How many pure asexuals here?

[Zylon]

I define two types of asexuals. In one type the person possesses the sex instinct, but does not want to use it. They may be tired of it, or turned off by it, or just have the desire so weak as to be zero.

The second type I call "pure asexual". An example of a pure asexual would be a young child. In this, the sex instinct is totally alien. The person wouldn't even know how to do it if they tried. In my case, even sexual cues are missing. For example, female breasts just look like tumors to me. I wouldn't even know that sexual behavior exists if I was not taught about it from society. My libido is strong, my desire for intimacy is strong, my attractions and crushes are strong and totally gender specific, and I am very affectionate and loving. But the question of if I ever had a sexual attraction to anyone doesn't even make sense to me. I guess all the feelings are there, but sexual behavior is just not part of my neurological makeup. All behavior usually considered sexual (except for the subconscous automatic masturbation with powerful orgasms I had since age 6) is alien. This is because my psychological makeup was too strong by the age of 7 to be added to at puberty. Thus puberty had no effect on me, sexually or any other way. I am an example of a pure asexual, who describes sex not as weak or specifically unwanted or repulsive, but just as alien. To me, sex just seems silly.

I wonder what percent of people here on this forum are pure asexuals.

[bydefault]

Sorry, I guess I'm one of the impure ones. :oops:

*hangs head in shame and walks quietly away*

[Hayley]

An interesting way of looking at it, although the more I read through your post the more it looks like an awkwardly worded version of what's been said so many times before. Maybe I'm just concentrating too hard.

I suppose I would be 'pure asexual' by your definitions, much as that label is starting to make me want to go on a murderous rampage.

Just for the record, though.. sex instinct? What would you consider that to be?

[ThePieMaker]

I don't know if it's really right to label it "pure" or "impure" asexuality. But I guess you'd probably consider me a "pure" asexual, because at my now age of 18 my desire for anything sexual whatsoever is about the same as it was at the age of 8 (i.e. none).

[M51]

A whole lot of people have gotten on here lately asking about "pure" asexuals, "true" asexuals, "extreme" asexuals....

And the common factor of all of their definitions of "true", "pure", and "extreme" is that take their own experience and use that as the pinnacle of purity or true-ness or whatever.

If you, Zylon, have a libido, a lot of people would not consider YOU to be pure. If you, Zylon, have attractions and crushes, a lot of people would exclude YOU from the "true asexual" list.

I do not believe any asexual is more "pure" or "true" than any other asexual. If you consider yourself asexual, you are a pure asexual. If you consider your sexual, you are a pure sexual, and if you want to be an "impure" mix, have at it. Elitist or exclusionary definitions that imply pureness or superiority are dangerous and counterproductive to a tolerant community environment.

And yes, I DO fit your definition of "pure asexual", so I am not just being sour grapes. I won't vote, though, because I think the answer to your census question is that 100% of the asexuals in this forum are "pure", if they want to think of themselves that way.

[Anti-stud]

I am also starting to notice this trend and don't like it.

If a man has been married for 20 years, had heterosexual sex with his wife and then at 40 comes out of the closet, does that make him any less gay?

Is he not a 'pure' or 'true' or 'extreme' homosexual? :?

[Puzzle_chick]

This does sound disturbingly like it could turn into another "extreme asexual" fiasco...*gets into a foxhole*

I suppose, maybe, I'd fit your def of pure asexual. Cause yeah, the idea of me having sex feels awfully alien. I don't know what the "sex instinct" is exactly but if it means the instinct to latch onto any willing partner and do them, I don't have one. But at the same time I don't think many of the "purists" would consider me a pure asexual given that I understand the concept, god knows I've written enough slash, plus I'd be willing, even happy, to engage in certain sexual acts if it really was important for my partner's happiness.

I'm not sure I'd like to be a 'pure asexual' anyway. I like my flexible, self-interpreted titles. I don't really care to adopt a term that I can't interpret my own way.

[Næt.]

I have a £40k street value.

Pure enough for ya?

[Dame du Lac]

Sorry, I guess I'm one of the impure ones. :oops:

*hangs head in shame and walks quietly away*

I am also an "impure" asexual.

*holds head up high and dances down street*

[Lekzýs]

I, like everyone else thus far, disagrees with the concept of a 'pure asexual', as asexuality does not need, in my opinion, to be sub-divided, especially when such a sub-division could be used for elitist purposes and thoughts; however, I do understand the point that you are trying to make.

I am one of those people who could, I believe, have spent xyr entire life completely oblivious to the idea of sex, had xe not been taught about it both at school, and from society in general - I still can't comprehend why it is natural for the majority of the population, as it strikes me as alien behaviour. I struggle to see it in anything other than a cold, clinical manner - I can understand the emotional intimacy that's going on between the people - provided, of course, it is being participated in by two individuals in love - but cannot transfer such emotions onto the actions of the genitals: it is as though there are two sections in my brain that can never connect on the subject of sex - emotional intimacy, and bodily actions - they are just completely unrelated. However, they are linked as they would be with most people on the ideas of cuddling: cuddling is an intimate action; sex is clinical.

[asexual1976]

I wouldn't really distinguish amongst asexuals between those "pure" and those not. I don't really see why one type of asexuality is better/purer/more valid than another form. After all we are all different anyway so introducing a hierachy isn't really neccessary.

That said I don't object to forming sub-groups comprising different asexuals. To use an analogy : Amongst the blind there are two different groups : those that have been blind from birth and thus have absolutely no clue what this "seeing" is all about and those that went blind because of an illness or something similar. The second group will abviously know what sight is.

Naturally both groups will have slightly different issues they want to talk about. The first group might be facinated with the concept of sight in a way that the second group will not be. On the other hand the second group will have faced problems related to the loss of eyesight that the prior group will not be able to relate to.

Both groups are "validly" blind people, but yet on some areas they might feel more comofrtable speaking with the subgroup that can better relate to their specific situation.

It's similar with asexuals. All aexuals have a unifying issue - their lack of sexual attraction. But as asexuals are so widely diverse some may feel more comfortable relating primarily to a subgroup that is even more similar to themselves in respect to their asexuality.

P.S. I would probably fit into your group of "pure" sexuals, as I do not have sex, do not feel any inclination to have it, and have no real clue as to what sexual attraction actually is. I don't watch porn and when I do come accross a sex scene in some movie flipping through the channels, my reaction usually is : "You're kidding me right ? You don't seriously want to tell me that people actually do these things in real llife !???"

[mindlife]

If a man has been married for 20 years, had heterosexual sex with his wife and then at 40 comes out of the closet, does that make him any less gay?

Is he not a 'pure' or 'true' or 'extreme' homosexual?

That's the point. There is no hierarchy of who is the more asexual among us.

If you want to know about pure homosexuality, why don't you ask this pure, unadulterated soul?

Or how about this one?

The point is that being married and even anti-gay never stopped these men from being gay. They're not less pure than any other gay men, nor are they any more so.

If asexuality is an orientation, and I believe it is, then it really doesn't matter what your instincts tell you. There is something beyond them.

If sexuality were only a matter of instinct, I think it would be much more controllable and controlled.

[Zylon]

Hello All,

I will give my reply to each of you :

Hayley Vos-Nalle said ".. sex instinct? What would you consider that to be?"

The automatic drive or skill to do coitus or its oral or anal analogies, specific sexual emotions related to the conscious manipulation of the genitals, rump, or mouth, any attraction or meaningful emotion related to the image of female breasts, pelvic shape, rump, big red lips, etc.

In other words, the changes in emotional and behavioral settings which occur at puberty; all behaviors and feelings considered specifically pornographic.

GoAllyGoGo said "..But I guess you'd probably consider me a "pure" asexual, because at my now age of 18 my desire for anything sexual whatsoever is about the same as it was at the age of 8 (i.e. none)."

What I am refering to is not judged by the level of desire, but rather it is judged by the level of alienness. In other words, my pristine answer to the question "do you want to do sex" would not be "no", but would be "what's sex?" (Of course the world has taught me what it is, but my understanding of it is pure intellectual. Human sexual behavior is seen by me the same as I would see the sexual behavior of fish or bugs or worms. It's really kinda disgusting!

M51 said "...a lot of people would exclude YOU from the "true asexual"

list."

Anti-stud said"..I am also starting to notice this trend and don't like it."

Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the lingo. My use of the term "pure" was my own creation for lack of an alternative. I was only refering to the post-pubescent sex instinct, which you can have but still be considered asexual due to the lack of desire for it. But I have always felt like a freak, different even from people who at first seem similar to me. I am asking in innocence, and no value judgement is meant by my use of the word "pure".

Puzzle_chick said "..I'd be willing, even happy, to engage in certain sexual acts if it really was important for my partner's happiness."

So would I, but I wouldn't know what I was doing. In me, the sex instinct is not just undesired, it is missing. I have tried it a few times, coitus, kissing, oral, but to no avail. I can't even imagine how it could be enjoyed in any way, or have any emotional meaning good or bad. But is was physically disgusting. It was hard for me to believe that my partners weren't disgusted by it themselves.

Aleksi said ". cuddling is an intimate action; sex is clinical."

That is a good distinction. I am great for cuddling and intimacy and closeness to the point of fusion. But sex (in the post pubescent sense) is not part of me because my brain could not rewire after the age of 6.

So I should take back the term "pure', and ask: what percent of asexuals lack the post-pubescent sexual brain wiring itself, so that that the sex instinct is just not there to be desired or undesired?" (The default reaction to post-pubescent sexual behavior is disgust. Just ask any six year old!)

[Zylon]

AS far as hierarchy is conserned, there is none implied by what I have said. In fact, the person who lacks a sex instinct is much more likely to do sex (e.g. to try to please a partner, or out of curiosity) than someone who has the wiring for it but hates it (a meaningful aversion is far stronger than the meaningless disgust reaction of someone who lacks the instinct).

Just like the two blind men mentioned above: Who is more blind, the person born that way who is used to it, or the person recently blind, who feels the pain of it and cannot yet compensate for it?

No hierarchy, status, or ethical judgement is implued by any of my posts, except in the case where someone knowingly and willingly hurts someone else (outside of mutually consenting masochism).

[Guest]

I'd think it would be horrible to separate asexuals, defining them by their purity levels.

I don't know. I don't think anyone would want to be known as an impure asexual. It just doesn't ring right. To me, it would be like defining recovering alcoholics by drunkeness levels.

"Hi, i'm Mark, and i'm a mild binge drinking alcoholic. Not like Brent over there, the binge drinker.."

I don't see how not having any sexual feelings whatsoever, makes you pure, when you don't act out on them, either way(Or get no urges to).

[ThePieMaker]

What I am refering to is not judged by the level of desire, but rather it is judged by the level of alienness. In other words, my pristine answer to the question "do you want to do sex" would not be "no", but would be "what's sex?" (Of course the world has taught me what it is, but my understanding of it is pure intellectual. Human sexual behavior is seen by me the same as I would see the sexual behavior of fish or bugs or worms. It's really kinda disgusting!

Yeah, but wouldn't that be considered more uneducated than anything... not knowing what sex is. Why would that make anyone "pure"? Perhaps innocent is a little better term.

[Zylon]

GoAllyGoGo said: "but wouldn't that be considered more uneducated than anything... not knowing what sex is. Why would that make anyone "pure"? Perhaps innocent is a little better term."

I did not mean literally not knowing what the word "sex" means. This is not a matter of education.

Think more of asking a blind (since birth) man what his favorite color is. He may be very educated, and understand the physics of color more than we do. He would not literally say "what's color", but that is what I meant by "what's sex".

Do you understand now?

[mindlife]

AS far as hierarchy is conserned, there is none implied by what I have said. In fact, the person who lacks a sex instinct is much more likely to do sex (e.g. to try to please a partner, or out of curiosity) than someone who has the wiring for it but hates it (a meaningful aversion is far stronger than the meaningless disgust reaction of someone who lacks the instinct).

I don't know if that's truly the case. A person who lacks "the instinct" is not disgusted. Just avoidant and indifferent.

Indifference is far from meaningless. If anything, it is truly the opposite of attraction in that it can have great intensity.

There is no absurdity in it.

I can't speak for asexuals who are repulsed.

The likelihood of an asexual having sex has little to do with the quality of his or her orientation and more to do with the relationship. The question to ask is not how asexual are you? But what kind of romantic attachment and relationship are you forming?

Emotions and inclinations, wherever they tend, are always meaningful to those possessing them.

[Zylon]

This thread had taken a wrong turn. Many responses here are in effect "your question is not important". For me, my question is important, having to do with my feelings of being different from everyone else, a feeling of loneliness.

It is probably of no consequence to someone in a relationship with me that they are asexual in any sense; they will never notice the difference as long as they want closeness and warmth, and that is not my problem here. But there is an essential difference between what is missing in most asexuals and what is missing in me, and it is lonely to think that my way is rare or unknown. Therefore I was hoping for a poll-like percentage, the larger the better, of who here is asexual for my reason. In my readings of psychology books, I have never heard of many of my psychological properties, and I have come across psychologists actually denying that some things about me are even possible.

It was an unfortunate choice of words to call myself a "pure" asexual, especially due to the fact that I was only referring to the post-pubescent sex instinct. I know that many or most asexuals are lacking that which turns on the sex instinct, rather than lacking the instinct itself. I do not lack that which turns on the instinct; if I had the instinct I would very much want to use it. But no matter how "turned on" by someone I am, no matter how intimate I want to be, no matter how physically potent I may be, the post-pubescent sex instinct will never turn on, female breasts will never be attractive or have any meaning, coitus will always feel strange and unnatural, and sexual behavior will always seem silly, alien, and disgusting. (and without the instinct to alter the pristine perception of sexual behavior with its mucus and saliva, it will seem disgusting.)

There was a couple of responses to this thread which seemed similar to me, but I can't be sure. Sexual behavior can be separated from intimacy even in a person who does have the instinct, for many reasons, such as sexual abuse. The difference between them and me would be that, even if they do not want sex, there would still be something familiar or meaningful about it to them; they would perceive it differently than they did at, say, age 3. Specific sexual behaviors and cues would cause different emotions in them than random behaviors and cues would.

I would guess that people who did not go through puberty would not have

a sex instinct. But I did go through puberty, at least physically.

Before puberty, at least back to age 6, I had powerful crushes and powerful orgasms (not related to the crushes), and all this powerful "sex-related?" emotion fixated the brain, so that no further additions could occur at puberty. Thus my post-pubescent sex instinct is neurologically non-existent.

Is this unbelievable, unknown, rare, or more common than I thought?

That it the question of this thread.

[EGAD!]

Zylon: Just be more careful about how you word things.

You may not have meant any harm, but it is nevertheless bothersome when someone tries to single out other people as being "pure" and conversely "impure" if they don't fit a particular definition.

Rather unfortunately this does seem to be a trend here on AVEN.

Instead of asking how many are pure asexuals you could have just asked an open ended question about how many people can relate to what you are feeling and not apply a label to it.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

[M51]

I think MOST asexuals lack what you are calling the sex instinct. Some asexuals learn how to perform, but nearly every asexual who describes it says that sex is a foreign activity and a foreign idea to them. I often say that if I were born on an isolated island, surrounded by hot, sexy men (I am a hetero-romantic female) who were programmed not to initiate sexual activity with me unless I make the first move, not only would the first move never happen, but it would never cross my mind. I am pretty sure that in a vacuum I would have figured out kissing, and I am positive I would have ultimately come up with cuddling and hugging and hand-holding. But genitals would be for bodily waste disposal and that is it. If nobody ever told me my genitals could be used for something else, I never would figure it out on my own.

Even when I have been in relationships and been very sexually active, every time I have sex I have to concentrate to figure out what needs to happen next and what I should be doing. Nothing comes naturally to me.

I have never differentiated between sexual desire and a sex instinct. For me, when I see someone I find physically attracted to, I want to be near them - hug them, hold hands, or even just sit with our arms or legs touching. Usually I don't feel the urge to kiss them unless physical attraction is combined with an attractive context - when they do something cool or something nice or say something wonderful. So I guess you could say I have the instinct to kiss or the instinct to cuddle...but I am not sure how that gives any further meaning than the current common term of physical attraction or physical desire.

Other than people who repress their sexual urges (consciously or unconsciously) due to trauma, I don't understand how an asexual could have the "sex instinct" but not sexual desire...they seem to be the same thing to me.

Also from what I understand, at least some sexuals have sexual instinct before puberty. One sexual told me once that even when he was very young, before he even knew what sex was, he could look at an attractive woman and know that there was something he was interested in between her legs. He didn't know what, but he felt an instinctual compulsion driving him towards that region of her body.

[Zylon]

Hello M51,

Your post is well taken. Yes, cuddling, holding, and being close are instincts from infancy and are not part of the post-pubescent sex instinct. I am extremely affectionate by nature. I do kiss, but only the top of the head. I would never think of mouth to mouth contact. I don't like mouth to skin either (e.g. cheek), but its not too bad.

From your post, along with other recent information I have received from various sources, I have lost most of my respect for academic and clinical psychology which makes people more similar than they really are, and makes me more of a freak than I really am.

But post-pubescent hetero friendships have been a dilemma for me: if the girl does not want sex from me, she rejects me before knowing me assuming that I want sex with her even if I deny it. If she does want sex from me, she rejects me as soon as she tries to do it with me. She will be insulted, but still does not believe that I am asexual and it is not a rejection. Men cannot fake it as well as women can.

Thank you for your post.

[bydefault]

... (except for the subconscous automatic masturbation with powerful orgasms I had since age 6)...

:shock:

Okay, I had to jump back in because my brain apparently imploded when I read that part of your original post the first time around. Your definitions are, at best, quite subjective. Your experience makes me feel pure as the driven snow when it comes to the notion of "pure asexuality". I guess I was thrown by your description of female breasts as "tumors". I find them aesthetically pleasing but not in a sexual way. For me, "tumors" are what you find between the legs - male and female.

*walks off with head held high but shivers running down his spine*

[thewrll]

Impure considering I love porn and zero chance of me having sex and it would disgust me extremely if I did have sex.

[Goodgrove]

I'm not a "pure" asexual, I'm not a "true" asexual. I am, simply, asexual.

I don't want to put anything more to it than the simple definition, "I do not experience any sexual attraction".

That's it.

Story ends.

[Raker]

Yeah, I'm with Goodgrove on this one. I'm not pure or impure (with their connotations of good and bad), I'm just an asexual.

I don't get the porn thing from a few posts back.

Porn?

I thought this was a forum for people with no interest in sex?

[Seien Hananosei]

I don't think the word 'pure' is entirely appropriate. I mean.... That kinda ties in with elitism.

[Guest Happily]

Humm, I would call mysefl the type who has the sexual instinct (very low mind) but has no desire to use it.

But I do wonder, if I had never been told about sex, never seen it on TV, talks of it in magazines or heard about porn etc, would I have ever had a sexual feeling? I honestly do not know. I don't think i've ever had sexual desire for someone - I've wanted to hug and kiss but never touch them sexually. I've had huge crushes but thats more romantic.

[chatha]

depending on whether I'm on 'mones or not... when not on HRT, I wouldn't care if you were the hottest and walked naked by me, I wouldn't care. I probably wouldn't even notice you.

On HRT, yeah, I notice... I might even be aroused -- might. But even then... I have such a strong aversion to actually having sex, as far as you'll ever know, you're invisible to me just like when I'm not on HRT.

Btw, I'm a virgin and I'm theoretically old enough to start having grandkids.

So... define "pure" again?

[regnflickan]

sounds rather starnge to say "pure", makes me think of the "pure blood" wizards of harry potter >.<

but yeah, I can totaly relate to what you said about not knowing what it was all about if you hadn't been thaught it, I feel the same way. Had I not seen it on tv, heard people talk about it or been thaught about it in school I would have absolutley no idea such a thing even existed. I would've laughed at the very idea, had someone told me about it and I hadn't been thaught about it from everywhere all through life.