Is sexual attraction always about sex? Possibly TMI

[SFX]

ETA: and how about the possibility of having a definition that contains multiple components? something like, 'Different asexuals describe their experience in different ways: for example, as not experiencing sexual attraction; as not relating to others sexually, regardless of the nature of the relationship; or as not having an internal drive to have sex. This list is not exhaustive.' just a thought.

I like this thought, although I wouldn't call that a definition, but rather a collection of definitions. Also, I don't think the 'this list is not exhaustive' part is helpful in this case as it leaves things way too open. Like it or not, a definition has to be at least somewhat exclusive.

At this point there is only one thing I'm fairly sure of: there will never ever be a definition of asexuality that will make everyone on AVEN happy. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try of course.

[Mordsith]

The "this list is not exhaustive" is implied by the "For example". Other than that, I like it too.

[Lady Girl]

So "does not have an internal drive to have partnered sex", or "does not relate to others sexually"...are both the same, correct?

[Vampyremage]

So "does not have an internal drive to have partnered sex", or "does not relate to others sexually"...are both the same, correct?

I would have to say that the two concepts are close enough to being the same that they more or less mean the same thing. The nuance might be a bit difference, but I'm not sure how much that nuance really matters in this case.

[Lady Girl]

So "does not have an internal drive to have partnered sex", or "does not relate to others sexually"...are both the same, correct?

I would have to say that the two concepts are close enough to being the same that they more or less mean the same thing. The nuance might be a bit difference, but I'm not sure how much that nuance really matters in this case.

Sorry about my grammar in that quote, I don't know what happened there. So is the idea to have this concept replace the primary descriptor which is now "lacks sexual attraction"? And how does anyone go about addressing the issue as far as making that change? Or is this a discussion to just help us better understand the flaws in the definition? I'm not trying to be a smart Alec or anything...

[Vampyremage]

So "does not have an internal drive to have partnered sex", or "does not relate to others sexually"...are both the same, correct?

I would have to say that the two concepts are close enough to being the same that they more or less mean the same thing. The nuance might be a bit difference, but I'm not sure how much that nuance really matters in this case.

Sorry about my grammar in that quote, I don't know what happened there. So is the idea to have this concept replace the primary descriptor which is now "lacks sexual attraction"? And how does anyone go about addressing the issue as far as making that change? Or is this a discussion to just help us better understand the flaws in the definition? I'm not trying to be a smart Alec or anything...

As far as I'm concerned, this should be an important aspect of what asexuality is. I would argue in favour of redefining sexual attraction to include these concepts rather than redefining asexuality itself. Because, as I mentioned before, I do not think one can relate sexually to other people or experience an internal motivation towards having sex with other people while not experiencing sexual attraction. I think the confusion lies more in what sexual attraction really is, as opposed to what asexuality really is.

The argument that I have heard in defining asexuality in terms of lack of sexual attraction is that other orientations are defined in terms of sexual attraction. Where the disconnect lies, I think, is in what the words sexual attraction actually mean. Here on AVEN, desire and attraction or somehow separated in an artificial fashion that I don't think most people would relate to. When someone says they are sexually attracted, for example, to people of the opposite sex; implicit in that statement is that they have some sort of internal motivation to have sex with people of the opposite sex or, as put the other way, they relate sexually to people of the opposite sex. These concepts I do not believe can be practically separated and the idea of sexual attraction is directly attached to the idea of internal desire to have sex. Thus, I would be in favour of redefining and really laying out what sexual attraction is in practical terms, to include such concepts.

[Lady Girl]

That makes sense. So basically the definition and primary descriptor stay the same, but the descriptor's definition is made more clear and includes drive. So in essence they would not be two separate things...attraction includes drive. Drive is a part of attraction. Right?

[Vampyremage]

That's exactly what I'd be aiming for, yes. Now how we'd go about doing so I'm not entirely sure.

[P is for...]

i like the modifications. if i can just add one thought: some clarification of the extent of that internal drive would be helpful for asexuals who identify as i do; that is, people who can be fooled by their own biology into thinking they have that internal drive when they really do not. for me, and for the other people i've talked to who experience the same thing, i would describe myself as occasionally having an internal drive to have partnered sex that stops short of follow-through. it's so complicated, because essentially i can honestly say that i don't have an internal drive for sex; it's just that i don't become aware of that fact until i've already made irrevocable decisions, and then i end up kicking myself for having thought yet again that it would be different this time. because it never, ever is.

i'm having a hard time figuring out a succinct way to express it, but i'll keep pondering it and let you know when i come up with something. because i do think it's an important concept to articulate for other people who experience the same thing, and often feel broken or damaged in some way because of it.

[Lady Girl]

i like the modifications. if i can just add one thought: some clarification of the extent of that internal drive would be helpful for asexuals who identify as i do; that is, people who can be fooled by their own biology into thinking they have that internal drive when they really do not. for me, and for the other people i've talked to who experience the same thing, i would describe myself as occasionally having an internal drive to have partnered sex that stops short of follow-through. it's so complicated, because essentially i can honestly say that i don't have an internal drive for sex; it's just that i don't become aware of that fact until i've already made irrevocable decisions, and then i end up kicking myself for having thought yet again that it would be different this time. because it never, ever is.

i'm having a hard time figuring out a succinct way to express it, but i'll keep pondering it and let you know when i come up with something. because i do think it's an important concept to articulate for other people who experience the same thing, and often feel broken or damaged in some way because of it.

I think this is important too, and I'm glad you came back to comment on it P, I was wondering what you thought of these final conclusions.

Has anyone ever thought about using the term reaction in relation to sexuality. I tend to think a lot of asexuals have what could be called sexual reaction, but not sexual attraction. Having sexual reaction would imply reacting or being aroused (by anything I guess) but not desiring full on interaction with another person. At least I think it implies that. Thoughts?

Vamp...I have no clue where to go with this to have it included in the definitions.

[Moggie]

I agree P! And I know I said this in the other discussion on this topic, but it relates to what you said in the opposite. Sexual attraction as the primary descriptor doesn't work the best I think, because it sort of draws half of us sexuals into the grey or demi catagory.

Basically, you say that you as an asexual DO experience sexual attraction. And I pretty much feel that I (as a sexual) DO NOT experience it much at all (particularly if it means looking at someone and wanting to jump in the sack).

BUT. I do know that there is something in me that wants a sexual relationship with someone...and this something in me is absent in my husband. We both know this, but don't think sexual attraction is the right way to describe it (and as I said before... this is upon further consideration).

EDIT: LOL...you were posting while I was bookcase! That is what happened...exactly.

yes, Lady Girl, all of that makes a lot of sense to me. and to be quite honest, it's one of the reasons i haven't generally been very open here about my experiences in the past; i've always gotten a strong sense that were i to describe them, i'd be met with, 'but you say you experience sexual attraction; and the definition of asexuality is "does not experience sexual attraction"; ipso facto, you are not asexual.' but i have a strong enough sense of self and enough personal conviction to know that i am asexual, when you get right down to what's most important. and the disconnect (i wonder how many people come up with that word independently?) between what i think i want and what i actually experience when i get it is, for me, what defines my asexuality. that simply isn't covered under the current definition, in the same way that the definition potentially does cover, as you say, the experience of a sexual person who rarely or never experiences what they consider sexual attraction.

I want to comment about both of the above posts. First, speaking of that disconnect makes perfect sense to me. As someone who is asexual, very sex posative and experienced sexually, that word resonates very strongly with me. Before realizing I was asexual, I had no reason not to desire sex, no reason to shy away from it and, in my mind at least, I had every reason to enjoy it. I grew up with the understanding that sex was a wonderful thing, among the best things an individual could experience, so why wouldn't I enjoy it? The problem was that I felt no internal motivation or drive towards it, only engaging in it when my partner desired to, and I only got limited enjoyment from the act. It wasn't the physical aspect that I felt disconnected from, but rather the emotional aspect. Physically all my parts worked, but I just never connectd with the act; it never felt natural and I never felt any of the emotions or connections I believed I was supposed to feel.

As far as sexual attraction goes, I think when speaking of such things it is impossible to seperate from the idea of having an internal motivation to have sex with other people. That motivation surely must be a part of sexual attraction? I believe it is possible to experience sexual attraction seperate from that internal motivation, but I do not believe it is possible to experience that internal motivation without sexual attraction. When thinking about my own asexuality, I am inclined to state that the lack of that internal motivation is more important than my lack of sexual attraction. it is not so much the lack of attraction that causes the disconnect when it comes to sexual activity with other people, because I don't think sexual and aesthetic attraction is all that different minus that motivation, but rather the lack of that innate internal motivation to have sex. It simply doesn't feel natural and I'm never driven to have it. If given the choice I won't have it and that stems from no real repulsion, inexperience, ect. I simply lack that internal drive.

wow! your comment about lacking internal drive to have sex and given the choice you wouldn't have it really resonated with me (I too have never felt driven to have sex and have always been comfortable with the thought of never having it) thank you for putting it into words and also the other posts above about not relating to others sexually that resonates with me as well wow this is wonderful thank you so much :D :lol: :P

Has anyone ever thought about using the term reaction in relation to sexuality. I tend to think a lot of asexuals have what could be called sexual reaction, but not sexual attraction. Having sexual reaction would imply reacting or being aroused but not full on interaction with another person. At least I think it implies that. Thoughts?

Vamp...I have no clue where to go with this to have it included in the definitions.

Thank you Lady Girl! I relate to this big time cause I have no internal motivation (desire?) to interact with another person sexually...that rings true with me, not experiencing sexual attraction--I just couldn't suss that out enough (what it meant in practical/experiential terms I guess) to know if it is true of me, so I couldn't feel comfortable saying I am asexual (there is always doubt in the back of my mind...) Wow I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the replies, i once again felt the *click* so to speak i first felt upon my initial discovery of asexuality from the AVENwiki. thanks!

Edited March 7, 2012 by Strivna
Merged posts

[sherishade]

I think this is important too, and I'm glad you came back to comment on it P, I was wondering what you thought of these final conclusions.

Has anyone ever thought about using the term reaction in relation to sexuality. I tend to think a lot of asexuals have what could be called sexual reaction, but not sexual attraction. Having sexual reaction would imply reacting or being aroused (by anything I guess) but not desiring full on interaction with another person. At least I think it implies that. Thoughts?

Vamp...I have no clue where to go with this to have it included in the definitions.

This is perfect I think Reaction is the perfect way of putting it, I feel like I can't control my reaction to touch or visual stimuli. This is odd for me because if I don't feel like having sex or have the "drive" then why is my body involuntarily reacting. So it seems almost having three separations; what you react to, what you want romantically and what you are sexually. Unfortunately for me I get stimulated easily which sends weird mixed messages to my partner, if they rub up on me and "I get hard that means I want sex?" but thats not the case. So lol involuntarily-physically-reactive pan-romantic asexual . . . what a mouth full =^.^=

[5_♦♣]

Is a word for arousal really necessary? I mean, if you think about it, arousal basically means ones parts work.

[Mordsith]

I agree with AceOfClubs. You just have to realize that arousal isn't the same as attraction, and then the use of "reaction" is redundant.

[RYM]

Deffinately TMI.

I think you have all managed to over complicate this and destroyed my understanding of asexuality! So ima try and bring it back down to a simpler level. If you want someones penis inside you, or you want to put your penis inside someone....then you are sexually attracted to them, if you dont want someones penis inside you, or you dont want to put your penis inside someone, then you arent sexually attracted to them.

[Lady Girl]

Deffinately TMI.

I think you have all managed to over complicate this and destroyed my understanding of asexuality! So ima try and bring it back down to a simpler level. If you want someones penis inside you, or you want to put your penis inside someone....then you are sexually attracted to them, if you dont want someones penis inside you, or you dont want to put your penis inside someone, then you arent sexually attracted to them.

If it were that simple there wouldn't be 79 posts here already and almost 100,000 in the Q & A forum alone.

[P is for...]

Deffinately TMI.

I think you have all managed to over complicate this and destroyed my understanding of asexuality! So ima try and bring it back down to a simpler level. If you want someones penis inside you, or you want to put your penis inside someone....then you are sexually attracted to them, if you dont want someones penis inside you, or you dont want to put your penis inside someone, then you arent sexually attracted to them.

If it were that simple there wouldn't be 79 posts here already and almost 100,000 in the Q & A forum alone.

exactly.

also, nicely done with the heterosexual assumptions there, RYM. yikes.

[Lady Girl]

So I'm curious P, and not sure if I follow Vamps logic...I thought I did. My understanding is that sexual attraction has different parts, and the internal drive (to have partnered sex) is just one of those parts. But if the definition of asexuality stays the same I don't see how this applies to you, because you say you have all or most of the sexual attraction without the one part.

I guess it means you don't have complete sexual attraction because it's missing that portion, but all the rest of sexual attraction is strong in you. And with me, I just have a weak sexual attraction because I have the drive but everything else is softer (like a whisper).

[P is for...]

So I'm curious P, and not sure if I follow Vamps logic...I thought I did. My understanding is that sexual attraction has different parts, and the internal drive (to have partnered sex) is just one of those parts. But if the definition of asexuality stays the same I don't see how this applies to you, because you say you have all or most of the sexual attraction without the one part.

I guess it means you don't have sexual attraction because it's missing that portion. And with me, I just have a weak sexual attraction because I have the drive but everything else is softer (like a whisper).

in my case, Lady Girl, the point at which i lack both internal drive and sexual attraction is when it counts-- when another person becomes involved in a direct, physical way. i apologize if i've been less than clear about this; i don't really talk about it very much, so it's hard to put into words, but i'll try to be as specific as i can be. basically, i can think sex sounds like a great idea for quite awhile: if i'm seeing someone to whom i've experienced my own, peculiarly theoretical version of sexual attraction (which primarily consists of me fantasizing about how great it would be to have sex with them, and yes, i experience arousal then too; that's sort of the whole point, actually), i can continue to experience that attraction while i'm chilling the wine, while we're having dinner, while we're making out on the sofa. kissing, all of that-- great, no problem, i'm still on board. but pretty much the instant it progresses into anything resembling actual sexual contact, or as soon as it becomes perfectly clear that such contact is imminent, i lose all interest and sense of attraction. it's the least sexy, most tedious and uncomfortable thing in the world, and i want nothing other than to get out of there and never have to repeat the experience again.

so essentially, as i said before, i get fooled by my biology. because i can experience arousal, sometimes quite intense, at the idea of having a sexual relationship with someone i'm interested in, it's very easy for me to believe that it's possible for me to experience the same attraction and arousal when it moves from the realm of fantasy into reality. so i get myself into these situations where i'm thinking, yes, OK, great, it's going to be different this time, this time i'll be able to feel the same things when i'm with the person i'm attracted to that i do when they're not around; and then when something sexual actually happens, i end up thinking, ...damn. still nothing. and it's rather frustrating and sad, because i simply don't seem oriented to be sexually attracted to actual people, only to the idea of them; it's a matter of being able to go thus far, and no further. fortunately kissing still works for me; but beyond that, nothing.

hopefully that helps to clarify some things. if not, please feel free to ask further questions. i don't mind talking about it at all, because i know for a fact i'm not the only one out there who experiences this, but it's something no one ever really talks about.

[Lady Girl]

Yes, I've read your posts very carefully P. I don't know how you keep trying, knowing all this. But I think I might too (hoping each time for a better outcome). I guess I'm just curious how Vamp's explanation of sexual attraction and internal motivation being a part of that, fits in with you (and I'm thinking quite a few other asexuals).

If I understand you right, you say you have sexual attraction, or what seems like it, and attempt to act on that, get so far (to the point of TMI), and then shut down. Is that right?

[P is for...]

Yes, I've read your posts very carefully P. I don't know how you keep trying, knowing all this. But I think I might too (hoping each time for a better outcome). I guess I'm just curious how Vamp's explanation of sexual attraction and internal motivation being a part of that, fits in with you (and I'm thinking quite a few other asexuals).

If I understand you right, you say you have sexual attraction, or what seems like it, and attempt to act on that, get so far (to the point of TMI), and then shut down. Is that right?

yes. and i mean, i have enough self-knowledge now that i don't plan on trying it again anytime soon. but that's how it's been for me since i was 18, and i'm in my 40s now, so it's just how i am. i know a number of other people whose experiences match mine, and as far as they and i are concerned, this is absolutely asexuality, just a distinct subcategory. so yeah, we're all a bit invested in the definition of asexuality being a bit more open and inclusive. because if you're an asexual who never experiences sexual attraction, of course that definition makes sense, and it doesn't seem like it needs to go any further. but it doesn't speak to every asexual experience. so it's not so much that the definition of asexuality as 'does not experience sexual attraction' is wrong, per se; it's more that it's incomplete, and leaves a lot of people out in the cold.

[Lady Girl]

Lol, 40's for you too. I can't believe I'm wondering about this at this age, but I am...asexual husband contributes to the curiosity obviously.

Anyway, I do understand your point, very much so actually (my husband seems to have some sexual interest, just not in having it...). And to me this sexual interest is close enough to attraction to create confusion, I think.

I really want to know why the words partnered sex are not in the definition??? That seems to be the real primary descriptor to me...lack of attraction to partnered sex.

That seems totally simple and all inclusive, or am I missing something?

[Vampyremage]

So I'm curious P, and not sure if I follow Vamps logic...I thought I did. My understanding is that sexual attraction has different parts, and the internal drive (to have partnered sex) is just one of those parts. But if the definition of asexuality stays the same I don't see how this applies to you, because you say you have all or most of the sexual attraction without the one part.

I guess it means you don't have complete sexual attraction because it's missing that portion, but all the rest of sexual attraction is strong in you. And with me, I just have a weak sexual attraction because I have the drive but everything else is softer (like a whisper).

I guess to clarify, what I am trying to say is that yes, sexual attraction does have multiple components but some components are more central than others and some can exist independently of the other components while others can't. I don't argue that the internet motivation towards partnered sex is the only component of sexual attraction but rather that it is the most central component in determining whether or not one is asexual.

Lol, 40's for you too. I can't believe I'm wondering about this at this age, but I am...asexual husband contributes to the curiosity obviously.

Anyway, I do understand your point, very much so actually (my husband seems to have some sexual interest, just not in having it...). And to me this sexual interest is close enough to attraction to create confusion, I think.

I really want to know why the words partnered sex are not in the definition??? That seems to be the real primary descriptor to me...lack of attraction to partnered sex.

That seems totally simple and all inclusive, or am I missing something?

This is pretty much what I'm getting at. Everyone has fantasies and I don't think those fantasies matter much in the context of asexuality until such a time as the opportunity artists to make them a reality. Then the question becomes, how do you interact with that reality?

In that context, I really like P's statement about feeling that disconnect. With or without the accompanying fantasies, I think that's a common experience for many asexuals. I know it certainly is for me.

Ive mentioned before that I can and do experience physical arousal and even get some physical pleasure from sexual activity. I think it's largely that disconnect that contributes to my own asexuality. I simply perceive no good reason to engage in partnered sex when I have the perfectly good and largely much more enjoyable option of going alone.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Strivna
Merged posts

[Lady Girl]

You've been very clear Vamp, it's my brain that gets muddled...so drive/internal motivation to have partnered sex could exist without experiencing total sexual attraction. As could, say the romantic aspect of sexual attraction exist ON IT'S OWN. But a person could not say they have sexual attraction without a drive to have partnered sex...correct?

If you have sexual attraction (are sexual) you experience internal drive to have partnered sex and all the rest in varying degrees. If you do not have sexual attraction (are asexual) you may experience parts of sexual attraction, but not drive toward partnered sex, thus making it not sexual attraction.

This seems really important...why can't we go to David Jay with it? Who's in charge anyway? The mods, or admins?

[bookcase]

That seems to be the real primary descriptor to me...lack of attraction to partnered sex.

Yes. Or absence of desire for partnered sex, something like that. Hmm ...

[Guest]

This seems really important...why can't we go to David Jay with it? Who's in charge anyway? The mods, or admins?

From what I understand, the current AVEN definition was written after many lengthy discussions from the AVEN membership itself. It was written with the one most common aspect in order to provide wiggle room for people with different experiences and feelings. It was never written with the intention of "If you don't fit this, then you are not asexual." Rather, it was used as "This is what is common among those who identify as asexual. If you want to label yourself as asexual, go ahead. If not, that's great as well." From what I've understood from looking through past threads, the idea was more of creating a loose guideline that people could use to help them discover themselves, not to prevent people from calling themselves asexual. Please correct me if I'm incorrect here.

I don't exactly know to whom this could be brought, but if people do feel strongly about this, and if there is a good deal of support for it, I could at least bring this discussion to the attention of the Project Team. I could also try to bring this to the attention of DJ, but his focuses are more related to areas outside of AVEN at this point in time.

Also, I would just like to thank you all for keeping a superb level of civility and respect in this discussion. I must admit that I was somewhat nervous when I saw this thread, just for the fact that threads like these can turn into a nightmare when people begin to post in a hostile manner. Thank you for proving my nervousness wrong. ^_^

[Lady Girl]

Thanks Strivna! I'm not up on the history of AVEN, but from what I've heard that sounds right.

I think the definition works GREAT for the most part. I think a lot of people would maybe like a little revising, but I could be wrong. As to the partnered sex aspect of sexual attraction, it seems to be a given that we will assume that is the case (sexual attraction implies partnered sex?), but we all know what assuming does to u and me.

Yes, no hostility! :)

I really like how Vamp explains things...she should be involved if this is something we could add to the definition of sexual attraction on the front page. Thoughts Vamp?

[Vampyremage]

This seems really important...why can't we go to David Jay with it? Who's in charge anyway? The mods, or admins?

From what I understand, the current AVEN definition was written after many lengthy discussions from the AVEN membership itself. It was written with the one most common aspect in order to provide wiggle room for people with different experiences and feelings. It was never written with the intention of "If you don't fit this, then you are not asexual." Rather, it was used as "This is what is common among those who identify as asexual. If you want to label yourself as asexual, go ahead. If not, that's great as well." From what I've understood from looking through past threads, the idea was more of creating a loose guideline that people could use to help them discover themselves, not to prevent people from calling themselves asexual. Please correct me if I'm incorrect here.

I don't exactly know to whom this could be brought, but if people do feel strongly about this, and if there is a good deal of support for it, I could at least bring this discussion to the attention of the Project Team. I could also try to bring this to the attention of DJ, but his focuses are more related to areas outside of AVEN at this point in time.

Also, I would just like to thank you all for keeping a superb level of civility and respect in this discussion. I must admit that I was somewhat nervous when I saw this thread, just for the fact that threads like these can turn into a nightmare when people begin to post in a hostile manner. Thank you for proving my nervousness wrong. ^_^

I think it would be fantastic if you were able to bring this up to whoever might get the ball rolling at least as far as a more official discussion goes. T his isn't the first time such a discussion has been brough up on these boards recently, there have been a handful in the last couple of months. Whatever the end result, I do think here's been enough discussion and debate to at least consider the opportunity to bring it to an official place where it can be formally decided whether or not an official modification to the definition is warranted. Asexuality is still a relatively new concept, even newere when the official definition was placed. AVEN has been around for close to (over?) a decade now so I think at least opening the lines of discussion is something that would be very much beneficial and warranted.

You've been very clear Vamp, it's my brain that gets muddled...so drive/internal motivation to have partnered sex could exist without experiencing total sexual attraction. As could, say the romantic aspect of sexual attraction exist ON IT'S OWN. But a person could not say they have sexual attraction without a drive to have partnered sex...correct?

If you have sexual attraction (are sexual) you experience internal drive to have partnered sex and all the rest in varying degrees. If you do not have sexual attraction (are asexual) you may experience parts of sexual attraction, but not drive toward partnered sex, thus making it not sexual attraction.

This seems really important...why can't we go to David Jay with it? Who's in charge anyway? The mods, or admins?

I think I'm saying the opposite, in a way. It is possible to experience sexual attraction without that internal drive towards partnered sex but it is not possible to experience that internal partnered drive towards sex without sexual attraction because, in a way, that internal drive towards partnered sex IS an aspect of sexual attraction rather than something all together seperate. They are seperate concepts in that they can be discussed seperately, but in reality, the internal motivation to have partnered sex cannot exist exist without some underlying sexual attraction. Or, if it can be said to exist without sexual attration, then I think the very concept of sexual attraction loses all practical meaning.

To me, sexual attraction must have a sexual component. What is sexual attraction if not that internal draw towards sexual activity with other people? One cannot really say they experience no sexual attraction one one hand and then go on to say, but they actually like sex and they have sex mainly because they like sex. To me, what they are saying is that they do experience sexual attraction because one is directly dependent upon the other. That is to say, sexual attraction provides the foundation towards the internal drive towards partnered sex. Thus, sexual attraction must occur first and the internal drive only occurs afterwards. Because of this, it is possible to develop sexual attraction without the accompanying drive but it is not possible to develop the drive without first developing sexual attraction.

[Lady Girl]

You've been very clear Vamp, it's my brain that gets muddled...so drive/internal motivation to have partnered sex could exist without experiencing total sexual attraction. As could, say the romantic aspect of sexual attraction exist ON IT'S OWN. But a person could not say they have sexual attraction without a drive to have partnered sex...correct?

If you have sexual attraction (are sexual) you experience internal drive to have partnered sex and all the rest in varying degrees. If you do not have sexual attraction (are asexual) you may experience parts of sexual attraction, but not drive toward partnered sex, thus making it not sexual attraction.

This seems really important...why can't we go to David Jay with it? Who's in charge anyway? The mods, or admins?

I think I'm saying the opposite, in a way. It is possible to experience sexual attraction without that internal drive towards partnered sex but it is not possible to experience that internal partnered drive towards sex without sexual attraction because, in a way, that internal drive towards partnered sex IS an aspect of sexual attraction rather than something all together seperate. They are seperate concepts in that they can be discussed seperately, but in reality, the internal motivation to have partnered sex cannot exist exist without some underlying sexual attraction. Or, if it can be said to exist without sexual attration, then I think the very concept of sexual attraction loses all practical meaning.

To me, sexual attraction must have a sexual component. What is sexual attraction if not that internal draw towards sexual activity with other people? One cannot really say they experience no sexual attraction one one hand and then go on to say, but they actually like sex and they have sex mainly because they like sex. To me, what they are saying is that they do experience sexual attraction because one is directly dependent upon the other. That is to say, sexual attraction provides the foundation towards the internal drive towards partnered sex. Thus, sexual attraction must occur first and the internal drive only occurs afterwards. Because of this, it is possible to develop sexual attraction without the accompanying drive but it is not possible to develop the drive without first developing sexual attraction.

Ok, I'm sorry to be adding to the confusion...I obviously don't know much about my own sexual feelings. I knew you were saying one or the other...it makes sense to me till I try to say it. I guess I don't feel that sexual attraction in me is very strong, but I know I want partnered sex. So maybe I should stay on the sidelines...I'm a poor example anyway, lol. I'm sexual. And confused besides...but thank you Vamp for yet another explanation to me. :)

I can read along, and maybe say something once in awhile but I think asexuals should be the ones to define themselves in the end.

I like the idea of an official discussion, and I had the same thought about the timeline, maybe it's time.

[Mordsith]

I think, according to this thread, that although the original definition was meant to be non-exclusive, it has been taken to be such. I know personally that I find it a...not so much a struggle, but a difficulty claiming to be asexual when such a narrow/undefined definition exists. I find myself saying "I identify with asexuality" instead of "I am asexual". Not that it bothers me too much. I did get the whole "If you want to call yourself asexual no one here will mind" bit, but it's not anyone on AVEN that I'm thinking will mind. If I come out to someone and say the word asexual, they'll go, read the description, and make some automatic assumptions about me that might not be true. Yes, I can explain out how it all works for me as an individual, but it's easier to build on a vague definition than to tear down someone else prefabricated ideas. I know it's impossible to make a definition that fits everyone who identifies as asexual, but it shouldn't be too hard to slightly change the current one to make it....broader. Or slightly more inclusive.

When describing the domestic dog, you must have a point when you say, no, that's a wolf, but it doesn't mean you can only include Golden Retrievers and Labradors in the description.

EDIT: Unless of course the wolf really thinks it's a dog. Then where are we? My analogy is broken :(