came across something about the "autosexual scale." I'm not sure if it was a 'legit' thing or not, but it was basically talking about this. I could try to find the link if you are interested. But I think have seen some research papers on autosexual habits. (Note: I'm fairly certain autosexual isn't considered a sexual orientation. As I understand it, it is more of a practice...?)

[Xenobot]

@a minor triad I've had to step back from the definition debate because I was literally losing sleep over it, not due to stress, but by being distracted from sleep far too much... Anyway, I think @Pramana and I have both said that at one time or another. It's my general understanding that sexual attraction may or may not lead to sexual desire. Someone may feel attraction to an individual and perceive the potential for sexual desire in the future once other conditions are met, but it's not a certain thing. As for research, Dr. Emily Nagoski states that for many women, attraction alone is often not enough to feel desire. People who primarily or exclusively experience responsive desire have a higher, more contextual threshhold for feeling sexual desire. Even when that sexual desire is unachievable for one reason or another, that does not mean the sexual attraction does not exist...it's just not sufficiently influential.

 

It seems reasonable to me to suspect that there may actually be some asexual people who do actually experience sexual attraction, but they are totally incapable of reaching that threshhold for it to manifest into sexual desire.

 

If you're interested in Nagoski's work, her blog is http://www.thedirtynormal.com/. She is also a published author, and you can find videos of her educational talks online. Note that she focuses heavily on how desire functions. She only really talks about sexual attraction long enough to mention that it's a component to human sexuality.

[Mundane Mesh]

5 hours ago, Meow. said:

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. 

Okay, forget about the difference between "desire" and "want" for a moment. Either you want sex and therefore have sex, or you want to please a partner and therefore have sex. The end result is the same, but the reasons are completely different.

[Pramana]

4 hours ago, a minor triad said:

feel like we are looking at this issue from opposite directions. (I think) you seem to think, for the most part, that sexual attraction is a prerequisite to sexual desire, whereas I think sexual desire is a prerequisite for sexual attraction. And I know you wrote that you think they are codependent, but I've come to this conclusion from the way you describe/use desire, so I am sorry if I have seriously misinterpreted you.

 

Basically, it seems like there are very few reported cases of sexual people who go through their whole lives without experiencing sexual attraction, who have no preferences based on gender and/or other personal characteristics. But there are plenty of reported cases of sexual people who sometimes experience sexual desire in the absence of attraction/outside of those preferences. The fact that they have preferences, though, is still part of their mental toolkit. As a lifetime phenomenon, sexual attraction and sexual desire appearance to be concomitant for most sexual people. But with regard to any one sexual encounter, it's common for sexual people to experience desire in the absence of attraction.

[Pramana]

16 hours 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.

I suspect the picture is more complicated than that. And I would reiterate that your position requires throwing out most of the current scientific research and establishing a definition based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence. That would be absurd.
 

Consider the following quote:
 

Chasin (2011) suggested that asexuality might be a meta-construct, analogous to sexuality and encompassing similar kinds of subcategories. We share this viewpoint and believe that, congruent with the way homosexuality is conceptualized, sexual behavior, sexual attraction and self-identification as asexual are three independent dimensions in the multidimensional construct of asexuality. Most authors agree that asexuality should be defined as a lack (or absence) of sexual attraction (Bogaert, 2004; Brotto et al., 2010, Brotto & Yule 2011; Prause & Graham, 2007; Scherrer, 2008). This is also the definition that is taken on by the asexual community. Several authors have provided evidence for the importance of sexual attraction for the description of asexuality (Brotto et al., 2010, Prause & Graham, 2007).

Ellen Van Houdenhove, Luk Gijs, Guy T’Sjoen & Paul Enzlin (2014) Asexuality: Few Facts, Many Questions, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 40:3, 175-192

[Guest]

Up until like the 80's it was scientifically proven that new born babies were such primitive organisms that they couldn't feel pain, therefore they conducted surgeries (including open heart surgery etc) on them without anaesthetic; They'd just strap them down and give them a muscle relaxant to stop them writhing. This is really, really basic and so easily disproved, yet scientists and doctors believed this for decades right across the Western world. .... And people actually trust what scientists say about something as complicated a sexuality, when 1)  right across the western world, many doctors and scientists still think female ejaculation is a myth and that "it's just pee" and 2) it wasn't until 2009 that they discovered what the clitoris actually looks like (it's generally between 4-6 inches long in all women) ..if they're only slowly beginning to discover these very basic aspects of sexual physiology, how can you trust they know *anything* about something as complicated as human sexuality? Also taking into account whatever they say about sexuality now, they'll say something completely different in a few decades time. Remember how Freud said females were psychosexually immature if they couldn't have a vaginal orgasm during penile intercourse, and of course at that time, that was scientific fact? Sigh. 

[binary suns]

12 hours ago, Sally said:

^^^  I give up.

ok thanks to a friend I was linked to a very helpful site on this regard

 

http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-want-and-vs-desire/

 

in it it said that a want and desire are typically used interchangeably, however there is a difference that can sometimes matter. 

 

it says, a want is  a simple desire for something that one does not have already.

 

A desire is a more intense craving that a person has for something or someone.

 

it also uses the word "longing" in reference to these things. this was very helpful!

 

In these ways, I have felt desire for foods - especially when I smell them. but they tend to be impulsive and in the moment - and my understanding form how people use the word "Desire" on this site, is that they refer to something more ongoing, like having an ongoing longing for a certain hobby. 

 

 

if these words so far are agreeable, then in this way, "sexual desire" might make a lot of sense if we would say, it is either a strong impulse-like craving for physical intimacy with a sexual partner, whether a specific partner or one in general; or it is an ongoing interest or longing in sexual activity with others in general.

 

[binary suns]

also, I have found this very useful article discussing attraction and desire -

 

http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-attraction-and-desire

 

 

in it attraction is described as:

 

Attraction is something that makes one feel interested in another person.

and associated with: beauty, intelligence, capability, attitude, smartness

I find that these imply also, that generally speaking, attraction is very similar to liking something or feeling appreciation for that something. 

 

and desire is described as:

 

Desire is a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen.

and associated with cravings, goals

and also generally from other examples I sense that desire can even be associated with feelings of needing, or even feeling frustration or despair in not having, and therefore wanting to amend that absence. 

 

 

 

 

to summerize - common, liberal usage of attraction and desire are often synonyms with wanting - but that when you look to see what makes the words different from eachother and also from wanting - 

attraction is more close to liking something or appreciating its qualities, with an implied feeling of being drawn in some way to the thing,

and desire is more close to craving or needing something; or having deep ongoing interest in pursuit of the something

 

 

 

PS. so in this way, wanting to please a partner in a way that happens to be sexual would necessarily be secondary desire, because there is no direct wanting, craving, or needing for the sexual activity, and no ongoing longing for sex. the impulsive need or want is for being helpful to the partner that is cared about, and similarly the ongoing longing is the happiness of that partner and in providing care for them. 

[binary suns]

note that I find in both cases, sexual attraction and sexual desire are applicable to an asexual - libido is one form of sexual desire, and aesthetic attraction is too comparable to sexual attraction that it isn't conclusive to classify them as separate except for people who feel both - this is based off of my experience, the only reason that aesthetic attraction and sexual attraction are different is because somehow I just know which one it is, with high probability of accuracy - I am only incorrect about 25% of the time, and even so after more exposure I do acurately asses the feeling perfectly. For me at least, sexual attraction predicts a direct influence on libido, while aesthetic attraction predicts feelings of awe or inspiration by the image. Note also that I can easily find people good-looking or even appealing but would not compare that to aesthetic attraction. there is much more rich feelings in attraction for me, then in simply noting what looks nice compared to what fails to impress me. 

 

 

so - because part of sexual desire includes masturbation needs, it is Very Apropriate to be sure to mention partnered contact in any definition of sexualities. And likewise, critical to avoid including either phrase "sexual attraction" or "sexual desire" because both include activities and emotions that asexuals feel - even if for the most part, sexual desire experiences are not felt - some of the experiences that are included in sexual desire is felt by asexuals, namely, libido, desire for consumption of erotic material, desire to behave erotically without a partner, and need to masturbate. 

[Homer]

13 hours ago, Meow. said:

what is wanting? what is desire?

I believe that "wanting" is more of a conscious experience whereas desire is something that's more innate. I have yet to think of a good comparison.

[binary suns]

23 minutes ago, Homer said:

I believe that "wanting" is more of a conscious experience whereas desire is something that's more innate. I have yet to think of a good comparison.

if you have time consider my newest three posts above  I just posted them. I think in some ways what you say here does reflect the usage I have seen. But also it has been said a few times that wanting is a low-key form of desire, which I do not know how accurate that is - but it was stated a few times to me, and intuitively seems accurate. 

[binary suns]

12 hours ago, Sally said:

^^^  I give up.

I would like to emphasize that the purpose of me expressing my confusion over what the f' desire is. is in the fact that I do not experience it. the closest I feel is longing and need - and I would likewise, use those words, and not desire. I have never been able to answer a question, "what do I desire" 

 

so if people think that "desire" is a 100% foolproof definition. I am the living proof that it can be a definition which fools someone. It would be ignorant to assume that I am the only person who has issue with understanding the word - in fact I have noticed a handful of times recently where people have confessed that exactly - that they did not really understand what "Desire" meant before learning it because of its use on AVEN. 

[binary suns]

7 hours ago, Mundane Mesh said:

Okay, forget about the difference between "desire" and "want" for a moment. Either you want sex and therefore have sex, or you want to please a partner and therefore have sex. The end result is the same, but the reasons are completely different.

now that I was referred to the articles this is indeed meaningful, so thanks  I can no longer speak to whether or not such a comment would mean anything before however, as I have new insight thanks to the research I've done this morning. 

[Homer]

1 hour ago, Pan. said:

Also taking into account whatever they say about sexuality now, they'll say something completely different in a few decades time.

This is totally unrelated, but when the first train service opened between Nuremberg and Fürth in Germany, doctors warned that humans weren't designed to travel at 30km/h (18.something miles) science is a progress and whatever is considered "proven" today might be outdated tomorrow.

[binary suns]

1 hour ago, Pan. said:

Up until like the 80's it was scientifically proven that new born babies were such primitive organisms that they couldn't feel pain, therefore they conducted surgeries (including open heart surgery etc) on them without anaesthetic; They'd just strap them down and give them a muscle relaxant to stop them writhing. This is really, really basic and so easily disproved, yet scientists and doctors believed this for decades right across the Western world. .... And people actually trust what scientists say 

agreed 100% with this point. I would like to add a consideration thereof, however. It is the case that, generally speaking, it is more reliable for a person to walk stepwise through learning something, than to try to learn the very different concepts right away. the more unfamiliar the ideas, the more difficult it is to grasp, let alone understand, let alone accept. 

 

so in this way, it certainly is Very true that we should not blindly accept everything scientific research shows us - But despite the hesitation we should hold, relying on that very same research in order to advance a person's understanding is very much a boon. 

[Kai99]

15 minutes ago, Meow. said:

I would like to emphasize that the purpose of me expressing my confusion over what the f' desire is. is in the fact that I do not experience it. the closest I feel is longing and need - and I would likewise, use those words, and not desire. I have never been able to answer a question, "what do I desire" 

 

so if people think that "desire" is a 100% foolproof definition. I am the living proof that it can be a definition which fools someone. It would be ignorant to assume that I am the only person who has issue with understanding the word - in fact I have noticed a handful of times recently where people have confessed that exactly - that they did not really understand what "Desire" meant before learning it because of its use on AVEN. 

I'm pretty sure you can take any simple word and you will have some people who don't get the meaning. Doesn't mean you shouldn't use that meaning because one in a thousand might not get it. Most people understand what that word means and how it relates to them, which is what matters.

[binary suns]

18 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

I'm pretty sure you can take any simple word and you will have some people who don't get the meaning. Doesn't mean you shouldn't use that meaning because one in a thousand might not get it. Most people understand what that word means and how it relates to them, which is what matters.

and people wonder why asexuals think that they are overlooked. I would offer that it may even be necessary that someone who does not feel sexual attraction, would not understand what it is, and someone who does not feel sexual desire, would not understand what it is. 

 

and furthermore, someone who Does feel either or both, would not understand what it is like to lack them!

 

[a minor triad]

8 hours ago, Xenobot said:

@a minor triad I've had to step back from the definition debate because I was literally losing sleep over it, not due to stress, but by being distracted from sleep far too much... Anyway, I think @Pramana and I have both said that at one time or another. It's my general understanding that sexual attraction may or may not lead to sexual desire. Someone may feel attraction to an individual and perceive the potential for sexual desire in the future once other conditions are met, but it's not a certain thing. As for research, Dr. Emily Nagoski states that for many women, attraction alone is often not enough to feel desire. People who primarily or exclusively experience responsive desire have a higher, more contextual threshhold for feeling sexual desire. Even when that sexual desire is unachievable for one reason or another, that does not mean the sexual attraction does not exist...it's just not sufficiently influential.

 

It seems reasonable to me to suspect that there may actually be some asexual people who do actually experience sexual attraction, but they are totally incapable of reaching that threshhold for it to manifest into sexual desire.

 

If you're interested in Nagoski's work, her blog is http://www.thedirtynormal.com/. She is also a published author, and you can find videos of her educational talks online. Note that she focuses heavily on how desire functions. She only really talks about sexual attraction long enough to mention that it's a component to human sexuality.

I feel bad for quoting you. I don't mean to drag you back into this discussion--I totally get the loss of sleep thing. Whenever I posted here at night, I had trouble sleeping, and I only posted a fraction of what you have done. But thank you for the information. I will look into it, and it certainly seems like we are looking at sexual desire in different ways. I see where you are coming from, especially the statement I bolded.

 

And this is more of a general musing, not directed to you at all, but I'm wondering now what the difference is between sexual arousal and sexual desire is. Maybe it is this distinction that the attraction-based defenders and the desire-based defenders I getting caught up about. I will have to read into it more, though.

 

[Pramana]

1 hour ago, a minor triad said:

And this is more of a general musing, not directed to you at all, but I'm wondering now what the difference is between sexual arousal and sexual desire is. Maybe it is this distinction that the attraction-based defenders and the desire-based defenders I getting caught up about. I will have to read into it more, though.

 

I second @Xenobot by agreeing that this debate is exhausting! I'm pretty sure you can be aroused without having desire. People get random erections and so forth all the time. And you can have desire without becoming aroused. While attraction operates more as a potential cause of desire and arousal. As @Xenobot and I have written, people conflating attraction with the desire/arousal process is responsible for some of the confusion.

[Kai99]

38 minutes ago, Meow. said:

and people wonder why asexuals think that they are overlooked. I would offer that it may even be necessary that someone who does not feel sexual attraction, would not understand what it is, and someone who does not feel sexual desire, would not understand what it is. 

 

and furthermore, someone who Does feel either or both, would not understand what it is like to lack them!

 

... which is why you just make it easier so that the only thing a person has to ask themselves is if they ever want partnered sex or not. If you want it, your sexual. If you don't, your asexual. See how simple that is?

[Pramana]

27 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

... which is why you just make it easier so that the only thing a person has to ask themselves is if they ever want partnered sex or not. If you want it, your sexual. If you don't, your asexual. See how simple that is?

The problem is it's not true. For one, plenty of asexuals want partnered sex for instrumental reasons, such as to please a partner, etc. Second, there's a phenomenon of asexuals who experience sexual desire without experiencing attraction. Tolerance requires putting in some effort to address their viewpoint. Third, the vast majority of the science suggests that attraction is important to determine orientation, and uses an attraction model to do so. Fourth, it's not hard to understand attraction as preferences based on gender/personal characteristics, and it seems like most people outside the asexual community have no problem with this. For example, I think almost every heterosexual man understands that he is attracted to women and not to men.

[Pramana]

Issues Underlying the Definition Debate?
(I’ve posted this in both active discussion threads, rather than starting a new thread)

I have noticed a striking difference so far between those who favour an attraction-based or an attraction/desire-based definition, and those who support a desire-only definition. Those on the desire-only side will occasionally appeal to psychological/scientific evidence when it appears to suit them, but for the most part resort to rejecting most published research on the topic – and often the entire field of psychology – when it becomes clear that there is little support for their views. And often the methods of reasoning employed by this side conflict with accepted principles of logic.

I have a background in law, and in law it’s common for clients to insist on positions that conflict with evidence and reason. That’s usually a sign there’s some unstated, often highly emotional, motivation underlying the dispute.

For that reason, I’ve been reading through old forums on this topic, to try to get a better sense of the issue. I realize that I’m working backwards and my picture is incomplete, but here are some observations:

1. Earlier in AVEN’s history, the definition didn’t matter that much because members were more likely to be “classical” textbook example asexuals. They didn’t experience either attraction or desire, so it wasn’t an issue. Instead, people fought over whether asexuals could have a libido or not.

2. Later, enter the gray-area and demisexuality and the concept of the asexual spectrum. These new categories make it less clear who can associate with the term “asexual”. And “sexual attraction,” as a concept separate from sexual desire, starts to become important for making these determinations.

3. Some people in the community who identify more with the older framework disagree with some of these newcomers. There appear to be at least three reasons for this:
A. The top part of the gray-area overlaps with the bottom part of the sexual spectrum. Some people who have debated their (a)sexual identity dislike the fact that they could also be viewed as asexual or gray-asexual under the currently used definitions.
B. The concept of gray-asexuality leads to more adolescents in the process of forming their sexual identities to associate with asexuality through terms such as fraysexual or cupiosexual, perhaps partly because they don’t fit into a highly sexualized high school environment. There is concern that this contributes to a negative “special snowflake” public image of asexuality.
C. The concept of gray-asexuality leads to more people with mental health issues and/or atypical personality traits associating with asexuality. There is concern this contributes to a negative public image of asexuality as a bunch of socially awkward anime fans.

My thought is that it would be more productive to focus discussion on these underlying issues. I found this old thread from about a year and a half ago that I think might be useful for situating the conversation. Notice how the original poster claims that too many people are calling themselves gray-asexual based on inaccurate stereotypes of sexuality. And how the first poster to respond claims that the original posters’s views are based on inaccurate stereotypes of the reasons people in the gray-area use for identifying that way. Therein lies the impasse.
 

[Kai99]

7 minutes ago, Pramana said:

The problem is it's not true. For one, plenty of asexuals want partnered sex for instrumental reasons, such as to please a partner, etc. Second, there's a phenomenon of asexuals who experience sexual desire without experience attraction. Tolerance requires putting in some effort to address their viewpoint. Third, the vast majority of the science suggests that attraction is relevant to determine orientation. Fourth, it's not hard to understand attraction as preferences based on gender/personal characteristics, and it seems like most people outside the asexual community have no problem with this. For example, I think almost every heterosexual man understands that he is attracted to women and not to men.

Asexuals who have sex to please their partners- still asexual.

Asexuals with libidos but have no desire for sex- still asexual.

Asexuals who are turn on by the human body but have no desire for sex- still asexual.

Asexuals who want sex- not asexual.

 

As long as you do not desire partnered sex, you are asexual. Having sex doesn't disqualify a person of asexuality.

 

 

[Pramana]

35 minutes ago, Kai99 said:

Asexuals who want sex- not asexual.

 

As long as you do not desire partnered sex, you are asexual. Having sex would not make someone not asexual. 

Again, you're repeating claims which appear to be false. Who are you to say that sex-favourable asexuals are not asexual? I'll admit I'm not sure about this, but until there's more evidence I'm ethically required to at least make conceptual room for them. And how would you tell them there're not asexual without violating AVEN's self-identification principle?

And again, with your last statement, you're contradicting what's been established by the scientific evidence so far. What is your justification for doing so?

At this point, though, it seems we're just talking in circles, as I've described in more detail in a post just before this one. See Issues Underlying the Definition Debate?

[Anthracite_Impreza]

4 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Again, you're repeating claims which appear to be false. Who are you to say that sex-favourable asexuals are not asexual? I'll admit I'm not sure about this, but until there's more evidence I'm ethically required to at least make conceptual room for them. And how would you tell them there're not asexual without violating AVEN's self-identification principle?

And again, with your last statement, you're contradicting what's been established by the scientific evidence so far.

People can ID however they want, doesn't mean they're right. If that was true I'd have ID'd as a millionaire about 15 years ago.

[Xenobot]

1 hour ago, a minor triad said:

I feel bad for quoting you. I don't mean to drag you back into this discussion--I totally get the loss of sleep thing. Whenever I posted here at night, I had trouble sleeping, and I only posted a fraction of what you have done. But thank you for the information. I will look into it, and it certainly seems like we are looking at sexual desire in different ways. I see where you are coming from, especially the statement I bolded.

 

And this is more of a general musing, not directed to you at all, but I'm wondering now what the difference is between sexual arousal and sexual desire is. Maybe it is this distinction that the attraction-based defenders and the desire-based defenders I getting caught up about. I will have to read into it more, though.

 

It's fine, no worries! I've still been reading most of it, but not investing so much time into posting. So, as for the difference between sexual desire and sexual arousal, I thought about launching into a dry conversation about arousal nonconcordance, and the difference between physiological sexual arousal and psychological sexual arousal, but then I realized, oh yeah, Nagoski has got it covered, and she can explain it in down to earth terms better than me anyway.