Definition of Asexuality

[Snao Cone]

I think I would probably fit what this idea of "sex-favourable asexual" is because I've chosen to have sex before, for my own reasons, and could possibly choose to have sex again in the future. But I don't see that as an underlying desire for sex, while I think some people who are not me would say it is.

[Telecaster68]

Actually the problem with Pramana's 'because:Darwin' argument is that it puts libido/sex drive in opposition to sexual attraction. I have no idea how he reaches this position, but it's what he's doing, and then saying 'mating choices based on sexual attraction give bad evolutionary results'.

 

The mechanism is rather that libido is the urge that drives partnered sex, and sexual attraction is part of that of the choice of partners. It's not an opposition at all.

[Kai99]

Here is another video of David Jay explaining asexuality. It is clear as day what asexuality is suppose to mean.

[Pramana]

10 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Would you like to address the logical problem in my question rather than throwing up evolutionary straw men?

I'm not sure if you're aware of what a straw man argument entails. If you've arguing something that's counter to evolutionary theory, then you're in an incredibly weak argumentative spot. In the food analogy, the person who doesn't have taste preferences (the asexual in this example) might enjoy eating sugar but wouldn't have a desire for eating sugar over other foods, whereas the person with taste preferences (the sexual in this example) would have such a desire for sugar, and thus would have an internal mechanism that orients them towards this high energy food that conveys a survival advantage.
 

19 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

This 'sexual attraction' thing is what I was referring to when I said:

 

We already know you're saying it's sexual attraction, I was asking how you're defining sexual attraction that makes our desire to connect sexually with others so different from a 'sex-desiring' asexual's desire. What is it that makes the way we choose who we have sex with (like, all of us, globally) so different from the way these people choose who they have sex with?

 

21 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

How would you describe this internal state of sexual attraction as you experience it?

 

And I do mean *you*, not a bunch of abstractions quoted from someone else.

First of all, it's kind of like asking people to explain what it's like to feel thirsty. It's ridiculous to say that people explain this differently or can't explain it, therefore it doesn't exist. Of course, people have difficulty articulating it; that's the nature of subjective experience. I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to explain in writing what it's like to do hallucinogens, because it's very difficult to explain what say LSD is like to someone who hasn't done it, but I'm pretty sure that the LSD experience is a substantive one.

In any case, my favourite working definition of sexual attraction is this one from @Flygunn, who I think has left AVEN:

“Psychologists define sexual attraction as a person's enduring pattern of preference for certain traits/attributes/actions/movements of an individual that can evoke a sexual desire for that individual.

Therefore an asexual is categorized as an individual who will not develop a sexual desire towards another individual based on any of their traits/attributes/actions/movements."

This makes clear that it's about finding other people sexually desirable, and thus potentially wanting to have sex with them for that reason (the sense of a sexual desire that is for someone else, and which can only be satisfied through being sexual with that person).

[Telecaster68]

It's probably best I duck out of the conversation now before I give such magisterial condescension the abusive onslaught it deserves.

[Pramana]

20 minutes ago, a minor triad said:

Note that I am studying psychology, and like @FictoVore., I would love to hear from the academics you have contacted. I get they probably wouldn't want to talk to people on some board, but I would love to hear what they have to say.

 

Here's a question for you @Pramana, say people like me do go off and create another concept. What word could we use? Asexual is already "taken," and fun reminder that asexual literally breaks down to mean "without sex." Shall we use "ansexual," which incorporates the other Latin root for "without"? Just curious what you are thinking here.
 

Ok, yes, but we have also learned what happens when we try to apply Darwin's theories to other things. Eugenics movement, anyone?

To respond to these points in reverse order. Regarding Darwin's theory of sex selection, this is really well established as central to evolutionary theory and sexual orientation theory. I don't see any comparison to a movement like eugenics.

Regarding terminology, I had suggested before that a term like "nonsexual" might be useful, if there's a need for a term specifically for not wanting partnered sex.

In terms of research, I've read the bulk of what's been published on asexuality in English and am familiar wth most of the authors publishing on the topic. It was great to get in touch with a few academics about these issues, based on specific references to their work. I don't think any of them expect to be dragged into AVEN drama, though, so I don't think it'd be appropriate to reference anyone specifically. But I'm hoping to talk about these issues in more detail in an essay I'm writing on sexual orientations and identity politics, which was my reason for doing this research.

[Arctangent]

The idea that we need a separate term for asexuals who don't desire partnered sex seems odd to me. Should asexuals who don't desire partnered sex have to refer to themselves as "nonsexual asexuals?" What if their lack of desire for partnered sex is why they identify as asexual? Does it make sense that they should have to use a different term? Couldn't that be alienating to some people?

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Pramana said:

First of all, it's kind of like asking people to explain what it's like to feel thirsty. It's ridiculous to say that people explain this differently or can't explain it, therefore it doesn't exist. Of course, people have difficulty articulating it; that's the nature of subjective experience. I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to explain in writing what it's like to do hallucinogens, because it's very difficult to explain what say LSD is like to someone who hasn't done it, but I'm pretty sure that the LSD experience is a substantive one.

In any case, my favourite working definition of sexual attraction is this one from @Flygunn, who I think has left AVEN:

“Psychologists define sexual attraction as a person's enduring pattern of preference for certain traits/attributes/actions/movements of an individual that can evoke a sexual desire for that individual.

Therefore an asexual is categorized as an individual who will not develop a sexual desire towards another individual based on any of their traits/attributes/actions/movements."

This makes clear that it's about finding other people sexually desirable, and thus potentially wanting to have sex with them for that reason (the sense of a sexual desire that is for someone else, and which can only be satisfied through being sexual with that person).

Wait wait wait.. let me get this straight.. one moment.

 

So how Telecaster, myself, and other sexual people here explain sexual attraction and how we experience our sexuality doesn't count, despite the fact that we actually know what it feels like to be sexual..

 

But YOUR version and your explanation, that counts, even though you can't define it and wouldn't know where to begin trying to explain it by your own admission.. 

 

Then you use someone else's definition, which is the exact definition we have been saying is incorrect as a defining factor for sexual orientation because it certainly doesn't apply to all sexual people and is not what drives our sexuality in many cases (and that user also appears to be banned or is their profile only not opening for me?)

 

How many times do we have to say? We don't all want to fuck people because we find them 'sexually desirable'. YES some sexuals are like that, but not all sexuals. Some people desire sex as an enjoyable and/or intimate activity with a lover or even just friends, some only want it once an emotional connection has formed, some just love the way sex feels so will get it wherever they can.. some have a mixture of all these things and some have something different.  You're defining it ONE way there, one way it can be experienced by some people, so it's totally irrelevant as an attempt to define an entire sexual orientation. 

 

Are you honestly serious here? Is anyone else seeing this or have I gone mad? 

[Pramana]

1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

How many times do we have to say? We don't all want to fuck people because we find them 'sexually desirable'. YES some sexuals are like that, but not all sexuals. Some people desire sex as an enjoyable and/or intimate activity with a lover or even just friends, some only want it once an emotional connection has formed, some just love the way sex feels so will get it wherever they can.. some have a mixture of all these things and some have something different.  You're defining it ONE way there, one way it can be experienced by some people, so it's totally irrelevant as an attempt to define an entire sexual orientation. 

My understanding is that about 95% of people are heterosexual. Thus, it seems that most people find one gender sexually desirable, and not the other. That's the basic idea. I don't see any reasonable opposition to that. Furthermore, nothing that you've said above conflicts with the definition from @Flygunn that I quoted which is abstract for the specific purpose of being inclusive. Having sexual desires for someone because of an emotional or intimate connection based on personality traits is still sexual attraction, within that definition.

In addition, there's the well-reported David Buss and Cindy Meston research which identified 237 reasons for why people have sex. Some of those reasons track sexual orientations, some of them don't. For example, having sex merely for physical pleasure may not have anything to do with sexual orientation. Again, I think you're logically confusing "sexuality" with "sexual orientation". Essentially, I don't think you understand these concepts well enough criticize them.

 

2 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Actually the problem with Pramana's 'because:Darwin' argument is that it puts libido/sex drive in opposition to sexual attraction. I have no idea how he reaches this position, but it's what he's doing, and then saying 'mating choices based on sexual attraction give bad evolutionary results'.

 

The mechanism is rather that libido is the urge that drives partnered sex, and sexual attraction is part of that of the choice of partners. It's not an opposition at all.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I actually wrote. Libido/sexual desire is generally defined as a desire for sexual activity (whether solo or partnered) and sexual attraction is generally defined as sexual desires for other people. I don't think there's any conflict.

[Kai99]

Quote

sexual attraction is usually defined as sexual desires for other people

Are you sure?

[Arctangent]

8 hours ago, Pramana said:

B. Community history, as sex-favourable asexuals have been included within AVEN and other asexual communities since an early date (I know this from reading asexual blogs, AVEN's site info materials from the early 2000s, and from personal communications as one of the academics I spoke with was evolved in the AVEN community at this early date).

Therefore, it seems to me that if people would like an identity like non-sexual or non-partnered sexual, then the onus shifts to them to develop that as a separate concept. 

But if we're going to use the "community history" argument, there is also a strong community history of people identifying as asexual because they don't have an intrinsic desire for partnered sex. Take this thread in Welcome Lounge, for instance, which has been running since 2012. A lot of people posted in this thread relating to the OP, which describes asexuality as not wanting sex. People have also posted various videos and interviews of asexuals (including David Jay) who describe their experiences of asexuality in terms of not wanting sex.

 

Should all of these asexuals be required to adopt new terminology and identify themselves differently because some people want asexuality to be defined in a way that includes people who do want sex? Please note that I'm not making a value judgment against those who identify as asexual while wanting sex, nor am I saying they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves as asexual or anything like that. What I am saying is that the wishes of different people in the asexual community seem to be at odds with each other, and a purely sexual attraction definition is not necessarily more inclusive or reflective of the way people understand asexuality within the community. The situation is more complex than that, IMO. I would rather we use the "and/or" definition than require that asexuals who don't desire partnered sex come up with their own term.

 

In addition, as other people have pointed out, "sex-favorable asexuality" is not understood by everyone the same way. For some time, I understood it to refer to people who can enjoy the sensations of sex but wouldn't actively seek it out, and I have known others who understood it this way. I was quite surprised to find out that some use it to refer to people who enjoy and desire sex to the extent that they would seek it out, sometimes quite often. So when you say the community has included sex-favorable asexuals for a long time, it's possible that not everyone interprets that to mean the same thing that you do.

[Pramana]

14 hours ago, Kai99 said:

Are you sure?

Yes, because the idea is that one has sexual desires for certain members of a species instead of others. Rather than an undirected drive for partnered sex (which wouldn't provide an evolutionary advantage) organisms have evolved to form sexual desires for members of the opposite sex that meet certain criteria which indicate they would be a good reproductive partner (young, healthy, control of economic resources, etc.).

[Alejandrogynous]

23 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Libido/sexual desire is generally defined as a desire for sexual activity (whether solo or partnered) and sexual attraction is generally defined as sexual desires for other people. I don't think there's any conflict.

Okay... So, if "sexual attraction" is defined as "sexual desires for other people" then "no sexual attraction" means "no sexual desires for other people".

 

Which, unless I'm extremely confused, is what we've been saying all along. What is happening.

[Philip027]

Quote

Sex-favourable asexuality involves different degrees of desire for partnered sex. Some sex-favourable asexuals may enjoy partnered sex if available but have no interest in pursuing it, others may enjoy it enough to want to pursue it, and some may even want to pursue it a lot.

Yeah, no.  Once you're "pursuing sex a lot" there is nothing of substance that's separating you from a normal sexual.  At that point you just become someone trying to cling to a label to give yourself a "special snowflake" vibe.

[Pramana]

5 minutes ago, Law of Circles said:

But if we're going to use the "community history" argument, there is also a strong community history of people identifying as asexual because they don't have an intrinsic desire for partnered sex. Take this thread in Welcome Lounge, for instance, which has been running since 2012. A lot of people posted in this thread relating to the OP, which describes asexuality as not wanting sex. People have also posted various videos and interviews of asexuals (including David Jay) who describe their experiences of asexuality in terms of not wanting sex.

 

Should all of these asexuals be required to adopt new terminology and identify themselves differently because some people want asexuality to be defined in a way that includes people who do want sex? Please note that I'm not making a value judgment against those who identify as asexual while wanting sex, nor am I saying they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves as asexual or anything like that. What I am saying is that the wishes of different people in the asexual community seem to be at odds with each other, and a purely sexual attraction definition is not necessarily more inclusive or reflective of the way people understand asexuality within the community. The situation is more complex than that, IMO. I would rather we use the "and/or" definition than require that asexuals who don't desire partnered sex come up with their own term.

 

In addition, as other people have pointed out, "sex-favorable asexuality" is not understood by everyone the same way. For some time, I understood it to refer to people who can enjoy the sensations of sex but wouldn't actively seek it out, and I have known others who understood it this way. I was quite surprised to find out that some use it to refer to people who enjoy and desire sex to the extent that they would seek it out, sometimes quite often. So when you say the community has included sex-favorable asexuals for a long time, it's possible that not everyone interprets that to mean the same thing that you do.

First of all, I should say I'm not that committed to the nonsexual concept. I think at the moment the assumption is that if you identify as asexual, you don't want partnered sex unless you qualify that in some way by saying you're sex-favourable.

Regarding sex-favourable asexuals in community history, I outlined the different uses of the term when I emailed academics about it. The answer regarding community history references sex-favourable asexuals who desire sex to varying degrees, including those who might actively seek out sex at some points (and there are sex-favourable asexual bloggers who discuss experiences to this affect).

I should also say that I don't think that intrinsic desire for partnered sex is distinct from sexual attraction, so I don't think sex-favourable asexuals are acting on an innate drive for partnered sex. From my understanding, they're acting on libido, and have picked up on partnered sex as a way to address libido (analogous to how someone might pick up on using a sex toy to address libido).

The lack of sexual attraction and lack of innate desire for partnered sex definitions are equivalent and thus redundant. I would, however, support an and/or definition in terms of lack of sexual attraction and/or sexual desire, which would include people who identify as asexual on the basis of lacking libido (queer theorists and some sociologists make this argument).

 

3 minutes ago, Alejandrogynous said:

Okay... So, if "sexual attraction" is defined as "sexual desires for other people" then "no sexual attraction" means "no sexual desires for other people".

 

Which, unless I'm extremely confused, is what we've been saying all along. What is happening.

Similar to the what I outlined above, people typically don't have sexual desires for their sex toys, but they still enjoy partnered sex with those objects. They're not attracted to those objects, don't have an innate desire for partnered sex with them; rather it's a learned behaviour that they can use to address libido.

[Pramana]

13 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Yeah, no.  Once you're "pursuing sex a lot" there is nothing of substance that's separating you from a normal sexual.  At that point you just become someone trying to cling to a label to give yourself a "special snowflake" vibe.

There's a significant internal difference between experiencing sexual attraction and not experiencing it, regardless of whether one has other motivations to pursue sex for intrinsic goods. That's a consequence of how sexual orientations are understood today, and I don't anticipate that's likely to change. At least, from my conversations with academics about this, it didn't seem that controversial.

[Philip027]

Again, key words are nothing of substance.

 

This is what happens with purely attraction-based orientations; you end up with "orientations" that do not make sense to anyone with a brain.  Case in point, a sex-starved "asexual".

 

Whatever "internal differences" they might see between them and normal sexuals are just that... internal.

[nanogretchen4]

Huh? Masturbating with sex toys is not partnered sex. For the large majority of humans who are not objectum sexuals, inanimate objects aren't sex partners, they are props. Having sex with another human using sex toys is partnered sex, but again the sex toys are not participants, they are simply props. Whether or not someone enjoys sex toys is completely unrelated to sexual orientation. Who they want to use the sex toys with has a lot to do with sexual orientation.

[Kai99]

6 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Yes, because the idea is that one has sexual desires for certain members of a species instead of others. Rather than an undirected drive for partnered sex (which wouldn't provide an evolutionary advantage) organisms have evolved to form sexual desires for members of the opposite sex that meet certain criteria which indicate they would be a good reproductive partner (young, healthy, control of economic resources etc.).

Pramana, have you asked these sex favorable asexuals who desire sex for sex sake if they have any preference for who they have sex with? If these sex-desiring asexuals say they desire sex, but only with someone of the opposite sex, would that be classified as a sexual attraction, or is preference different from desire, even if these asexuals say that having sex with someone of the same sex would be disturbing to them? What if they say they desire sex, but they only want to do it  with someone they find attractive or someone they know well?

[Sally]

A definition of asexuality need not and should  not depend upon evolutionary theory or any other academic pursuit.   If that is what someone prefers to engage in, then let them do it among others who have a like mind. 

 

For those who  simply want to describe how they feel, the  following suffices:  "I don't want to have partnered sex with any other person."

[Alejandrogynous]

25 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Similar to the what I outlined above, people typically don't have sexual desires for their sex toys, but they still enjoy partnered sex with those objects. They're not attracted to those objects, don't have an innate desire for partnered sex with them; rather it's a learned behaviour that they can use to address libido.

The only purpose of sex toys is to address libido, but that's not all partnered sex accomplishes. If the ONLY reason a person has partnered sex is because of libido, then why wouldn't they have gone the much easier and more convenient route of just using a sex toy? Obviously, there must be something else they're getting out of the partnered sex experience that they couldn't with a toy, even if they can't quite identify what that element is.

It would be like if I said, 'I have no desire to use sex toys' but then proceed to use them regularly. Libido or not, if I really had no desire to use sex toys, I wouldn't. (Unless it was being forced on me in some way.) Or another example, if someone said, 'I don't actually want to eat this cookie, it just tastes so damn good.' Which just sounds like someone trying to convince themselves to not break their diet, like saying it enough will make it true. (Spoiler alert: it doesn't.)

[Pramana]

5 minutes ago, Alejandrogynous said:

The only purpose of sex toys is to address libido, but that's not all partnered sex accomplishes. If the ONLY reason a person has partnered sex is because of libido, then why wouldn't they have gone the much easier and more convenient route of just using a sex toy? Obviously, there must be something else they're getting out of the partnered sex experience that they couldn't with a toy, even if they can't quite identify what that element is.

There are intrinsic goods that some people might derive from partnered sex, even if they don't find their partner attractive. It's like asking why some people like sex toys and some don't. There're reasons other than attraction that can make particular sexual acts seem appealing.

[Philip027]

If people can just go and fuck anybody they want, whenever they want, based on the "intrinsic goods" they might acquire from it, we might as well pitch all orientations in the trash, because they are all meaningless.

[a minor triad]

2 hours ago, Pramana said:

To respond to these points in reverse order. Regarding Darwin's theory of sex selection, this is really well established as central to evolutionary theory and sexual orientation theory. I don't see any comparison to a movement like eugenics.

Regarding terminology, I had suggested before that a term like "nonsexual" might be useful, if there's a need for a term specifically for not wanting partnered sex.

In terms of research, I've read the bulk of what's been published on asexuality in English and am familiar wth most of the authors publishing on the topic. It was great to get in touch with a few academics about these issues, based on specific references to their work. I don't think any of them expect to be dragged into AVEN drama, though, so I don't think it'd be appropriate to reference anyone specifically. But I'm hoping to talk about these issues in more detail in an essay I'm writing on sexual orientations and identity politics, which was my reason for doing this research.

Regarding Darwin, I really don't think it is helpful to use evolutionary theories when considering non-heterosexual orientations. The whole point of natural selection is to reproduce, so evolutionary theories do not explain homosexuality or asexuality very well because neither lead a person to reproduction. If you're homosexual and act on that homosexuality, you're not going to reproduce. I would think the same logic should follow for asexuality. (note: I'm leaving out bisexuality and pansexuality because they're different). 

 

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

First of all, I should say I'm not that committed to the nonsexual concept. I think at the moment the assumption is that if you identify as asexual, you don't want partnered sex unless you qualify that in some way by saying you're sex-favourable.

And rightly so. People automatically assume heterosexuals don't want sex with the same gender and that homosexuals don't want sex with the opposite gender. Why should asexuality be different? I think most people would find the term "nonsexual asexual" redundant. 

[Alejandrogynous]

1 hour ago, Pramana said:

There are intrinsic goods that some people might derive from partnered sex, even if they don't find their partner attractive. It's like asking why some people like sex toys and some don't. There're reasons other than attraction that can make particular sexual acts seem appealing.

Intrinsic goods? You mean like to feel love, or affection, or intimacy, or sating libido, or endorphins, for a self-esteem boost, because it feels good, for exercise, fun, something to do on a boring Tuesday night, etc.? All the reasons regular sexual people have sex?

 

Careful out there, all you sexuals - better make 100% sure you're always physically attracted to your partners or else the asexual community might adopt you. 'Silly person thinking they're normal because they have sex for all the normal reasons but they picked a partner that isn't much of a looker, don't they know they must be on the asexual spectrum somewhere if they have sex for any reason other than looks, poor confused babies.' *coo coo baby talk*

[Alejandrogynous]

Also, since this thread linked a few David Jay interviews and got me watching them all again - does anybody else thinks he looks like a cross between Jerry Lewis and Jared Padalecki? And his name is David.. J?! I sense a conspiracy here.

[Turtleslobber]

Wait, now I'm confused. 

If you desire and pursue sex, but don't care who it's with in terms of gender, isn't that being pansexual?

 

And also, I don't know what some people here mean by "sexual attraction." I read some things like "you can have a ton of sex and have a super strong desire to have sex, but unless you experience sexual attraction, you can still identify as asexual." Like does that mean it's only attraction if you single someone out in particular? This is exactly what got me confused at the start. People saying that asexuals are still sexually active and enjoy it and are practically identical to sexual people, but the difference is some vague faceless entity that we just call sexual attraction.

[Pramana]

1 hour ago, Turtleslobber said:

Wait, now I'm confused. 

If you desire and pursue sex, but don't care who it's with in terms of gender, isn't that being pansexual?

 

And also, I don't know what some people here mean by "sexual attraction." I read some things like "you can have a ton of sex and have a super strong desire to have sex, but unless you experience sexual attraction, you can still identify as asexual." Like does that mean it's only attraction if you single someone out in particular? This is exactly what got me confused at the start. People saying that asexuals are still sexually active and enjoy it and are practically identical to sexual people, but the difference is some vague faceless entity that we just call sexual attraction.

Pansexuality may be defined as not experiencing sexual attraction on the basis of gender, but still experiencing sexual attraction based on other qualities.

Sexual attraction is an internal experience (reflected in thoughts, feelings, fantasies) of findings certain people sexually desirable, having sexual desires for them, and wanting to have sex with them on the basis of those qualities. Sexual attraction isn't the only reason why people have sex, but it is generally accepted to be what determines people's sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is distinct from sexuality per se, and there are plenty of sexual desires and behaviours that may occur independently of sexual attraction.

Thus, people can enjoy sex with people they're not attracted to. For that reason, desiring and enjoying sex may be separate from one's orientation, because behaviour is not orientation. So yes, potentially an asexual's outward behaviour could look similar in many ways to that of a sexual person, but orientations are defined in terms of internal mechanisms.

 

12 hours ago, Alejandrogynous said:

Intrinsic goods? You mean like to feel love, or affection, or intimacy, or sating libido, or endorphins, for a self-esteem boost, because it feels good, for exercise, fun, something to do on a boring Tuesday night, etc.? All the reasons regular sexual people have sex?

 

Careful out there, all you sexuals - better make 100% sure you're always physically attracted to your partners or else the asexual community might adopt you. 'Silly person thinking they're normal because they have sex for all the normal reasons but they picked a partner that isn't much of a looker, don't they know they must be on the asexual spectrum somewhere if they have sex for any reason other than looks, poor confused babies.' *coo coo baby talk*

Again, reasons for having sex are distinct from sexual attraction. If I want to have sex for pleasure, for example, that in itself is not sexual attraction (of course, while a heterosexual male's reason for having sex may be pleasure, chances are he'll only want to have sex for pleasure with a women, thus tracking orientation). But the objective of obtaining pleasure is, in itself, separate and there are cases where people might want sex for pleasure despite not being attracted to their partner (and sex-favourable asexuality is a good example of that). Likewise, if someone wants to have sex for intimacy/love/affection, while it's probably even more likely that they're sexually/romantically attracted to their partner in that instance, that wouldn't necessarily always be the case. Thus, I think people are persistently confusing sexual orientation with sexuality in these examples.
 

[Snao Cone]

1 hour ago, Turtleslobber said:

And also, I don't know what some people here mean by "sexual attraction." I read some things like "you can have a ton of sex and have a super strong desire to have sex, but unless you experience sexual attraction, you can still identify as asexual." Like does that mean it's only attraction if you single someone out in particular? This is exactly what got me confused at the start. People saying that asexuals are still sexually active and enjoy it and are practically identical to sexual people, but the difference is some vague faceless entity that we just call sexual attraction.

A lot of sexual people here have explained their sexuality as quite different from seeing another person and wanting to have sex with them. There's a wider range of ways sexuality is experienced than many asexual people presume to be the case:

 

For some people, they do experience strong physical attraction to specific people. This is sexual, and I think most people would acknowledge that (though there are always crazy ideas out there about how someone like this can still be asexual).

 

For others, there's just an underlying need to meet sexual needs with other people, and they have a basic set of standards they prefer to go with (whether physical appearance or personality). This is also sexual, though the argument being made here is that anyone who wants to use "asexual" to describe themselves like this can do so, as long as they insist they are not "attracted" to people in a sexual way. I disagree with that, personally, though if there's some deep internal sense of self that reflects asexuality but is not being adequately expressed here, I can't speak on another person's behalf here. (I will still say, though, that this does not reflect me or my sense of asexuality.

 

For others, they desire a personal connection and sex is an important way of expressing that connection - it's not so much wanting the sex itself as much as it is wanting sex WITH that person (so they can't be fulfilled by outside sexual affairs). I think most people who are like this identify as sexual beings generally. Some may identify as demisexual, which I believe to be a type of sexual, but others may argue that demi people are just as asexual as people who never want sex. This may be contorted into "asexuality" if people want to argue that desiring sex as part of a romantic bond is not sexual, it's romantic, and thus someone who won't have sex outside of romantic relationships is a romantic asexual. There are a lot of people who fit this definition but would never identify as asexual because...they're not.

 

There are probably other examples that I could come up with, but you probaby get the gist by now - what someone who wants to be seen as asexual will describe as asexual could be exactly the same as what someone who wants to be seen as sexual will describe as sexual. One philosophy here, including the official one of AVEN, is that the only person who has access to the innermost feelings that determine orientation is the individual, so individuals may identify as whatever they want to. While it's true that I can't speak for the feelings of others, I personally will still say pesky things, like "many sexuals are like that too" or "that's not how I identify my asexuality at all" or "I think it's best for overall asexual visibility and education if we present the concept at a simpler level rather than start conversations with the complex exceptions." That's just my voice, and as of yet I've been unable to solve the whole "explosive disagreement on the internet" problem. 🙃

[Alejandrogynous]

3 hours ago, Turtleslobber said:

Wait, now I'm confused. 

If you desire and pursue sex, but don't care who it's with in terms of gender, isn't that being pansexual?

Yes.

 

3 hours ago, Turtleslobber said:

And also, I don't know what some people here mean by "sexual attraction." I read some things like "you can have a ton of sex and have a super strong desire to have sex, but unless you experience sexual attraction, you can still identify as asexual." Like does that mean it's only attraction if you single someone out in particular? This is exactly what got me confused at the start. People saying that asexuals are still sexually active and enjoy it and are practically identical to sexual people, but the difference is some vague faceless entity that we just call sexual attraction.

Nobody knows what anyone means by "sexual attraction". It's a completely subjective experience and trying to define it only leads to exactly the kind of confusion and nonsensical claims you describe. AVEN's official PC stance is, like Snao said, that nobody can know a person as well as they know themselves, so whatever they identify as, that's what they are. I agree with this philosophy to a point, but also if a woman IDs as a lesbian but blatantly says she could never have sex with another women, ew gross, people also have the right to point out that she might be confused as to what 'lesbian' means.

 

I still support the "asexuals do not experience sexual attraction" definition in the way in which it was originally intended, (i.e. Heteros want to have sex with the opposite gender, homos want to have sex with the same gender, etc., and asexuals want to have sex with no genders. Ergo, asexuals want to have sex with no one.), but this has become so warped over time that now, yes, we have people claiming that they love sex and can't live without it but they're still asexual because they're not "attracted" to their partners. Whatever that means. Don't ask them unless you're prepared to have another debate exactly like this thread.

 

Disclaimer: People can identify however they want, obviously, nobody is stopping them. What we CAN do is push for a clearer definition for asexuality so those questioning can better understand how sexuality and sexual orientations function, and determine whether this label fits them or not.