What asexuality is not.

[shockkkk]

Sexual orientations are based on the following:

1. Heterosexuality: sexually attracted to the opposite gender
2. Homosexuality: sexually attracted to the same gender
3. Bisexuality: sexually attracted to both males and females
4. Pansexuality: sexually attracted to people of any gender

All of the above descriptions are the core of those sexual orientations: behaviour and libido, for example, do not play into factor. One could be a homosexual celibate and no one would question it, just as much as someone could be a heterosexual with any level of libido, etc.

Therefore, no matter behaviour and level of libido, the core of a sexual orientation is: who are you sexually attracted to? If the answer is nobody, I'm not sexually attracted to any gender, there you have the 5th orientation: asexuality, which has a consistant core definition as the others. It can be expanded, added personal experiences, etc when talking to people? Sure! But at its core, to me, that's what it is and should be.

Why do we have to define asexuality in the same way other orientations are? To me it strikes me as mostly a political attempt to be recognized as an official orientation.

I don't know how many times this comment has been addressed on AVEN in the last year, but I'll say it again here. Implicit in the other definitions is that sexual attraction and sexual desire are coupled. I remember skullerymaid saying that when she came out as gay nobody cared about whether or not she was sexually attracted to girls, but rather that the question was more along the lines of 'so you wanna get sexy with ladies?".

[Guest]

Sexual orientations are based on the following:

• Heterosexuality: sexually attracted to the opposite gender
• Homosexuality: sexually attracted to the same gender
• Bisexuality: sexually attracted to both males and females
• Pansexuality: sexually attracted to people of any gender

How does that not translate to:

• Heterosexuality: desires sexual contact with the opposite gender
• Homosexuality: desires sexual contact with the same gender
• Bisexuality: desires sexual contact with both males and females
• Pansexuality: desires sexual contact with people of any gender

[ithaca]

That is my point. It's almost like you're trying to define a persons sexuality for them. I would give them the information and simply say if you relate to this then you are, in my opinion, asexual. Once a person has the information and knowledge that this exists and it's ok to be this way, they can go on to further analyze themselves, they may discover they arent asexual after all or they may discover that yes this is me. It is not the place of anybody else to throw definitions at someone and say no you arent this or that because you dont meet this condition.

I'm sorry if there was any misunderstanding :) I'm completely into helping people with their self-discovery journey, as you may find out going through my posts in Q&A and Welcome Lounge, giving them information and material to look into to help them learn :) I'm totally against telling people what their orientation is, and totally in favour of helping them understanding better. This thread was meant to fight some common miconceptions (that we've seen both on AVEN and on the medias) that asexuality is the same as celibacy for example, so as long as you're celibate you can call yourself asexual. And other examples.

[Guest]

What the OP means is that, using your example, if someone comes to AVEN and reads some stories, and identifies only with, for example "sex is gross" and "I want to be a virgin for life", that isn't really enough to think "I'm definitely asexual", it's more "I'm a sex repulsed celibate" though it may help them looking more into why they feel that way, and then try and understand whether or not they're asexual. And they would obviously not be kicked out of the community, as they could relate to some part of asexuals' experiences either way. But if those are the only things they share with asexual people, do those make that person asexual?

Does it make sense?

Yes, that makes perfect sense, and it's why I agree with every point on the list except the last one.

[Guest Invisible Pumpkin]

I think posts like the OP can only lead to more confusion for people. It's not a competition, it's not a contest. Only you can decide if you're asexual or anything else. If a person feels inclined to read up about it and they recognise themselves within the stories and definitions that they read, watch and listen to then they are asexual. They do not have to meet some criteria list.

I thought that by a criteria list most of psychological "things" where classify, hence why there are so many test to conclude if someone it's aspie, autistic, depressed and all and all. I'm not saying that asexuality it's one of those "thing", just in case. I'm just saying that there are normally a criteria to evaluate if someone is or not (insert here something), why cannot be one for asexuality?

Again, I'm bunnysexual! Is this make sense? NO, but I'm stating it. Is it a real thing? NO, but I'm stating it. Are we going to do the same with asexuality and then expect to be considered as a real thing?

As someone who is quite a newcomer to the community, I was just making the point that I found the whole OP to be overly confrontational and negative, like as if it was saying if you don't meet these conditions you are not welcome at our club! If that was the first thing I had read when researching asexuality and trying to work out if it applied to me it would have just added to the confusion. I'm sure this was not the intention I was just stating the way it initially made me feel, and reading it again now maybe I was to quick to judge.

To me, as I stated previously, if a person feels inclined to be looking into asexuality and they start to recognise themselves in the stories etc. that they read, then that should be good enough and they shouldnt feel like they have to take a pop quiz. It should be simplified to avoid confusing people who are newly discovering themselves. If someone asked me personally 'am I asexual?' I would point them in the direction of personal stories that I have read and watched over the past weeks and say to them if you idenitfy with any of those, then yes - have some cake :D

In another note, welcome to Aven. I think Aven it's a very welcoming place, some people here are not asexuals, in fact one (if not wrong) of our mods it's a sexual person married with an asexual; we have a partners and allies forum even. If I ever say I'm not asexual anymore I don't think I'll be kicked out or something the like, in fact in the first post I did in this thread I said I don't relate anymore with the whole idea of or concept of asexuality and yet here I am. Again, welcome to Aven ;).

To me, as I stated previously, if a person feels inclined to be looking into asexuality and they start to recognise themselves in the stories etc. that they read, then that should be good enough and they shouldnt feel like they have to take a pop quiz. It should be simplified to avoid confusing people who are newly discovering themselves. If someone asked me personally 'am I asexual?' I would point them in the direction of personal stories that I have read and watched over the past weeks and say to them if you idenitfy with any of those, then yes - have some cake :D

I agree with this, if someone looks into asexuality and identifies him or her self as asexual, then they are end of story. We don't need these accusations of each other being asexual or not. It is hard enough to discover yourself, you don't need to have to defend it afterwards.

Which accusations? (FOR ME) It would be important to state more valid information about what it's asexuality or not, this wouldn't be about who is or not asexual. Even in the thread says What asexuality it's no, it doesn't says who is not asexual, if someone insist in been wrong for their own sake, let them be, but if someone it's confused and needing and asking for help we should "have something" to offer them beyond asexuality it's whatever you say/you want, asexual are all they say they are.

One day we will have to accept that we are failing at some point.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Invisible Pumpkin

[ithaca]

Sexual orientations are based on the following:

• Heterosexuality: sexually attracted to the opposite gender
• Homosexuality: sexually attracted to the same gender
• Bisexuality: sexually attracted to both males and females
• Pansexuality: sexually attracted to people of any gender

How does that not translate to:

• Heterosexuality: desires sexual contact with the opposite gender
• Homosexuality: desires sexual contact with the same gender
• Bisexuality: desires sexual contact with both males and females
• Pansexuality: desires sexual contact with people of any gender

I've never said it doesn't.

But disinterest in sex can be caused by other things rather than asexuality, and people of any sexual orientations may be disinterested in sex at some point of their life, for any length of time.

[Cymry]

That is my point. It's almost like you're trying to define a persons sexuality for them. I would give them the information and simply say if you relate to this then you are, in my opinion, asexual. Once a person has the information and knowledge that this exists and it's ok to be this way, they can go on to further analyze themselves, they may discover they arent asexual after all or they may discover that yes this is me. It is not the place of anybody else to throw definitions at someone and say no you arent this or that because you dont meet this condition.

I'm sorry if there was any misunderstanding :) I'm completely into helping people with their self-discovery journey, as you may find out going through my posts in Q&A and Welcome Lounge, giving them information and material to look into to help them learn :) I'm totally against telling people what their orientation is, and totally in favour of helping them understanding better. This thread was meant to fight some common miconceptions (that we've seen both on AVEN and on the medias) that asexuality is the same as celibacy for example, so as long as you're celibate you can call yourself asexual. And other examples.

Please, don't feel you have to apologise for anything, least of all to me. You have your ideas on the way things are and I have mine. I look at it from a more simplified perspective and a lot of these debates over 'are you this or that' kind of hurt my head. I would simply give people information and let them make their own minds up. Threads like this just add to confusion when you are not used to a University level of debate (again, in my opinion). Asexuality or any sexual orientation is not a psychological condition that can simply be diagnosed and pigeonholed. Which to me, is what this thread was trying to do.

[Naosuu]

While we understand that the other sexual orientations are based on the "sexual attraction" model (also noted in the OP), that does not necessarily mean it is the most accurate, especially in light of asexuality. Is sexual attraction the core of sexual orientation? With asexuality in the picture, I'm inclined to say no or, at the very least, not as important as we think it is.

Shock already pointed out the holes in Bogaert's research (which are ones I've noticed myself while reading the book) but goes along with it precisely because it's been taken for granted and considered a "standard". I think Bogaert's a pretty smart guy (plus Canadian I'm not biased I promise) but if you can't define it and you're basing your research on self-identification, it's a bit.... weak.

You can arguably say it's the same for sexual attraction. Some sexuals can be very deeply attracted to their partners but don't actually experience sexual attraction. Yet they come to AVEN for help in their lacking sex life.

[GoldenLillies]

I'm a bit late on joining this thread but I don't quite understand why asexuality couldn't just be defined as "Someone who has no desire for partnered sex and/or does not experience sexual attraction." Could someone explain it to me because this thread is making me really confused because if someone had no desire for partnered sex under any circumstances, it would seem like they were most likely asexual. And by desire, I don't mean doing it for a partner or as a chore etc. It's more something that they enjoy and want to do on a fundamental level, not really for external reasons but for internal reasons as well other than curiousity etc.

Like even celibate sexuals probably have had the desire to have sex with someone at some point in their lives but they chose not to do it and repulsed sexuals may have felt the urge but they were unwilling to follow through because they were repulsed etc.

Sexual attraction is extremely ambigious but I think it eventually boils down to being attracted to someone in such a way that you would consider and possibly desire having a sexual relationship with someone, if all of the criteria needed for you to have sex with someone was met, or like being attracted to someone in a way that could potentially lead to something sexual and you wanted it to turn sexual eventually.

As for a kind of criteria list to help newbies, maybe there could be a list or something with different experiences that other asexuals report having and then having people decide whether or not they identify with the experiences or not.

[Guest]

I've never said it doesn't.

But disinterest in sex can be caused by other things rather than asexuality, and people of any sexual orientations may be disinterested in sex at some point of their life, for any length of time.

A =/=> B <=/=> ¬A =/=> ¬B

You can be disinterested in partnered sex and be not asexual. (I concur, and had the OP stopped at that point, we wouldn't have this discussion!)

BUT:

You cannot be interested in partnered sex and be asexual. (That's where I fundamentally disagree with the OP.)

[ithaca]

I'm a bit late on joining this thread but I don't quite understand why asexuality couldn't just be defined as "Someone who has no desire for partnered sex and/or does not experience sexual attraction." Could someone explain it to me because this thread is making me really confused because if someone had no desire for partnered sex under any circumstances, it would seem like they were most likely asexual. Like even celibate sexuals probably have had the desire to have sex with someone at some point in their lives but they chose not to do it and repulsed sexuals may have felt the urge but they were unwilling to follow through because they were repulsed etc.

Basically, and this will likely be the only post I'll make on that tangent (the definition one):

1. Putting and/or means that either of the two parts of the sentence is enough: so someone may experience sexual attraction but not desire partnered sex adn yet be asexual
2. As a consequence, if people think the current definition is confusing, I imagine the mess it would be if the proposed one would be enforced, since "desire" is often used as a synonym of "want" in every-day language, therefore sexual people who do not desire/want sex with anyone (celibate, repulsed, etc) would likely be more easily drawn into the confusion and mislabel themselves.

@Mysticus: you've protested the "disinterest in sex" before saying the opposite of what you just said, meaning that people who are disinterested in sex are asexual.

It's been discussed many many times that asexuals can be interested in sex, and there's asexuals who have joined this thread saying so as well: curiosity, physical pleasure, emotional closeness, wanting a child, and 1000 other reasons can make asexuals interested in sex even though not naturally sexually attracted by other people.

[GoldenLillies]

I'm a bit late on joining this thread but I don't quite understand why asexuality couldn't just be defined as "Someone who has no desire for partnered sex and/or does not experience sexual attraction." Could someone explain it to me because this thread is making me really confused because if someone had no desire for partnered sex under any circumstances, it would seem like they were most likely asexual. Like even celibate sexuals probably have had the desire to have sex with someone at some point in their lives but they chose not to do it and repulsed sexuals may have felt the urge but they were unwilling to follow through because they were repulsed etc.

Basically, and this will likely be the only post I'll make on that tangent (the definition one):

1. Putting and/or means that either of the two parts of the sentence is enough: so someone may experience sexual attraction but not desire partnered sex adn yet be asexual
2. As a consequence, if people think the current definition is confusing, I imagine the mess it would be if the proposed one would be enforced, since "desire" is often used as a synonym of "want" in every-day language, therefore sexual people who do not desire/want sex with anyone (celibate, repulsed, etc) would likely be more easily drawn into the confusion and mislabel themselves

Oh ok :) That's cleared it up a bit so thanks :) Just one more question though. There have been some aces /grey-As that have said that they experience sexual attraction/ some form of attraction very similar to what sexuals describe as sexual attraction but it doesn't lead to wanting to have sex and they still wouldn't have sex with the person they were attracted to and the desire didn't follow. There seems to be disconnect between the attraction and the desire and that seems to be one of the main differences between sexuals and asexuals. Would it be easier and less confusing to change the definition to encompass that disconnect as well or would that just make it even more confusing?

Plus it seems like the disconnect wouldn't really apply to celibate/repulsed sexuals as they may just suppress the desire to follow through with the attraction for their own personal reasons but it doesn't mean it wouldn't still be there.

Sorry for asking so many questions, it' just sexuality can be a very complicated thing to try and define.

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

Sexual orientations are based on the following:

1. Heterosexuality: sexually attracted to the opposite gender
2. Homosexuality: sexually attracted to the same gender
3. Bisexuality: sexually attracted to both males and females
4. Pansexuality: sexually attracted to people of any gender

All of the above descriptions are the core of those sexual orientations: behaviour and libido, for example, do not play into factor. One could be a homosexual celibate and no one would question it, just as much as someone could be a heterosexual with any level of libido, etc.

Therefore, no matter behaviour and level of libido, the core of a sexual orientation is: who are you sexually attracted to? If the answer is nobody, I'm not sexually attracted to any gender, there you have the 5th orientation: asexuality, which has a consistant core definition as the others. It can be expanded, added personal experiences, etc when talking to people? Sure! But at its core, to me, that's what it is and should be.

If a homosexual is attracted once to the opposite gender, do we question their sexuality? If someone is choosing to identify as asexual and they aren't according to the definition what benefit are they getting? I really don't see why we need strict definitions on this. I would fall under this definition and i don't see a benefit to calling myself asexual, why would someone mislabel themselves?

[Cymry]

Some of these posts have confused me, I feel attraction to women, to be affectionate, tactile etc. but have no desire/urge to 'bed them'. Am I not asexual now?

[ithaca]

I'm a bit late on joining this thread but I don't quite understand why asexuality couldn't just be defined as "Someone who has no desire for partnered sex and/or does not experience sexual attraction." Could someone explain it to me because this thread is making me really confused because if someone had no desire for partnered sex under any circumstances, it would seem like they were most likely asexual. Like even celibate sexuals probably have had the desire to have sex with someone at some point in their lives but they chose not to do it and repulsed sexuals may have felt the urge but they were unwilling to follow through because they were repulsed etc.

Basically, and this will likely be the only post I'll make on that tangent (the definition one):

1. Putting and/or means that either of the two parts of the sentence is enough: so someone may experience sexual attraction but not desire partnered sex adn yet be asexual
3. As a consequence, if people think the current definition is confusing, I imagine the mess it would be if the proposed one would be enforced, since "desire" is often used as a synonym of "want" in every-day language, therefore sexual people who do not desire/want sex with anyone (celibate, repulsed, etc) would likely be more easily drawn into the confusion and mislabel themselves

Oh ok :) That's cleared it up a bit so thanks :) Just one more question though. There have been some aces /grey-As that have said that they experience sexual attraction/ some form of attraction very similar to what sexuals describe as sexual attraction but it doesn't lead to wanting to have sex. There seems to be disconnect between the attraction and the desire and that seems to be one of the main differences between sexuals and asexuals. Would it be easier and less confusing to change the definition to encompass that disconnect as well or would that just make it even more confusing?

Sorry for asking so many questions, it' just sexuality can be a very complicated thing to try and define.

There are several models that illustrate different key points of asexuality. For some people, that disconnect is very important, for others it's not.

I'm very much for keeping things with the KISS (Keep it simple, stupid) system and then people starting from there and discovering there's other people who have similar experiences to them, and deciding their own label.

@ Cymry: Here people have been discussing sexual attraction, but there are other kinds of attractions, even though for most people they are all aligned. This page may help you :)

Edited March 27, 2013 by ithaca

[Guest]

Putting and/or means that either of the two parts of the sentence is enough: so someone may experience sexual attraction but not desire partnered sex adn yet be asexual

And as long as noone gives a clear definition what sex.attr. even is, that is exactly as it should be and what AVEN should be going for.

@Mysticus: you've protested the "disinterest in sex" before saying the opposite of what you just said, meaning that people who are disinterested in sex are asexual.

And as a long term, natural state - yes it is. If you never feel the desire to have sex with someone, despite being in good health and living in a society with a good variety of potential mates, then yes - that means you are asexual, no matter if you use the "sexual attraction" phrase or not.

It's been discussed many many times that asexuals can be interested in sex, and there's asexuals who have joined this thread saying so as well: curiosity, physical pleasure, emotional closeness, wanting a child, and 1000 other reasons can make asexuals interested in sex even though not naturally sexually attracted by other people.

No. Desire for sexual contact means that partnered sex is its own goal. Otherwise, it's not desire. Of course asexuals can use partnered sex as a means to an end (including all that you mentioned, and adding the obvious and important one of liking to see their partner get pleased). But if they desire partnered sex in and of itself, then no, they are not asexual.

A definition of asexuality that contorts into hoops trying to include desire for partnered sex it makes me think that asexuality, as thus defined, probably does not exist.

[ithaca]

A definition of asexuality that contorts into hoops trying to include desire for partnered sex

Haven't seen that happening anywhere though, have we? ;)

[Guest]

A definition of asexuality that contorts into hoops trying to include desire for partnered sex

Haven't seen that happening anywhere though, have we? ;)

Could you maybe get more specific as to where that anywhere is? Because the only example springing to mind for me is this thread.

[Naosuu]

She's referring to the 36 page monster thread we had in the summer of 2012, which spawned this pinned thread.

My shameless plug: it also inspired me to write this.

[Cymry]

I'm a bit late on joining this thread but I don't quite understand why asexuality couldn't just be defined as "Someone who has no desire for partnered sex and/or does not experience sexual attraction." Could someone explain it to me because this thread is making me really confused because if someone had no desire for partnered sex under any circumstances, it would seem like they were most likely asexual. Like even celibate sexuals probably have had the desire to have sex with someone at some point in their lives but they chose not to do it and repulsed sexuals may have felt the urge but they were unwilling to follow through because they were repulsed etc.

Basically, and this will likely be the only post I'll make on that tangent (the definition one):

1. Putting and/or means that either of the two parts of the sentence is enough: so someone may experience sexual attraction but not desire partnered sex adn yet be asexual
3. As a consequence, if people think the current definition is confusing, I imagine the mess it would be if the proposed one would be enforced, since "desire" is often used as a synonym of "want" in every-day language, therefore sexual people who do not desire/want sex with anyone (celibate, repulsed, etc) would likely be more easily drawn into the confusion and mislabel themselves

Oh ok :) That's cleared it up a bit so thanks :) Just one more question though. There have been some aces /grey-As that have said that they experience sexual attraction/ some form of attraction very similar to what sexuals describe as sexual attraction but it doesn't lead to wanting to have sex. There seems to be disconnect between the attraction and the desire and that seems to be one of the main differences between sexuals and asexuals. Would it be easier and less confusing to change the definition to encompass that disconnect as well or would that just make it even more confusing?

Sorry for asking so many questions, it' just sexuality can be a very complicated thing to try and define.

There are several models that illustrate different key points of asexuality. For some people, that disconnect is very important, for others it's not.

I'm very much for keeping things with the KISS (Keep it simple, stupid) system and then people starting from there and discovering there's other people who have similar experiences to them, and deciding their own label.

@ Cymry: Here people have been discussing sexual attraction, but there are other kinds of attractions, even though for most people they are all aligned. This page may help you :)

Ok thanks. I am as I suspected a 'romantic asexual' not a fan of that phrasing, but it is what it is.

[ithaca]

A definition of asexuality that contorts into hoops trying to include desire for partnered sex

Haven't seen that happening anywhere though, have we? ;)

Could you maybe get more specific as to where that anywhere is? Because the only example springing to mind for me is this thread.

Sorry, despite the smilie I was serious. The OP states that asexuality is "the lack of sexual attraction". The ones bringing up partnered sex in the definition are posts below, that propose to insert it (as a negation of desire towards it). To be even more clear, Mysticus, my issue is not with the lack of desire towards partnered sex specifically: as the OP states, it's very likely that most asexuals are disinterested in sex. it's the "and/or" part of the definition that is the key problem. If it said "Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction; most (if not all) asexual people lack the intrinsic desire for partnered sex" I would likely have less problems with it. It's the "and/or" that invalidates it to me.

[shockkkk]

A definition of asexuality that contorts into hoops trying to include desire for partnered sex

Haven't seen that happening anywhere though, have we? ;)

Could you maybe get more specific as to where that anywhere is? Because the only example springing to mind for me is this thread.

Sorry, despite the smilie I was serious. The OP states that asexuality is "the lack of sexual attraction". The ones bringing up partnered sex in the definition are posts below, that propose to insert it (as a negation of desire towards it). To be even more clear, Mysticus, my issue is not with the lack of desire towards partnered sex specifically: as the OP states, it's very likely that most asexuals are disinterested in sex. it's the "and/or" part of the definition that is the key problem. If it said "Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction; most (if not all) asexual people lack the intrinsic desire for partnered sex" I would likely have less problems with it. It's the "and/or" that invalidates it to me.

This is the exact the same definition as "Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction". It is saying asexuality has nothing to do with the lack of intrinsic desire for partnered sex.

[Guest]

She's referring to the 36 page monster thread we had in the summer of 2012, which spawned this pinned thread.

My shameless plug: it also inspired me to write this.

YE GODS! :o I'll look into that, but honestly there's no way I'm willing to do so tonight anymore...

This is the exact the same definition as "Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction".

Let's not shoot down the first steps of reaching a workable compromise... ;)

To be even more clear, Mysticus, my issue is not with the lack of desire towards partnered sex specifically: as the OP states, it's very likely that most asexuals are disinterested in sex. it's the "and/or" part of the definition that is the key problem. If it said "Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction; most (if not all) asexual people lack the intrinsic desire for partnered sex" I would likely have less problems with it. It's the "and/or" that invalidates it to me.

...because this already sounds much more reasonable to me than the OP, and almost reaches the point where I could agree. :lol:

My suggestion to modify it would be one word and one interpunctuation: "Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction - most (maybe all) asexual people lack the intrinsic desire for partnered sex"

[shockkkk]

"Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction - most (maybe all) asexual people lack the intrinsic desire for partnered sex"

Sorry I don't see how this is any better. It still defines asexuality solely in terms of sexual attraction which doesn't eliminate the problem that sexual attraction is an extremely ambiguous term. Sexual attraction can still be taken to mean anything and everything. All this definition does is say that a lack of sexual attraction frequently leads to a lack of desire for partnered sex; this seems to be a rather trivial observation to me.

[ithaca]

@ Mysticus:

The OP does say:

it's very likely that most asexual people have no interest in sex

The reason why I'd rather keep the definition without the second part is that academically, it's unnecessary, as it's just a simplicistic explanation of what "lack of sexual attraction" means for many people, as shockkk noticed too. The current definition gets confusing for asexual people when they stop and think of sexual attraction. Most of my life, I had an idea of what sexual attraction was, I was just waiting to experience it because I could see it happening to other people. And sexual people do understand what "sexual attraction" means: it being an astract term doesn't make it less understandable by people, just like "love" or "hate" aren't incomprehensible even without a technical definition.

[Guest]

Nature of compromise: Neither side gets exactly what they want, but both sides get the inacceptable removed. ^_^ ;)

If it were purely for me, the attraction part could be done away with and replaced with the intrinsic desire for sex definition alone; however, I realize that's not happening, and I don't have a problem with keeping the term in as long as it's not the only definitory hinge.

The current definition gets confusing for asexual people when they stop and think of sexual attraction. Most of my life, I had an idea of what sexual attraction was, I was just waiting to experience it because I could see it happening to other people. And sexual people do understand what "sexual attraction" means: it being an astract term doesn't make it less understandable by people, just like "love" or "hate" aren't incomprehensible even without a technical definition.

But isn't the bolded part reason enough to want it changed? I understood the German AVEN definition just fine, and felt immediately relieved when I found it (which was a week or two before I found the English/international AVEN site, redirected from the German one).

The sense of relief at "finally a label that fits" then got a severe damper when reading English AVEN's definition... because unlike you, apparently, I do not have an intuitive idea what sexual attraction is supposed to mean. The relief only came back when reading the "itch-scratch" metaphor, by which sexual attraction *is* the desire to have sexual interaction.

You seem to underestimate how alienating the current, unmodified definition can be to people just signing in. That's exactly why the "what is that, even?" threads in Q&A never. stop. coming.

[shockkkk]

Nature of compromise: Neither side gets exactly what they want, but both sides get the inacceptable removed. ^_^ ;)

If it were purely for me, the attraction part could be done away with and replaced with the intrinsic desire for sex definition alone; however, I realize that's not happening, and I don't have a problem with keeping the term in as long as it's not the only definitory hinge.

Same here, but I feel the and/or is already a bit of a compromise. Also I don't see the definition proposed above as a compromise at all.

[LaFemme]

For me the definition: ''no desire for sexual interactions'', is quite important.

I dont experience sexual attraction at all. Doesn't matter if he is a stranger or if I falled in love with him.

So if the definition of asexuality is just based on sexual attraction then I would be ''100%'' asexual. But I don't feel 100% asexual because I do beginn to desire for partnered sex when I falled in love with someone without sexual attraction.

For me the key is the desire for partnered sex.

And in the context of sexual orientation it is the desire for partnered sex with a specific sex/gender.

I think asexuality is more than just a sexual orientation because it includes other (a)sexual orientations (homo-, pan-, biromantic etc). I do think asexuality is a (a)sexual identity for itself.

Also I do think that sexual people wouldn't seperate sexual attraction with the desire for sexual interactions. Sure you can have the desire for sexual interactions without being sexual attracted to someone but I doubt that a sexual person is experiencing sexual attraction without the desire for sexual interactions. Sexual attraction is the desire for sexual interactions but just directed to a person. Or at least fantasizing of having sex with them.

It seams just asexual people see a difference here. And at the end, it is always the lack of a desire for partnered sex for the sex itself. That's the reason an asexual-sexual relationship can be so stressfull.

I also highly doubt that a celibate would call themselves asexuals even though they are sexual persons. A sexual celibate always has to surpress their sexual impulses. A celibate does not want to have sex but sure they are desiring sex. The key is that they don't want to desire sex or they don't want to act on their sexual desires. There is a difference if you don't have a desire for sexual interactions or you do have a desire for sexual interactions but you don't want this desire or you don't want to akt on these desires.

[Vampyremage]

Sexual orientations are based on the following:

• Heterosexuality: sexually attracted to the opposite gender
• Homosexuality: sexually attracted to the same gender
• Bisexuality: sexually attracted to both males and females
• Pansexuality: sexually attracted to people of any gender

How does that not translate to:

• Heterosexuality: desires sexual contact with the opposite gender
• Homosexuality: desires sexual contact with the same gender
• Bisexuality: desires sexual contact with both males and females
• Pansexuality: desires sexual contact with people of any gender

I think the key here is that this is exactly what it should mean. Unfortunately, all too often here on AVEN, it isn't what its translated into. Thus, that is where the problem lies. The intent behind the current definition is sound but in execution something gets lost in translation. Perhaps it has to do with people trying to define something they largely do not feel or perhaps there are those who desire to fall under the asexual spectrum to explain something about themselves although in truth, they may not necessarily fit. Nevertheless and despite the specific reasons why, what the definition should imply does not appear to be what it does imply in the minds of many within this community.

[JustcallmeRiley]

I don't think there are "guidlines" for sexual orientation.