Shifting Definition of Asexuality

[Dippy]

message deleted

[pejoratist]

I see flaws in both definitions, but only because asexuals vary so much. That said, I prefer the second one. It seems less final and less imposing, so it better includes the AVENites that have felt sexual attraction before, but feel that they have changed.

I also like that the new definition takes away that clinical feel. The old one made Asexuality sound like a symptom at times.

[Orbit]

Here's another vote for: "Does not experience sexual attraction"

'Not interested' sounds more in the mind and thoughts than a feeling experienced in the sexual feelings zone.

When I explain to someone what I feel or don't feel it usually is quite simple. I am very attracted to some people, but all my attraction is above the belt. I've had people not know that was possible, but never has anyone misunderstood.

hawke

[emmaseek]

Another vote for "does not experience sexual attraction" here. I particularly like this one because then I can elaborate, saying, "but I do experience emotional, romantic, intellectual, or aesthetic attraction" without shifting the subject too drastically: I can say what I am not, and then define what I am, very easily, using the same terminology.

And while I am not interested in having sex with other people, I am interested in sex. :)

[Kez]

Here's the way I see it.

We are hypoactive regarding sex, but we are hypercongnised regarding sex.

:D

[DSol]

I'm for the "does not experience sexual attraction".

"someone who is not interested in sex" sounds a little bit narrow and implies - everything goes up until 'that' point.

Whether 'sex' in the statement refers exclusively to the 'act' or not, I think thats how people will read it.

For me, it's more than just disinterest in the act itself, but anything sexual in general, whether that be eyeing someone up, kissing, groping whatever. All those things are related to "sexual attraction" and I think the original statement offers that broader scope to include them.

We're a complicated bunch and I think our explainations to others are always going to end up being from our own point of view.

I don't envy AVENguy in having to try and explain all our subtle variations in 'sound bites' that joe-public can understand!

[Islander9]

Kez - good one - but it'd mean zilch to the uninvolved public.

I'd stick with 'am not sexually attracted to anyone (or anything)' - I am not really interested in sex (know enough about it for understanding human behaviours - inasmuch as anyone can understand human behaviours- and character behaviours) altho' I am quite interested in non-mammalian reproductive strategies (insects & arachnids anyone?)

[Absi]

I think sticking with "Does not experience sexual attraction" is a good idea, I like having it as another possible orientation, so that to go with sexual attraction to other sex, same sex, both sexes, and all sexes, you now have sexual attraction to no sexes.

I can see that having further definitions including things about asexuals usually not being interested in sex is a good idea too, but I think making it an orientation makes it sound less like a random decision you made one day and more like how you just are.

[kaht!!!]

I usually say something along the lines of: "On those rare occasions when I find myself drawn to another person, the attraction is never of a physical nature and never becomes that way."

I feel the same way. Whenever I get attracted to people its never on a physical or sexual level. If I compare myself to my friends I'm not as quick to decide that I'm attracted to someone since my attractions to people are usually based on their personality, which takes longer to understand and get to know. That's why I like the "does not experience sexual attraction" definition.

However I know that each of us is different and unique (and I'm a relitivist). Basically, it's going to be hard to come up with a definition that all of us can agree on since each of us are different asexuals. As this topic has shown some of us are interested in sex, some aren't, and so on. I think, however, that one common bond is that we feel we don't share the majority of people's sexual drive, that's why we're here isn't it?

For me, around puberty, I was incredibly interested in sex and would think about it a lot, so I wouldn't say I was born asexual. I've always been reluctant to engage in physical contact with others though, even though I thought about sex I didn't want to make the necessary moves to go on and initiate it. As I grew up I became less and less interested in sex and as a result of my disinterest in physical relationships it made most "relationships" really hard on me because of the expectations the other person had. Right now I'm at the point where I could really care less about sexuality. For instance, when I go out to bars and clubs with my friends I'm usually the only one wearing a non-flattering t-shirt and loose jeans as opposed to a halter/tank/tube top and tight leather pants. I still have a great time though even though I'm not chasing after the hottest boy. Another case, I'm much more likely to feel attracted to someone at first site if they're reading a book I really enjoy or drawing in a sketchbook, regardless of their physical appearance. In my conversations with my friends, although this is true for them as well, they also say that the physical appearance is really an important base of their attraction. To summarise, asexuality for me is the lack of a sexual drive.

[Live R Perfect]

around puberty, I was incredibly interested in sex and would think about it a lot, so I wouldn't say I was born asexual....

As I grew up I became less and less interested in sex and as a result of my disinterest in physical relationships it made most "relationships" really hard on me because of the expectations the other person had.

I can relate to an awful lot of what you said there, Kaht.

I suppose it would be truer to say that I have no sex drive than to say I don't experience sexual attraction - whatever that is... I think of sexual attraction as the experience of wanting to have sex with someone, but as I have no sex drive then there is no urge there to make me sexually attracted to a person either, if that makes sense. I still find it impossible to differentiate between having no sex drive and not experiencing sexual attraction. But I also have a keen sense of aesthetic attraction which almost borders on what some of you may consider to be sexual, ie. I find some women to be particularly attractive, physically speaking. I suppose you could call me a voyeur in this sense. The point is, though, that this visual appreciation is about as far as it goes. I'm not compelled to try and chat them up and try to get them into bed.

[LonePiper]

I agree. I think the "new" definition is a bit wishy-washy, and I really like the idea of asexuality being an actual orientation. But as for me, I tend to think with my own little definition in mind.

Sorry if adding yet another definition is confusing, but here it is.

Basically asexuality, to me, means "lacking some innate (there's that word again!) element of human sexuality."

I realise there are problems with this as well - it's very clinical and it defines us by a negative, plus it could be reworded a bit better. But the advantage, as I see it, is that it's broad but not so wishy-washy. I think that anyone can bend it to their own devices.

But I can totally understand if you don't want to use it. As I said it has its definite disadvantages.

[hyperfine]

I like "does not experience sexual attraction" for the definition.

I often say "I don't do romance/sex/relationships" but that seems more like a statement about me than a definition of asexuality.

[Ack42]

For me, sex is like escargot. The French may say it's great and I've got to try it; but to me it's just eating snails. I experience attraction and sexual arousal, but I don't want interaction with someone else's genitals.

I like "An asexual person is someone who is not interested in sex." because I agree that it's easier to process (for sexuals) and may be easier to explain our orientation (or lack of orientation... :P ). However it probably doesn't fit all asexuals. Either clear and inaccurate or unclear and accurate (the curse of reality...) I think anything that is easy to understand is going to be so simple that it isn't totally accurate.

[AmoebicMe]

For me, sex is like escargot. The French may say it's great and I've got to try it; but to me it's just eating snails.

::steals quote and runs away::

[Lors]

If the point of using the term "asexual" is as a "non of the above" option when the choice of sexualities available is homo, hetero or bi, then the "lack of sexual attraction" definition makes more sense. Perhaps the reason asexuals have trouble defining sexual attraction isn't because it's a poor definition but because we don't experience it and therefore can't understand what it actually means. Just a thought.

I agree.

Although, sexuals may have diffculty defining it, but they must *know* what it is because otherwise they wouldn't be standing there going "what are you talking about?", they'd be saying "wow, I thought I was the only one."

Ack42, that's a great analogy.

[drowsy loafer]

just thought id give my thoughts on it..

The two definitions are definately different, although i choose not to label myself (though atm i identify most with asexuals). Because under one of them i am not asexual, under the other i am..

I used to be sexual, I understand what feeling sexual attraction is like, and have fairly recently (within the last 6 months) felt sexual attraction, however, this sexual attraction wasnt a desire to have sex or even sexual contact.

Hmm, tricky to explain, i guess the physical desire must have been there, and it was directed towards another person, but i wasnt interested in having sex with this person or sexual contact, partly because sexual activity just kinda feels "wrong" to me, partly cos its never really done anything for me, and partly cos i just mentally didnt want to.

So under the original definition im not an asexual, despite the fact im not interested in sex since i can feel sexual desire. But since i have found sex as uncomfortable, wrong and unsatisfying (not for any deep emotional reasons or anything btw) I dont want, and am not interested in having sex (or any kind of sexual contact)

So, I guess, if you consider me to be sexual, you should reject the "not interested in sex" definition, if u consider me asexual u reject the other. (or u use both and then i am asexual cos i fit into one of them ;))

confusing business this borderline asexuality lark:D

drowsy

[Hexpiral]

You sure it was 'sexual' attraction? Sounds more like non sexual romantic attraction to me. Identify with whatever you want, though.

[Rabger]

So under the original definition im not an asexual, despite the fact im not interested in sex since i can feel sexual desire

I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that, under the given term of asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction, you wouldn't be considered asexual because you experience sexual desire? Sexual attraction and sexual desire are too separate things, and you can be asexual and still have sexual desire. Many here have it.

[Orbit]

Forbidden Fury, you have a good point. Sexual attraction probably needs to be better defined if it's going to be in the definition of asexual.

How's this for starters... please help me refine them.

Arousal - sexual feelings below the belt either by direct stimulation and/or mental contemplation and/or images.

Sex drive - an inclination towards sexual contact and interaction - a general need or urging not aimed at anyone in particular.

Sexual attraction - arousal directed at a certain person (or thing in the case of fetishes) in particular - you are sexually attracted to that person (or thing).

Sexual desire - attraction accompanied by an inclination to have sexual contact. If you are attracted to someone AND want to have sex with them - you have sexual desire for them.

Asexual - someone who can experience arousal and may have a sexual drive or experience sexual attraction, but does not experience sexual desire.

how's that?

hawke

[KAGU143]

Forbidden Fury, you have a good point. Sexual attraction probably needs to be better defined if it's going to be in the definition of asexual.

How's this for starters... please help me refine them.

Arousal - sexual feelings below the belt either by direct stimulation and/or mental contemplation and/or images.

Sex drive - an inclination towards sexual contact and interaction - a general need or urging not aimed at anyone in particular.

Sexual attraction - arousal directed at a certain person (or thing in the case of fetishes) in particular - you are sexually attracted to that person (or thing).

Sexual desire - attraction accompanied by an inclination to have sexual contact. If you are attracted to someone AND want to have sex with them - you have sexual desire for them.

Asexual - someone who can experience arousal and may have a sexual drive or experience sexual attraction, but does not experience sexual desire.

how's that?

hawke

I think it's pretty accurate, except that I would say sexual *attraction* does not necessarily involve arousal. I would consider it to be ANY kind of attraction which is based purely on some physical attribute of another person and which causes the "attractee" to desire (or speculate about) initiating some sort of relationship with that person.

It might end up being little more than a passing thought triggered by a certain scent, a person's way of moving or their tone of voice, but it makes them seem "interesting".

-Greybird

[Amcan]

Forbidden Fury, you have a good point. Sexual attraction probably needs to be better defined if it's going to be in the definition of asexual.

How's this for starters... please help me refine them.

Arousal - sexual feelings below the belt either by direct stimulation and/or mental contemplation and/or images.

Sex drive - an inclination towards sexual contact and interaction - a general need or urging not aimed at anyone in particular.

Sexual attraction - arousal directed at a certain person (or thing in the case of fetishes) in particular - you are sexually attracted to that person (or thing).

Sexual desire - attraction accompanied by an inclination to have sexual contact. If you are attracted to someone AND want to have sex with them - you have sexual desire for them.

Asexual - someone who can experience arousal and may have a sexual drive or experience sexual attraction, but does not experience sexual desire.

how's that?

hawke

I think it's pretty accurate, except that I would say sexual *attraction* does not necessarily involve arousal. I would consider it to be ANY kind of attraction which is based purely on some physical attribute of another person and which causes the "attractee" to desire (or speculate about) initiating some sort of relationship with that person.

It might end up being little more than a passing thought triggered by a certain scent, a person's way of moving or their tone of voice, but it makes them seem "interesting".

-Greybird

I have nothing to add but that sure makes it clearer for me.

Certainlt with this criteria I've never had sexual atraction.

[slatterly]

I think it's pretty accurate, except that I would say sexual *attraction* does not necessarily involve arousal. I would consider it to be ANY kind of attraction which is based purely on some physical attribute of another person and which causes the "attractee" to desire (or speculate about) initiating some sort of relationship with that person.

It might end up being little more than a passing thought triggered by a certain scent, a person's way of moving or their tone of voice, but it makes them seem "interesting".

I have to disagree - what you're describing isn't necessarily sexual at all, it's just a general attraction. If the attribute caused the attractee to desire some sort of sexual relationship with the person, then yes, it's sexual. But that isn't always the case.

[Orbit]

Greybird, let me see if I understand - in your mind is finding someone physically beautiful or attractive because of something visual the same as sexual attraction?

If that's what you're saying, I'm not sure if that is true for everyone... even sexuals.

Some people can find someone beautiful and not be sexually attracted to them, and others can be sexually attracted to people they do not find beautiful.

hawke

[Tanwen]

I can admire a beautiful girl and see what a heteresexual male could see in her, but I'm not a lesbian.

It would be incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to come up with a definition that would cover everyone.

[Chizadek]

A rough definition of asexuality is 'lacks interest in having sex with other people'. The problem lies in what is meant by 'interested in' and also what is meant by 'sex'.

This issue has been hidden by the definition 'does not experience sexual attraction' since a rough definition of sexual attraction is 'interest in sex with other people', and the definitional difficulty remains.

If the first definition (in this post) or a variant is thought satisfactory, then I suggest it implies a definition of sexual attraction for which 'does not experience sexual attraction' is equivalent to the first-definition/its-variant.

My tentative definition of sexual attraction is 'urge to interact sexually with a person in response to seeing them'. The context ('in response to seeing them') eliminates social pressure etc. as the cause for the desire. The context can be left out of the 'not interested in sex' formulation since it can be assumed that a person sees people they would be sexually attracted to. I like the word urge, because it implies something that can still be over-ruled by decision (religious reasons, faithfulness etc.), though I think it can still be bettered.

[drowsy loafer]

hmm, most interesting :)

so the problem for me (as somebody whos only recently found this forum) is really what constitutes "sexual attraction"..

according to Hawke's definition:

Sexual attraction - arousal directed at a certain person (or thing in the case of fetishes) in particular - you are sexually attracted to that person (or thing).

and an asexual:

Asexual - someone who can experience arousal and may have a sexual drive or experience sexual attraction, but does not experience sexual desire

yet the sites definition :

Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction

Hawkes definition fits me ok, going with his definition I can feel sexual attraction, but dont feel sexual desire.

Thus for me, the difference between sexual desire and attraction is the point i was trying to make (albeit in a crappy way :D)

I would like to classify myself as an asexual, since i dont desire sex, but, in my opinion and being brutally honest i would think a "true" asexual wouldnt experience sexual attraction. (as hawke defines sexual attraction)

I also suspect that I would be in the minority here, in that I would imagine most here wouldnt feel sexual attraction as defined above, and thus it may be pointlessly overcomplicating things to extend the definition to include a few like me :D

to make it even more complicated using the above definitions of hawkes one could divide the asexual spectrum further:

type 1)

arousal:no

sex drive:no

sexual attraction:no

sexual desire:no

type 2)

arousal:yes

sex drive:no

sexual attraction:no

sexual desire:no

type 3)

arousal:yes

sex drive:yes

sexual attraction:no

sexual desire:no

type 4)

arousal:yes

sex drive:yes

sexual attraction:yes

sexual desire:no

Under this definition i am type 4), whether type 4 is within the "asexual umbrella" im not sure ;) As an argument for it to be included I certainly dont classify myself as celibate, since im not "resisting" any urges for sexual contact, though my gut kinda tells me type 4 isnt a true asexual

whaddya make of all that overcomplication then :D (btw, i dont mind if people dont class me as asexual :))

drowsy

(Im considering "non sexual" attraction as irrelevant here (since its pretty established an asexual may have this)

[Rabger]

A rough definition of asexuality is 'lacks interest in having sex with other people'. The problem lies in what is meant by 'interested in' and also what is meant by 'sex'.

I don't want to get all into it again, but I did point the error out in this in the first or second post I put up in this thread. You can still be asexual and be interested in having sex with certain people, say in a romantic context. It seems to be rare, but it does happen. Its in the FAQs, which is why I disagree with that def.

[Kamikola]

I've been lurking here for a while and I'll tell you, this topic can really twist your brain inside out. I was never a fan of definitions.

But what if we're using a wrong method here. What if istead of defining what we are we'll define what we are not. I don't think it can be done in one sentence and maybe it shouldn't. For example, asexual - a person who does not resist sexual desire but simply lacks it. And underneath we could put the definition of sexual desire (or whatever term we'll use here).

[Amcan]

hmm, most interesting :)

so the problem for me (as somebody whos only recently found this forum) is really what constitutes "sexual attraction"..

It's a problem for many of us drowsy.

Hawkes definition fits me ok, going with his definition I can feel sexual attraction, but dont feel sexual desire.

Thus for me, the difference between sexual desire and attraction is the point i was trying to make (albeit in a crappy way :D)

I would like to classify myself as an asexual, since i dont desire sex, but, in my opinion and being brutally honest i would think a "true" asexual wouldnt experience sexual attraction. (as hawke defines sexual attraction)

I also suspect that I would be in the minority here, in that I would imagine most here wouldnt feel sexual attraction as defined above, and thus it may be pointlessly overcomplicating things to extend the definition to include a few like me :D

I'm confused here a bit drowsy...Do you experience actual sexual attraction? How Hawke has defined it or not?

As has been said sex drive nad sexual attraction can be considered to be seperate.

I do not get sexually attracted to people nor desire to have sex with anyone else but I do have a sex drive (hence why I and other asexuals masturbate).

There was an attempt some time ago to come up with 'types' of asexuals. Non actually really fitted me I was a mix and some felt the type idea was just splitting a small group further and the term asexual was the one to use rather than worrying about types.

I can't say if you are asexual or not. It's up to you and clearly things change but under the current defination of 'does not experince sexual attraction' this doesn't seem to apply to you. This may suggest this defination is wrong. I prefer it rather than say I have no interest in sex (masturbation would suggest I have some interest plus you cna be interested in the concept without wanting to do it.). I might say I have no interest in having sex with another person but that also sounds weird.

I think it would be hard to come up with a catch-all defination for this community. Which might be part of the problem.

[Rabger]

I think it's pretty accurate, except that I would say sexual *attraction* does not necessarily involve arousal. I would consider it to be ANY kind of attraction which is based purely on some physical attribute of another person and which causes the "attractee" to desire (or speculate about) initiating some sort of relationship with that person.

After rereading this, a thought occurred to me. Let's try this as an example. You have two people that have been friends for a while, with no attraction beyond friendship before them. But after a while, feelings start to develope. I think this happens enough, yes? Well, as these emotional feelings start to develope, they develope some sort of sexual attraction toward one another as well.

My point being, if the feelings develope first, then the sexual attraction can't be based purely on physical stuff or THAT would have been there all along.