Who has had sex?

[Skiddaloxx]

Ok, i was reading through some posts and felt a bit awkward because it seems that people here claim they are asexual, but then a lot of them have (had) sex. Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh???? StRanGe!

So my question is: Who has had sex?

:?: :?: :?: :?: :shock:

[Gorax]

Not me :D

[whirlygirl]

nor me, when a feeling is missing after trying (by 29 i've tried!!!)

[cronos]

I haven't. Not that people haven't tried to create the opportunity. I think that people can have sex and then identify as asexual. It's like trying smoking the first time and then not doing again.

[Skiddaloxx]

Good point, Cronos, but i think that counts for asexual girls. A boy has to get hard in order to fuck, but asexuality means no sexual attraction! So that would be a paradox! (unless he takes bottom part of gay action)

Skiddaloxx

[aury]

i don't know about anyone else, but my sexual trauma doesn't count.

[ogbg]

ME?!! HAVE SEX?!! ARE YOU OFF YOUR ROCKER?!!! :shock: Hell NO!!!! And (unless my brain rots and I fall in love, as I tell my mother) there is NO WAY, not in a MILLION YEARS, that I'm letting ANYBODY stick ANYTHING... ANYWHERE DOWN THERE!!! (retch) (retch) :x

Hee hee, guess that pretty much sums it up :D

[bard of aven]

Warning: Once again, Avenistas, do not read this post if sex disgusts you.

A boy has to get hard in order to fuck, but asexuality means no sexual attraction!

Skiddaloxx,

Speaking as a retired boy...this one really made the non sequitur alarm in my head go off.

I think we need to think of stimulation, arousal, and attraction as three different things. Males get hard (aroused) from all sorts of causes (stimulation). Attraction (the desire for genital interaction with a specific person) is one of them. (Generally, I suspect the same stimulus/arousal/attraction trichotomy is also true of women.)

But it is possible and frequently happens that males are stimulated and aroused without attraction entering into it. Arousal in sleep or in seduction/rape situations are usually involuntary (and in the latter cases can take place in the absence of attraction or even in the presence of repulsion). The same can happen in all sorts of culturally normal situations: seeing hardcore or softcore porn, skinnydipping, locker room chatter or sights (stimuli), and any number of things can arouse a male even when there is no attraction present. And these things happen all the time in the lives of sexuals. And pardon me for saying so, but males (and I assume, females) often masturbate outside the context of an attraction to another.

And we Type C (using AVENguy's fourfold definition of our kind) male asexuals certainly get hard without feeling attracted to genitally interact with another.

Which leads me to ask for a clarification about your original question:

Who has had sex?

I sometimes find other people stimulating, and arousing. But I never experience a desire to touch any part of them with any aroused part of me. Still, the stimulation and the arousal are there, and I avail myself of the defined Type C relief. So my question is this: If the person I am aroused by is not there when the resultant sex takes place, does that count? Or is it merely an act of worship?

boa

[Shadow]

Ooo, look, a limb! I'll go out on it!

I've had sex. Actually I'm married to a heterosexual man, and we have sex fairly often. I even enjoy it.

And now, being a two-day veteran of this board, I'll try to explain to Skiddaloxx why identifying as asexual makes so much sense to me, even though I don't mind sex.

Well, actually, that's it right there: I don't mind sex. It can even be kind of fun. Which puts it on par, for me, with activities like knitting, playing board games, going jogging with a friend, watching an OK-or-better show on TV, playing the piano, petting a cat, solving a math problem... but as with any of those things, I could live without it. I'd give up sex before I'd give up math problems. (I'm a mathematician, 'k?) I'd probably give up TV before sex, as long as I'm still allowed movies (I lived TV-free for a whole year recently; got out of the habit). If I didn't have a life partner who was interested in sex, I wouldn't be having it and it wouldn't phase me.

From the top of the board:

Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction

I don't experience sexual attraction. However, I sometimes choose to have sex for reasons other than sexual attraction: for example the chance to make someone I love feel good, or the chance to burn off some excess energy.

Does this help answer your question, Skiddaloxx?

-Shadow

[Lukara]

Not me!!! :shock:

[Skiddaloxx]

Okay, i guess everything is possible, but for me asexual people are non-sexual people. It's a bit weird saying that you have sex and still identify as asexual. It would be just as odd if a straight guy never fucks with women, only men, and still identifies as straight. Shadow, you have all my RESPECT, and you must really looooooove your husband, but to me you are kinda mother-theresa-sexual. It's kinda a sacrifice what you do.

Bard of Aven *curtsies* (LOL), well....firstly i'd like to mention that i had a discussion with Meretseger and Moose Alini about that in the chat. We were discussing the A B C D categories and how we actually dislike them or find them inadequate. For me the definition of asexuality is very simple:

Asexuality= no sex drive, no sexual attraction

How I look at the 4 categories:

Type A (Those who experience sex drive but no attraction to people), those people are not asexual, they are autosexual (selfsexual, sexually self sufficient, they only like to have sex with themselves)

Type B (People who experience attraction, but no sex drive). These are asexual.

Type C (both, masturbating feels good, and attraction to other people) again autosexual.

Type D (neither, no sex with themselves, no attraction) The archetypal asexual. blank canvas-style

But then again, who am i to judge?

Males do get hard from all sorts of cause, that's right. I am aware that i confused some people, because i haven't made my point clear enough. In order to fuck, a man has to get hard, which only happens when he is aroused. A man who is not hard, cannot fuck! It's not possible technically. Do you agree? (and let's leave out Viagra here)

A women though, can fuck (example: Shadow) even if she is not aroused, stimulated or attracted. Or let's say can be fucked. Technically it's possible.

So if a man is aroused seeing someone, gets hard, but wants to keep the sex to himself, then i'd say he is autosexual.

If a man is stimulated because of anything not sexual, than it's just a physical reaction and has nothing to do with sex, sexual attraction, etc.

If a man is attracted to someone, but not sexually, his feelings are asexual.

I hope i could make my point a bit more understandable.

*jumping upon the assembly line which takes me out* bye bye :o

[ishouldbelockedinaninsane]

Maybe that guy's saying that hes getting aroused by the stimulation not by the person its fucking. I mean a kid can become excited but its just using energy not fucking cause it cant. My belief is that sex is only energy being used in that way and some people have no desire to use it in that way because they find other things much more interesting. Maybe that guy was thiking of a math problem while some bitch rapes him? However, I have to agree that asexuality means no desire to have sex. For example monks in the old times: some monks had to try hard to remain celibate, some couldnt remain celibate, some had no problem with it. Those last would be asexuals those 2nd would be perverts and the first would be normal. Maybe some of the first and some of the second like men better than women and some women better than men. But they still prefer. Asexuals wouldn't would they since they are a-sexual. So the monks are everyone in this forum. Some like screwing some don't.

But my point was, as long as you developed sexually normal then you have the ability if not the desire to have sex right? So if a guy is stimulated it could create the same sensation but it would not be sex right? Masturbation in my opinion is fine as long as you arent thinking of someone else. However, personally I see no need to touch ur dick unless ur going piss.

[orderinchaos]

while sex is something confined to my past, I have had it many times in the past. it was actually my sexual experience that led me to *conclude* that I was asexual. I agree with boa about arousal.

I sometimes think about sex with people I care about and it does bring about arousal. now to explain this, I don't think about the mechanics of it at all. it's just like a good, buzzy feeling called "having sex" with no real physical interaction. there's no reality to it at all. when the reality enters, this picture gets ruined and becomes something I just don't want at all.

as I said in another post, I lost my virginity in a situation where I think the excitement about doing something "bad" (in my at-the-time 18yo ex-fundamentalist christian view anyway) actually outweighed my neutral or antipathetic feelings about sex. even from the second time onwards, I started to notice I was incredibly detached about the whole thing in an emotional sense. I wrote this off as nerves, but I proved it wrong ultimately - it took six years though.

I once had this weird theory, you see, that my problems/unease with sex was just a lack of familiarity and if I had more sex, and more often, that I would get over my unease. it actually got much worse. I got to the point where sex felt like a chore and I dwelled heavily on the negative aspects of it (cleanliness issues, physical discomfort/pain involved etc).

ended up setting up a situation where I was under no pressure to go either way with a particular guy who had everything going for him in both departments - on one hand, he was seriously cute (in my opinion) and had a great sense of touch; on the other, he was intelligent, interesting and more than able to carry on a conversation. the end result? we ended up messing around a bit and massaging but never progressing anywhere near sex, and had a long and interesting conversation about everything under the sun. ever since that day, I've identified as something which, 5 months later, I came to call "asexual", leading to me finding this site.

[bard of aven]

Holy thread, Batman, it looks like theory!!!

This is an interesting discussion in many ways. The bottom line for me is: To each, one's own. I realize I am right on the line for some, and over it for others. If the movement ever gets to the point where it goes conservative and decides I need to be burned, I will help gather the faggots (you should pardon the pun). Until then, let's get a little stronger before we start subdividing ourselves into sects (you should pardon the pun).

And the short answer to your question, Skiddaloxx, since I already gave you the long one, is, um, Not I.

boa

[orderinchaos]

my basic belief is

I think asexual is a social definition rather than a strictly physiological / biological one - there are many different groups or types of people, and many uncategorised people who identify (and in my view rightly so) as asexual.

to my mind, "asexual" means people who don't have sex for the reason that they are not disposed or attracted towards it (rather than for example being morally opposed to it) ... it's a definition that probably takes in more rather than less people ...

[AVENguy]

orderinchaos- I definitely agree here that what we're dealing with is fundamentally social, because sexuality itself is a socially built idea.

I myself have never had sex, but I see no reason why I would be incapable of it and had I not had the good fortune to start understanding myself as asexual I probably would have by now (maybe the process would have triggered a few lightbulbs..)

To expand boa's discussion about stimulation, it can really be a wide variety. I'm ansy from sitting in a car for too long, I'm really into a piece of social theory, it's actually pretty random....

[Shadow]

Since I could never decide whether it was boys or girls I was attracted to, I've identified as bisexual since I was 17 (with a 3-year period of identifying as lesbian in the middle there somewhere). Being the kind of person who likes to discuss and theorize, I've been involved with a number of queer youth groups and I've read a fair amount of queer theory. Out of all that I came to the understanding that sexual orientation is more about what's going on in your head than what you're doing with your body.

For instance, consider a 40-year-old married woman who comes out as a lesbian. She reveals that she married a man when she was 20 because of social pressures and lack of choice, but she has always been sexually attracted to women, and has never been sexually attracted to men. Of course, for the past 20 years she's been having sex with a man. So would you say that, for those 20 years, she was straight? Or that she was a (closeted) lesbian the whole time? The way I understand sexual orientation, I'd go with the latter - I'd say she was a lesbian the whole time.

It makes sense to me that there can be a lesbian who has sex with men, a gay man who has sex with women (yes, it can and does happen), a bisexual person who is monogamous, a celibate person who is not asexual. So why not an asexual person who is not celibate?

Interesting topic! :)

Cheers,

Shadow

[cronos]

It makes sense to me that there can be a lesbian who has sex with men, a gay man who has sex with women (yes, it can and does happen), a bisexual person who is monogamous, a celibate person who is not asexual. So why not an asexual person who is not celibate?

Wow. Sexuality as a primarily social construct and not necessarily controlled by biological impulses. It is possible. When you think about it, the physical act of sex is pure stimulus/response. The who/what/where/when/why/how of that stimulus ranges so wildly that it might not be controlled purely by the biology of the person(s) involved. That could also explain "shifting" in sexual orientation. The pure biology of humans rarely changes without some outside influence. In this case, it could be personal experiences, socio-economic, changes in what we find "comfortable" and "right". Almost always, these sorts of changes do not occur conciously or by force. They are normally a progression that the individual, their beliefs and the societal environment have on each other.

This also allows for the concept that some find the stimulus/response boring/disgusting/pointless/a waste of time/etc. Which would explain the concept of asexuality. It's another socio-phychological response to the physical act of sex, just like hetero-, homo-, and bi-sexuality.

I'm not saying I'm right, just putting some theories out there. :)

[Skiddaloxx]

What's the point of categories then? If everything is shifting anyway...the day i start having sex, i am not asexual anymore. Of curse there sexuality can change from time to time (i am a good example). It may change from asexual to wanting to have sex. But i can't say that I am in an asexual phase and want sex at the same time. So either it's this or that. That's why , to me, straight people who have sex with someone of their own gender, are not straight. The same for homosexuals. And it's a cliche that bisexuals are not monogamous. Hell, i am getting dizzy!! :shock:

Shadow: I agree, the woman is a lesbian. She may seem straight from the outside, but she is not.

AVENguy: Of course sex-ual-ity is a social construct too, i dunno if that's good or bad though. I admit: I like putting things into boxes.

Skiddaloxx

[Shadow]

Skiddaloxx wrote:

What's the point of categories then? If everything is shifting anyway...

Oh, I'm actually quite rigid in my definitions of the categories.

The way I understand and use them, the following words relate entirely to what's going on inside you (ie they relate to your thoughts, feelings, wants, impulses, and attractions): heterosexual/straight, homosexual/gay/lesbian, bisexual, asexual, transgender. They're about what you feel, not what you do.

Therefore (again, the way I use the words), for instance, a lesbian could not become straight or bi by having sex with men. Even if she never had sex with a woman in her entire life, even if she had sex with lots of men, she still wouldn't be straight or bi. The only thing that would make her straight or bi would be if she was actually sexually attracted to a man. (Note, of course, that she's the only one who knows who she's attracted to - so when she tells me what her orientation is, I'll believe her, whatever she says.)

Likewise, in my understanding, an asexual could never become sexual just by having sex. The only thing that would make them sexual would be if they experience sexual attraction to other people. It's very possible to choose to have sex without experiencing sexual attraction (probably easier for women than for men, I'll grant that).

And a sexual person couldn't become asexual just by not having sex. If they're sexually attracted to people, but they choose not to act on it, then they're celibate, not asexual.

With me so far? :D

On the other hand, the way I understand and use them, the following words relate entirely to your actions: virgin, celibate, monogamous, polygamous, cross-dresser. They're about what you do, not about what you think you are.

So, for instance, the "Born-Again Virgin" movement just seems silly to me. If a person has had sex, even once, they're not a virgin, whether they think of themselves as one or not. If they had sex in the past but don't anymore, then they're celibate, but they're not a virgin. (I will grant, however, that there's some fuzziness in the definition of sex. I lost my virginity either in January of 2000 or in June of 2000, depending on how you define sex. And don't worry, I won't go into any more detail here!)

"Queer," by the way, is a much broader word, encompassing all sorts of feelings and actions that are outside of a narrowly-defined norm.

:? My academic background's in both English and Math. So maybe it's not surprising that I can go on at such length about how a few terms are defined! Hope I'm not putting everyone to sleep... Anyone want to totally contest any of my word usages?

-Shadow

[Strange Little Girl]

have i ever had sex?

hell. no.

><

lets just say that it would take alot to get someone to stick anything into any body cavity of mine ill tell you that much ^^

[Skiddaloxx]

Shadow, i understand what you mean, because it sounds logical but still it's all very theory-y, no? I mean, the facts are: lesbians don't really have sex with men (why should they??), straights don't have sex with people of their own gender, and *most most most most* asexuals don't have sex at all. I dunno if categories are good or bad, but look at us: we are here, posting on a website called AVEN, which is a place for people who put themselves in the category of being asexual. Like orderinchaos said: it might be possible that they are as many labels as there are people on earth. Hell, what do i know? *getting dizzy again*

It's morning. Je besoin de petit déjeuner. Donnez-moi des croissants, s'il vous plaît! Croissant, anyone?

[Eta Carinae]

I haven't. I haven't even been kissed. I don't think I've even held hands.

Actually, at some point (some point years from now), I would like to, just once, just to see what it's like. I'm too curious for my own good, you see. Granted, the experience would probably be a disaster ("Stop slobbering on me!" "Don't touch me there!" "Or there!" "This is so messy. I need a two hour shower and a wire brush. And a puke bowl.") but like I said-- too curious for my own good.

[Elf people]

No way. I am afraid that I am revolted by the concept. I find it hard to admit this is so because some of you here are of the opinion that being revolted by sex indicates some sort of psychological disturbance. However remember that this sort of a view comes from now discounted Freudian theories. Besides I cannot help it, my stomach just can't handle it :x

Anyway, just remember how it was in childhood-boys and girls before they hit puberty almost always consider even kissing revolting. (euwww...) But then hormones take over.

Based on these facts my theory is that if not for hormones, most ppl would consider sexual activity disgusting although the degree to which they are revolted by it will differ according to ppl.

A corrollary to my theory is that sexual acts exist beyond the conception of the rational mind. For if the rational mind were to consider everything in detail without the control of hormones, it would definitely end up turning away from such acts. Take oral sex for instance- could anyone rationally want to do something as disgusting as this? For me it is like asking someone to drink from the toilet.

Sorry to offend but that's the way I feel about it.

And yeah, I can hear comments like "that is soo teenagy to think like that"- yeah, maybe but I am by no means a teenager and I am guessing that this is the way I will feel about it for all time.

[Shadow]

Skiddaloxx: Bonjour! Je n'ai aucun croissant, donc je mange du pain grillé.

Skiddaloxx wrote:

still it's all very theory-y, no?

:) I'm all about the theory. It makes sense of reality for me.

I mean, the facts are: lesbians don't really have sex with men (why should they??), straights don't have sex with people of their own gender,

Not always true. Many lesbians have sex with men - mostly because they're closeted and denying their real attractions. Still, this doesn't mean they're not lesbians.

Straight people having sex with someone of the same sex is less common by far, I'd think, 'cause this time the social pressures and predjudices are keeping them apart rather than pushing them together. Still, within my (odd) group of friends, I know a few women who've had sex with women just to see what it was like. After which they came to the conclusion "Yup, I'm straight. I definitely prefer men."

Straight men in situations where there are no women (eg: prison) often have sex with each other.

I have a theory about asexuals who have sex... I bet a lot of people who experience no sexual attraction, but no significant aversion to sex either, find themselves normal enough to "get by" and therefore never thought of seeking out a community like this. I'm here because I excessively theorize. :)

Cheers!

-Shadow

[orderinchaos]

No way. I am afraid that I am revolted by the concept. I find it hard to admit this is so because some of you here are of the opinion that being revolted by sex indicates some sort of psychological disturbance.

I thought your post was both good and well thought out... no problems there :)

Just to address the implied point there and probably break a dozen taboos - but all in the name of self-examination and trying to further the cause of community unity. I think one basic problem we're dealing with (and thankfully, not to a great extent at all in the AVEN community) is ultimately that human nature tries to validate one's own experiences by imposing them on others. For example, trying to classify views, actions, things or people as weird or wrong because they're so far outside what a given individual sees as "the norm" based on their own experience, in order to reestablish its validity. In extreme cases, this individual tendency can be tapped into by religious, social and political leaders and movements to establish group concepts such as sin, psychological disturbance, incorrect thinking, unAmerican, etc. It's usually a means of putting someone in the "too-hard" box - the concept being, "I don't need to understand that or fit that in my life experience, because it's wrong/evil/whatever".

To apply this to the situation here, I think what we need to establish as a principle is that each person has their own experience of asexuality. I think by and large all participants do understand that - across just 400 people we have a wide range of variance in the group and considering some much smaller groups I've been in elsewhere with much less internal variance embroiled in factional in-fighting, I think we've done a tremendous job. I'm just putting my ideas in here though because I think it needs to be said rather than merely implied. Each person needs to know their own experience is theirs alone and in itself is valid. No two people are the same, although many will find they have similar experiences and the community feeds from both the similarities and differences between its members.

My ideas oddly enough came through being totally prejudiced and closed-minded in my childhood and teenage years - I was in a church which basically believed there was "the church" and "the world" - two polarised, opposed forces, one for good and one for evil. Being forced to deal with my sexuality and a range of other issues changed my views - although I admit that sometimes I run up against some little island of prejudice within myself and try to do as much as I can to fix it up. Some prejudice is good and serves a purpose (i.e. not taking a pleasant evening stroll through the nearest urban ghetto because it's unsafe) but stuff which prevents me from learning more about the world is what I consider the bad stuff. :P

[Wallach IX]

...I think what we need to establish as a principle is that each person has their own experience of asexuality...Each person needs to know their own experience is theirs alone and in itself is valid. No two people are the same, although many will find they have similar experiences and the community feeds from both the similarities and differences between its members.

Well said. :) Can we accentuate this idea in the "Information on Asexuality"?

That might save some people a lot of time trying to figure out exactly "which asexual type am I?" or wondering "hey, I don't feel anything listed there covers me, am I still asexual??"

[ogbg]

Shadow - Yeah, that pretty much sums it up! :D Er, in which case, I really have nothing to say. Good-bye! (runs out of the forum)

[nemesis]

I haven't. I haven't even been kissed. I don't think I've even held hands.

Actually, at some point (some point years from now), I would like to, just once, just to see what it's like. I'm too curious for my own good, you see. Granted, the experience would probably be a disaster ("Stop slobbering on me!" "Don't touch me there!" "Or there!" "This is so messy. I need a two hour shower and a wire brush. And a puke bowl.") but like I said-- too curious for my own good.

Lol. Sounds like good times.

I've never had sex and doubt I ever will unless at some point I decide to follow Inkburrow's path of destructive curiousity.

[Pete]

*flipping a monkey wrench in one hand and muttering 'hmmm what the hell?'*

Do you feel its possible for someone to become asexual?

Say if someone were going through his very own version of mid-life male menopause, and noticed that he's feeling much less attracted to guys - er - other people, than he used to, and in any event feels even less motivation to do anything about it to the point that he could easily just fall into an autosexual category, would you consider that person to have become asexual?

But, he quickly added, sooner or later don't all people stop having sex? Have there been elderly folks on this board who consider themselves asexual after having been sexual? Or do we stop worrying about the question after the first say 60 years?

And of course I have my own thoughts, but I LOVE reading Shadow's answers. So I'm wondering what her thoughts may be.