What is sexual attraction in its relation to defining asexuality?

[Guest]

Furthermore, behaviours should not be taken lightly either. While they alone cannot provide for the whole story, they are just as significant to feelings and thoughts. For example, let's say a person were going out to have sex regularly with other people, but had no particular preference at all in partners, that is, no particular sexual craving that was tied to any gender or any particular person, yet their cravings could not be satisfied to their liking with anything else but another human being. Such a person by the vast majority would still be considered sexual, despite their lack of preference.

I am one of those people, and I highly doubt I'm unique. I've seen no evidence during my life that my sexual proclivities are unusual. I am attracted to people, yes, but i also have sex with people i'm not attracted to because i like sex. I'm not sure that any of my casual sex partners (ok, maybe one that I can think of offhand) I was actually attracted to, and I've had over 15 casual sex partners. I've probably had over 20 but I don't feel like counting right now. I do think sometimes when people see someone on the street and say "I'd like to hit that", what they mean is "I love having sex and that person looks acceptable and fun to sleep with", which is different from the way many people on AVEN interpret it to mean "I have no interest in sex outside of people I'm attracted to but I am so attracted to this person that I am willing to have sex with them".

I think that because Asexuals don't particularly enjoy sex (for the most part, I'm aware of variations), there's the assumption that sexuals are only willing to have sex if they are so turned on by a specific person that they are driven to sex. That's not always the case, though. A lot of people just like sex and choose partners that meet a standard of acceptability. In other words, it's not always true that first comes attraction and then comes "I want sex"... a lot of times its "I want sex" followed by "who around here is both willing and meets my requirements for acceptability in a sexual partner" (which for some people is literally just if they're willing).

[Guest]

I don't care about the partnered sex thing. But AVEN needs to stop using sexual attraction to mean "only to people". It's going to be done for you if it's not done by you... meaning that, if and when asexuality finally reaches a tipping point where people involved in sexuality theory start picking it up and dealing with it, they're going to toss out the whole "sexual attraction only means toward people" thing, since that's not true.

You know what? I think you need to understand that people who are asexual -- actual asexuals -- deserve the right to define themselves.

Love you dearly, Skullery, but really, you're one toke over the line on this issue.

By stating that sexual attraction only exists toward other people, you are denying the sexualities of tons of other people and you don't have the right to do that.

You can't erase other sexual orientations just because you prefer to think sexual attraction can only be directed at people. This has nothing to do with what asexuality is or isn't. Asexuality can include or not include masturbation, it can include or not include fetishes, it can include or not include watching porn... I don't care where you draw the lines you draw. Nothing I'm saying has anything to do with changing the qualities of asexuality. Period.

[Sally]

I think that because Asexuals don't particularly enjoy sex (for the most part, I'm aware of variations), there's the assumption that sexuals are only willing to have sex if they are so turned on by a specific person that they are driven to sex.

You're ascribing a particular attitude to all asexuals who don't enjoy sex. There's no justification for that attitude. It's almost a parody of SOME asexuals (usually quite young) who portray all sexuals as being sex-crazed monsters. Many asexuals over 40 have had actual RL experience with sexuals and your assumption sounds silly to me, as one of those asexuals over 40. Married and partnered couples often have sex when they're not interested because their partner is. Non-partnered sexuals have sex because they're in a situation where they think it's called for. Sexuals can have sex when they're simply curious but not really attracted to someone; some, as you say, have sex because they simply love sex.

It's kind of odd, isn't it, when I as an asexual can point out holes in your argument by showing I understand the complexity of why sexuals have sex.

[Guest]

It's kind of odd, isn't it, when I as an asexual can point out holes in your argument by showing I understand the complexity of why sexuals have sex.

What argument are you poking holes in, exactly?

Honestly, I'm starting to get disgusted by the fact that AVEN doesn't allow anyone to question anyone's sexuality on AVEN, but apparently the entirety of AVEN is allowed, by virtue of their insistence that sexual attraction = people, to completely deny the existence of other sexualities.

[Vampyremage]

I don't care about the partnered sex thing. But AVEN needs to stop using sexual attraction to mean "only to people". It's going to be done for you if it's not done by you... meaning that, if and when asexuality finally reaches a tipping point where people involved in sexuality theory start picking it up and dealing with it, they're going to toss out the whole "sexual attraction only means toward people" thing, since that's not true.

You know what? I think you need to understand that people who are asexual -- actual asexuals -- deserve the right to define themselves.

Love you dearly, Skullery, but really, you're one toke over the line on this issue.

By stating that sexual attraction only exists toward other people, you are denying the sexualities of tons of other people and you don't have the right to do that.

You can't erase other sexual orientations just because you prefer to think sexual attraction can only be directed at people. This has nothing to do with what asexuality is or isn't. Asexuality can include or not include masturbation, it can include or not include fetishes, it can include or not include watching porn... I don't care where you draw the lines you draw. Nothing I'm saying has anything to do with changing the qualities of asexuality. Period.

I may be mistaken here, but I don't think the assumption is that people cannot be sexually attracted to things other than people, but rather that asexuality is specifically defined as not being attracted to people. That doesn't negate the possibility that other forms of sexual attraction exist that are not centered around people, but merely states that those other forms are irrelevant in defining what is and is not under the asexual umbrella.

[Nameless123]

I may be mistaken here, but I don't think the assumption is that people cannot be sexually attracted to things other than people, but rather that asexuality is specifically defined as not being attracted to people. That doesn't negate the possibility that other forms of sexual attraction exist that are not centered around people, but merely states that those other forms are irrelevant in defining what is and is not under the asexual umbrella.

I was groping for words to say exactly this, but you just did it perfectly.

[Guest]

I don't care about the partnered sex thing. But AVEN needs to stop using sexual attraction to mean "only to people". It's going to be done for you if it's not done by you... meaning that, if and when asexuality finally reaches a tipping point where people involved in sexuality theory start picking it up and dealing with it, they're going to toss out the whole "sexual attraction only means toward people" thing, since that's not true.

You know what? I think you need to understand that people who are asexual -- actual asexuals -- deserve the right to define themselves.

Love you dearly, Skullery, but really, you're one toke over the line on this issue.

By stating that sexual attraction only exists toward other people, you are denying the sexualities of tons of other people and you don't have the right to do that.

You can't erase other sexual orientations just because you prefer to think sexual attraction can only be directed at people. This has nothing to do with what asexuality is or isn't. Asexuality can include or not include masturbation, it can include or not include fetishes, it can include or not include watching porn... I don't care where you draw the lines you draw. Nothing I'm saying has anything to do with changing the qualities of asexuality. Period.

I may be mistaken here, but I don't think the assumption is that people cannot be sexually attracted to things other than people, but rather that asexuality is specifically defined as not being attracted to people. That doesn't negate the possibility that other forms of sexual attraction exist that are not centered around people, but merely states that those other forms are irrelevant in defining what is and is not under the asexual umbrella.

Then please explain to me why people say they are not experiencing sexual attraction when they are experiencing sexual attraction toward things other than people? If you're going to fight me on this, I will go thru and pull out quotes from all over showing AVENites claiming that sexual attraction is only sexual attraction if it is directed at people (and people IRL, as apparently porn does not count)

Sally specifically said

NONONONONONONO! When you talk about attraction, you mean something that you could possibly have meaningful contact with and, hopefully, have actual sex with! Since the horse's rump doesn't have sexual organs, it can't actively participate.

Here's another one...

I suppose the best definition would be: Asexual - someone who is not attracted to people in such a way that would compel them to interact sexually with another person.

But since that's wordy, I think breaking it into two parts is in order to settle what sexual attraction is without having such a wordy main definition.

Asexual - Someone who does not experience sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction - attraction toward another person that would compel an individual to interact sexually with that person.

A lot of nuance is lost is saying an asexual is someone who lacks an inherent desire for sexual relations. Nonetheless, that definition may be a bit more straightforward, practical, and understandable. I think it makes a good quick-and-dirty summary, but not a good definition.

Out of all the suggestions I like this the best.

I suppose the best definition would be: Asexual - someone who is not attracted to people in such a way that would compel them to interact sexually with another person.

But since that's wordy, I think breaking it into two parts is in order to settle what sexual attraction is without having such a wordy main definition.

Asexual - Someone who does not experience sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction - attraction toward another person that would compel an individual to interact sexually with that person.

A lot of nuance is lost is saying an asexual is someone who lacks an inherent desire for sexual relations. Nonetheless, that definition may be a bit more straightforward, practical, and understandable. I think it makes a good quick-and-dirty summary, but not a good definition.

^^^I completely agree with this.

Attraction to me means that you are attracted to someone, in the sense of magnetic attraction.

So...lack of sexual attraction means you aren't sexually attracted to other people.

[Sally]

Read what I said again, specifically actively participate. Sexual relations are with some sort of partner. A horse's rump is not a partner. Sexual attraction doesn't mean seeing a horse's rump and remembering that that was able to get you off the last time you rode the horse. If we defined sexual attraction that way, we'd be saying we're sexually attracted to vibrators.

As said above, we're talking about attraction to/wanting to have sex with other beings, Skullery. Not sex per se. You can argue about sex all you want and get angry that we're "fighting" you, but you're running AROUND a circle trying to tell people IN the circle how they should define what they are.

[Guest]

Read what I said again, specifically actively participate. Sexual relations are with some sort of partner. A horse's rump is not a partner. Sexual attraction doesn't mean seeing a horse's rump and remembering that that was able to get you off the last time you rode the horse. If we defined sexual attraction that way, we'd be saying we're sexually attracted to vibrators.

As said above, we're talking about attraction to/wanting to have sex with other beings, Skullery. Not sex per se. You can argue about sex all you want and get angry that we're "fighting" you, but you're running AROUND a circle trying to tell people IN the circle how they should define what they are.

No, that's what you're doing. You are claiming that sexual attraction only exists toward people, and you are therefore telling everyone who feels attraction to things other than whole people that their sexuality does not exist.

I'm not telling anyone what asexuality is or isn't. All I'm doing is defining sexual attraction. If the ACTUAL definition of sexual attraction doesn't work for asexuality, then change the definition of asexuality.

I honestly cannot believe that no one here has the balls to stand up to you but me. I can't be the only one who thinks your statement "a horse's rump is not a partner" is nothing more than you trying to enforce your myopic views of sexuality onto the world-at-large. That's great, you don't want to have sex with a horse. Fabulous. But this isn't only about you, and there are people who DO want to have sex with a horse's rump. This is so obvious that it hurts my head... but what hurts my head more is that, despite the fact that bestiality OBVIOUSLY exists, I'm the only one willing to tell you you're wrong.

[5_♦♣]

Skulls: Enough with this 'sexual attraction to animals/cars/what have you'. I mean, you have said time and time again that the current definition of Asexuality is too confusing for the world at large to understand. Yet, although the world at large acknowledges that some people have sex with animals or cars or whatever, I think the world at large also understands sexual attraction as meaning towards people, not animals or cars.

I mean, if you asked 20 people what they thought of sexual attraction is, you'd likely get mostly answers in regards to human-human sexual relations. (Unless a lot of the hyopthetical people were objectophiles or what not).

[Vampyremage]

Too much to quote so I'm not going to put a giant quote at the beginning of my post.

Skullery, I think I understand what you're getting at here and I think it comes down to people speaking about sexual attraction in different contexts. To be asexual or not to be asexual comes down to sexual attraction towards other people. That doesn't negate the possibility of experiencing sexual attraction towards something that's not a person, as some people with very intense fetishes can be said to do. There is a lot of confusion in terminology going on here and in how people are describing certain things. I think some people have a knee jerk reaction to state that sexual attraction can only be towards other people because they want to so vehemently defend themselves as asexuals that, in a way, they have to justify it to themselves in that manner. However, I think the majority of people you ask would say that being sexually attracted to a car is different than being sexually attracted to a person and thus, one can still be asexual if one is sexually attracted to a car because one is only asexual in regards to people, not in regards to cars.

Another point of confusion, I think, comes back to the what is sexual attraction thing and where are the lines between attraction, arousal and desire. If one is sexually attracted to a car and wants to go into the car of their desires and masturbate to their car fantasies, I think its relatively clear cut that said individual is still asexual. But what if one wants to have sex with a person in their car of desire? Maybe they can only feel sexual attraction when cars are part of the equation, but a person also needs to be a part of the equation is is a preferred part of the equation for them as well. Can that person still be considered asexual? I think that's where a lot of the confusion stems from.

[Nameless123]

Can that person still be considered asexual? I think that's where a lot of the confusion stems from.

I don't think that person would be asexual because they are attracted to another person and want to have sex with them. The car or whatever other fetish it may be is irrelevant in that scenario.

[Lady Girl]

I really really like what Sweetex said about an internal disconnect. Maybe that is really where the definition should focus it's attention. There seems to be for one a very unusual disconnect (even if in theory only), between arousal and attraction. Another marked point of disconnect seems to be between attraction/arousal and actual follow thru when or if there is another person involved. Just something to think about. I think Vamp and Hap say it better.

[Nameless123]

Thank you WTF. We need to all realize it's not so much about who wins as it is about what's real. To have so much sexual activity and say its asexual is bizarre unless you clearly state why this is so...and what makes it asexual. It's not a lack of sexual attraction as the definition of fetish demonstrates.

I don't know where you get "so much sexual actvity" from. You can of course go through AVEN and pick out all the people who are attracted to objects and whatnot, but you can also see the many people who don't have any sex at all with anything, be it people or things, and don't feel an attraction to any of it, either.

[The Great WTF]

I've largely stayed out of this debate as I'm bad at articulating my thoughts on asexuality, but I do think the current definition is lacking and needs to be, if nothing else, added to as vampyremage suggested. There's a very clear problem within AVEN itself with our definition because we get people asking on a daily basis what sexual attraction is/if this thing or that thing makes them or excludes them from being asexual.

While others have said they have no problem with the "lack of sexual attraction" definition in the outside world, I have not been so lucky. Many understood it, but others did not or were confused by my having a boyfriend when I'm not "attracted" to him. There's something there that is still being missed. I think "a lack of desire for partnered sex" or some similar variant would be a very useful addendum to alleviate the confusion I encounter as well as some of the confusion new members have. There's always going to be a certain amount of misunderstanding and confusion, but we can at least try to head some of it off.

If there was a way to turn "Y'know that burning desire most people have to have sex with the person they love? We don't have that. Ever." into a legitimate definition, I totally would, because that is one of the most effective explinations I've used.

[Guest]

Uh, I'm sort of confused by this "the actual definition of sexual attraction" stuff, because I usually only hear people use the term when talking about being attracted to people, and when I look it up on the net, that's also most of what I find.

And for the record, I don't think being attracted to a car makes anyone automatically not asexual, no matter how they act out that attraction.

It will be most of what you find, and most people will assume sexual attraction means people. That's because most people are attracted to people. Doesn't change the fact that some people aren't, and that can't be swept under the rug just because it's inconvenient. A group of people who feel the world refuses to recognize them because they are so small in number should understand the importance of recognizing other valid, albeit less frequent, sexualities.

I agree, I don't think being attracted to a car makes someone not asexual either. I do think it means someone experiences sexual attraction. See the difference?

[The Great WTF]

The problem I'm running into is that "desire for partnered sex" is just an over-simplied shorthand for sexual attraction that was originally suggested because people kept asking what sexual attraction is. I think it would be a logical addendum to the current definition. Also, all the things you mentioned already happen. All the time. I don't think revising the definition will change that all that much.

But, I digress, asexuality is, to me, never experiencing the desire to have sex with other people, simply no sexual atrraction, but when I SAY no sexual attraction it has this annoying tendency to get bemused or dumbfounded looks from people and I honestly never would have used the phrase "lack of sexual atrraction" if I hadn't picked it up from AVEN and would have continued saying "I don't have that weird desire for sex most people do."

[Nogitsune]

It will be most of what you find, and most people will assume sexual attraction means people. That's because most people are attracted to people. Doesn't change the fact that some people aren't, and that can't be swept under the rug just because it's inconvenient. A group of people who feel the world refuses to recognize them because they are so small in number should understand the importance of recognizing other valid, albeit less frequent, sexualities.

Is it really just that they are relatively small in numbers, though? Aside from a few people on AVEN, I've never seen anyone say that the way the term "sexual attraction" is generally used is problematic, and I've not seen much about how it erases people's experiences at all. I'm "sexually attracted" to things like written scenarios, but I don't use the term for this because I don't need it and think it would just be confusing, so I don't feel erased by the way asexuality is generally defined. This is not to say my experiences are universal, but with all this talk about how important it is to recognize sexualities and how we're erasing people's experiences, I'd just like a link or something to a discussion or article by people belonging to the group we're talking about saying that they are being harmed by the way people usually talk about sexual attraction. If this topic only ever has come up on AVEN, that does not make it unimportant, but if we're specifically talking about asexuals feelings excluded by the asexual community, that would be good to know.

I agree, I don't think being attracted to a car makes someone not asexual either. I do think it means someone experiences sexual attraction. See the difference?

I see the difference, but is the term "sexual attraction" actually being used that way by many people experiencing this kind of attraction?

[Lady Girl]

I will repeat this ad nauseum until it has been made clear: sexual attraction does not by necessity always compel nor lead to sexual interaction. One could be sexually attracted yet have no inherent desire to ever have sex with the subject/object of that attraction. It is merely a reaction, nothing less, nothing more; yet the majority of AVEN seems to want to tack on the idea that a person must necessarily want to have sex with the subject/object that their body has in some way reacted to sexually (e.g. arousal, cravings, sexual thoughts, fantasies, etc.) before it can be deemed as "sexual attraction". This is a misunderstanding that is exclusive to AVEN. Once more: attraction is merely attraction, whatever catches your attention. Whether or not it is a sexual attraction or not is determined after the initial attraction by the feelings, thoughts, bodily reactions, etc.

What is at debate here is not necessarily the definition of what asexuality is, but AVEN's conception of what sexual attraction is, and what that particular conception implies about the current definition. The term has been made ridiculously ambiguous by this site, whether purposely or accidentally I am unsure of; however, because of this, people are continuously twisting the ambiguity in their favour, interpreting what would be otherwise called sexual attraction everywhere else, as somehow not being sexual attraction, so as to not appear illegitimate in the eyes of themselves or others. As some have pointed out, some are using the definition as a rule they must conform to, as if asexuality were a club that required laws to be upheld before one could consider themselves asexual (though most members would never see it as such, behaviours found in the Q&A section suggest otherwise).

Furthermore, behaviours should not be taken lightly either. While they alone cannot provide for the whole story, they are just as significant to feelings and thoughts.

We are more than capable of lying to ourselves through rationalization and lack of awareness when it comes to something we believe, especially about ourselves. If asexuality is to be taken seriously by the academic/medical/scientific/social community, then the holes that have been poked in the current conceptions that AVEN is running under, cannot be ignored in the hope that they will not be noticed.

There is more to the reason why people come here looking for answers than the current conceptions and definition can provide, otherwise we should not have so many trying to contort either the conceptions to themselves, or themselves to the definition.

The whole post was great. This is just part of it. It's a reality thing...that's all. Please keep repeating ad nauseum Hap.

[Significant Form]

Hap2 said everything I think on the previous page much more eloquently than I could have hoped to do myself.

I also think, however, that perhaps "inherent inclination" could be replaced by "internal motivation." For one thing, 'inherent inclination' seems to me just as fuzzy a term as 'sexual attraction.' Like it's something that is ostensibly specific but is actually vague. In my opinion, "internal motivation" not only makes for a nice broad definition that incorporates the current one, but also allows for quick and easy contrast with celibacy (external motivation not to have sex) and/or explaining why some aces do have sex (external motivation from partner, etc.)

In short, I think that a new definition should be broader rather than more specific, and also that the new definition and the current one ought not to be considered mutually exclusive; while a lack of sexual attraction is certainly an important distinction for some/many aces, I don't think it should be considered the primary defining factor of asexuality as a whole.

[ithaca]

Too much to quote, so bear with me, I have read what you've written till I got the point, then when it was repeating itself I skimmed through it. =P

I think I understand what you're saying. If we say "Asexuality = lack of sexual attraction" we cut off a big part of what sexual attraction is. I would just like to specify that "Asexuality = lack of sexual attraction" is just a shortening of "Asexuality = lack of sexual attraction towards either or any gender" which is the actual and current definition of asexuality, as far as I'm aware of. So the current definition specifies the "people" part of sexual attraction.

Furthermore, if we're trying to change the definition AVEN gives, it's useless to nitpick on what single AVENites posted about sexual attraction. They might be "right", they might be "wrong" (according to the "official" definition) but that is not what's being discussed in theory.

Also, about why sexual attraction isn't clear on AVEN and many people ask about it, I agree with Sally. I asked about it in chat, because I have never experienced it and I am curious to know how it feels. I think that if you go to a forum for colour-blind people (if it exists) you might find a lot of threads asking how would you describe "green".

[Faelights]

I also prefer the current definition.

Mostly, I want to ask -- if someone has a preference for partnered sex, but it's because they enjoy it as a matter of social interaction (e.g. they're doing it for purely selfish reasons of enjoying sexual attention from another individual, though they don't experience any sexual attraction), where does that put them exactly?

I think, when defining sexual orientations, we shouldn't be using any language that would encourage any reliance on making assumptions about people based on their apparent behaviour.

One last thing to cover here:

Fae, if a person is using sex merely as social interaction, I would question as to why they are using sex in the first place when there are plenty of easier ways to have social interaction than that of exchanging bodily fluids. I am not sure of anyone who would go out of their way to rationally think about how they should interact with others socially and simply lands on the idea of sex as somehow being best.

Furthermore, behaviours should not be taken lightly either. While they alone cannot provide for the whole story, they are just as significant to feelings and thoughts. For example, let's say a person were going out to have sex regularly with other people, but had no particular preference at all in partners, that is, no particular sexual craving that was tied to any gender or any particular person, yet their cravings could not be satisfied to their liking with anything else but another human being. Such a person by the vast majority would still be considered sexual, despite their lack of preference. The reason being that said person, while having no particular preference in gender or the individuality of their partners, is still partnering with human beings exclusively. Why not cars, why not koalas? If their cravings are only satiated through sex with other humans, then could one not say that they were sexually attracted to human beings with no particular preferences? Otherwise why aren't they having sex with other things, or instead just masturbating if it is simply just sexual release?

See the problem here? It would be easy to spin such person into being an asexual with the current setup, since they have no particular preferences in partners they might say: 'well, I don't sexually desire any of them in particular, I'm just interested in having sex because I enjoy it, therefore I'm asexual', yet their behaviour is clearly of someone that is consistently pursuing sex only with other people (the more accurate term for such a person would be pansexual). This is the reason why behaviour should not be discounted in favour of thoughts and feelings alone. We are more than capable of lying to ourselves through rationalization and lack of awareness when it comes to something we believe, especially about ourselves. If asexuality is to be taken seriously by the academic/medical/scientific/social community, then the holes that have been poked in the current conceptions that AVEN is running under, cannot be ignored in the hope that they will not be noticed. If AVEN wants such a definition, then it has to address its flaws as a definition, otherwise what we have is a vague description with more interpretations than the Bible and little else.

There is more to the reason why people come here looking for answers than the current conceptions and definition can provide, otherwise we should not have so many trying to contort either the conceptions to themselves, or themselves to the definition.

I'm sorry, I'm going to ignore the last two pages to answer this directly.

Nowhere did I say that that person is "using sex for social interaction." I merely wanted to posit the possibility of someone who enjoys it as a forum of social interaction, and might even seek it out simply because it's enjoyable. Not everyone is repulsed by the idea of exchanging bodily fluids, you know. Neither did I say they would think sex is the "best" way of socially interacting. Once again, I was talking about someone who might find it enjoyable enough to pursue. Nowhere did I say that they had cravings that could only be satisfied by partnered sexual relations, but simply that they had experienced partnered sexual relations, found it pleasurable, and wouldn't be averse to pursuing it.

To use a food analogy, I have eaten Japanese food (e.g. partnered sexual activity) before, and I have found that it is quite pleasurable to the tongue. But I don't feel particularly attracted to Japanese food; in fact, I'm not particularly attracted to any type of food (i.e. any type of sexual activity, including masturbation) at all. If it fills my stomach (sex drive), I'll eat it (engage in that sexual activity), as long as it's not one of the few things that I find repulsive. However, once in a while, it pops up in my head, "hey, I haven't had Japanese food in a while, and it was pretty good last time... maybe I should go have some again." Does this mean that I suddenly care how my hunger gets satisfied? Or is it merely a temporary fancy or preference?

Certainly, overall, their sexuality might be described as sexual, in that they engage in sexual activity. But are they experiencing sexual attraction? Remember, sexual orientation, which describes sexual attraction, is only one small part of human sexuality. There is a difference between sexual as in someone who engages in sexual activity, and sexual as in someone who experiences sexual attraction. They're different components of human sexuality.

[Faelights]

Hap2 said everything I think on the previous page much more eloquently than I could have hoped to do myself.

I also think, however, that perhaps "inherent inclination" could be replaced by "internal motivation." For one thing, 'inherent inclination' seems to me just as fuzzy a term as 'sexual attraction.' Like it's something that is ostensibly specific but is actually vague. In my opinion, "internal motivation" not only makes for a nice broad definition that incorporates the current one, but also allows for quick and easy contrast with celibacy (external motivation not to have sex) and/or explaining why some aces do have sex (external motivation from partner, etc.)

In short, I think that a new definition should be broader rather than more specific, and also that the new definition and the current one ought not to be considered mutually exclusive; while a lack of sexual attraction is certainly an important distinction for some/many aces, I don't think it should be considered the primary defining factor of asexuality as a whole.

Sorry for the double-post, but I need to point this out.

The proposed addition here will make the definition of asexuality more specific based on behaviour. The "inner motivation" concept that you've proposed also will narrow the definition. I'm actually finding it difficult to understand why you think celibacy cannot come from inner motivation, e.g. being repulsed by sexual activity.

I don't think you can get a broader definition of asexuality than the one that we currently use, "not experiencing sexual attraction to other individuals", which finds its basis in inner identity, and not apparent behaviour.

[Lady Girl]

Arousal is part of sexual attraction. Wanting to be with someone is part of sexual attraction. Thoughts about sex are part of sexual attraction. Finding someone pretty or good looking is part of sexual attraction. You guys know what it is. You just have to change the meaning of what it is to suit your needs.

[ithaca]

Arousal is part of sexual attraction. Wanting to be with someone is part of sexual attraction. Thoughts about sex are part of sexual attraction. Finding someone pretty or good looking is part of sexual attraction. You guys know what it is. You just have to change the meaning of what it is to suit your needs.

Flour is an ingredient to make cake. Would you call flour "cake", though?

[Lady Girl]

Hap2 said everything I think on the previous page much more eloquently than I could have hoped to do myself.

I also think, however, that perhaps "inherent inclination" could be replaced by "internal motivation." For one thing, 'inherent inclination' seems to me just as fuzzy a term as 'sexual attraction.' Like it's something that is ostensibly specific but is actually vague. In my opinion, "internal motivation" not only makes for a nice broad definition that incorporates the current one, but also allows for quick and easy contrast with celibacy (external motivation not to have sex) and/or explaining why some aces do have sex (external motivation from partner, etc.)

In short, I think that a new definition should be broader rather than more specific, and also that the new definition and the current one ought not to be considered mutually exclusive; while a lack of sexual attraction is certainly an important distinction for some/many aces, I don't think it should be considered the primary defining factor of asexuality as a whole.

Sorry for the double-post, but I need to point this out.

The proposed addition here will make the definition of asexuality more specific based on behaviour. The "inner motivation" concept that you've proposed also will narrow the definition. I'm actually finding it difficult to understand why you think celibacy cannot come from inner motivation, e.g. being repulsed by sexual activity.

I don't think you can get a broader definition of asexuality than the one that we currently use, "not experiencing sexual attraction to other individuals", which finds its basis in inner identity, and not apparent behaviour.

Celibacy is a choice not always made by sex-repulsed individuals by any means. The addition to the definition (and/or lacks an inherent motivation for sexual relations) allows for those individuals who do experience obvious sexual attraction and know it, but their point of disconnect is in the having the sex part of the process.

[Lady Girl]

Arousal is part of sexual attraction. Wanting to be with someone is part of sexual attraction. Thoughts about sex are part of sexual attraction. Finding someone pretty or good looking is part of sexual attraction. You guys know what it is. You just have to change the meaning of what it is to suit your needs.

Flour is an ingredient to make cake. Would you call flour "cake", though?

You know what flour is and what cake is and how to make the cake. You know. I suspect with so much sexual activity, you do know what attraction is. I've never seen so much denial though, for real.

I'm not saying take it out (even if you know what it is, that doesn't mean I think you experience it...you may know how to make the cake/attraction but don't have an oven?) anyway, just add to it for those who do experience it and are asexual.

[ithaca]

So if I happen to think about sex, maybe randomly (like I could think of koala bears) or because someone mentions sex, I'm not asexual, i'm just in denial? Or if I want to be with my best friend, or with my mom, I'm sexually attracted to them? If I think my niece is pretty I'm sexually attracted to her?

[Sally]

Wanting to be with someone is part of sexual attraction...Finding someone pretty or good looking is part of sexual attraction.

'

Nope. I wanted to be with my longterm partner and it had nothing to do with sexual attraction. I find some people really beautiful/handsome/whatever and it isn't part of sexual attraction.

You may feel that both of those are involved in sexual attraction, but sexual attraction per se is not involved in those situations.

[ithaca]

Wanting to be with someone is part of sexual attraction...Finding someone pretty or good looking is part of sexual attraction.

'

Nope. I wanted to be with my longterm partner and it had nothing to do with sexual attraction. I find some people really beautiful/handsome/whatever and it isn't part of sexual attraction.

You may feel that both of those are involved in sexual attraction, but sexual attraction per se is not involved in those situations.

Exactly, thanks Sally