Defining asexuality - a better definition?

[Guest]

A person can go out of their way for sex because they enjoy it. But enjoying sex isn't the same as craving sex. I might decide to go get a beer because a beer sounds nice right about now. However I don't feel like I need to have a beer. If for whatever reason I don't get a beer that will be fine. Same for sex. I look at inate desire as a craving/urge so strong that some people mistake it for a need. "God I haven't had any in two weeks; I need to get laid before I explode" (or whatever it is non aces feel). That's not the same as "I like sex; I think I will go see if I can find someone to have sex with.". In my case it's usually "I like sex. It would be nice if I had someone to have sex with. Finding sex partners is a pain in the ass. So I wont bother. Oh well. I can just stick with masturbation." It occured to me that I do experiance some minor frustration over not having someone to have sex with. The frustration is very minor and short lived. In the grand scheme of things I am just fine not having sex. If we had a scale with 100% ace on one side and 100% sexual on the other. I might be a notch above ace. Say 95% (or more) ace. Close enough that I asexual is more applicable than grey.

"Sexual" people aren't all "God I haven't had any in two weeks; I need to get laid before I explode" and can actually be "I like sex; I think I will go see if I can find someone to have sex with" or "I like sex and it would be nice to have someone to have sex with but I'll settle for masturbation since I don't." I see it as more of a difference in preference in that a "sexual" person prefers partnered sex to masturbation and will often seek it out due to this.

Hm. I actually don't know that I'd prefer sex to masturbation. (Then again, maybe I'd change my mind if I ever had it.) But I wouldn't want to be in a marriage without sex.

[amendax]

I would say something along the line of not understanding what is sexual attraction for the answer of second question. Because I have no idea how that attraction would feel like, I cannot say whether I have experienced it or not.

[Frigid Pink]

I would say something along the line of not understanding what is sexual attraction for the answer of second question. Because I have no idea how that attraction would feel like, I cannot say whether I have experienced it or not.

I think there are quite a few "sexual" people who don't understand what "sexual attraction" means (and of those who do, well, they understand it in different ways), therefore, "someone who doesn't understand what sexual attraction is or means" doesn't seem to be the best definition for an "asexual" person.

[Barking Sands]

This question is going to be on my mind for some time to come; if I have an original thought, I'll gladly chime back in.

At this time, I break down broad sexual orientation into three groups:

-Sex (chromosome-determined):

--Male (XY)

--Female (XX)

--Hermaphrodite (XXY)

(Possibly room for further research to break down specific sex into more complex genetic dominant/recessive traits within the chromosomes)

-Gender identity

--Masculinity/Femininity (X-axis) (Basically "how neutral do I feel and which side of the fence am I on?")

--Identity Strength (Y-axis) (Basically "how much does my gender matter to me?")

(Gender identity is far more complex than sex at birth)

-Sexual preference

(I really can't even begin to scratch the surface here. A person can have a preference tied to a partner's sex, gender, or multiple sexes/genders, or even to any trait that may not have anything to do with sex or gender at all -- to claim that asexuality doesn't belong here is just absurd-sounding to me personally.)

I would like to place asexuality at one extreme in a preferential spectrum ranging from nymphomania (hypersexuality?) to asexuality (hyposexuality), but it's much more complex than that as we all know. We already have a perfectly good word for hyposexuality which seems to me to fit the current standard definition of asexuality. What I currently believe sets asexuality apart is that it doesn't necessarily refer to innate sex drive or libido nor does it imply celibate behavior, but it does refer mainly to how highly an individual ranks sex in terms of personal priorities.

It could be easy for people to confuse, for example, weak gender identity for gender neutrality, but those two are actually very different gender identity traits. Similarly, it could be very easy to confuse hyposexuality for my idea of asexuality. While hyposexual/hypersexual people fit one axis of a multidimensional preference scale, asexual/sexual people could be fit on a different axis relating to their personal priority levels instead of to their physical libido.

I can't say if actual behavior even has a place anywhere in the realm of sexual orientation, but of course it is perfectly natural for a person's orientation to affect their behavior.

[Frigid Pink]

-Sexual preference

(I really can't even begin to scratch the surface here. A person can have a preference tied to a partner's sex, gender, or multiple sexes/genders, or even to any trait that may not have anything to do with sex or gender at all -- to claim that asexuality doesn't belong here is just absurd-sounding to me personally.)

I would like to place asexuality at one extreme in a preferential spectrum ranging from nymphomania (hypersexuality?) to asexuality (hyposexuality), but it's much more complex than that as we all know. We already have a perfectly good word for hyposexuality which seems to me to fit the current standard definition of asexuality. What I currently believe sets asexuality apart is that it doesn't necessarily refer to innate sex drive or libido nor does it imply celibate behavior, but it does refer mainly to how highly an individual ranks sex in terms of personal priorities.

It could be easy for people to confuse, for example, weak gender identity for gender neutrality, but those two are actually very different gender identity traits. Similarly, it could be very easy to confuse hyposexuality for my idea of asexuality. While hyposexual/hypersexual people fit one axis of a multidimensional preference scale, asexual/sexual people could be fit on a different axis relating to their personal priority levels instead of to their physical libido.

I can't say if actual behavior even has a place anywhere in the realm of sexual orientation, but of course it is perfectly natural for a person's orientation to affect their behavior.

I view the sexuality spectrum as "hyposexuality" to "hypersexuality" with "asexuality" on the extreme end of "hyposexuality" in reference to how often one experiences an "innate desire for partnered sex" regardless of "libido," "sex drive," masturbation, or even frequency of partnered sex or frequency of masturbation.

[amendax]

I would say something along the line of not understanding what is sexual attraction for the answer of second question. Because I have no idea how that attraction would feel like, I cannot say whether I have experienced it or not.

I think there are quite a few "sexual" people who don't understand what "sexual attraction" means (and of those who do, well, they understand it in different ways), therefore, "someone who doesn't understand what sexual attraction is or means" doesn't seem to be the best definition for an "asexual" person.

I do agree that not being able to understand sexual attraction is not the best definition. However, one of the most integral part in the commonly used definition is not experiencimg sexual attraction. But this question has been confusing me.How can someone know they dont experience something when they have never experienced it, especially it is such an abstract concept. ?

[Barking Sands]

I've definitely been on the "don't understand sexual attraction" boat.

I wanted to coin the term "cryptosexual" for people like me who may simply not know or perhaps not even care what their sexual preferences are. It isn't a part of sexual orientation at all; that confusion only stems from not identifying with the correct sexual orientation due to inexperience or clouded / lacking introspection. It's still Ace, but it isn't "asexual."

[Frigid Pink]

I would say something along the line of not understanding what is sexual attraction for the answer of second question. Because I have no idea how that attraction would feel like, I cannot say whether I have experienced it or not.

I think there are quite a few "sexual" people who don't understand what "sexual attraction" means (and of those who do, well, they understand it in different ways), therefore, "someone who doesn't understand what sexual attraction is or means" doesn't seem to be the best definition for an "asexual" person.

I do agree that not being able to understand sexual attraction is not the best definition. However, one of the most integral part in the commonly used definition is not experiencimg sexual attraction. But this question has been confusing me.How can someone know they dont experience something when they have never experienced it, especially it is such an abstract concept. ?

Yeah, that's why I think "sexual attraction" isn't the best way to define "asexuality." I think it's much easier to figure out and know whether or not I experience an "innate desire for partnered sex" and that's why I think it's a better way to define "asexuality."

[plaidclash]

I define asexual as experiencing little or no sexual attraction and having no desire for partnered sex. I used to identify as asexual because I didn't really feel sexual attraction and had a low sex drive. I did, however, feel a strong desire for partnered sex in the future. I kind of changed my orientation because even though I don't feel very strong sexual attraction, I have such a want for sex that the sexual attraction doesn't matter that much. Not feeling sexual attraction does not affect me much in my daily life and really won't affect me in a relationship because I still want partnered sex. It just doesn't really make sense to call myself asexual anymore. Maybe I'm still TECHNICALLY on the ace spectrum, but I don't really call myself ace.

[Plectrophenax]

A riveting read this thread is, to be sure. If I quoted everything I wanted to, this post would be as long as the thread so far. So I'll try to limit myself to a perhaps somewhat late [and stream-of-consciousness-y] reflection on an all-too relevant issue.

For one, I share the same lack of understanding about what "partnered sex" means that everbreath made note of on p.43. For an attempt at making an unclear definition clearer, it doesn't seem to appeal to something 'obvious' the way I sense it attempts to [that, or I'm just particularly dense on the matter - a very real possibility I might add]. To my utter surprise, it's not just the "partnered" that's up for interpretation either, but the "sex"-part itself. What even does "sex" and the "desre for sex" mean?

I won't try to conceptualise, because being 'life-long' asexual [let's just assume we know what that means, shall we?] I am completely unfit to do so. But many people so far have been appealing to this "desire for sex" as attraction-independent, as a form of innate desire that manifests itself in a form of exasperation if not satisfied and which, as a result, can lead to ways it is indeed released that may not conform at all to an outsider's evaluation of that person's sexuality or even personality [like heterosexual people performing homosexual acts, or an otherwise faithful partner commiting adultery]. That this conception of "sex" seems to involve other people is reasonably clear. Most people, I assume, would consider masturbation a sexual or sex-related act, but not sex itself. Geo, sometime back in 2014, made note of a desire to orgasm in the presence of someone else, as well as witnessing or experiencing them orgasm in turn. So stimulation of ones genitals by someone else [even if performed in such a way that is otherwise identical to masturbation], is "sex". The "partnered" thus makes somewhat sense to me. So far so good, perhaps.

But clearly others, like Frigid Pink just recently, think that masturbation is highly comparable to sex, to such a degree that it can serve as a makeshift placeholder of sorts. Not ideal, presumably, but definitely enough to quell the desire. This is not at all what I got from Geo's assessment, where masturbation might only serve this function when, say, performed together with another person. Either way, I'm rather certain that desiring or even requiring "sex" as opposed to being content with masturbation is not a matter of 'preference' in every understanding, and this seems to strongly imply that the nature of this "desire" is not entirely clear.
Unfortunately, I can't help to perhaps clarify either, because to me there seems to be indeed very little difference between masturbation and attraction-less intercourse. It seems to me that the main drive is the stimulation of ones genitals, and that it just 'feels better' to have that done through means of another person [no matter their respective makeup], or that it's just 'too much hassle' if the desire can be satisfied without the effort of seeking out willing participants or paying money for it. Maybe there's more to it - something psychological related to physical intimacy, perhaps - but overall this would strike me as a reason to reject the fixation on "partnered" all-together. Otherwise the topic might drift off too much towards romantic/relation-dependent qualifiers that merely complement but don't constitute sexual activity.

So what is the difference between someone stimulating genitals that is 'sexual', and someone stimulating genitals that is 'asexual'? Provided we'd like to stick to the notion that people who stimulate their genitals in any way should be able to fall under the category of 'asexual', that is? [something I personally support, but that is by no means obvious since the very definition of asexuality is what is discussed here - there's no sense in pretending some premises are an automatic given.] Is it "desire" in the sense of "desire for sex" [in which case I'd really appreciate a universally accepted understanding of "sex" because it is completely unclear whether it is reducible to genitals or not, whether it's reliant on circumstances or not, whether it's affected by preference or not, whether (and to what extent) it involves other people or not etc]? I'm inclined to think it must be something more than this reductionistic take on it, and while "attraction" is a rather unhelpful word for this missing component, I assume it's the very thing used by people who think like me to fill up the gaps in their understanding.
Something like a "desire for sex of a specific kind" perhaps, since I doubt it's a conicidence that heterosexual people or sexuals with gender-preferences in general like to grind their genitals against people who fulfill a very basic criteria [in addition to potential others] in order to even be potential satisfiers of this "desire". But would defining asexuals as "lacking desire for sex of a specific kind" be too weak? It probably depends on the definiton of "sex" as well as the intensity implied by "desire" - and we're back to square one.

It seems to me that the only way to avoid this back-and-forward between "sex as partner-dependent" and "sex including masturbation" is to focus on what people actually get out of this experience. And it would seem that 'sexual' people gain a lot from it, so much so that it may constitute an active need or necessity for a full and happy life, while 'asexual' people aren't really phased by it, being more inclined to view it as one activity of many that may be agreeable or disagreeable at times, but overall just a thing. This form of self-defined connotation of sexual stimulus, activity or even orgasm might be what is meant by "desire" [i didn't get that, though], but it wouldn't be about the desire for "partnered sex" but the desire for "sexual [genital?] stimulation" in general - which doesn't mean that people who self-define as asexual can't masturbate or engage in intercourse, provided they don't consider the experience to be of an orgasmic [pun intended] nature.

This would also help include those who do have a desire for partnered sex because they sense a feeling of 'missing out' or simply have high appreciation of the form of intimacy it provides. These people wouldn't engage in sexual activity for purely selfless reasons, yet would also not have a 'natural' propensity towards it. They seem left out in the "partnered sex"-definition [though one may be able to wiggle out by saying that they merely "desire to desire" as opposed to directly "desire"], and perhaps unjustly so.


At any rate, I agree that the usage of the word "attraction" is non-ideal due to its unclear meaning as well as its implied passivity, but I don't necessarily see that made much better through the use of "desire". The best definion I've seen so far in-thread was, I belive, a joint effort between Jenox, Mysticus Insanus and thjb, stating that; "An asexual is a person whose sexual desire (whether absent, high or in between) is not directed to persons of any gender." - and, ultimately, this is exactly how I would describe it to someone. "You know that gender-related thing you call sexuality? Well, take away the gender-related part and that's good enough for me." It leaves open what [and if] this "sexual desire" is, and as such may be thoroughly misleading to some, but it's an easy way out for someone struggling to even get onto the same page as others on the topic. Asexual to the word; the -sexual is still there [whatever it may mean], but it's directional preferential outlet is replaced by its absence - whether it be the absence of such an outlet entirely, or at least the absence of gender-related favouritism with regards to it.
But I still find the one I voted for; "a person who is not intrinsically attracted to any gender sexually" to be easier understood, even though using the term 'desire' may be less ambiguous here. "You know that feeling you feel when you are drawn to one or more genders due to sexual desires/inclinations? I don't have that." Does this imply that I do have sexual desires/inclinations, just undirected ones? Potentially. But such is the risk of trying to sufficiently define what is essentially an umbrella-term.

Very, very rambly. I apologise. My mind is spinning a little from trying to remember the points made during the last 40+ pages as well as from trying to formulate incoherent musings in an agreeable way. Pretty sure I failed at both.


TL;DR:
Yes, the current definition is too vague. Any new definition, including the one based on "desire" would likely share this vagueness even when all terms are clarified. I myself don't even fully understand the meaning of "sex" or the implication of "desire for sex". An option I can think of would be to define asexuality relative to the enjoyment felt from or importance given to [genital] stimulation.

[MiniChelonia]

I've always viewed sexual attraction as being sexual urges/desire based on seeing "pleasing" physical traits on an individual.

[ace carder]

my defnition: experiences no sexual atraction and very little romantic attraction for others

[Rising Sun]

my defnition: experiences no sexual atraction and very little romantic attraction for others

Since when a lack of romantic attraction has something to do with asexuality ?

[Frigid Pink]

TL;DR:

Yes, the current definition is too vague. Any new definition, including the one based on "desire" would likely share this vagueness even when all terms are clarified. I myself don't even fully understand the meaning of "sex" or the implication of "desire for sex". An option I can think of would be to define asexuality relative to the enjoyment felt from or importance given to [genital] stimulation.

So, if I understand you correctly, then you think "asexuality" is about no enjoyment of genital stimulation or less to no importance given to genital stimulation?

If that's the case, then I disagree with you. I've mentioned in several posts why I think "asexual" people are capable of enjoying the sensations of genital stimulation. If I have an orgasm or am capable of an orgasm (whether that's alone or with someone else), then that doesn't invalidate my asexuality or mean I'm not an "asexual" person. I won't change my mind about that.

Also, not all "sexual" people find genital stimulation or even partnered sex all that important. It really depends on the person. Obviously, there are "sexual" people in sexless relationships with "asexual" people and there are "sexual" people who are celibate by choice and not in a relationship with anyone, therefore, something other than partnered sex must be important enough to them to maintain any kind of sexless relationship with someone or abstain from sex by choice outside a relationship with someone despite an innate desire to be sexually intimate with others.

I've always viewed sexual attraction as being sexual urges/desire based on seeing "pleasing" physical traits on an individual.

Appearance isn't the only thing that a "sexual" person might find "sexually attractive" about someone. It can be a combination of things and someone may feel "sexual urge" or "sexual desire" based on personality alone.

I experience "romantic attraction" and I feel an urge or desire to be in a romantic relationship with someone based on personality more than appearance. Usually, I notice and appreciate someone's appearance much more once I've gotten to know them and like them. I think different types of attraction work in similar ways as there isn't any one reason alone that someone may feel attracted towards someone, sexually or otherwise.

my defnition: experiences no sexual atraction and very little romantic attraction for others

Since when a lack of romantic attraction has something to do with asexuality ?

It doesn't. Whether or not someone experiences romantic attraction has nothing to do with "asexuality." I won't change my mind about that, either.

[Rising Sun]

Of course I know, my post was ironic ;)

[Plectrophenax]

So, if I understand you correctly, then you think "asexuality" is about no enjoyment of genital stimulation or less to no importance given to genital stimulation?

If that's the case, then I disagree with you. I've mentioned in several posts why I think "asexual" people are capable of enjoying the sensations of genital stimulation. If I have an orgasm or am capable of an orgasm (whether that's alone or with someone else), then that doesn't invalidate my asexuality or mean I'm not an "asexual" person. I won't change my mind about that.

Also, not all "sexual" people find genital stimulation or even partnered sex all that important. It really depends on the person. Obviously, there are "sexual" people in sexless relationships with "asexual" people and there are "sexual" people who are celibate by choice and not in a relationship with anyone, therefore, something other than partnered sex must be important enough to them to maintain any kind of sexless relationship with someone or abstain from sex by choice outside a relationship with someone despite an innate desire to be sexually intimate with others.

It was a suggestion more so than my actual intuition. I find it difficult to have much of an "intuition" on what asexuality is in the first place, since I am completely uninterested in and/or oblivious of basically everything sexual. The prefix thus has no meaning beyond negating any meaning associated with the term "sexual" - yet it's hard to define that when I am somewhat childishly ignorant to most aspects this entails.

Even so, for a definition to be worthwhile, things will be excluded. My suggestion doesn't exclude people who like orgasms or genital stimulations as long as they don't over-value it [like many people can enjoy certain things without going crazy over them]. In that sense it's probably too inclusive, making many self-identified sexuals feel generally 'asexual' - but if I understand sexuality even remotely correctly, such a 'sexual' would sooner or later indeed feel the craving for orgasm or genital stimulation [beyond mere appeasement of libido], and would thus demonstrate a degree of priorisation of the satisfaction of that desire. Because, I assume, the act itself is valued, potentially to the extent of feeling outright required.

So no, capability for and even enjoyment of orgams/genital stimulation is not a necessary disqualifier. The TL;DR was a bit misleading. Based on the suggestion, enjoyment of sexual stimuli would be something of an indicator of sexuality, but depending on intensity, regularity, overall connotation and suchlike things, asexuality might very well be the more likely option nonetheless.

Further, people who are abstinent and/or otherwise not regularly engaging in sexual intercourse might still value genital stimulation highly [attitude towards masturbation, for one, can qualify]. Even if they don't value it above everything - say by prioritising love and affection in a relationship - that need not indicate that they therefore don't truly value genital stimulation as high as they 'should' were they to qualify as 'sexual' according to this suggestion.

I will grant that the people who are most likely to be excluded are asexuals who thoroughly enjoy and frequently engage in genital stimulation. I still don't think that enjoyment or frequency are necessary indicators of the sense of pleasure and need sexuals seem to associate with sex, but that's getting somewhat muddy. Regardless, a useful definition will not be able to avoid being 'discriminatory' in some sense - especially if it is derived from a usage of the term that is broad to the point of unclearness.

[booksoversex]

I think the partnered sex aspect is important. You, Plectrophenax, and others earlier, and also the "Understand (A)sexuality"-author Anthony Boegart, focus much on asexuality being about not feeling sexual attraction towards anyone, and, and this and is important, the sex drive being "un-directed" or "disconnected". Which means that quite a few asexuals might be autochrissexual (self-sexual) more than "pure" asexual, but they/we fall under the umbrella today because they/we don't have a sex drive directed at others. Boegart also talks about a disconnect between f. ex. sexual fantasies and the self, in the way that asexual people who masturbate in very few cases fantasize about themselves (or people they know/have a relation to) engaging in sex, which apparently is rather normal for sexual people to fantasize about. This sexual "dissonance" might, technically, not be asexuality as the people in question are still sexual in some ways, iow feeling sexual pleasure and often seeking it out (through masturbation). But that depends on how narrow you want to define (a)sexuality.

[Frigid Pink]

I think the partnered sex aspect is important. You, Plectrophenax, and others earlier, and also the "Understand (A)sexuality"-author Anthony Boegart, focus much on asexuality being about not feeling sexual attraction towards anyone, and, and this and is important, the sex drive being "un-directed" or "disconnected". Which means that quite a few asexuals might be autochrissexual (self-sexual) more than "pure" asexual, but they/we fall under the umbrella today because they/we don't have a sex drive directed at others. Boegart also talks about a disconnect between f. ex. sexual fantasies and the self, in the way that asexual people who masturbate in very few cases fantasize about themselves (or people they know/have a relation to) engaging in sex, which apparently is rather normal for sexual people to fantasize about. This sexual "dissonance" might, technically, not be asexuality as the people in question are still sexual in some ways, iow feeling sexual pleasure and often seeking it out (through masturbation). But that depends on how narrow you want to define (a)sexuality.

I dislike the phrase "pure asexual" as it hints at elitism (my definition of "elite" being "a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities"). Are "sexual" people who masturbate not "pure sexual" people and instead "autochrissexual"? I don't think so. As DJ recently said: "Masturbation and partnered sex are very different things, and desiring one doesn't mean that we automatically desire the other."

I also like what DJ says here: "If you're not drawn to be sexual with anyone, then you have a lot in common with a lot of people in the asexual community. That being said, there's no such thing as a 'true' asexual. If the word seems useful, use it. At the end of the day, what matters is how well we understand ourselves, not how well we match some Platonic ideal of our sexual orientation, and words like 'asexual' are just tools to help us understand ourselves."

After 44 pages of this, I don't think everyone (or even most people) will agree on what the definition of "asexuality" is or what it means to be an "asexual" person (or at least not anytime soon). Despite that, I still have my own definition and I'll continue to use it. I'll also still advocate for a better (less ambiguous) definition. I still think this is an important discussion to have.

I'm still concerned that "asexuality" will continue to be seen as a mental and medical issue and not be taken seriously in the community at large as long as we have an ambiguous definition. Of course, a main issue with that is our society's tendency to pathologize anything that deviates from the majority, however, that's a separate and more all-encompassing issue to tackle. It still doesn't help things when there are difficult to understand definitions.

As I mentioned before, healthcare providers at a recent national medical conference said: "We know they're out there (asexual people), but we don't know why they're the way they are" and that was only after I asked them if they knew about "asexuality." "Asexuality" or anything similar to it wasn't mentioned at all in the talk about sexuality they gave at that national medical conference. It's a serious concern because I think it's the medical community's acceptance of "asexuality" that will really get it to be taken seriously. Just a simple acknowledgement that it even exists (regardless of acceptance) in any kind of medical education about sexuality would be a major step in the right direction. It's definitely "the invisible orientation" right now (in the medical community).

Of course, even though "homosexuality" isn't considered a mental or medical issue anymore by the medical community, there's still a lot of discrimination and unacceptance in the community at large.

I'm not really sure what the biggest issue is for "asexuality" acceptance as a valid and okay way to be apart from the very real and common view that it's a mental or medical issue. Maybe the definition isn't the root problem here, however, I still think it plays some role.

Seems I got a bit off topic there, however, what I mentioned above is one of the main reasons I care about the definition. I care about asexuality visibility and education efforts.

If I'm going to continue in this discussion, then I want to feel like it's at least making progress or going somewhere. Maybe it's time to create a new poll about this. It was discussed before and never done. I'll try and motivate myself to actually make that happen.

Okay, I need to take a break from this post now. I think I've expressed my feelings as best as I can at the moment. I'll come back to this later.

[Frigid Pink]

So, I came across this article (and the comments section) and the author of the blog says "All of the evidence points to the effects of all three factors in the realm of sexuality: biology, social interactions and culture" and mentions the dictionary definition of asexuality as "no sexual feelings or desires" and goes on to add "that may be innate or created through social interaction and culture."

What do you think about that interpretation (of sexuality) and that definition of asexuality?

I know I've been stressing the "innate" aspect of things, however, maybe asexuality isn't "innate" for everyone (even if I think it is for me), so, maybe it's not the best word to have in the definition. Of course, by the blog author's logic, "sexual desire" isn't necessarily "innate" for those who experience it, either. Sexuality, in general, isn't necessarily "innate," so, maybe the word "innate" doesn't need to be in a sexual orientation definition.

Maybe it's better to say "no desire for partnered sex," "no desire for sexual interaction," "no desire for sex with others," or "not drawns towards sex with others" and leave out the word "innate."

I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about it.

Any thoughts on this?

[Guest]

I think we do need some adjective there, if it's not "innate". While I, personally, find "asexuality = no desire for partnered sex" to be quite clear, this thread (and similar discussions on AVEN) shows that a sizeable number of people misunderstand the word "desire" if it's not qualified by an adjective, and would equate this with "would never choose/agree to have partnered sex" - which would make for a highly flawed definition.

"Not drawn to partnered sex" might work - it's easily the best among the alternatives you propose at the end of your post - but honestly, I'd hate to lose the word "desire" in it. It'd be better to think of a more precise alternative to the word "innate", but keep the "no [insert adjective here] desire for partnered sex" intact, as I still firmly hold that's the key aspect of asexuality.

[Blue Phoenix Ace]

I'm only looking up innate in the thesaurus, so don't go applauding for these suggestions. ;)

• ingrained
• intuitive
• inborn
• elemental
• deep-seated
• inherent
• instinctive
• intrinsic
• congenital
• constitutional
• essential
• hereditary
• inbred
• indigenous
• natural
• normal
• regular
• standard
• typical
• connate
• connatural
• unacquired

[Blue Phoenix Ace]

Anyhow, just looking over those synonyms, the following words sound kinda nice (to me): inherent, intrinsic, ingrained and natural.

• no inherent desire for partnered sex
• no intrinsic desire for partnered sex
• no ingrained desire for partnered sex
• no natural desire for partnered sex

[Notte stellata]

I think replacing "innate" with "inherent" or "intrinsic" would work well too.

[Frigid Pink]

I like "no inherent desire for partnered sex."

"inherent" = "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute" (from a quick google search)

[Guest]

I like "no inherent desire for partnered sex."

"inherent" = "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute" (from a quick google search)

I could live with that. :) It does seem better than "innate", for the reasons you mentioned above.

[Star Bit]

There are sexual people who don't need their desires met or find it tolerable; which is why sexual people can be in a sexless relationship with an asexual, so we should avoid words that mean something's essential, but more along the lines of "natural."

@DJ Ace

Natural is too broad of a term.

[Blue Phoenix Ace]

An inherent desire could be ignored.

[Star Bit]

Underlying!!

[RK800]

As I stated way back when; I generally define it as 'a person who experiences little or no sexual attraction and/or little or no desire for partnered sex'.

Mainly because it's hard enough getting people to accept and understand asexuality and therefore borderline impossible getting them to accept gray-asexuality or (in my case) autochorissexuality as a thing. It's just easier this way and then I don't get called out on other sites for 'not using the google definition'.

Also, it's hard for me to tell what sexual attraction really is.

[That asexual guy]

I actually use the definition from the Oxford dictionary

noun

1.

a person who has no sexual feelings or desires.

It describes me and it's understandable and people put validity in something like the Oxford dictionary.

And I know it's not the correct thing to say but consider the "doesn't experience sexual attraction" a specific definition for this website.