Defining asexuality - a better definition?

[Kalidas]

That brings up the issue of labels for people who aren't aces. Many people use the term sexual. I don't really care for the term and prefer to use allosexual. I consider my self a sexual person because I experience sexual desire and enjoy sexual activity. However I am asexual because I don't experience an innate desire for sex with people. The term allosexual solves that dilemma. Also, some allosexuals aren't very sexual people. It wouldn't be appropriate in my mind to call an allosexual celibate a sexual. Celibates tend to not be very sexual. :P :lol: So an allosexual can be very non sexual and as an asexual can be very sexual.

The term "allosexual" as its been used by some people on AVEN means sexual. I don't know how you can call yourself sexual and asexual at the same time.Which to my mind reinforces the appropriateness of calling sexuals sexuals, as LG says above, and a number of other sexuals have said earlier on this thread and other threads. If sexuals aren't interested in being called allosexuals, why do it?

Well in this case the OP was using the term "sexual" to explain their sexual activity, and not to explain who they are as a person.

[purplemutant]

That brings up the issue of labels for people who aren't aces. Many people use the term sexual. I don't really care for the term and prefer to use allosexual. I consider my self a sexual person because I experience sexual desire and enjoy sexual activity. However I am asexual because I don't experience an innate desire for sex with people. The term allosexual solves that dilemma. Also, some allosexuals aren't very sexual people. It wouldn't be appropriate in my mind to call an allosexual celibate a sexual. Celibates tend to not be very sexual. :P :lol: So an allosexual can be very non sexual and as an asexual can be very sexual.

The term "allosexual" as its been used by some people on AVEN means sexual. I don't know how you can call yourself sexual and asexual at the same time.

Which to my mind reinforces the appropriateness of calling sexuals sexuals, as LG says above, and a number of other sexuals have said earlier on this thread and other threads. If sexuals aren't interested in being called allosexuals, why do it?

Yea it's best to use whatever terminology the group in question prefers. I still dislike the term sexual as a synonym for not asexual. But if people prefer being called a sexual vs an allosexual, then I will respect that. I guess I will have to find a term other than sexual to describe my sexuality.

I can be sexual and asexual because I wasn't using the term sexual as a synonym for not asexual. I am a sexual person because I have an interest in sexual activities. I am an asexual because I don't experience an innate desire for sex with other people. I guess rather than saying I am sexual I will just have to say that I am sex favorable. Although 'sex favorable' is in reference to sex with people. Where as 'sexual' refers to sexual activities in general, not just those involving other people. I am sure I will figure some sort of appropriate terminology.

[Guest]

How about every doctor and nurse's old standby: sexually active?

[Frigid Pink]

The term allosexual solves that dilemma. Also, some allosexuals aren't very sexual people. It wouldn't be appropriate in my mind to call an allosexual celibate a sexual. Celibates tend to not be very sexual. :P :lol: So an allosexual can be very non sexual and as an asexual can be very sexual.

Unless you're me and don't want to be called that. To me "sexual" can be a adjective in the way you use it, or an adjective in the same way bisexual or asexual is. Also, I'm celibate and I'm still sexual. I might not always be overtly sexual, but I definitely still am.

I see what you mean, but I'm probably never going to like being called allosexual...ever. -_-

I will never use the term "allosexual" to describe a "sexual" person.

My romantic partner is a "sexual" person and the term "allosexual" annoys them. To them, the term "allosexual" is elitist (and way too all-encompassing) if it means "everyone that's not asexual" and they don't understand the need to reference others in relation to a sexual minority (or even a sexual majority) and much prefer that sexual orientation terms be made in reference to a general spectrum of sexuality ("a-sexual", "hetero-sexual", "-sexual", "bi-sexual, and so on) vs. a reference to any specific population ("all others than asexual-sexual").

To them, If a term is going to reference a specific population (vs. a general spectrum of sexuality), then it needs to reference the majority, otherwise, it won't make sense to most people. In addition to not making sense, a term that references a sexual minority won't help visibility efforts for that sexual minority because it's only going to be understand by that sexual minority; it will be jargon specific to that minority group and the majority of people aren't going to know about it (and it's not on them to know about it), therefore, it's much better to use a neutral term like "sexual" that doesn't reference any specific population.

Anyway, this is all a bit off topic from the definition of "asexuality" and there have been other threads that discuss the use of the term "allosexual." In my experience, the "sexual" people I know dislike being referred to as "allosexual," and I personally dislike the esoteric-ness of the term, therefore, no amount of discussion about it will change my mind on the use of it. In general, I think most people will do what they want to do (use or not use the term "allosexual") regardless of how other people feel about it.

[Sally]

Well in this case the OP was using the term "sexual" to explain their sexual activity, and not to explain who they are as a person.

I had sex for years in order to please my partners. There's no way that the word "sexual" could describe me. What I do = action. What I feel = me.

[purplemutant]

How about every doctor and nurse's old standby: sexually active?

I gather that "sexually active" implies partnered sex. So even though I engage in sexual activity (masturbation) almost daily; I am not "sexually active"

Anyway, this is all a bit off topic from the definition of "asexuality" and there have been other threads that discuss the use of the term "allosexual." In my experience, the "sexual" people I know dislike being referred to as "allosexual," and I personally dislike the esoteric-ness of the term, therefore, no amount of discussion about it will change my mind on the use of it. In general, I think most people will do what they want to do (use or not use the term "allosexual") regardless of how other people feel about it.

I will see if I can dig up one of those threads.

[Kalidas]

Well in this case the OP was using the term "sexual" to explain their sexual activity, and not to explain who they are as a person.

I had sex for years in order to please my partners. There's no way that the word "sexual" could describe me. What I do = action. What I feel = me.

Hey I was just trying to explain what the OP was getting at. Whether I explained them well or not is up to them.

[purplemutant]

I was just looking at the sticky thread "What is 'sexual attraction'?". In that thread there is a picture of a scantily clad woman. The idea is that someone who isn't asexual would think ".I would fuck that all day long and ride her like a race horse" (quoted from the thread); where as an asexual would be thinking about how nice the bed linens are. That got me thinking. What about someone who doesn't experience a desire for sex with people. They never think "I need to get laid". However they would respond to a sexy photo by thinking "They are so hot I would love to have sex wit them". Further more if it was a real person who offered to have sex they would say yes. Could that person be asexual? Desire is something you have all the time. It's independent of any external factors. So it would seem a person is a sexual even if some external input triggers their libido. Or rather their level of libido determines how effectively they get turned on by external (or internal) sexual stimulus.

So if a person can get turned on by sexual stimulus which leads to them wanting to have sex with a person; are they asexua? Assuming a lack of sexual desire. I would say yes due to the lack of sexual desire. This sort of thing is why an attraction based definition is problematic. If I see an attractive woman and have sexual thoughts about her; that might qualify as sexual attraction. But I would still be ace since I don't have an innate desire for sex with other people. Lets use cake as an analogy. I never crave cake. However if I were at a party and they served cake I might be thinking "Wow that chocolate cake looks amazing. I bet it's delicious. I gotta get me some of that". But if cake isn't being presented to me I don't think "Damn I could sure go for some cake right about now".

[Kalidas]

I was just looking at the sticky thread "What is 'sexual attraction'?". In that thread there is a picture of a scantily clad woman. The idea is that someone who isn't asexual would think ".I would fuck that all day long and ride her like a race horse" (quoted from the thread); where as an asexual would be thinking about how nice the bed linens are. That got me thinking. What about someone who doesn't experience a desire for sex with people. They never think "I need to get laid". However they would respond to a sexy photo by thinking "They are so hot I would love to have sex wit them". Further more if it was a real person who offered to have sex they would say yes. Could that person be asexual? Desire is something you have all the time. It's independent of any external factors. So it would seem a person is a sexual even if some external input triggers their libido. Or rather their level of libido determines how effectively they get turned on by external (or internal) sexual stimulus.

So if a person can get turned on by sexual stimulus which leads to them wanting to have sex with a person; are they asexua? Assuming a lack of sexual desire. I would say yes due to the lack of sexual desire. This sort of thing is why an attraction based definition is problematic. If I see an attractive woman and have sexual thoughts about her; that might qualify as sexual attraction. But I would still be ace since I don't have an innate desire for sex with other people. Lets use cake as an analogy. I never crave cake. However if I were at a party and they served cake I might be thinking "Wow that chocolate cake looks amazing. I bet it's delicious. I gotta get me some of that". But if cake isn't being presented to me I don't think "Damn I could sure go for some cake right about now".

You know, I'm really not sure. Thats a pretty good question if you ask me though. That innate desire isnt there, but if offered you would say yes.

[Kalidas]

I was just looking at the sticky thread "What is 'sexual attraction'?". In that thread there is a picture of a scantily clad woman. The idea is that someone who isn't asexual would think ".I would fuck that all day long and ride her like a race horse" (quoted from the thread); where as an asexual would be thinking about how nice the bed linens are. That got me thinking. What about someone who doesn't experience a desire for sex with people. They never think "I need to get laid". However they would respond to a sexy photo by thinking "They are so hot I would love to have sex wit them". Further more if it was a real person who offered to have sex they would say yes. Could that person be asexual? Desire is something you have all the time. It's independent of any external factors. So it would seem a person is a sexual even if some external input triggers their libido. Or rather their level of libido determines how effectively they get turned on by external (or internal) sexual stimulus.

So if a person can get turned on by sexual stimulus which leads to them wanting to have sex with a person; are they asexua? Assuming a lack of sexual desire. I would say yes due to the lack of sexual desire. This sort of thing is why an attraction based definition is problematic. If I see an attractive woman and have sexual thoughts about her; that might qualify as sexual attraction. But I would still be ace since I don't have an innate desire for sex with other people. Lets use cake as an analogy. I never crave cake. However if I were at a party and they served cake I might be thinking "Wow that chocolate cake looks amazing. I bet it's delicious. I gotta get me some of that". But if cake isn't being presented to me I don't think "Damn I could sure go for some cake right about now".

You know, I'm really not sure. Thats a pretty good question if you ask me though. That innate desire isnt there, but if offered you would say yes.

That cake anology speaks to me on a personal level. I dont really like cake(sorry AVEN), its okay the frosting is too sweet. But if at a party I get offered cake I say yes. Its "good enough" to not make me want to turn it down.

I need to learn how to delete posts lol. I just wanted to add that little tidbit about my personal experience with cake. I quoted instead of edited .

[Geo]

I was just looking at the sticky thread "What is 'sexual attraction'?". In that thread there is a picture of a scantily clad woman. The idea is that someone who isn't asexual would think ".I would fuck that all day long and ride her like a race horse" (quoted from the thread); where as an asexual would be thinking about how nice the bed linens are. That got me thinking. What about someone who doesn't experience a desire for sex with people. They never think "I need to get laid". However they would respond to a sexy photo by thinking "They are so hot I would love to have sex wit them". Further more if it was a real person who offered to have sex they would say yes. Could that person be asexual? Desire is something you have all the time. It's independent of any external factors. So it would seem a person is a sexual even if some external input triggers their libido. Or rather their level of libido determines how effectively they get turned on by external (or internal) sexual stimulus.

So if a person can get turned on by sexual stimulus which leads to them wanting to have sex with a person; are they asexua? Assuming a lack of sexual desire. I would say yes due to the lack of sexual desire. This sort of thing is why an attraction based definition is problematic. If I see an attractive woman and have sexual thoughts about her; that might qualify as sexual attraction. But I would still be ace since I don't have an innate desire for sex with other people. Lets use cake as an analogy. I never crave cake. However if I were at a party and they served cake I might be thinking "Wow that chocolate cake looks amazing. I bet it's delicious. I gotta get me some of that". But if cake isn't being presented to me I don't think "Damn I could sure go for some cake right about now".

IMO You are describing a form of demi-sexual.

[Arctangent]

How about every doctor and nurse's old standby: sexually active?

I gather that "sexually active" implies partnered sex. So even though I engage in sexual activity (masturbation) almost daily; I am not "sexually active"

I used to get around this by referring to myself as a self-sexual asexual. That way, it was more obvious that I was talking about solo sexual activity, not partnered sex. It's not perfect, but that's at least less confusing that "sexual asexual" to me. Your mileage may vary.

[Frigid Pink]

I was just looking at the sticky thread "What is 'sexual attraction'?". In that thread there is a picture of a scantily clad woman. The idea is that someone who isn't asexual would think ".I would fuck that all day long and ride her like a race horse" (quoted from the thread); where as an asexual would be thinking about how nice the bed linens are. That got me thinking. What about someone who doesn't experience a desire for sex with people. They never think "I need to get laid". However they would respond to a sexy photo by thinking "They are so hot I would love to have sex wit them". Further more if it was a real person who offered to have sex they would say yes. Could that person be asexual? Desire is something you have all the time. It's independent of any external factors. So it would seem a person is a sexual even if some external input triggers their libido. Or rather their level of libido determines how effectively they get turned on by external (or internal) sexual stimulus.

So if a person can get turned on by sexual stimulus which leads to them wanting to have sex with a person; are they asexua? Assuming a lack of sexual desire. I would say yes due to the lack of sexual desire. This sort of thing is why an attraction based definition is problematic. If I see an attractive woman and have sexual thoughts about her; that might qualify as sexual attraction. But I would still be ace since I don't have an innate desire for sex with other people. Lets use cake as an analogy. I never crave cake. However if I were at a party and they served cake I might be thinking "Wow that chocolate cake looks amazing. I bet it's delicious. I gotta get me some of that". But if cake isn't being presented to me I don't think "Damn I could sure go for some cake right about now".

IMO You are describing a form of demi-sexual.

... or "grey-sexual."

How about every doctor and nurse's old standby: sexually active?

I gather that "sexually active" implies partnered sex. So even though I engage in sexual activity (masturbation) almost daily; I am not "sexually active"

I used to get around this by referring to myself as a self-sexual asexual. That way, it was more obvious that I was talking about solo sexual activity, not partnered sex. It's not perfect, but that's at least less confusing that "sexual asexual" to me. Your mileage may vary.

I'd just say I masturbate and keep it simple. Plenty of "sexual" people masturbate, too. Whether or not someone masturbates has nothing to do with "asexuality."

[purplemutant]

I was just looking at the sticky thread "What is 'sexual attraction'?". In that thread there is a picture of a scantily clad woman. The idea is that someone who isn't asexual would think ".I would fuck that all day long and ride her like a race horse" (quoted from the thread); where as an asexual would be thinking about how nice the bed linens are. That got me thinking. What about someone who doesn't experience a desire for sex with people. They never think "I need to get laid". However they would respond to a sexy photo by thinking "They are so hot I would love to have sex wit them". Further more if it was a real person who offered to have sex they would say yes. Could that person be asexual? Desire is something you have all the time. It's independent of any external factors. So it would seem a person is a sexual even if some external input triggers their libido. Or rather their level of libido determines how effectively they get turned on by external (or internal) sexual stimulus.

So if a person can get turned on by sexual stimulus which leads to them wanting to have sex with a person; are they asexua? Assuming a lack of sexual desire. I would say yes due to the lack of sexual desire. This sort of thing is why an attraction based definition is problematic. If I see an attractive woman and have sexual thoughts about her; that might qualify as sexual attraction. But I would still be ace since I don't have an innate desire for sex with other people. Lets use cake as an analogy. I never crave cake. However if I were at a party and they served cake I might be thinking "Wow that chocolate cake looks amazing. I bet it's delicious. I gotta get me some of that". But if cake isn't being presented to me I don't think "Damn I could sure go for some cake right about now".

IMO You are describing a form of demi-sexual.

... or "grey-sexual."

It's my understanding that a demi only experiences a desire for sex with people when in a romantic relationship. Since there isn't a romantic relationship in my example it wouldn't be demi. I am not sure gray applies, since there is a lack of desire for sex with people. If nothing else this illustrates how tricky it can be to define asexuality sometimes.

[WhenSummersGone]

I think that's a good question. What would someone be if they only desire sex with a specific person when looking at them but otherwise they don't desire sex? Maybe they just have a type they would like to have sex with but still this sounds like sexual attraction.

[Kalidas]

I think that's a good question. What would someone be if they only desire sex with a specific person when looking at them but otherwise they don't desire sex? Maybe they just have a type they would like to have sex with but still this sounds like sexual attraction.

I think that us the exact deffenition of a demisexual. A person who only has sexual desire/attraction for one person whom they really care for.

[WhenSummersGone]

I think that's a good question. What would someone be if they only desire sex with a specific person when looking at them but otherwise they don't desire sex? Maybe they just have a type they would like to have sex with but still this sounds like sexual attraction.

I think that us the exact deffenition of a demisexual. A person who only has sexual desire/attraction for one person whom they really care for.

No I mean just by looking at them, with no emotional connection. Like wanting sex with a specific stranger but besides that not having the desire for partnered sex.

[Geo]

I was just looking at the sticky thread "What is 'sexual attraction'?". In that thread there is a picture of a scantily clad woman. The idea is that someone who isn't asexual would think ".I would fuck that all day long and ride her like a race horse" (quoted from the thread); where as an asexual would be thinking about how nice the bed linens are. That got me thinking. What about someone who doesn't experience a desire for sex with people. They never think "I need to get laid". However they would respond to a sexy photo by thinking "They are so hot I would love to have sex wit them". Further more if it was a real person who offered to have sex they would say yes. Could that person be asexual? Desire is something you have all the time. It's independent of any external factors. So it would seem a person is a sexual even if some external input triggers their libido. Or rather their level of libido determines how effectively they get turned on by external (or internal) sexual stimulus.

So if a person can get turned on by sexual stimulus which leads to them wanting to have sex with a person; are they asexua? Assuming a lack of sexual desire. I would say yes due to the lack of sexual desire. This sort of thing is why an attraction based definition is problematic. If I see an attractive woman and have sexual thoughts about her; that might qualify as sexual attraction. But I would still be ace since I don't have an innate desire for sex with other people. Lets use cake as an analogy. I never crave cake. However if I were at a party and they served cake I might be thinking "Wow that chocolate cake looks amazing. I bet it's delicious. I gotta get me some of that". But if cake isn't being presented to me I don't think "Damn I could sure go for some cake right about now".

IMO You are describing a form of demi-sexual.

... or "grey-sexual."

It's my understanding that a demi only experiences a desire for sex with people when in a romantic relationship. Since there isn't a romantic relationship in my example it wouldn't be demi. I am not sure gray applies, since there is a lack of desire for sex with people. If nothing else this illustrates how tricky it can be to define asexuality sometimes.

I would say demi-sexual is anyone whose desire for sex is conditional. Whether it's in the context of a romantic relationship, or just the result of attraction, or literally anything else. Those in favor of desire based definition feel that for sexual people, sexual desire is innate and ever present. If no sex is had it will be missed. If this is not the case, then the person is not sexual. If a person desires sex some of the time as a result of some condition I'd say that's demi-sexual.

[Frigid Pink]

It's my understanding that a demi only experiences a desire for sex with people when in a romantic relationship. Since there isn't a romantic relationship in my example it wouldn't be demi. I am not sure gray applies, since there is a lack of desire for sex with people. If nothing else this illustrates how tricky it can be to define asexuality sometimes.

"Grey-sexual" to me means "unclear" and "in between" asexual and sexual- meaning neither the definition of "asexual" or "sexual" fits their sexuality.

[Guest]

I would say demi-sexual is anyone whose desire for sex is conditional. Whether it's in the context of a romantic relationship, or just the result of attraction, or literally anything else. Those in favor of desire based definition feel that for sexual people, sexual desire is innate and ever present. If no sex is had it will be missed. If this is not the case, then the person is not sexual. If a person desires sex some of the time as a result of some condition I'd say that's demi-sexual.

So to you, gray is a form of demi? Instead of it being the other way around (as it is usually seen on here)? Or does this depend on what we will define as a "condition"? *slightly, but not completely, tongue-in-cheek*

What I mean is, if someone very very rarely feels a slight desire for partnered sex, it is obvious that they are grayce. If there is no discernible condition on which these rare "spikes" of desire depend, and as far as anyone can tell, they "just happen" every once in a while, would you then still call that demisexual? That just sounds wrong to me.

I can, however, logically see where you're getting from if you say that if there is a discernible condition at work, whose presence turns someone effectively sexual from a default state of asexuality, then that could be called a form of demisexuality. At the very least, it's the same structure at work there from what commonly gets called demi (where the condition is specifically "being in an emotionally close, long relationship"), just transferred to a general level.

The key problem is that I'm not sure if demis (by the current, specialized definition) are cool with the term becoming generalized to mean conditional sexual desire. It may well come across as appropriation of the term, and I'm inclined to respect it if that causes them concern.

[Geo]

What I mean is, if someone very very rarely feels a slight desire for partnered sex, it is obvious that they are grayce. If there is no discernible condition on which these rare "spikes" of desire depend, and as far as anyone can tell, they "just happen" every once in a while, would you then still call that demisexual? That just sounds wrong to me.

I can, however, logically see where you're getting from if you say that if there is a discernible condition at work, whose presence turns someone effectively sexual from a default state of asexuality, then that could be called a form of demisexuality. At the very least, it's the same structure at work there from what commonly gets called demi (where the condition is specifically "being in an emotionally close, long relationship"), just transferred to a general level.

Yes, I mean condition as a specific(to each person), identifiable external factor. If it's just sometimes for no apparent reason that would be more gray.

[Philip027]

It's my understanding that a demi only experiences a desire for sex with people when in a romantic relationship. Since there isn't a romantic relationship in my example it wouldn't be demi.

Not necessarily just romantic relationships, no. Any sort of meaningful connection with another person can cause it.

All demisexual basically means is that you can't experience sexual attraction for the (objectively) hot blonde walking down the street that you don't even know. Maybe aesthetic attraction/recognition, at best, but it won't go beyond that. (By "objectively" I mean that perhaps you might be able to recognize that this person might be considered generally attractive, but that attraction will not apply to you because it's a stranger.)

[Guest]

I asked this in another thread, but realized it would be a good discussion point for here:

Are sexuals characterized by a "need" for sex?

My view at this time is that this is not necessarily the case. All persons who have a psychological need for partnered sex are sexual, but not all sexuals necessarily have that psychological need. I feel a sexual can have that desire while still being more or less happy with a life of celibacy.

Me, the desire is there, I think, but I'm not bothered the by idea of it never being met. (Unless I'm actually in a relationship, probably. But I won't be bothered if a relationship never happens. It's kind of an "if it happens it happens" thing.)

Basically, I think that sexual = desire for sex, which may or may not manifest as a psychological need. Outside of a relationship, anyway. I think in the context of a close relationship, probably all sexuals have more of a need for sex.

Basically, just not all sexuals with necessarily have the same drive or level of desire.

[purplemutant]

I asked this in another thread, but realized it would be a good discussion point for here:

Are sexuals characterized by a "need" for sex?

My view at this time is that this is not necessarily the case. All persons who have a psychological need for partnered sex are sexual, but not all sexuals necessarily have that psychological need. I feel a sexual can have that desire while still being more or less happy with a life of celibacy.

Me, the desire is there, I think, but I'm not bothered the by idea of it never being met. (Unless I'm actually in a relationship. I won't be bothered if that never happens, either. It's kind of an "if it happens it happens" thing.)

If someone has a desire for sex how could they be ok with never having sex again? To use the previously mentioned alcohol analogy. It would be like an alcoholic not being bothered if they could never have another drink. If they wouldn't be bothered by not drinking; they wouldn't be an alcoholic. If you experience a desire for sex with people; then not getting any would bother you. Depending on how strong the desire is it might not bother you much. But if there is desire, you will be bothered.

[Guest]

If we're define sexuality by "who" we want to have sex with...I suppose it'd be about preference. Like what gender do you prefer, or do you prefer it solo (masturbation).

What if someone is perfectly okay with solo, but also has a definite gender preference? Like, if they were to have sex, it would be with ______. They are perfectly fine with either. What orientation would this person be?

Does virginity perhaps make a difference? If this person has never experienced partnered sex, is it possible they may not crave it until they've discovered what it's like? How much of what we perceive sex to be is influenced by society and personal views rather than purely nature?

I'm not saying you have to have sex to know you're asexual. Just that perhaps one may not crave it before having experienced it.

[Guest]

The alcohol analogy is an interesting one. What if someone enjoys alcohol, desires the taste, but never drinks enough to even get buzzed? They may crave the taste, but they don't "need" it?

Similarly, what if someone feels that they desire sex, but would not be very bothered without it? Maybe they would like it, maybe a tad bothered not getting it but not enough to be significant? If this individual is a virgin, perhaps they can't tell if they're actually bothered or just curious to experience sex?

There are different levels of desire...where is the line drawn? Is there a line at all? I suppose this is why the gray area was invented. Still, current consensus seems to be that the gray area is people who only desire sex rarely.

It seems a sexual who only experiences a low level of innate desire, but one that is consistently there, would still be sexual.

[purplemutant]

The alcohol analogy is an interesting one. What if someone enjoys alcohol, desires the taste, but never drinks enough to even get buzzed? They may crave the taste, but they don't "need" it?

Similarly, what if someone feels that they desire sex, but would not be very bothered without it? Maybe they would like it, maybe a tad bothered not getting it but not enough to be significant? If this individual is a virgin, perhaps they can't tell if they're actually bothered or just curious to experience sex?

There are different levels of desire...where is the line drawn? Is there a line at all? I suppose this is why the gray area was invented. Still, current consensus seems to be that the gray area is people who only desire sex rarely.

It seems a sexual who only experiences a low level of innate desire, but one that is consistently there, would still be sexual.

Desire and craving are same thing. In my signature line I include synonyms for desire so it's more clear what I am talking about.

An asexual is someone who does not experience an innate desire for sex with other people.

Desire. Noun: "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen." Synonyms: Urge, Craving, Yearning.

It's not about who we want to have sex with. It's about who we have a desire to have sex with. A desire is more than just a want. If I see some cake at a party I might want to have a slice. However I don't have cravings for cake. Asexual can have sex and enjoy it. There would presumably be some sort of preference going on. You could have an ace man who is only interested in having sex with men; or whatever. It all comes down to this in my book. If you can go for the rest of your life without sex and be just fine you are ace. If you can't go for the rest of your life without sex and be fine then you aren't an ace.

[Lady Girl]

I asked this in another thread, but realized it would be a good discussion point for here:

Are sexuals characterized by a "need" for sex?

My view at this time is that this is not necessarily the case. All persons who have a psychological need for partnered sex are sexual, but not all sexuals necessarily have that psychological need. I feel a sexual can have that desire while still being more or less happy with a life of celibacy.

Me, the desire is there, I think, but I'm not bothered the by idea of it never being met. (Unless I'm actually in a relationship. I won't be bothered if that never happens, either. It's kind of an "if it happens it happens" thing.)

If someone has a desire for sex how could they be ok with never having sex again? To use the previously mentioned alcohol analogy. It would be like an alcoholic not being bothered if they could never have another drink. If they wouldn't be bothered by not drinking; they wouldn't be an alcoholic. If you experience a desire for sex with people; then not getting any would bother you. Depending on how strong the desire is it might not bother you much. But if there is desire, you will be bothered.

I consider myself an alcoholic because seven or eight years ago when I quite drinking entirely, I recognized that alcohol was problematic for me. I don't desire alcohol in the least anymore...I'm not the slightest bit bothered by not drinking. It's sort of similar for me with cigarettes. I was a smoker for 20 some years, but I don't crave it now (I quit 3 years ago). I can appreciate a whiff of smoke if I walk past someone, but I still have no desire to go get any for myself...I'm done with it. If you had told me ten years ago that I would say this, I would have said no way!

Now with sex, I would say I have a desire but not getting any doesn't bother me (maybe I'm the exception to the rule...innately I desire sex, I may go the rest of my life without and that doesn't bother me, I'm not ace). I guess it's sort of like my desire to own a 1967 plum colored GTO...it's not going to happen and it doesn't upset me. But yeah, that would be one sweet ride.

EDIT: I guess I'm considered an ex smoker and a recovering alcoholic in some circles? I wouldn't say I'm a recovering or ex sexual though. :lol:

[Guest]

The alcohol analogy is an interesting one. What if someone enjoys alcohol, desires the taste, but never drinks enough to even get buzzed? They may crave the taste, but they don't "need" it?

Similarly, what if someone feels that they desire sex, but would not be very bothered without it? Maybe they would like it, maybe a tad bothered not getting it but not enough to be significant? If this individual is a virgin, perhaps they can't tell if they're actually bothered or just curious to experience sex?

There are different levels of desire...where is the line drawn? Is there a line at all? I suppose this is why the gray area was invented. Still, current consensus seems to be that the gray area is people who only desire sex rarely.

It seems a sexual who only experiences a low level of innate desire, but one that is consistently there, would still be sexual.

Desire and craving are same thing. In my signature line I include synonyms for desire so it's more clear what I am talking about.

An asexual is someone who does not experience an innate desire for sex with other people.

Desire. Noun: "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen." Synonyms: Urge, Craving, Yearning.

It's not about who we want to have sex with. It's about who we have a desire to have sex with. A desire is more than just a want. If I see some cake at a party I might want to have a slice. However I don't have cravings for cake. Asexual can have sex and enjoy it. There would presumably be some sort of preference going on. You could have an ace man who is only interested in having sex with men; or whatever. It all comes down to this in my book. If you can go for the rest of your life without sex and be just fine you are ace. If you can't go for the rest of your life without sex and be fine then you aren't an ace.

I would agree that an ace can enjoy having sex, definitely.

I'm wondering more about levels of desire. I think that desire can be a thing that's a little hard to pinpoint...more concrete a definition than simple attraction, though.

In my case--I'm self refereincing a lot here I notice--I think I experience desire, just not very strongly. It's more of a potential, perhaps dormant, thing than something I actively want. Whether it'll ever be anything more than that, I don't know.

[Frigid Pink]

It all comes down to this in my book. If you can go for the rest of your life without sex and be just fine you are ace. If you can't go for the rest of your life without sex and be fine then you aren't an ace.

I think this above definition of "asexuality" is different from "no innate desire for partnered sex" and is, in essence, "okay without partnered sex indefinitely."

I guess they're pretty similar in what they mean and it makes sense that someone with "no innate desire for partnered sex" could certainly be "okay without partnered sex indefinitely," however, I think it's more concise and straightforward to use the former to describe and define "asexuality" as, technically, "sexual" people are "fine" if they don't have partnered sex. Some "sexual" people may never have partnered sex, for whatever reason, however, that doesn't mean they'll turn into uncontrollable rapists or even disabled people with depression.