Jump to content

Defining asexuality - a better definition?


thjb

  

779 members have voted

  1. 1. Please select your orientation;

    • asexual
      1422
    • grey-asexual
      207
    • demisexual
      82
    • heterosexual
      22
    • homosexual
      12
    • bisexual
      9
    • pansexual
      7
    • other
      28
    • rather not say
      19
  2. 2. Which of these would you prefer as a definition of asexuality/an asexual person?

    • a person who does not experience sexual attraction (current AVEN definition)
      889
    • a person who does not feel a desire for partnered sex (with emphasis on the "partnered")
      119
    • a person who does not feel a desire for partnered sex and/or little or no sexual attraction
      205
    • a person who experiences little or no sexual attraction and/or little or no desire for partnered sex (again an emphasis on the "partnered")
      427
    • another definition (please post below)
      29
    • a person who is not intrinsically attracted to any gender sexually
      139
  3. 3. do you think most non-asexuals understand you when you explain asexuality?

    • mostly
      185
    • to some extent
      651
    • not really
      533
    • not at all
      99
    • not sure
      340

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

An inherent desire could be ignored.

True, but if it's simply ignored, you're celibate. If there's no inherent desire, you're asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the people who vote for the sexual attraction definition don't realize the problems with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the people who vote for the sexual attraction definition don't realize the problems with it.

I'm willing to believe they honestly don't. The combination of (sub)cultural myopia (they feel that, for themselves, "s.a." is a subjectively clear concept, so they mistakenly think it were objectively clearly defined), plus simple inertia ("it's the definition used at my time of signing up, so let's stick with that") explains a lot of these votes, at least initially.

After reading this thread, I'm certain that this is a view any reasonable person should realize is untenable. The thread makes the problems of an attraction-based definition crystal clear. But let's face it - we're talking about a marathon of 45 pages by now. At this point, the number of people who will read through all of that before voting is likely to be in the single percent range.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Blue Phoenix Ace

An inherent desire could be ignored.

True, but if it's simply ignored, you're celibate. If there's no inherent desire, you're asexual.

Correct! I was responding to StarBit's post. Sexual people have an inherent desire. It can be ignored, but they are still sexual.

"An asexual person is a person with no inherent desire to have partnered sex". Maybe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most dictionaries define inherent with the word essential, which is defined as "absolutely necessary/extremely important." So no, an inherent desire can't be ignored (at least healthily). So saying "An asexual doesn't have the underlying desire for partnered sex" seems adequate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was started in June 2014, the OP has deleted their post. Might it be an idea to close this and (if necessary) create a new one?

Just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An inherent desire could be ignored.

True, but if it's simply ignored, you're celibate. If there's no inherent desire, you're asexual.

Correct! I was responding to StarBit's post. Sexual people have an inherent desire. It can be ignored, but they are still sexual.

"An asexual person is a person with no inherent desire to have partnered sex". Maybe?

Yes. That's pretty much the definition I have been using my sig line

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.

I like this definition. It accurately describes asexuality and doesn't leave out anyone just because they are interested in or have, sex. As far as I am concerned the only issue at this point is the wording. We need to come up with wording that is a clear and unambiguous as possible while still being relatively short.

I think part of the reason why this thread has gone on for so long is how we view things in the US. We use attraction based definitions and lump everything under the banner of "sexual orientation". Terms like gay and straight encompass sexual, sensual, romantic, and aesthetic orientations. That's why when someone brings up gay sex someone else will be quick to point out that being gay isn't just about sex. Being "gay" might not just be about sex. However being homosexual is entirely about sex. Given the puritanical underpinning of our society; people want to ignore sex and focus on the non sex parts of orientations. It's much more comfortable for people to say "I am attracted to X" rather than "I have a desire to have sex with X".

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was started in June 2014, the OP has deleted their post. Might it be an idea to close this and (if necessary) create a new one?

Just a thought.

Yes please because there is no freaking way I am going to be able to read thru all 45 pages.

I been trying off and on, but it just is not going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Blue Phoenix Ace

I think it might be best to just leave this all here. Why break up the topic into smaller pieces? It's obviously a heated issue, and has been for a while. A new thread might make it lose some of it's potency.

That being said, is anybody at AVEN actually considering changing the definition on the website? If they are, what process might they be using to choose a new one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was started in June 2014, the OP has deleted their post. Might it be an idea to close this and (if necessary) create a new one?

Just a thought.

Yes please because there is no freaking way I am going to be able to read thru all 45 pages.

I been trying off and on, but it just aint going to happen.

I pinned it so that the topic could continue to be discussed. I think it's an important pin (just like some of the several year old ones in other forums). This has always been an important discussion and I think a lot of the posts here are amazing.

@Lost...there are many pages in other pinned threads too, don't worry about reading through it all. I jumped in a pinned thread once that was around 350 pages long (in the Older Asexuals forum). I couldn't even begin to read it all, so I jumped in at the end!

@DJ Ace...I think there is a Front Page project right now, that might include alternate definitions because they are by no means new. Asexuals describe their experiences in different ways and always have, (I've read some early defenition discussions, and several referred to definitions that were not based on attraction alone).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was started in June 2014, the OP has deleted their post. Might it be an idea to close this and (if necessary) create a new one?

Just a thought.

Yes please because there is no freaking way I am going to be able to read thru all 45 pages.

I been trying off and on, but it just aint going to happen.

I pinned it so that the topic could continue to be discussed. I think it's an important pin (just like some of the several year old ones in other forums). This has always been an important discussion and I think a lot of the posts here are amazing.

@Lost...there are many pages in other pinned threads too, don't worry about reading through it all. I jumped in a pinned thread once that was around 350 pages long (in the Older Asexuals forum). I couldn't even begin to read it all, so I jumped in at the end!

@DJ Ace...I think there is a Front Page project right now, that might include alternate definitions because they are by no means new. Asexuals describe their experiences in different ways and always have, (I've read some early defenition discussions, and several referred to definitions that were not based on attraction alone).

And thank you for that, because I think it is a very interesting topic and been wanting to post for a while.

But, I am slightly neurotic. Correction, I am horribly neurotic.

I am scared that if I jump in I am just going to rehash old tired arguments that have already been expressed and waste everyone's time :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

That being said, is anybody at AVEN actually considering changing the definition on the website? If they are, what process might they be using to choose a new one?

I asked the same thing to the project team and they basically said they see no problem despite me explaining it.

Maybe if we get an accurate poll on informed people (who know about the problems before voting for sexual attraction) then perhaps we can persuade them.

I found the word Basal, but I've never heard anyone use it so i don't think it's a good choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this has been brought up before, please forgive me for bringing it up again.

Maybe, with regards to the definition of asexuality, we are failing to see the forest because of all the trees in the way? It seems to me that the definition of asexuality is not the problem. Asexuality is simply a lack of sexuality.

The problem is defining sexuality. So what is it that makes one sexual? The most trivial answer is the ability to have sex. We are obviously not referring to that, but to the mental programming required to operate that part of our anatomy and to get us to engage each other in sexual acts.

I would say this is where the desire vs attraction debate occurs. In truth, our programming is the result of multiple chemical processes interacting with each other. In particular It is the crossroads of numerous instincts, multiple biological and sociological drives, and attractions.

I would think it logical to say that if any one of these things breaks down that ruins the programming and results in asexuality. So I think based upon this there are in fact three distinct and different types of asexuals.

  • Instinctual/Drive based Asexuals-Those who lack the desires needed to be sexual with another person.
  • Attraction based Asexuals-Those who lack the attraction needed to be sexual with another person.
  • Hybrid Asexuals-Those who can be categorized under both of the above asexual types.

Thus, maybe we should just define asexuality as simply lacking sexuality and then explain the different types via a definition a.) through definition c.) Asexuals lacking desire would fall under sub-definition a) while asexuals lacking attraction would be sub definition b).

This would include both camps while also acknowledging the complexity of human sexuality at the same time, and would make the need for an "or" definition unnecessary. Further, it would allow for each definition to be broken down further into other taxonomic groups to make distinctions such as libidoist asexuality, sex-averse asexuality, and the like easier.

Of course, all of this is just a suggestion, if all of you hate that idea I am willing to abandon it. Though, in that case, I would have to throw my hat in with the "no innate desire for partnered sexual contact" group. Trying to figure out what was meant by sexual attraction and whether I experienced it or not confused me for months, but I hate risking excluding anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Blue Phoenix Ace

That being said, is anybody at AVEN actually considering changing the definition on the website? If they are, what process might they be using to choose a new one?

I asked the same thing to the project team and they basically said they see no problem despite me explaining it.

Maybe if we get an accurate poll on informed people (who know about the problems before voting for sexual attraction) then perhaps we can persuade them.

I found the word Basal, but I've never heard anyone use it so i don't think it's a good choice.

This sounds like a reasonable idea, but who exactly is "informed"? :)

Perhaps a simple measure is to allow only people with X number of posts to vote (where X is more than mine lol), or somehow contact all users who have been around more than X amount of time to come participate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant make a poll and put in the title or after the question that they need to read the info in the first comment before voting.

@Lost

Is your definition saying that Cupiosexuals are asexual? Kuz a tun of people disagree with that.

Also, i agree that it's the fact that people are having trouble defining sexuality. People say sexual attraction is undefinable but it factually is; its had a definition since the late 1800s until AVEN got a hold of it, what people are confusing it with is the definition of sexuality. They see the definition above and think defining sexuality is based on sexual attraction and start defining sexuality through the wrong word when the definition above is the one that's wrong in the first place.

And there's a valid reason why asexuality shouldn't be defined as a lack of sexuality. Basically it comes to "your lack of a sexuality is your sexuality" is an oxymoron.

In response to this people have said "This is the old 'is zero a number, and is the null set a set' question, over which philosophers have ranted for millennia." As well as "United States courts have deemed atheism (the lack of a religion) to have the same legal rights as any religion, and thus to be protected by the freedom of religion clause of the United States Constitution. Why should asexuality be considered any differently?" But even if that wasn't the problem, people would still then ask what's a sexuality. So its really just best to put things in the most basic of terms i.e. "no desire for partnered sex" because regardless of desire vs attraction, both are a desire for sex (the only difference is that one is directed and the other isn't).

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lost

Is your definition saying that Cupiosexuals are asexual? Kuz a tun of people disagree with that.

Also, i agree that it's the fact that people are having trouble defining sexuality. People say sexual attraction is undefinable but it factually is; its had a definition since the late 1800s until AVEN got a hold of it, what people are confusing it with is the definition of sexuality. They see the definition above and think defining sexuality is based on sexual attraction and start defining sexuality through the wrong word when the definition above is the one that's wrong in the first place.

I forget the reason, but I've seen a valid reason why asexuality shouldn't be defined as a lack of sexuality. I think it was basically "your lack of a sexuality is your sexuality" = an oxymoron.

In a way, I am.

What I am trying to do, probably failing at, is to try and look at it more scientifically and systematically. Specifically, I am trying to look at it like taxonomy and include a more nuanced understanding of sexuality. In particular, trying to propose that there is more than just one type of asexuality.

For instance, in biology, we break down biological organism into kingdoms, phylums, genus, families and species. Maybe we should do this with sexuality as well. We can break things down into tow basic kingdoms of asexuality and allosexuality. From here we could break allosexaulity into the phylums of graysexaulity, average sexuality, and hypersexuality. Then we could those into heterosexuality, homosexuality, and polysexuality.

We can do the same with asexuality. Breaking it down into the phylums of instinctual asexuality, drive based asexuality, and attraction based asexuality. This would recognize the diverse ways in which sexuality works and can fail. It would also pretty much say that these are all DIFFERENT types of asexuality they are can be very different from each other.

Cupiosexuality* for instance would fall under attraction based asexuality. They simply don't experience attraction. Their experiences are completely different from drive based asexauls like us who lack in instinct or desire. They don't have to deal with the relationship issues with sexual partners like we do. This isn't saying that one is more ace than the other, or anything like that, but that they are different. Thus, those who feel that the cupios shouldn't be classified with them would be right. They are shouldn't because they are categorically different.

But this still acknowledges that they still lack sexuality.

As a rough example:

example_zpsf2p4zjf5.png

And there's a valid reason why asexuality shouldn't be defined as a lack of sexuality. Basically it comes to "your lack of a sexuality is your sexuality" is an oxymoron.

In response to this people have said "This is the old 'is zero a number, and is the null set a set' question, over which philosophers have ranted for millennia." As well as "United States courts have deemed atheism (the lack of a religion) to have the same legal rights as any religion, and thus to be protected by the freedom of religion clause of the United States Constitution. Why should asexuality be considered any differently?" But even if that wasn't the problem, people would still then ask what's a sexuality. So its really just best to put things in the most basic of terms i.e. "no desire for partnered sex" because regardless of desire vs attraction, both are a desire for sex (the only difference is that one is directed and the other isn't).

Actually, that is part of what I was thinking about. In particular the reference to null-sets, as I see both asexuality and atheism as the null sets of their respective groups. But, if this suggestion is not acceptable for those reasons, I understand. It was just a suggestion. It just made sense to me, seemed to acknowledge the complexity of sexuality in and of itself, and seemed to address the main arguments I have seen while not excluding anyone.

Thanks for humoring me :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently came across this (scholarly) article about asexuality. It has a great section about the definition of asexuality and mentions "an enduring lack of sexual desire for others" as well as "an enduring lack of sexual inclinations/feelings towards others" as possible definitions.

I hope people interested in the asexuality definition will read the article, or at least that particular section, and comment on the content. I think it really adds to this discussion.

(see excerpts below)

"the definition of asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction (or lack of sexual desire for others) does not necessarily imply that asexual people lack physiological arousal experiences. The capacity for erection and vaginal lubrication in asexual people may be fully intact"

"there are a number of definitions of asexuality, although a lack of sexual attraction (or a lack of desire for others) is, arguably, the most common definition in both recent literature and among individuals who support the most popular chat/Web site (AVEN) devoted to asexuality issues. Also notable is that a lack of attraction is, at least to some degree, independent of other facets of pyschosexual functioning (e.g., sexual desire, sexual behavior, pysiological arousal, romantic inclinations)."

"More research needs to be conducted on the complex relationship between attraction and desire, but recent evidence and theory sugest the lack of desire in asexuals may be primarily a lack of desire for others - not a lack of desire per se; thus again, a lack of sexual attraction/desire for others may be a defining characteristic of asexuality. In short, when there is evidence of a form of desire in asexual people, it is often a "solitary" desire - a desire that is unconnected to others or a nonpartnered desire. For example, there is evidence that a significant number of asexual people masturbate, and thus asexual people may not lack all forms of sexual desire."

Link to post
Share on other sites

(But cupiosexuality is a sexuality by definition; they desire sex)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Plectrophenax

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").

I never quite understood the elitism-argument, and was quite surprised to see a few threads on it. It's hardly elitist to want to make a clean distinction between those interested or engaged in sexual activity [whether or not that includes masturbation is up for debate] and those who are not. The latter need not hog the term "asexual" for themselves, but if the term asexual were to be made more distinct and clear, then it's obvious which group would be, perhaps exclusively, referred to as such. This need have nothing to do with elitism at all.

Most dictionaries define inherent with the word essential, which is defined as "absolutely necessary/extremely important." So no, an inherent desire can't be ignored (at least healthily). So "An asexual does not have the underlying desire for partnered sex" seems adequate.

This is my gripe with the word "inherent", and all its synonyms, as well. I don't think "underlying" is much clearer, though.

I think the notion words like these are supposed to express is an anthropological core that really cannot be noted in common language outside of, perhaps, anatomy or phenomenology. It's meant to state that it is a basic urge of the body [like breathing] while at the same time wanting to leave open the possibility of it's omission [so not like breathing at all]. Desire and attraction, I feel, both leech off of this uncertainty and are both vague enough to be understood both ways at the same time, thus working so well. But I don't think it makes either of them clear - quite the contrary.

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.

I like this definition. It accurately describes asexuality and doesn't leave out anyone just because they are interested in or have, sex. As far as I am concerned the only issue at this point is the wording. We need to come up with wording that is a clear and unambiguous as possible while still being relatively short.

I feel like the word "innate" needs a seperate definition as much as "desire" does. How would you describe it? "Inborn" and "natural" are the synonyms my dictionary offers, and neither seem quite right to me.

But I really don't think that this "doesn't leave out anyone just because they are interested in, or have, sex". An asexual person in a relationship with a sexual person might feel a "strong feeling of wanting to have sex" [the stress is more on the wanting than on the sex, but even so it is on both]. The same could easily happen to asexuals who dislike being asexual. What difference would you highlight between these two desires? I assume it's hidden in the "innate" part, but how exactly would you phrase it? Direction? Motivation? Perhaps one is "unmotivated" or somesuch thing? Though I'm sure some sexuals would disagree strongly.

Yes please because there is no freaking way I am going to be able to read thru all 45 pages.

I been trying off and on, but it just is not going to happen.

It's actually really interesting, though remembering all the things you'd like to address [which will inevitably be a lot] is a nightmare ^_^

I asked the same thing to the project team and they basically said they see no problem despite me explaining it.

Maybe if we get an accurate poll on informed people (who know about the problems before voting for sexual attraction) then perhaps we can persuade them.

I found the word Basal, but I've never heard anyone use it so i don't think it's a good choice.

Basal is essentially "fundamental", isn't it?

And isn't it a little biased to ask only those that consider the attraction definition as problematic in order to have it changed? I fully agree that it is, mind you, but it's only really so because a concise understanding of the term isn't provided. Again, I don't find "desire" to be much clearer, so I probably wouldn't even count as 'informed'.

Additionally, there are people who have no problems with the attraction-based definition. They aren't inherently "missing the point", are they? Even if they should notice that the wording is ambiguous and clarification would be vitally necessary, that doesn't mean they will see the problems in the attraction-based approach in general and thus not vote for it.

The problem is defining sexuality. So what is it that makes one sexual? The most trivial answer is the ability to have sex. We are obviously not referring to that, but to the mental programming required to operate that part of our anatomy and to get us to engage each other in sexual acts.

Thus, maybe we should just define asexuality as simply lacking sexuality and then explain the different types via a definition a.) through definition c.) Asexuals lacking desire would fall under sub-definition a) while asexuals lacking attraction would be sub definition b).

I like this. Approaching the matter via sexuality seems a lot clearer to me, since that's also how I 'discovered' my asexuality [simply as "not-what-sexuals-say-they-feel-or-want-or-do"]. This is, of course, ironic since I also do not know at all what exactly it means to be sexual.

It seems pretty obvious at this point, though, that there are subte variations on asexuality. Those lacking [hormonial] drive, those lacking [gender] preference, those lacking want for [romantic] social bonds, those lacking aesthetic judgement or even just curiosity, etc. as well as those considering asexuality a burden, those considering it a blessing, those feeling dysphoria with their body as a sexual entity, etc. Finding an umbrella term for all of these that also conveys some sort of concrete meaning is likely impossible. I, for one, am not particularly optimistic. Currently, the word "asexual" alone functions in this way, but it isn't really satisfactory and I share the concerns of many in this thread that the validity of asexuality is not helped by the laxness of the term's usage. But likely anything more specific will exclude at least some people who rather wouldn't be excluded, as well as include some people who rather wouldn't be included. It's once again the difficulty of descriptive versus normative/identificatory terminology.

In that regard, I find the notion of dividing asexuality into sub-categories a much more useful approach than trying to reduce it to a clear-but-still-inclusive formula.

And there's a valid reason why asexuality shouldn't be defined as a lack of sexuality. Basically it comes to "your lack of a sexuality is your sexuality" is an oxymoron.

In response to this people have said "This is the old 'is zero a number, and is the null set a set' question, over which philosophers have ranted for millennia." As well as "United States courts have deemed atheism (the lack of a religion) to have the same legal rights as any religion, and thus to be protected by the freedom of religion clause of the United States Constitution. Why should asexuality be considered any differently?" But even if that wasn't the problem, people would still then ask what's a sexuality. So its really just best to put things in the most basic of terms i.e. "no desire for partnered sex" because regardless of desire vs attraction, both are a desire for sex (the only difference is that one is directed and the other isn't).

I don't quite understand this. What is the reason, exactly, why a lack of sexuality doesn't work as a [basis for a] definition of asexuality? Because it's status as "sexuality" would be under dispute? I fail to see the issue with that. If it's just a negative description of sexual behaviour then that's exactly what it is - non-sexual. How it works as an identity is a different question that need not matter at this point [in my opinion].

But you're right, it boils down to the definiton of sexuality. And perhaps sexuality can indeed be adequately defined as "desire for partnered sex" [i find this to be insufficient for sexuality, and thus it seems likewise for asexuality, but that may just be me] - in which case it's negation would be highly adequate for asexuality.

I recently came across this (scholarly) article about asexuality. It has a great section about the definition of asexuality and mentions "an enduring lack of sexual desire for others" as well as "an enduring lack of sexual inclinations/feelings towards others" as possible definitions.

I hope people interested in the asexuality definition will read the article, or at least that particular section, and comment on the content. I think it really adds to this discussion.

I could only glance over it, but I will gladly read it more carefully on the upcoming weekend. Thanks for sharing.

A few remarks I couldn't keep to myself;

"a lack of sexual attraction (or lack of sexual desire for others)" - they really do come hand-in-hand, don't they.

In that light, also find the phrasing interesting that "a lack of attraction" is "at least to some degree" independent of things like "sexual desire" - I can see where this notion comes from, but considering recent posts I have to assume most people here will strongly object?

I, myself, would somewhat object to masturbation being automatically classified as a "form of sexual desire" - but that's again me not quite understanding what is implied by "desire" in general.

But what I find most interesting so far is the usage of the word "enduring" - it makes abundantly clear that lack of sexual desire/attraction is not unique to asexuals, but rather that they are noticable by that lack being of prolonged nature. It may serve as a gateway to understanding between sexuals and asexuals, returning to some sort of common ground that can facilitate discussion and visibility. As such, I would strongly opt for something like this to find its way into a definition of asexuality, provided that others feel this is of similar importance as I do.

(But cupiosexuality is a sexuality by definition; they desire sex)

By what definition would that be? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit, I am sad, upon returning to AVEN, to see this thread not only still going, but to see the exact same things (ie semantics over wording) still being debated. I (as well as others here, sexual as well as asexual) spent many, many hours (days, weeks, months even) and hundreds of thousands of words, trying to define what Sexuality is (and therefore give a greater understanding of what asexuality is) but no, it made no dent in the debate. It seems that so many here are still at square one, debating semantics, despite all the evidence staring the blind in the face. Very sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some dictionaries give synonyms in the definition, and some do put fundamental with Basal, but when you look at the actual definition it doesn't support that; listed synonyms aren't always fully synonyms. Basal means "of, at, or forming the base; of or relating to the foundation, base, or essence." I suppose it's not the best word to use, but it's better than using the word basic because it's defined with the word essential (not as a synonym).

Most people understand what desire means; i don't see the difficulty in understanding "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen."

By Merriam Webster's definition of sexuality; "the sexual habits and desires of a person."

Also, if you look up definitions of sexuality, phrasing asexuality as "the lack of sexuality" also makes no sense because according to most of them, it would mean an asexual can't sexually compromise because they're taking part in sexual activity. It would also disqualify masturbating asexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought about "basal"... I actually think may capture the essence of it best of all the adjectives offered so far... but the trouble is that it's an exotic and somewhat clunky-sounding word, making it hard to understand for many. I don't recall ever hearing it used outside of medical technical lingo before... and that is a serious problem - a main goal of all this is that the replacement definition should be as clearly worded as possible, easy to grasp, with the misunderstanding potential minimized.

If we could find a better/less obscure synonym for "basal", that'd be awesome... sadly, I can't think of one off the top of my head. :unsure:

ETA:

Googled a bit for synonyms of "basal"... the only alternative I found any good is "primary".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Blue Phoenix Ace

I admit, I am sad, upon returning to AVEN, to see this thread not only still going, but to see the exact same things (ie semantics over wording) still being debated. I (as well as others here, sexual as well as asexual) spent many, many hours (days, weeks, months even) and hundreds of thousands of words, trying to define what Sexuality is (and therefore give a greater understanding of what asexuality is) but no, it made no dent in the debate. It seems that so many here are still at square one, debating semantics, despite all the evidence staring the blind in the face. Very sad.

Can't we just use PanFicto's awesome post (that I can't seem to find but I know I read and understood quite well?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike "basal" and "primary."

"a lack of sexual attraction/desire for others may be a defining characteristic of asexuality"

(excerpt above from this article I mentioned before)

I like "no sexual desire for others" and "no desire for partnered sex."

I actually don't see the necessity of a qualifier (like "inherent") at this point. If an "asexual" person chooses to have sex with another person, then, obviously, it's not because they have "sexual desire for others." It's not about actions (or behaviors or choices), it's about the feelings behind them, like sexual desire (and the lack of it), and while "asexual" people may be less likely to choose to have sex with others, it's the lack of sexual desire for others that makes them different from "sexual" people.

If we want to differentiate "asexuality" as a more enduring (vs. temporary) circumstance, then we can explain that later (outside the definition). Of course, I even think that may be unnecessary since it's pretty established that a sexual orientation is generally of a more enduring nature.

(excerpt below from this article I mentioned before)

"It should also be noted that other definitions of asexuality (e.g. no sexual desire, self identifications) have been forwarded. Moreover, given that research on asexuality is relatively recent and that phenomena of asexuality are likely diverse, it is best to construe a lack of sexual attraction as an open definition that may fluctuate over time. The degree to which the definition does change over time may have interesting implications for studying asexuality’s origins, for clinical issues, and for how we view asexuality as a unique category of sexual orientation."

"Bogaert concluded that 1% may be a reasonable ‘‘working figure’’ for the prevalence rate of asexuality, but at this point we cannot be sure of an exact figure for a number of reasons. The reasons for this ambiguity include the complication of different assessments of asexuality, reflecting the fact that there is not a consensus on a single, definitive conceptualization of the phenomenon." (emphasis in bold is mine)

I think the bolded text in that last excerpt is pretty obvious from this thread (and elsewhere on AVEN). I really think that's key to getting the medical community (and the community at large) to take asexuality more seriously. I think there needs to be a more definitive conceptualization of what "asexuality" actually is and means and more research to show it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

I personally think just "a lack of desire for partnered sex" is good. I don't see how that can be misunderstood. If someone has desires for other things then it's easy to understand.

I also do feel this debate has gone on a long time and I just want to see something else that is more clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that a "no desire for partnered sex" definition would suffice if people knew what the definition of desire was; which most do. (or should?)

I do think their points on why there is a need for an adjective are valid, but there's simply not one and desire's definition fully suffices.

I can also see a cupiosexual going "i don't desire sex, i desire the bond it produces, thus I'm asexual," but i suppose that problem would still be there even if we did find a suitable word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I urge everyone here to please read this, despite the length, I believe this knowledge is vital to our community.

I can also see a cupiosexual going "i don't desire sex, i desire the bond it produces, thus I'm asexual," but i suppose that problem would still be there even if we did find a suitable word.

Just to be clear, this isn't at you Star, I just saw your comment regarding what cupiosexuals might think in regards to the desire-based definition, and as it's something I see here so often from people legitimately meaning it, I wanted to use that quote as the basis for my comment.

I wish there was a way everyone who comes to this thread could read what I am about to say, because no matter how many times I repeat myself, as soon as a new page starts, that’s it, I either have to repeat myself, again, or just let it go. The letting go is so frustrating, as I believe this is so frikken important for the asexual community, like, the most important thing. This is our identity, it’s who we are, and it’s what defines us as a community. The way the current definition is widely (mis)understood takes all clarity and meaning away from our identity. As things currently stand, pretty much anyone who wants can be asexual depending on how they choose to define sexual attraction, but this not only takes away from the people in this community who are actually asexual (and have often suffered in some form or another for many years because of it) but also, gives credence to the latent antisexuality that is rife throughout our entire community, right to its core: That idea that a sexual person can only be sexual if they want sex with other people based on feelings about how attractive they are, and that’s IT, that is THE defining factor in sexuality: THAT, friends, is pure ignorance of the entire sexual population and what it is that makes sexual people sexual. Don’t let what you see in the media, or what you read on Tumblr, or even your own personal experience of sexual people, define what you understand of the entire sexual population. There is soooo much more to it than that.


So back to that little quote in your comment Star (just to reiterate, this is aimed at all the people in this community who actually say this and mean it, and to those who may not identify with it but believe it to be applicable to asexuality, not at you personally)

I detest this ''I don't desire sex, I desire the bond it produces, therefore I am on the asexual spectrum'' crap that you hear here (and in other asexual communities) all the time.

What do people think, that all sexual people literally just bang because the find each other attractive? Do people honestly think the entire sexual population is that shallow? Some (actually a lot of sexual people) literally only desire sex for the deep intimate bond it can create between them and a partner, and yes, that can also be regardless of what their partner physically looks like. Not all sexual people (I would say it's actually a minority) develop sexual feelings based on another's appearance and desire sex with that person as a result (which is how sexual attraction is most commonly defined here).. For many sexual people, they NEED to develop and emotional bond to a person before they can desire sex, and the desire for sex is often a desire to be emotionally close to that person through the sexual experience, not just a desire to orgasm in anthers presence (why can’t this truth be plastered all over AVEN?!)

The asexual community has such a limited understanding of sexuality (which is understandable in many cases) but what that limited understanding (and refusal to listen to people who try to correct that understanding) has led to is a huge misunderstanding of what asexuality is, leading in turn to a vast percentage of the asexual community not actually being on the asexual spectrum at all, yet bandying the label around all over Facebook and Tumblr and making YouTube videos about their ''asexuality'' (''I don't find people attractive so I am a special asexual yada yada) etc *sigh*

All this ''I love sex but I am asexual/on the asexual spectrum because I love/desire it for different reasons than sexual people do. Sexual people look at people and get sexual feelings about their appearance, and want to have sex with them because of that. I am not like that, therefore, I am a special snowflake.'' gah!

If an asexual can ‘’love and desire sex’’ (regardless of the reasons) then asexuality is experienced by AT LEAST 40% of the population, so what the hell is the point in even having a label like asexual? Pretty much all you’re saying is ‘’an asexual is a person who desires sex for reasons other than experiencing sexual feelings in relation to another’s appearance’’ so where the fuck does that leave the minority of people who have no desire for partnered sex in life or in their relationships? Originally, the entire POINT of having this label was that there are some people out there on this planet who literally never desire partnered sex (for their own sexual and emotional pleasure) regardless of how high their libido is or whether or not they can experience orgasm during partnered sex or any other factor, and the needed a way to come together and form a community and be understood as legitimate, functioning human beings, not freaks of nature. WHY should these people need to find a new label for themselves just so they are not a minority in what was originally their own fucking community??? (no pun intended)

And I reiterate again, it’s not just the effect this twisting of the asexual label has on the people in this community who have no innate desire to seek partnered sex for their own sexual/emotional gratification, it effects this community as a whole by PROVING to the world that we know fuck all about anything and often appear to be willingly ignorant of sexuality as a whole.

''Oh, I met an asexual who loves sex and can’t be happy without it, she just doesn’t find people attractive, haha’’

''That’s weird, my asexual partner says she doesn’t desire sex with me, but she does find me attractive… wtf? Do you think she’s lying to me or what?’’

’’I dunno man, I think they’re all shit to be honest’’

..and it goes on an on.

How many times do you meet a gay man who literally only desires and enjoys sex with women and has no interest in having sex with men, but because he finds men more aesthetically attractive than women, he says he’s homosexual?… Do you know why you don’t meet guys like that? Because that’s not homosexual! Sure, you can label it Homoaesthetic if you want to go that far, but not homoSEXUAL.. the ''homo'' part of that term defines the direction of someone’s desire, the ''sexual'' part defines the innate desire to seek partnered sex. Homosexual = A desire for partnered sex directed at people of the same gender. A-sexual = WITHOUT the desire for partnered sex.. Sexual orientations have clearly defining factors for a REASON! Why should asexuality be the label that can be warped and twisted to literally suit almost anyone who wants to call themselves ''special'' (funny how people who literally have no desire for partnered sex don't think asexuality is ''special'', most label it as a curse and a nuisance. It seems to be all the 'asexuals' who love sex who see it as a ''special'' identity. More pure than being sexual: yes I have heard ''sex-loving'' asexuals use the word pure many times in relation to their 'asexuality'.)

Back to the ''I love sex but I am asexual because I love sex for different reasons than sexual people do’’

Sexual people have sex and desire sex for a massive range of reasons.. Some even just love the way partnered sex feels and will have it with anyone who is willing, regardless of gender or appearance. NO this does not make them asexual (yes, there are people here like that who identify as asexual) The one thing ALL sexual people have in common is, at some points during their lives; daily, weekly, monthly, only when in love, etc etc, they desire partnered sex (it is a common misconception here that all sexual people CONSTANTLY desire sex, they do not.) and they desire that sex for VARIOUS reasons. The gender/s their desire for partnered sex is directed at defines their sexual orientation, though yes sometimes they choose to have sex with genders outside of their sexual orientation (ie when in prison) as their desire for partnered sex can override gender preference. They have a desire within them for partnered sexual activity for a MYRIAD of reasons, MANY of those reasons have nothing to do with ''sexual feelings based on appearance'' which is what the vast majority of the asexual community seems to think sexual attraction is. Sometimes, the desire for partnered sex is as basic as ‘'it just feels better with someone else’’ (again, something else you see self-identifying asexuals here often saying: it just feels better with someone else!) Yet asexuals do not experience that desire for partnered sex, regardless of the reasons, okay? That’s why asexuality is experienced by such a minutely small percentage of the population! Sex can be amazing, it can be fun and pleasurable yada yada, so of COURSE most people love it!! If you can say ''I love having sex and yes I do desire it'', then WHATEVER reason you give for loving/desiring it, you fall somewhere on the *sexual* spectrum, not the asexual spectrum. You also are quite probably someone who clearly has very little to no understanding of sexuality and has spent waaay to much time reading shit written by teenagers on Tumblr (and the shit perpetuated by many in the asexual community)

This, hopefully can help put it in perspective:

Sexuality = desiring partnered sex with others, for various reasons


Sexual orientation = the gender/s one desires partnered sex with ie Homo = same gender

Asexual (‘A’ meaning without) = without a desire to have partnered sex with others.


Regarding a previous comment in this thread about the definition; ''without sexuality’’ doesn’t sound quite right, as it makes us sound like we are all libidoless. Many of us do have active libidos, we just don't have any desire or need to relieve our libido with another person.

The asexual community desperately needs better education about SEXUALITY so we can more easily define exactly what (A) sexuality is.. AVEN, and the asexual community as a whole, NEEDS to stop perpetuating the idea that sexuality is merely ''experiencing sexual attraction'' with no actual EXPLANATION as to what we are trying to describe. I wish a post like this could be somewhere where everyone can see (shortened and with less ranting and swearing of course) purely so more people in this community can understand what sexuality actually *is* .. Sadly, as a post like this calls into question so many peoples ''asexual'' orientation, I don't think it's something AVEN would ever want to spread around. All those asexuals who love sex for whatever reason would no longer be asexual :c (you see this time and time again in opposition to the ''desire for partnered sex definition’’ – people saying ''that definition is bullshit because if it was true, I wouldn’t be asexual! And I am asexual because I don’t feel (the magical, impossible to agree on or accurately define) sexual attraction’’ D:) ..So you don't experience arousal based on another’s appearance.. but do desire and love partnered sex for other reasons? good for you, now go and find your own label somewhere on the sexual spectrum!! For example ''non-aesthetic heterosexual'' or ''emotional-based bisexual'' or something, but you are NOT, I repeat NOT on the asexual spectrum, unless we all disregard everything that is known about sexuality and adopt innately antisexual views such as: ‘’Pretty much anyone who loves sex for reasons other than be a lust-driven beast is asexual!’’ (which sadly is the idea already held in most/all of the asexual community, only worded differently).

And in closing, just to be clear, it’s not the lack of understanding that gets to me, it’s the lack of a willingness to learn and the willingness to accept: That’s what gets to me. This is a massive issue that is rampant throughout the entire asexual community, it’s not just an issue with a few individuals. Unless we can help EVERYONE understand what sexuality actually is, and so broaden our understanding of (A)sexuality, then we aren’t going to get ANYWHERE and will remain the laughing stock of much of the population. How can the rest of the world accept asexuality exists, if no one in the asexual community can even accurately define what the fuck asexuality is?! How can we be taken seriously, if at least half of all the ''asexuals’’ out there (probably more than half from what I’m seeing on the internet) are only ‘’asexual’’ because they love sex for different reasons than ''sexual’’ people do? which is an utter and deplorable misunderstanding of sexuality as a whole.

What sparked todays massive rant? An asexual man coming out on YouTube, saying he finds people (especially) men, very attractive, has a high libido and masturbates regularly, but doesn’t enjoy sex and just doesn’t want or need it in his life. The AMOUNT of people in the comments saying that he’s not asexual, because asexuals can love sex they just don’t find anyone attractive, was just.. depressing, to be honest.

AVEN needs to make a stand against this, start making a stand for people who are actually asexual, and stop this widespread perpetuation of antisexuality in our community.

One more time, just for the record: LACK OF ATTRACTION TO PEOPLE’S APPEARANCE IS NOT ASEXUALITY, IT IS A LACK OF AESTHETIC AND/OR PHYSICAL ATTRACTION. A LACK OF AN AROUSAL RESPONSE TO PEOPLES APPEARANCE IS NOT ASEXUALITY, IT IS MERELY A LACK OF AN AROUSAL RESPONSE TO APPEARANCE. Many sexual people do not experience arousal and a desire for sex based on the physical appearance of another person. On top of that, arousal response is a natural part of biological functioning which many people experience regardless of their sexuality. I know many heteroromantic asexual men who get an erection when they see naked breasts, purely because they have functioning human bodies. They aren’t thinking sexual thoughts about the breasts and don’t want to have sex with the person attached to the breasts, it’s merely the breasts themselves that cause the erection, because that is an inbuilt biological response that many human beings have. A lack of a desire to have sex with anyone for your own sexual and/or emotional pleasure, regardless of how attractive you find other people or how often you get aroused or how in love with them you are, now that is asexuality (I always add the /or emotional, because I know many sexual people love and desire sex because they get huge emotional pleasure out of giving another person sexual pleasure, they don’t care about their own sexual needs so much, they just love making someone else writhe in ecstasy – this is very common amongst sexual people. Again, this is NOT asexuality, it is a form of sexuality)

Thanks to everyone who took the time and energy to read this, I just wish there was a way to get this kind of info out there to a wider audience.

EDIT

I agree that a "no desire for partnered sex" definition would suffice if people knew what the definition of desire was; which most do. (or should?)

I do think their points on why there is a need for an adjective are valid, but there's simply not one and desire's definition fully suffices.

I can also see a cupiosexual going "i don't desire sex, i desire the bond it produces, thus I'm asexual," but i suppose that problem would still be there even if we did find a suitable word.

Oh, and to avoid people say ''I desire sex but I desire it because of the emotional bond it produces, therefore I am asexual'' maybe a better definition would be:

​''An asexual person does not desire partnered sex for sexual and/or emotional pleasure''

... that kind of wipes all reasons someone might desire sex for their own/shared pleasure and gratification (whether emotional or sexual) but leaves intact the asexuality of those who desire to please their partner, desire to have a baby, or desire to fit in, and have sex for these reasons.

Just an idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

because asexuals can love sex they just don’t find anyone attractive

Which begs the question: if they don't find anyone attractive, then do they find everyone repulsive? If so, why not just say "I have a thing for having sex with unattractive repulsive people" ?? Sounds like some sort of kink to me ... but what do I know. :huh: It seems to me that there must have been something about the person that made the speaker want to have sex with them, even if that appeal became more obvious afterwards.

Lucinda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

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