Jump to content

Shifting Definition of Asexuality


AVENguy

Recommended Posts

Eta Carinae
This may suggest this defination is wrong. ... I think it would be hard to come up with a catch-all defination for this community.

Why should the definition be about this community? Unless you don't think asexuality is something that exists beyond this board, you need a more prescriptive definition than "well, here's something one particular community of people all have in common." On a practial note, how could we even pursue visibility with such a flimsy definition? Furthermore, you'd have to keep expanding the definition as more people -- some of whom might not quite fit the current definition -- show up. There's nothing wrong with changing a definition if it really is inadequate, but something like the definition of a sexual orientation (or predilection, if you prefer), it needs to be more solid than commonalities in an ever-growing single community that will accept anyone. Tailoring the definition to describe this community means that the definition will, on a fundamental level, not be about lack of sexual attraction or lack of interest in sex, but rather what is common between members of a single community that allows anyone to join.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's nothing wrong with changing a definition if it really is inadequate, but something like the definition of a sexual orientation (or predilection, if you prefer), it needs to be more solid than commonalities in an ever-growing single community that will accept anyone. Tailoring the definition to describe this community means that the definition will, on a fundamental level, not be about lack of sexual attraction or lack of interest in sex, but rather what is common between members of a single community that allows anyone to join.

i agree...i cant define myself in the lack of sexual attraction mould, something akin to what boa wrote back then..just not comfortable with sex with a real person. there is a thin line between celibacy and asexuality and that must also be addressed in the definition. celibacy has sacrificial undertones, not asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Not precisely.

What I was trying to say is that sexual (physical) attraction is triggered by some physical attribute of the other person, as opposed to a personality trait. That physical attraction then leads the attracted person to either pursue or imagine pursuing some sort of relationship with the other person. (Because they are "hot".)

They may not actually intend to have sex with them.

I would disagree with the second part of your statement, or at least I would qualify it somewhat. People can be sexually attracted to someone they don't find beautiful, but there will still be some physical aspect that draws them.

People can also have sex with someone they aren't sexually attracted to at all. Sexually active asexuals are one example, but a person who has sex with one person while thinking of another might also fall into that category.

By my definition, a lot of asexuals probably DO experience a mild form of sexual attraction, which we often call romantic attraction.

Put crudely, it's a glandular form of attraction, not a cerebral one.

There's nothing wrong with it at all.

I guess if it were up to me, I would define asexuals by saying:

Asexuals don't desire sex with people of any gender.

I chose the word gender instead of sex because I think it's more inclusive, and because including that phrase tends to align asexuality with the concept of a sexual orientation instead of hinting at some medical or psychological condition.

It's just one old bird's opinion though.

Your mileage may vary.

-Greybird

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inkburrow by community I meant the asexual community *not* just this board. As I think there is a wider asexual community and this needs somesort of wider recognition through some kind of definition.

BUT there is a problem in how we define the wider community.

For AVEN I think the definition is fine I don't think it needs changing.

But there are so many people here who gain such happiness from finding an accepting place from finding things in common with others.

The defination is quite tight as it is though it allows for variation.

Maybe the wider asexual community needs a tight definition of 'no feelings of sex at all' such as the non-liboist society have put foward but to me that shuts out people who find acceptance here on AVEN.

I agree it shouldn't be infintely expanded but I think we should take into account sexuality is a very hard thing to define.

Should we deny those who come to AVEN because they have no sexual attraction but are sexual in some way?

As I have already said labels are tricky things.

As are definations.

Do we define what we have in common?

Or what we don't have?

Can the two be reconciled?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inkburrow, Tailoring the definition to describe this community means that the definition will, on a fundamental level, not be about lack of sexual attraction or lack of interest in sex, but rather what is common between members of a single community that allows anyone to join.

very well put. :)

This community can define asexuality as a lack of sexual desire and STILL accept people among us who do not fit that definition exactly.

There are so many different shades of sexuality that many that may have a low drive or low attraction or low desire may find they have more in common with us than not.

If someone experiences sexual desire only very occassionally and/or does not want to actually act on it, they may find the same difficulties in romantic relationships as we do... I can think of all sorts of other scenereo's as well.

hawke

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I am SO mad at myself! I had this whole long thing written out, and then I did something stupid even though I TOLD myself I should save it first... And I didn't. And then I lost it! And I was just about done and it was all thought out and everything. Dammit all to hell! Okay, I'm trying again. AHH!

I disagree with some of your defs. I'll start with pointing out that I think a sex drive is the ability to become aroused. I used to think that this was also the same thing as sexual desire, but you made me think about this and now I disagree with myself.

When you look up the word "desire" you get:

"1 : conscious impulse toward something that promises enjoyment or satisfaction in its attainment

2 a : LONGING, CRAVING b : sexual urge or appetite"

Now, I tend to agree that desire is generally a conscious thing. While many asexuals are capable of arousal, many of them also complain about it. So its not always a desire. However, some also do desire it. Such as, if any person, asexual or not, wants that physical release, they may arouse themselves. If they arouse themselves in whatever fashion, this is a conscious decision and therefore probably a desire. However, it doesn't have to be a desire for sex, but just some sort of sexual activity. I don't believe that there has to be any sort of attraction for sexual desire. A sexual attraction toward someone may create a sexual desire, but someone may just have a desire with no attraction. Like I said, a desire for that release, perhaps.

With your def of sexual attraction, you say that it is an arousal. I disagree with this. I don't think you need to have a directed arousal to experience sexual attraction. It may cause or lead to an arousal, but I don't think that arousal is necessary for the attraction. But I also don't have a good def for it, myself. During my discussions, I use the def of "attraction directed toward individuals with desire to be sexually intimate." However, I also point out that we're still working on a better def. Even I disagree with this one, I just don't feel I have a better one to replace it with at the moment.

As I've stated before, my ex and I had a discussion about what sexual attraction was. I believe we were getting very close to a good def that would be agreeable for most people, sexual AND asexual. Unfortuantely, we had to cut the convo short and never finished it. But we really need to. As I said in another thread, how we did this is that she told me her def, and I pointed out the flaws and chipped away at it, asking questions and she'd refine her def and explain, and we did this over and over again. Its sort of like an archeologist finding a bone fragment in the ground. They slowly chip around it, brushing off the dirt little by little, until it is slowly revealed and you are left with nothing but the bone. The unfortunate thing is that due to circumstances, we're taking a break from speaking, and so won't be able to continue the convo for a while (I'd say about a month). However, when we do start talking again, we both want to finish the discussion. I'll post the results when we do, of course.

I believe this is obvious but I'll point it out just for the sake of it. There is a difference between attractive and attraction. You can find someone attractive, beautiful, without being attracted to them. You can be attracted to someone as a friend. You can be attracted to someone physically, emotionally, mentally. You can be attracted to their eyes, their personality, etc. But this doesn't necessarly mean sexually attracted to them. Even with a physical attraction. Maybe you want a hug, or to cuddle, or anything else. But it doesnt require a sexual element. I would assume that sexual attraction requires some sort of desire for sexual activity with that person. However, I believe there is more.

I've also pointed this out before, but I'd like to do so again for the sake of arguement.

I enjoy being sexual with my loving partner but I've never really felt driven to have sex with anyone else, could I be asexual?

Most asexual people are capable of having sex, as with masturbation some asexuals find the experience of sex pleasurable. If you use sex as an expression of romantic or emotional attraction (love) rather than because you are driven to do so by a sex drive, then that need not contradict an asexual identity.

If you never feel attraction to other people, if you're never 'horny' for sex, then you would fit the definition of asexuality. Just as sexual people can form asexual relationships, asexual people can participate in sexual relationships. If you're comfortable and happy with that then it's cause for celebration rather than a reason to doubt your 'asexual purity'.

...

In a loving relationship, some asexuals may enjoy giving sexual pleasure to their partner without the need for any sexual gratification in return.

The common factor among asexuals is that they are not driven to have sex with other people, they don't get horny and other people don't 'turn them on'. This doesn't necessarily stop them from finding some pleasure from sex if they so choose.

Okay. Now from this, there are asexuals that do enjoy sex with a loving partner. I know there are people here that may have sex with a loving sexual partner as a sort of compromise. They may not be at all interested themselves, but do so anyway. I'm not talking about this aspect. If the above quote is correct, some asexuals may desire sex with a partner because they may feel it connects them in a way, or they use it to express themselves. But is this sexual attraction? It doesnt seem that it would be about the sex itself.

What about what I said before, when two people are friends for along time and there is nothing, but somehow romantic feelings start to develop, followed by a sexual attraction. A desire to be intimate. My thought is, is sexual attraction more of a physical, initial attraction? Such as when you look at someone? Would it seem to be something that is "at first sight" type of thing? Many sexuals experience sexual attraction like this. However, is that different from a "sexual attraction" that comes about because of romantic feelings developing first? Are there two types of sexual attractions? Are these actually two separate things? Is the second one something different?

Also, many sexuals experience sexual attraction toward someone, but still may not want to pursue a sexual relationship. They may not be instantly aroused. But they know they are sexually attracted to someone.

Because I disagree with your def of sexual desire and sexual attraction, I then disagree with your def of asexual. I believe asexuals may or may not have a sex drive, yes. But they also may or may not experience sexual desire. We need to look into what sexual attraction is, and I believe that is the key. IF there are those two separate "sexual attraction"s, I believe asexuals would lack the first one, the more instant, purely physical thing. Even though the second one may be more rare. But I also believe that second one isn't necassarly sexual attraction. It requires more thought and I'd love more opinions on it.

However, after bringing that all up, all I did was make myself want to talk to my ex even more, because I believe we can figure this thing out. It's quite thought provoking. I actually really enjoy thinking about this sort of thing. It's intellectually stimulating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to read that twice to take it all in and I think I've come to the conclusion that because I don't experience sexual attraction I have no way of knowing how to define it! *L*

I know arousal - I can become aroused through stimulation. And I know drive, because I have felt that need before - but I don't know attraction. If what you are saying is true - that it is something different than arousal, something different than that feeling of excitement not in the stomach or heart but below the belt - if it's something else, I don't know what it is.

Is there something different between arousal and attraction?

I really feel more now than ever that I am at a disadvantage in this world of 'the sexual' because I at least before thought I had a clue of what people are experiencing when they are sexually attracted to each other or me... now I don't.

And I have talked to sexuals - oddly enough, mostly guys. And when they are sexually attracted to women they 'get hard' - and I interpreted that as aroused. Am I wrong? Is there some feeling that comes before that, or that is different than that?

I too find this very interesting to discuss - even when I don't know what the heck I'm talking about!

hawke

Link to post
Share on other sites
I had to read that twice to take it all in and I think I've come to the conclusion that because I don't experience sexual attraction I have no way of knowing how to define it! *L*

I know arousal - I can become aroused through stimulation. And I know drive, because I have felt that need before - but I don't know attraction. If what you are saying is true - that it is something different than arousal, something different than that feeling of excitement not in the stomach or heart but below the belt - if it's something else, I don't know what it is.

Is there something different between arousal and attraction?

My ex tells me that there is. Which is why I want to talk to her about it. Damn... See, when you have two people that are on the same intellectual level, both of which who have spent much time discussing topics like this (unlike most sexuals, who just take it for granted), and you have one who is sexual and the other who is asexual, I think that can really lead to something because you get BOTH sides! And its really frusterating that all this came up during our "no speaking" period!

As for guys "getting hard" and they say that is sexual attraction, I'm sure its linked. But do they HAVE to develop an erection for it to be sexual attraction? I doubt it. I think if that were the case, very many sexual guys would be walking around with one most of the time. And at the same time, getting a sexual woman's perspective is good too, because men and women are different in certain areas, often in this one. I tend to doubt that sexual women get instantly wet just by seeing someone they are sexually attracted to.

I believe that sexual attraction is mental (though not conscious). Perhaps its a way of thinking. Maybe something like, "I could enjoy sexual intimacy with that person" even though they may not even want to. Who knows. I agree with your statement that because I dont experience it, I can't really define it. But I am getting good at being able to pick out what I think may be flaws in the def.

AHH! Just one of the reasons I still love my ex. We're so fucking intellectually compatable! I swear I think we could figure this stuff out. Dammit!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to talk to wolf about it last night and he was at a loss to explain the difference between arousal and sexual attraction - but he did agree that it wasn't the same thing. I have another friend who I talk to once in a while about this kind of thing, I'll ask her.

Sorry about you and your ex, that must be really frustrating. :(

hawke

Link to post
Share on other sites
WakingNightmare

This is my typical "Asexual Conversation"

"I'm sorry, your what?"

Me - "Asexual"

"What the Hell is That?"

Me - "Well basically I am not Sexually attracted to anyone and do not find any desire for sexual or emotional gratification."

"So you don't like Sex?"

Me- "Basically, yes"

"So you don't find people attractive?"

Me- "Attractive, yes but do I want a relationship with them or have sex with them, nope"

"So then ya must masturbate alot right?

Me- "Actually, not really."

"So you've taken a vow of celibacy or something?"

Me- "No, I just get no enjoyment out of it."

"Huh....., no way that's BS"

ME- "Ok, when the last time I have expressed the slightest interest in anyone?"

"Huh....Good point"

-----Akward Silence-----

LOL, That's usually how it goes. It never really bothered anyone I've told.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Me - "Well basically I am not Sexually attracted to anyone and do not find any desire for sexual or emotional gratification."

That def of asexuality is personalized toward you, which makes sense since you are describing yourself. But on an overall basis, as a basic catch all def for asexuality, it would be incorrect in that many asexuals DO desire some sort of sexual or emotional gratification. While I believe its important to explain to someone who YOU are, I also think its important to make a point of letting people know that not all asexuals are exactly the same. You'd think that would be obvious, but people are stupid. And if we tell them one specified thing, they may very well think that ALL asexuals have to be like you, and so may later argue with someone else that is asexual, telling them that they are not asexual because they experience romantic attraction (as an example).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I talked to my sexual friend about it and she's giving it a good thinking - it's not easy for her to describe but she did say sexual attraction is both physical and mental and she's going to try to go more in depth about what happens to help me out.

hawke

Link to post
Share on other sites
You'd think that would be obvious, but people are stupid. And if we tell them one specified thing, they may very well think that ALL asexuals have to be like you, and so may later argue with someone else that is asexual, telling them that they are not asexual because they experience romantic attraction (as an example).
Yeah, a guy like that went through my Polish site one day and later kept poking at what he called 'unclear things.' He would just get stuck on one word or phrase and keep shitting about how senseless it was. And my every atempt to explain it failed. I don't care much for what he said about me and all but it is a problem that there is so much about us that we cannot explain to sexual people.
Link to post
Share on other sites
WakingNightmare

My mistake, I do tell people that it varies from person to person and that's just how I am. They have a diff time thinking a sexuality in w/ such a broad range.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, a guy like that went through my Polish site one day and later kept poking at what he called 'unclear things.' He would just get stuck on one word or phrase and keep shitting about how senseless it was. And my every atempt to explain it failed.

That sounds more like a troll than a genuinely confused person. I'm going to be optimistic and claim the average person would have less trouble at least with the understanding part.

One (rather sexual) friend of mine has a little trouble with the love-vs-sex thing. A little while ago she said something along the lines of "well, you can have Val's heart, she's not using it"* and I had to remind her that being asexual didn't mean I wasn't using my heart (in the metaphorical sense), it meant that I wasn't using my groin. (Come to think of it, though, she may have been mad at me that day...) Everyone else I've talked to about it has been uncommonly understanding, though. It was almost creepy.

*You don't even want to know how this came up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've talked more with my husband about the line between sexual attraction and arousal...

He liked it to the costume conventions we go to. I get excited about going, anticipate it, think about it, want to do it, prepare for it and then when I'm there it's fun and I'm enjoying myself. And when it'sover I think about it and like to talk about it with friends and we look at pictures of what happened and talk about how we can't wait to do it again.

He says sex is like that - the anticipation is the sexual attraction part and being there is the arousal.

For him, he has no 'sexual attraction' for going to costume conventions. He doesn't think about it, want to do it, sort of dreads what it'll mean for him and is really only doing it because i want him to. Yet, when he's there, he has fun and does enjoy himself and can think fondly on the experience. Yet he never has any attraction to do it again...

It was a great analogy (excepting there is no "CLIMAX" at a convention :P)

Because that is exactly how I feel about sex... there is no emotional or sexual attraction at all, but I do enjoy it once I'm in the middle of it.

So now I can understand what he means when he says he's sexually attracted to me but not sexually aroused (yet). It's the difference between wanting to feel something physical and feeling something physical... and it can be a very short time period between attraction and arousal, or very long...

Does that make sense to anyone else?? I'll try to word it better and mroe concise later.

hawke

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eta Carinae

It makes sense, but I don't find it terribly helpful. How does he actually know he's sexually attracted to you, or to anyone else? When he was going through puberty, what made him realize he was into girls? Is it just that he looks at someone and thinks that it would be nice to have sex with them? If he started liking girls before he really had a clear idea of what sex was, how did he know he liked them?

(I'm asking all the puberty questions, by the way, because I think that in terms of familiarity with sexual attraction, sexual people just going through puberty and asexual people are closer than adult sexual people and asexual people. Adult sexuals, I think, usually have integrated their attraction into their lives so much that they don't give the best responses when it comes to being asked what attraction is: it's a commonplace, everyday thing that they've got a vocabulary for. I'm hoping that if they're asked about a time before they had that kind of attitude towards it, they'll be forced to be more descriptive and actually give specifics.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that I could ordinarily make a joke about lightsaber envy or something that would be somewhat witty and inspire several groans, but I'm too tired. (what the hell am I still doing online at 5:30AM??)

But in any case, I do understand what your point is.... desires come in many shapes and forms, and sometimes it's nice to just keep that in mind for perspective.... right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inkburrow, I'll have to ask him when the kids aren't around, but I would think it has something to do with the way asexuals with romantic attractions feel. I know I had crushes on boys and didn't realize something was 'wrong with me' until I started to question why I wasn't enjoying kissing or physical stuff at all. I suppose with sexuals they get the crushes but they also get the 'want to have sex' attraction thing as well.

spockjr, I actually asked wolf what the 'climax' would be at a convention. *hehehe* He said the analogy broke down at that point... but one could say maybe that if one goes to the conventions to meet a celebrity - the actual 'meet' is the climax... excitment builds when you are close to them, it's a very short moment that people always want to last longer and for some people it's not a convention without it. I've seen some scary things at cons with fans trying to get close to people - that analogy is almost too creepy to stomach. blech.

hawke

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawke, that seems to make sense. My question, however, is what about when someone JUST meets someone? I'm sure we've all heard our sexual friends talk about how "hot" someone is meerly upon sight. There is a def sexual attraction there. And sometimes they may even want sex with that person and so approach them. But there are also the times when someone may be sexually attracted to that person, but not want to go there. Such as sexual people already in a relationship. They don't want to cheat, but they are still attracted to others. In that case, I wouldn't think they'd think too much about sex with that person. The sexual attraction is instant, before I'm sure there is too much thought put in to it. And as was brought up before, when someone has their first crush, does that mean that even then, it's associated with sex? Or is it, at least at that time, more innocent? Just because the person is "pretty" or actually due to behavior? What about people, such as quads, that may not experience physical sexual sensation any more, but still have sexual attraction?

Link to post
Share on other sites
honeyandthemoon
What about people, such as quads, that may not experience physical sexual sensation any more, but still have sexual attraction?

I don't know, this is just a thought, but maybe that's something like people who have had an arm amputated but can still feel like they have an itch on their hand? Or maybe that doesn't make any sense at all. It's just what popped into my head first... :?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What about people, such as quads, that may not experience physical sexual sensation any more, but still have sexual attraction?

I don't know, this is just a thought, but maybe that's something like people who have had an arm amputated but can still feel like they have an itch on their hand? Or maybe that doesn't make any sense at all. It's just what popped into my head first... :?

I can see where that might happen in the beginning, but I'd guess it wears off rather soon. My boss, for example, has been a quad for over 20 years. Though, I'm sure people can still enjoy sexual activity without it being focused on genital stimulation. But I still don't see why sex would be the very first thing someone thinks of, especially in a situation where it isn't really purely physical. I'll have to ask my ex, but I just feel like there's got to be more to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
davelwhite

I'm late, but I like the new definition focusing on disinterest, and am one of those people who does not believe my lack of sexual interest is "innate" (or that it would have to be, in order for it to be okay).

dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...