Defining asexuality - a better definition?

[Guest]

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. 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

I have seen others ask the same question, with variations on wording such as ''how do you choose who to have sex with if you don't find anyone attractive?'' and I myself have asked ''are you saying you would have sex with literally anyone (barring clearly diseased and/or dangerous people for the sake of fairness) no matter how physically repulsive they are to you?''

The general reply to all such questions is: ''No it's just that I don't find anyone physically attractive in a way that causes me to want sex with them; I don't look at people and get horny and think ''I want sex with him/her/them''. I can appreciate aesthetics the same way as anyone would a work of art or a beautiful landscape for example, and I desire and love partnered sex because I feel it can be a pleasurable bonding experience with my partner/sex is so much more pleasurable with another person than it is on my own/it's a fun activity to do with someone else/name your reason. But I choose sexual partners for reasons other than their physical appearance.. like their personality, or if we have a trusting friendship bond I'd have sex with them. I wouldn't actually have sex with anyone physically repulsive to me, they need to be some level of ''acceptable'' physically.. I'm just trying to say I don't find people physically attractive in a way that makes me want sex with them, which is why I am asexual''

As I already pointed out, this is just a MASSIVE misunderstanding of sexuality as a whole, as opposed to being a lack of the whatever the fundamental thing that makes sexual people sexual. I have even seen one regular poster on this site (who gets a lot of support) say ''I am a hypersexual asexual, and a perpetual virgin despite having multiple sexual partners, because I have sex for reasons other than lust.. It's lust that makes sexual people what they are, and I do not experience lust for others, I just really love having sex. Appearance, and lusting after others, are not a factor for me the way they are for sexual people'' ..

I won't name names, and this person may even see this and jump in to comment themselves, but that's the gist of their opinion of sexuality. What's more depressing is the way so many people jump in to agree with them, and the way moderators allow the blatant antisexuality. Can't they at least comment and say ''hang on, remember that's just your personal opinion of sexuality and AVEN does not condone that view'' but no, there are too many people here who feel the same way for different reasons: ''I love having sex but I love it for different reasons than sexuals, ie it's a wonderful bonding experience for me, therefore I am asexual'' ''Sex with someone else just feels so much better than masturbation for me, but I don't care who it's with, so I am asexual''.. yada yada yada.

That's where the sexual attraction definition, and AVENs refusal to take a stance on the matter, has gotten us. Yay.

[Frigid Pink]

I still think "no desire for partnered sex" (or "no sexual desire for others" or even "no desire for sex with others") is sufficient and further explanation of that (as to the various reasons) can be described outside the definition.

I really prefer a concise definition.

Anyone can choose to have sex with someone else, however, some do so for their own desire and others may do so for the desire of the other person. It's the feelings behind the actions and not the actions themselves that make the diference. If someone doesn't desire sex with me, then I wouldn't seek out or initiate sex with them (or anyone else), because I don't have a desire to do so. If someone desires sex with me, then I may or may not choose to have sex with them, even if I don't desire to do so.

I definitely think anti-sexuality may be part of why some people want to self identify as "asexual" so badly and find a way to make the definition work for them. I certainly encounter negative views about being a "sexual" person and language that suggests it's better to be an "asexual" person.

EDIT: Just saw PanFicto's post and, to that, I add that AVEN seems to be less about education and more about visibility. Of course, I'm not sure I agree with the "any press is good press" stereotype. I think some visibility is harmful, especially if it contains misinformation.

[Blue Phoenix Ace]

PanFicto, thanks again. I totally agree with your everything you said. As you described it, you could potentially still be asexual if you have sex but don't enjoy it. But it sounds like if you enjoy it, then you probably aren't asexual anymore since, as humans, we tend to desire things we find enjoyable. Did I get that right?

[Plectrophenax]

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?!)

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!

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)

[...]

​''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.

Many of the things you say I actually would agree with - at least when it comes to clearly defining labels - I just didn't really voice them as concretely because I have taken for granted that things like the grey area are considered integral parts of asexuality, and that the notion of an asexual spectrum [as opposed to a clear either-or, with a thriving sexual spectrum but hardly no such thing on the asexual side] is not just commonly accepted but taken to be a vital part of what it means to be asexual. The asexual flag and the AVEN triangle, which were the first things I saw in connection with the term 'asexuality', are also indicative of this general stance. I take it you find them to be misleading and, perhaps, requiring of change [or re-interpretation]?

I, too, would define the grey area in terms of sexuality, as opposed to asexuality [which is obvious in the grammar alone - demisexuality, for example, is a sexuality, not an asexuality], but have been cautious when stating such since, technically, both approaches are possible and one need not be indicative of anti-sexual feelings. But I suppose, if I understand you correctly, you would outright reject the grey-ace folk as being asexual or even as being meaningfully related to asexuality?

But there are some things I find to be hard to comprehend in your general sentiment. You seem to have a very clear understanding of "attraction" as it relates to the attraction-based definition [mainly physical attractiveness], and assume that most asexuals who take this definition to be helpful do, in fact, hold to this reductionistic stance. But I thought the entire problem of "attraction" was that it is clearly multi-faceted and hard to pin-point, while many still feel totally fine stating that they are devoid of it. Not just devoid of attraction in the sense of "that person appeals to me sensually, hence sex with them would be nice" but also devoid of attraction in the sense of "I am drawn to this person in the way I am not drawn to other people" and other such variants. People who have no 'direction' and thus cannot be said to have an orientation [unlike bi- or pansexuality, that has multiple directions], yet still engage in sexual activities for one reason or another - what happens to them? You seem to be comfortable in saying that any sexual activity serves as a disqualifier for asexuality [which is a stance I have heard being called "elitist" before], and that these people constitute a distinct and perhaps very minor subgroup of sexuals.

But here's the crux - this is only valid if you presuppose the desire-based definition over the attraction-based one. There are clearly reasons for doing so, but they are not binding by any means. It is perfectly possible to maintain attraction as a prime defining factor, and I don't think this equates to a referral to physical appearance [alone], nor to an anti-sexual attitude overall. I think your approach is wonderfully clear and would certainly help communication, but I don't think it is inherently more 'correct' than an attractive-based one. The latter would merely have to be defined better - which is one of the reasons behind this very thread.

A question, that I will pose similarly in response to your second post; Would you say that sexual people who "NEED to develop an emotional bond to a person before they can desire sex" do not, in fact desire sex at all outside of these emotional bonds? Essentially making them what we generally refer to as demisexuals [and consequently turning that subgroup into a rather major one]? Or would you say that there is a form of desire present in sexual people that may serve as a motivator in forming, say, emotional bonds in the first place? I feel like both approaches are possible, so I'd really appreciate brief elaboration. Would you simply distinguish between two types of sexuals? Like, for instance, those who "get sexual feelings based on appearance" and those who don't? I'm curious.

Further, if, as you say, "desire for partnered sex" can override gendered preference, then isn't that also a reduction of sexuality, only not to "attraction" but to "sexual gratification" or something? I.e. that every sexual is essentially pansexual if need be, but given the multitude of choice they can afford certain preferences and standards? That seems to go against what you otherwise say, so I'm pretty sure I'm missing the point. What exactly, then, is it that draws sexuals to partnered sex?

I do very much like your suggested definition, only I'd want to avoid word-repetition and would favour the phrasing; "An asexual person does not desire [partnered] sex for physical and/or emotional pleasure."

The 'partnered' is in brackets, by the way, because I feel as though the difference between masturbation and 'partnered sex' is fairly minimal, and nothing in the term 'asexual' - on its own - makes the inclusion of a partner in sexual activity necessary. Otherwise, someone can be masturbating and not gain physical/emotional pleasure from it [thus be asexual], while getting masturbated by someone else, still not gaining physical/emotional pleasure from it, and not count as asexual because they deem it to be a 'more convenient' form of release than doing it themselves [because, as you said, no given reason can deflect from the fact that, in a sense, the partnered sexual activity was 'desired']. Even more extreme the person who enjoys genital stimulus in general, but is only an asexual if they refrain from enjoying that stimulus through a partner.

Provided I'm not missing something, that seems rather peculiar to me. I think I get it, and I can still get behind it, but peculiar nonetheless.

[Also, what you describe at the end, namely the notion of engaging in sexual acts for the sake of others in spite of not personally gaining (much) from it, that is what I thought was the consensus on asexuality - not that "I'm not shallow when I want sex, thus I'm not sexual". But you have been around significantly longer, so my experience may be of but a small part of the asexual community, especially on AVEN.]

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.

'Relating to the esence' and 'essential' are pretty close, though. I fear the implication of something fundamentally within [human] nature needs to be acknowledged, even if the notion of asexuality then proceeds to demonstrate it isn't so fundamentally within [human] nature after all. It's hard to imagine how else to approach the issue.

And I don't follow your last paragraph. The point is that the nature of sexuality is hard to grasp [as is repeatedly demonstrated on AVEN and elsewhere]. It doesn't just mean 'sexual actions' - then the matter would be easy, and all people engaging in sexual activities would be sexual and those who do not would be asexual. I don't think that's what you meant to imply. But if "sexual" doesn't just mean "pertaining to sexual activities" [like arguably masturbation but definitely partnered sex], which seems to be something we'd like to be the case so as to be inclusive to people who engage in sexual activity while identifying as asexual, what does it mean?

I have seen others ask the same question, with variations on wording such as ''how do you choose who to have sex with if you don't find anyone attractive?'' and I myself have asked ''are you saying you would have sex with literally anyone (barring clearly diseased and/or dangerous people for the sake of fairness) no matter how physically repulsive they are to you?''

The general reply to all such questions is: ''No it's just that I don't find anyone physically attractive in a way that causes me to want sex with them; I don't look at people and get horny and think ''I want sex with him/her/them''. I can appreciate aesthetics the same way as anyone would a work of art or a beautiful landscape for example, and I desire and love partnered sex because I feel it can be a pleasurable bonding experience with my partner/sex is so much more pleasurable with another person than it is on my own/it's a fun activity to do with someone else/name your reason. But I choose sexual partners for reasons other than their physical appearance.. like their personality, or if we have a trusting friendship bond I'd have sex with them. I wouldn't actually have sex with anyone physically repulsive to me, they need to be some level of ''acceptable'' physically.. I'm just trying to say I don't find people physically attractive in a way that makes me want sex with them, which is why I am asexual''

I won't name names, and this person may even see this and jump in to comment themselves, but that's the gist of their opinion of sexuality. What's more depressing is the way so many people jump in to agree with them, and the way moderators allow the blatant antisexuality. Can't they at least comment and say ''hang on, remember that's just your personal opinion of sexuality and AVEN does not condone that view'' but no, there are too many people here who feel the same way for different reasons: ''I love having sex but I love it for different reasons than sexuals, ie it's a wonderful bonding experience for me, therefore I am asexual'' ''Sex with someone else just feels so much better than masturbation for me, but I don't care who it's with, so I am asexual''.. yada yada yada.

I wonder about this. I have seen both sides argued for so far, and since it's pertaining to how and what sexuals feel I am unable to even have an inclination as to which side might have the stronger point.

You make a clear connection between attractiveness and the desire for sex in your example [as in, physical attractiveness, which is as much dependent on the person doing the looking as it is on the person looked upon, is the 'trigger' or the 'instigator' of a desire for sex within the looking person regarding the looked upon person]. But I wonder if this is actually what sexual people would consider an adequate description of sexual desire. I am, on the basis of experience, inclined to think that it is a major factor, but I have heard many people say that sexual desire is much more - for lack of a better word - basal than that, to the point that the desire for which can be of such intensity that release is craved for with hard-to-suppress force. Such people don't necessarily devolve into hungry beasts leaping at anything potent to satiate their sexual urge, but they would, I assume, be a little less "picky" about the "attractivity" of the person they want to mate with. Because it's the desire that drives them, not a degree of familiarity or attractivity or intimacy, and it's a desire that is directed at the sexual act itself. If - and I cannot vouch either way - what I just said is a feasable way of understanding sexuality, it seems clear to me that the difference between sexuals and asexuals must lie somewhere here. It's, I reckon, what we try to express when using terms like "innate" or "inherent". In other words, even if a sexual person finds nobody in the word to be "attactive" in the sense of causing desire for sexual interaction, they would still realise that they are sexual as soon as the desire for those very sexual interactions surface, independent of attraction or indeed any other factor. Does that make sense?

[[I just realised you used that as a counter-example, in which case I have a different question; on what basis do sexual people 'choose' who to have sex with, and how do their reasons differ from asexuals who engage in sexual intercourse and, to a certain extent, 'choose' someone to thusly engage with? Do they differ at all?]]

[[Also, I feel like the last sentence of my first response may not align with what you take to be the nature of sexuality. The rest is striked through because I believe that I just reiterate what you said in your longer post, but I didn't completely delete it in case it may serve as contextualisation for the last sentence, which I think would be interesting to hear your thoughts on.]]

As for the notion of being hypersexually asexual [i'll ignore the "perpetual virgin" part], that hinges quite strongly on how exactly the factor that differs between sexuals and asexuals regarding sexual activity is understood. And as far as I can see, there doesn't really seem to be a consensus on this. [You rightly point out that it is a mere opinion that AVEN, as a whole, does not necessarily endorse - but that is the same with every opinion that is expressed, save for the ones that are, by merit of their placement on the site, indeed endorsed. Like the attraction-based definition.]

Whatever the person you allude to meant with "lust" would be the key. I doubt it would be a criterion that could clearly distinguish between self-identified sexuals and asexuals, unless, once more, "lust" is taken to mean the very innate thing that sexuals have and asexuals do not. Making it a rather unhelpful attempt in my mind.

I still think "no desire for partnered sex" (or "no sexual desire for others" or even "no desire for sex with others") is sufficient and further explanation of that (as to the various reasons) can be described outside the definition.

I really prefer a concise definition.

Anyone can choose to have sex with someone else, however, some do so for their own desire and others may do so for the desire of the other person. It's the feelings behind the actions and not the actions themselves that make the diference. If someone doesn't desire sex with me, then I wouldn't seek out or initiate sex with them (or anyone else), because I don't have a desire to do so. If someone desires sex with me, then I may or may not choose to have sex with them, even if I don't desire to do so.

I definitely think anti-sexuality may be part of why some people want to self identify as "asexual" so badly and find a way to make the definition work for them. I certainly encounter negative views about being a "sexual" person and language that suggests it's better to be an "asexual" person.

The thing I trip over when looking at the desire-based definition - even if I find it to be more clear that the attractive-based one - is that a mere "desire for sex" can be caused by many different things, especially if desire, as Star Bit suggested, is more or less universally understood as "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen". You attempt to dissuade this concern by saying that people can indulge in sexual activity "for the desire of the other person", but what would you say to a person who, within this context, actually desires sex - not for reasons like libido, but for reasons like bonding or intimacy?

Imagine, if you will, a relationship between an asexual and a sexual, where the sexual is willing and capable of resisting sexual interaction for the sake of the asexual. Couldn't the asexual person here be capable of desiring sex? It seems to me difficult to say that this desire would be inherently different to a sexual's desire for sex, except if one makes the assumption that sexuals desire sex only or primarily for its own sake. I'm pretty sure this would be where the anti-sexual notion comes in, because surely it is possible for a sexual person to desire sex for the sake of, say, bonding or intimacy? So what is the difference? That this desire is always at least partly for it's own sake as well? That would contradict the views of those people who are sexual, yet dislike sexual activity under certain conditions [like when they aren't feeling (sexually) desired in return]. But if there's no difference, then those people who desire sex for any reason would all fall into the spectrum of sexuals, leaving only the sex-apathetic or sex-aversive behind. Is that the aim?

I hope I'm being somewhat clear with what I'm trying to say. I think a possible way to address this would be by distinguishing primary and secondary goals or desires. In that sense, an asexual is someone who's primary desire is never sexual interaction, but for whom sexual interaction can be the secondary one. Maybe that would help? Unless, of couse, I'm the only person who is a bit antsy with the desire-definition as it's prominently put forward.

---

EDIT @DJ Ace:

In my first post [only a few pages back] I tried to use the degree of importance given to and/or the amount of enjoyment gained from [partnered] genital stimulation [which I take to be more easily understandable than 'sex'] as a measure for asexuality. I feel like PanFicto's approach differs slightly from that, in that it allows for desire as long as it doesn't include physical or emotional pleasure [so someone could deem sexual interaction supremely important while still being asexual]. At least that's how I understood it.

[Star Bit]

(Asexuality isn't a spectrum; white isn't a spectrum. There is a spectrum of off-white, but that's why Gray/Gray-A is a spectrum; and Gray-sexuality when it falls closer to sexual.)

[Guest]

Many of the things you say I actually would agree with - at least when it comes to clearly defining labels - I just didn't really voice them as concretely because I have taken for granted that things like the grey area are considered integral parts of asexuality, and that the notion of an asexual spectrum [as opposed to a clear either-or, with a thriving sexual spectrum but hardly no such thing on the asexual side] is not just commonly accepted but taken to be a vital part of what it means to be asexual. The asexual flag and the AVEN triangle, which were the first things I saw in connection with the term 'asexuality', are also indicative of this general stance. I take it you find them to be misleading and, perhaps, requiring of change [or re-interpretation]?

I, too, would define the grey area in terms of sexuality, as opposed to asexuality [which is obvious in the grammar alone - demisexuality, for example, is a sexuality, not an asexuality], but have been cautious when stating such since, technically, both approaches are possible and one need not be indicative of anti-sexual feelings. But I suppose, if I understand you correctly, you would outright reject the grey-ace folk as being asexual or even as being meaningfully related to asexuality?

No, grey-a falls in the grey area between asexuality and sexuality. If a person is closer to the asexual side of the spectrum, they are grey asexual. If they are closer to the sexual side, they are grey sexual. That is the whole point of the grey area, it's not clearly definable either way. I wouldn't take issue with someone saying ''well, I do desire partnered sex, just never enough to act on it, I am grey asexual'' or ''I have desired partnered sex a couple of times in my life and acted on it, I am grey asexual'' or whatever .. what I take issue is people who desire sex the way any sexual person does (ie they love it and desire it enough to seek it, and prefer it to masturbation) saying they are (a)sexual. I fall in the grey-A area myself. I have felt sexual attraction (the desire for partnered sex with two different people) and it was a very overpowering feeling. However, I never actually had sex with these two people I felt it for. But I do definitely understand what it feels like to be one of the many types of sexual based on those two experiences.

But there are some things I find to be hard to comprehend in your general sentiment. You seem to have a very clear understanding of "attraction" as it relates to the attraction-based definition [mainly physical attractiveness], and assume that most asexuals who take this definition to be helpful do, in fact, hold to this reductionistic stance. But I thought the entire problem of "attraction" was that it is clearly multi-faceted and hard to pin-point, while many still feel totally fine stating that they are devoid of it. Not just devoid of attraction in the sense of "that person appeals to me sensually, hence sex with them would be nice" but also devoid of attraction in the sense of "I am drawn to this person in the way I am not drawn to other people" and other such variants. People who have no 'direction' and thus cannot be said to have an orientation [unlike bi- or pansexuality, that has multiple directions], yet still engage in sexual activities for one reason or another - what happens to them? You seem to be comfortable in saying that any sexual activity serves as a disqualifier for asexuality [which is a stance I have heard being called "elitist" before], and that these people constitute a distinct and perhaps very minor subgroup of sexuals.

I am not sure how much of my post you misread? What I say is that a desire based definition is far more adequate as it pinpoints exactly what it is that makes a sexual person sexual, a desire for partnered sex (for various reasons) therefore also pinpointing what makes an asexual person asexual, a lack of said desire. I never said asexuals cannot have sex (I reiterated repeatedly that asexuals have sex for many reasons, they may even enjoy the sensations of the sex - ie they may orgasm etc, they just don't have any innate desire within them to seek sex for sexual or emotional pleasure. It's something they do for other reasons: ie to try to fit in, to please a partner, to have a baby.. But that is not a desire for sex, it is a desire for an unrelated outcome of sex. An asexual may enjoy the sensations of sex when having it, due to having functioning genitalia, but if their partner was all of a sudden like ''I never want sex again, I'm just not into it'' they wouldn't feel any emotional distress because of this, and they wouldn't miss the sex. They would be perfectly happy without it. (I am not sure how many times I have reiterated these points in this thread to people who seem to intentionally misread me then say that I am saying asexuals cannot have sex -sigh-)

But here's the crux - this is only valid if you presuppose the desire-based definition over the attraction-based one. There are clearly reasons for doing so, but they are not binding by any means. It is perfectly possible to maintain attraction as a prime defining factor, and I don't think this equates to a referral to physical appearance [alone], nor to an anti-sexual attitude overall. I think your approach is wonderfully clear and would certainly help communication, but I don't think it is inherently more 'correct' than an attractive-based one. The latter would merely have to be defined better - which is one of the reasons behind this very thread.

The current attraction definition is actually a desire based definition, just to be clear. AVEN itself, in it's general FAQ, defines sexual attraction as: ''The desire for sexual contact with someone else, to share your sexuality with them''.And David Jay, the founder of AVEN, states repeatedly in the documentary (A)sexual ''I can find people attractive and I desire romance, I just don't want sex'' So I am not even suggesting changing the current definition, just clarifying it so it's easier to understand. ''An asexual does not desire partnered sexual contact'' as opposed to getting wiffy waffly with terms no one can understand, like ''sexual attraction'' which people interpret however they want to so they can twist the label enough to include themselves on the asexual spectrum.

A question, that I will pose similarly in response to your second post; Would you say that sexual people who "NEED to develop an emotional bond to a person before they can desire sex" do not, in fact desire sex at all outside of these emotional bonds? Essentially making them what we generally refer to as demisexuals [and consequently turning that subgroup into a rather major one]? Or would you say that there is a form of desire present in sexual people that may serve as a motivator in forming, say, emotional bonds in the first place? I feel like both approaches are possible, so I'd really appreciate brief elaboration. Would you simply distinguish between two types of sexuals? Like, for instance, those who "get sexual feelings based on appearance" and those who don't? I'm curious.

There are multiple types of sexuals (people who have sex for multiple different reasons, and I outlined many of the reasons in my previous comments) .. No, someone who needs an emotional bond to desire sex with someone is not necessarily demisexual at all. A demisexual person is predominantly asexual until a deep bond has developed with another person (which can take years) and it's not until then that they desire partnered sex with said person. For your average sexual person, they just need to have some form of bond with a person, either be close friends or develop a romantic bond (which doesn't take very long for many people) and will start actively desiring sex with that person as soon as those emotions develop. This could be with multiple people during a year. They also often actively desire the feelings of romantic attraction specifically because of the sexual enjoyment that comes with those feelings (that's one of the reasons anyway) So they *do* desire partnered sex outside of a relationship, but not with just anyone, the need to meet the right person and develop the right emotional chemistry first, before they can act on that desire and enjoy themselves (for people like this, it's the joy of the bond, the emotional connection that heightens sexual pleasure, that they desire, as opposed to merely the physical sensations of sex itself) .

Further, if, as you say, "desire for partnered sex" can override gendered preference, then isn't that also a reduction of sexuality, only not to "attraction" but to "sexual gratification" or something? I.e. that every sexual is essentially pansexual if need be, but given the multitude of choice they can afford certain preferences and standards? That seems to go against what you otherwise say, so I'm pretty sure I'm missing the point. What exactly, then, is it that draws sexuals to partnered sex?

I seem to be having to reiterate points that I made crystal clear in my previous post, which is frustrating (but hey, I am used to it on AVEN) I said for SOME people. ie SOME heterosexual men in prison will start having sex with other men (this goes for women too of course) This is their desire for partnered sex (preference for having a partner present over masturbation) overriding their gender preference. However it is very rare. Of course not every sexual person is potentially a pansexual. They are drawn to partnered sex for very obvious reasons: it feels better than masturbation, it can be an enjoyable activity as well as being physically pleasurable, it can be a deeply bonding experience, they find a person aesthetically attractive and desire sex with them due to their appearance.. take your pick. There are a myriad of reasons and they vary from sexual person to sexual person. The one thing they all have in common, is that at some point or other, for many varying reasons, they all desire partnered sex.

I do very much like your suggested definition, only I'd want to avoid word-repetition and would favour the phrasing; "An asexual person does not desire [partnered] sex for physical and/or emotional pleasure."

The 'partnered' is in brackets, by the way, because I feel as though the difference between masturbation and 'partnered sex' is fairly minimal, and nothing in the term 'asexual' - on its own - makes the inclusion of a partner in sexual activity necessary. Otherwise, someone can be masturbating and not gain physical/emotional pleasure from it [thus be asexual], while getting masturbated by someone else, still not gaining physical/emotional pleasure from it, and not count as asexual because they deem it to be a 'more convenient' form of release than doing it themselves [because, as you said, no given reason can deflect from the fact that, in a sense, the partnered sexual activity was 'desired']. Even more extreme the person who enjoys genital stimulus in general, but is only an asexual if they refrain from enjoying that stimulus through a partner.

I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say here (it's late and I am tired) .. you feel as though the difference between masturbation and partnered sex is fairly minimal? Did you read anything that I said or just skim it? Many asexuals have fully functioning libidos, we get aroused, and we get rid of that arousal through masturbation. Many of us see masturbation more as a bodily function than anything else, something that has to be done to get rid of pesky arousal. Someone who actively seeks or prefers partnered genital stimulation over masturbation is.. well.. sexual, because that's what sexual people do, lol. Partnered sex (for many people) feels better than masturbation, so many of them prefer it to masturbation. They are drawn to seek partnered sex with another, due to that preference to have another person present. If an asexual happens to get aroused and orgasm during sex with a partner however, but would not care if a partner was never present, that is different. It's honestly so simple, I just can't see how some people seem to have so much confusion over this.

Also, I like your inclusion of the word ''physical'' as opposed to ''sexual'' to avoid repetition.

Provided I'm not missing something, that seems rather peculiar to me. I think I get it, and I can still get behind it, but peculiar nonetheless.

[Also, what you describe at the end, namely the notion of engaging in sexual acts for the sake of others in spite of not personally gaining (much) from it, that is what I thought was the consensus on asexuality - not that "I'm not shallow when I want sex, thus I'm not sexual". But you have been around significantly longer, so my experience may be of but a small part of the asexual community, especially on AVEN.]

I have met many, many people here who have twisted the sexual attraction definition (while ignoring AVEN's definition of the definition) to such an extent that no, they don't just have sex to please a partner while not gaining a whole lot from it (yes, such a person could well be asexual), they actively seek sex out because they enjoy it, desire it, and love the way it feels. They say that because they do not desire sex for lust or in relation to a persons physical appearance (or, they do not desire the person) they are still asexual. I made all this very, very clear in my comment on the previous page, and my comment on this page. I am not sure I could have reiterated it more often than I did.

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.

'Relating to the esence' and 'essential' are pretty close, though. I fear the implication of something fundamentally within [human] nature needs to be acknowledged, even if the notion of asexuality then proceeds to demonstrate it isn't so fundamentally within [human] nature after all. It's hard to imagine how else to approach the issue.

The desire for partnered sex/preference for partnered sex over masturbation, is something fundamentally ingrained within the nature of most humans, yes. Just because asexuality (a lack of a fundamental desire for partnered sex) exists, doesn't mean a drive to seek partnered sex is not fundamental in most humans. Did you know asexuality has been proven to exist in some species of non-human animals through scientific study? Just because some species of animals have been proven to have a certain percentage that are asexual, does not mean a drive to seek sex is not a fundamental aspect of the nature of most animals.

And I don't follow your last paragraph. The point is that the nature of sexuality is hard to grasp [as is repeatedly demonstrated on AVEN and elsewhere]. It doesn't just mean 'sexual actions' - then the matter would be easy, and all people engaging in sexual activities would be sexual and those who do not would be asexual. I don't think that's what you meant to imply. But if "sexual" doesn't just mean "pertaining to sexual activities" [like arguably masturbation but definitely partnered sex], which seems to be something we'd like to be the case so as to be inclusive to people who engage in sexual activity while identifying as asexual, what does it mean?

I felt I was extremely clear, and honestly, I don't think it's that hard to grasp. I think people intentionally make it hard to grasp because they want things to be as foggy as possible, so as many people as possible can be included in the asexual spectrum. That's how it seems to me.

To be sexual means: ''To have a fundamental (an innate) desire to have partnered sex, that may not always be present, for sexual (or physical as you put it) and/or emotional pleasure/satisfaction'' To be asexual is to not have that fundamental desire to have partnered sex. Asexuals can and do still HAVE sex, yes, but not to fulfill their own sexual or emotional needs (I explained this thoroughly above) They could happily never have sex again, even in a loving, otherwise intimate relationship, and not miss sex or ever wish it was present. These asexuals are not excluded from a desire-based definition (especially not when you include ''for sexual (or physical) and or emotional satisfaction'' .. It's not the actions themselves that define ones sexual orientation, it is the reasons behind those actions ie a drive to have partnered sexual pleasure for physical and/or emotional satisfaction = sexual. A desire to please ones partner by giving them sex even though you'd happily never have sex again in your life = asexual.

I have seen others ask the same question, with variations on wording such as ''how do you choose who to have sex with if you don't find anyone attractive?'' and I myself have asked ''are you saying you would have sex with literally anyone (barring clearly diseased and/or dangerous people for the sake of fairness) no matter how physically repulsive they are to you?''

The general reply to all such questions is: ''No it's just that I don't find anyone physically attractive in a way that causes me to want sex with them; I don't look at people and get horny and think ''I want sex with him/her/them''. I can appreciate aesthetics the same way as anyone would a work of art or a beautiful landscape for example, and I desire and love partnered sex because I feel it can be a pleasurable bonding experience with my partner/sex is so much more pleasurable with another person than it is on my own/it's a fun activity to do with someone else/name your reason. But I choose sexual partners for reasons other than their physical appearance.. like their personality, or if we have a trusting friendship bond I'd have sex with them. I wouldn't actually have sex with anyone physically repulsive to me, they need to be some level of ''acceptable'' physically.. I'm just trying to say I don't find people physically attractive in a way that makes me want sex with them, which is why I am asexual''

I won't name names, and this person may even see this and jump in to comment themselves, but that's the gist of their opinion of sexuality. What's more depressing is the way so many people jump in to agree with them, and the way moderators allow the blatant antisexuality. Can't they at least comment and say ''hang on, remember that's just your personal opinion of sexuality and AVEN does not condone that view'' but no, there are too many people here who feel the same way for different reasons: ''I love having sex but I love it for different reasons than sexuals, ie it's a wonderful bonding experience for me, therefore I am asexual'' ''Sex with someone else just feels so much better than masturbation for me, but I don't care who it's with, so I am asexual''.. yada yada yada.

I wonder about this. I have seen both sides argued for so far, and since it's pertaining to how and what sexuals feel I am unable to even have an inclination as to which side might have the stronger point.

You make a clear connection between attractiveness and the desire for sex in your example [as in, physical attractiveness, which is as much dependent on the person doing the looking as it is on the person looked upon, is the 'trigger' or the 'instigator' of a desire for sex within the looking person regarding the looked upon person]. But I wonder if this is actually what sexual people would consider an adequate description of sexual desire. I am, on the basis of experience, inclined to think that it is a major factor, but I have heard many people say that sexual desire is much more - for lack of a better word - basal than that, to the point that the desire for which can be of such intensity that release is craved for with hard-to-suppress force. Such people don't necessarily devolve into hungry beasts leaping at anything potent to satiate their sexual urge, but they would, I assume, be a little less "picky" about the "attractivity" of the person they want to mate with. Because it's the desire that drives them, not a degree of familiarity or attractivity or intimacy, and it's a desire that is directed at the sexual act itself. If - and I cannot vouch either way - what I just said is a feasable way of understanding sexuality, it seems clear to me that the difference between sexuals and asexuals must lie somewhere here. It's, I reckon, what we try to express when using terms like "innate" or "inherent". In other words, even if a sexual person finds nobody in the word to be "attactive" in the sense of causing desire for sexual interaction, they would still realise that they are sexual as soon as the desire for those very sexual interactions surface, independent of attraction or indeed any other factor. Does that make sense?

Yes a sexual person can desire partnered sexual activity without experiencing desire in relation to the physical appearance of others.. It is the innate desire for partnered sex that makes a sexual person sexual, not who they choose to have sex with or why they choose to have sex with them (because those factors are all variable)

[[I just realised you used that as a counter-example, in which case I have a different question; on what basis do sexual people 'choose' who to have sex with, and how do their reasons differ from asexuals who engage in sexual intercourse and, to a certain extent, 'choose' someone to thusly engage with? Do they differ at all?]]

Is this really so hard to grasp? It seems so blatantly obvious to me (and I have explained it so clearly on the previous page, I just cannot understand exactly what the issue is here.) Sexual people ''choose'' who they have sex with based on a myriad of reasons, and those reasons do not matter when it comes to defining what makes them sexual. It's that they desire another person to have sex with that makes them sexual. They choose people through 1) physical appearance: some look at people, think they are smoking hot, and want to have sex with them based on that- this is a minority in my experience. 2) they have sex with people they have an already developed bond with, ie friends or in a romantic relationship: That connection makes sex more enjoyable and pleasurable. 3) they choose based on willingness: they want sex, someone else wants sex who the are acquainted with through work or whatever wants sex, sex feels better with another person than on their own. 4) Some will even do things like advertise online or on Craigslist for sex, meet the person who replies to their ad in a motel room never having met or seen them before, and engage in sex with them for the pleasure of the sex itself. I know of one sexual lady on AVEN who openly admits to having chosen people to have sex with in this way. Those are just SOME of the reasons, and some sexuals may only experience one of those factors in choosing a sexual partner, some experience multiple factors. Obviously the reasons differ from asexuals who engage in sexual intercourse, as asexuals are not driven by the same desire for sex, the same drive to seek partnered sex for sexual and/or emotional pleasure. Asexuals are driven by 'exterior' motives when they engage in sex: ie trying to fit in, trying to force themselves to desire sex, trying to have a baby, trying to please a partner. Asexuals choose partners however in much of the same ways sexual people do I guess. Might be a romantic bond with the person they engage in sex with, might be that the other is willing to have sex, might be that the other person is good looking and doesn't seem dangerous, whatever. But the REASONS an asexual chooses to engage in sex are different in that the asexual does not desire sexual or emotional pleasure from the sex: They seek an alternative outcome not directly related to the sex itself (ie having a baby, making a partner happy, looking ''normal'') They don't desire partnered sex for the pleasure of the sex itself or the emotional bond that sex brings.

[[Also, I feel like the last sentence of my first response may not align with what you take to be the nature of sexuality. The rest is striked through because I believe that I just reiterate what you said in your longer post, but I didn't completely delete it in case it may serve as contextualisation for the last sentence, which I think would be interesting to hear your thoughts on.]]

As for the notion of being hypersexually asexual [i'll ignore the "perpetual virgin" part], that hinges quite strongly on how exactly the factor that differs between sexuals and asexuals regarding sexual activity is understood. And as far as I can see, there doesn't really seem to be a consensus on this. [You rightly point out that it is a mere opinion that AVEN, as a whole, does not necessarily endorse - but that is the same with every opinion that is expressed, save for the ones that are, by merit of their placement on the site, indeed endorsed. Like the attraction-based definition.]

Remember again, AVENs definition of sexual attraction is: the desire for sexual contact with someone else (ie partnered sex). Which directly contradicts someone who says ''I am a hypersexual asexual, I love and desire partnered sex and cannot get enough of it, I just desire it for reasons other than being 'turned on' by the other person.. But someone else (another person) is required in the sex that I desire''.

When I said ''asexuals desire sex but not due to lust the way sexual people do: this is a mere opinion and not the view of AVEN'' (I was quoting a hypothetical mod at the time) I did so because that idea is an interpretation of ''sexual attraction'' that is extremely different from AVENs definition of sexual attraction, and is incorrect because, again, not all sexual people are horny beasts who seek sex only out of lust for each other. It is not however, a mere opinion that many sexual people do in fact desire sex for reasons other than physical appearance, it is a fact. (just in case that last sentence isn't clear, I am saying that it is a fact that not all sexual people desire partnered sex due to lust, however, they do all desire partnered sex to some extent or another, for varying reasons)

The reason there is no ''consensus'' is that so many people refuse to accept the fact that ''finding people attractive in a way that makes you desire sex with them'' is not what defines sexuality. It does not define sexuality, or that would be the experience of every single sexual person, which it most certainly is not. Maybe I just completely misread you though. There is no consensus because some people (ie myself and some others in this thread) know the facts, and others refuse to accept the facts so argue and deny the facts for 46 pages :P (I myself was in the arguing and denying category for a while there, when I was a newbie AVENite who had only recently learned about asexuality, just ask Mysticus lol)

Whatever the person you allude to meant with "lust" would be the key. I doubt it would be a criterion that could clearly distinguish between self-identified sexuals and asexuals, unless, once more, "lust" is taken to mean the very innate thing that sexuals have and asexuals do not. Making it a rather unhelpful attempt in my mind.

By 'lust' the person meant ''desiring a person, lusting after them, wanting sex with them based on factors in their appearance or personality or how much money they have/etc'' pretty much. This person blatantly said in chat one day ''I am asexual, but my vagina is just so hungry'' (direct quote) ..This, to him (not a typo) is not lust. Lust is desiring another person. ''Virginal sex'' (his terminology) is desiring sex for the sake of sexual pleasure itself, not out of a desire for the person you have sex with. Again, this is something that many people on AVEN agree with, believing this is the defining factor in asexuality (ie not desiring people, but desiring sex). This would make at least 20% of the population asexual, as there are many sexual people who desire sex as opposed to desiring people.

I still think "no desire for partnered sex" (or "no sexual desire for others" or even "no desire for sex with others") is sufficient and further explanation of that (as to the various reasons) can be described outside the definition.

I really prefer a concise definition.

Anyone can choose to have sex with someone else, however, some do so for their own desire and others may do so for the desire of the other person. It's the feelings behind the actions and not the actions themselves that make the diference. If someone doesn't desire sex with me, then I wouldn't seek out or initiate sex with them (or anyone else), because I don't have a desire to do so. If someone desires sex with me, then I may or may not choose to have sex with them, even if I don't desire to do so.

I definitely think anti-sexuality may be part of why some people want to self identify as "asexual" so badly and find a way to make the definition work for them. I certainly encounter negative views about being a "sexual" person and language that suggests it's better to be an "asexual" person.

The thing I trip over when looking at the desire-based definition - even if I find it to be more clear that the attractive-based one - is that a mere "desire for sex" can be caused by many different things, especially if desire, as Star Bit suggested, is more or less universally understood as "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen". You attempt to dissuade this concern by saying that people can indulge in sexual activity "for the desire of the other person", but what would you say to a person who, within this context, actually desires sex - not for reasons like libido, but for reasons like bonding or intimacy?

I would say the person who desires sex for reasons of bonding and intimacy is no different than any other sexual person who desires sex for bonding and intimacy, as opposed to desiring the physical pleasure sex brings (I understand that this is directed at Pink, but while I am here, I may as well give my two cents) hence why I quite like the idea of adding ''for sexual(physical) and/or emotional pleasure'' at the end of the desire definition. Desiring sex for the bond it creates is a very common experience among sexual people. As I also pointed out previously, some sexual people get a huge emotional kick out of pleasing another sexually, they desire the act of giving that pleasure for the emotional rewards they reap due to it, and become unhappy and dissatisfied if they are not able to please the other sexually (my hypersexual ex was like this). An asexual who gives their partner sex would be perfectly happy never to have the sex, and often see's it as a chore more than anything else, but does so (often happily) because they know their partner enjoys it and it makes their partner happy. Again it's the motivation behind the act that counts, not the act itself.

Imagine, if you will, a relationship between an asexual and a sexual, where the sexual is willing and capable of resisting sexual interaction for the sake of the asexual. There are plenty of sexual people here who choose celibacy for the sake of their asexual partner.. Couldn't the asexual person here be capable of desiring sex? It seems to me difficult to say that this desire would be inherently different to a sexual's desire for sex, except if one makes the assumption that sexuals desire sex only or primarily for its own sake. No, because if this was the case, the ''asexual'' would not be asexual. If they are desiring sex with their sexual partner, then they are grey, demi or sexual: The whole point of being asexual (well, one of the points anyway) is that many asexuals can happily give sex, but if their partner did not desire it, they wouldn't miss it and would be very happy not having it.. I'm pretty sure this would be where the anti-sexual notion comes in, because surely it is possible for a sexual person to desire sex for the sake of, say, bonding or intimacy? So what is the difference? That this desire is always at least partly for it's own sake as well? That would contradict the views of those people who are sexual, yet dislike sexual activity under certain conditions [like when they aren't feeling (sexually) desired in return]. But if there's no difference, then those people who desire sex for any reason would all fall into the spectrum of sexuals, leaving only the sex-apathetic or sex-aversive behind. Is that the aim? Of course many sexual people desire sex for bonding and intimacy, as opposed to desiring sex for sexual satisfaction in themselves, this is quite common. But as I explained above, even when they only desire sex for bonding and intimacy, or even when they only desire sex because they experience emotional pleasure from sexually pleasing the other person, the difference is that if denied these experiences for a long period of time, the sexual can become depressed, feel empty, and not feel entirely happy in the relationship. Wheras an asexual person experiences intimate pleasure in other ways (if they are someone who desire intimacy) through hugs, snuggling, open communication etc, and does not feel that partnered sexual activity is a fundamental part of bonding. They can happily go without sex for the entire course of a relationship/their loves and would be happiest this way if given the choice (ie if their partner/s was/were also perfectly happy to never have sex) An asexual person is not going to ''feel like something is missing'' if they never have sex with their partner, whereas a sexual person will feel like something rather important is missing, even if they are able to choose celibacy for long periods of time and live relatively comfortably with that.

I hope I'm being somewhat clear with what I'm trying to say. I think a possible way to address this would be by distinguishing primary and secondary goals or desires. In that sense, an asexual is someone who's primary desire is never sexual interaction, but for whom sexual interaction can be the secondary one. Maybe that would help? Unless, of couse, I'm the only person who is a bit antsy with the desire-definition as it's prominently put forward.'

I think many people here have already made multiple attempts to distinguish primary and secondary goals? An asexual may have sex to achieve a secondary goal (ie keeping a partner happy, making a baby, looking ''normal'' etc) but emotional or physical pleasure derived from the sex itself is not a goal for an asexual person (or they would be no different from a sexual person, rendering the label asexual useless)

---

EDIT @DJ Ace:

In my first post [only a few pages back] I tried to use the degree of importance given to and/or the amount of enjoyment gained from [partnered] genital stimulation [which I take to be more easily understandable than 'sex'] as a measure for asexuality. I feel like PanFicto's approach differs slightly from that, in that it allows for desire as long as it doesn't include physical or emotional pleasure [so someone could deem sexual interaction supremely important while still being asexual]. At least that's how I understood it.

It is impossible (as far as I can tell) to deem partnered sexual interaction ''extremely important'' without gaining some form of sexual or emotional pleasure from it: ''I find sex boring and mundane and it doesn't feel good but it is extremely important to me'' .. how can that be?

The degree of importance and enjoyment gained from partnered genital stimulation doesn't really amount to much, as all sexual people have varying degrees of importance and enjoyment attached to partnered sexual activity/partnered genital stimulation. The one thing all sexual people have in common is that to some extent or another, sometimes (it's not usually a constant, never-ending thing) they desire partnered sexual activity for physical and/or emotional pleasure.

And just to reiterate yet again, masturbation does not come into this equation as many asexuals have libidos, we do experience arousal, and need to get rid of it. But we have no desire to relieve that arousal with another person. I have seen asexuals say ''I am asexual because I do not desire people, but I prefer the feeling of being stimulated by someone else as opposed to stimulating myself, therefore I desire sex because of that'' .. but again, this would make at least 20% of the population asexual, as there are multitudes of people who prefer the feeling of being stimulated by another person as opposed to stimulating themselves, so seek partnered sex based on that factor. It's still a desire for partnered sex over solo masturbation. And solo masturbation for an asexual isn't a ''desire'' as such, it's just a necessary result of bodies being annoying and functioning properly, pretty much. Arousal can be annoying if it doesn't go away on it's own, and the hormones that 'build up' (for want of a better term) during arousal can cause a lot of stress and tension: Therefore it's easiest just to get arousal out of the way through masturbation (for many asexuals) Again, with no desire to have another person present during the release of arousal.

Sorry about the annoying formatting, I was just waaaay too tired to break it all up, so made each reply in purple so you can differentiate my replies from the original quotes I am replying to. I really hope it's not riddled with too many typos, I can barely keep my eyes open! I will spellcheck in the morning, so if you see anything glaringly obvious, please excuse it for now.

[Notte stellata]

Just want to say THANK YOU PanFicto, for taking so much time and effort to write super long and detailed explanations again and again. You've done so much for the asexual community by promoting an accurate and unambiguous definition.

[booksoversex]

Just a question, PanFicto: I still think the word "desire" is confusing here. What is desire? You keep talking of WANTING to have sex. Somewhat you also talk of enjoying sex, iow if a person has a physical enjoyment from sex, they are not asexual. Or, this is wrong: You say asexuals can get orgasms etc. for having sex, but that they will never have sex BECAUSE it feels good.

What about the "mehsexuals"? People who have absolutely no desire to have sex and never want to have sex with others, yet if they end up doing it somehow (for instance for the reasons you mentioned) they enjoy the physical sensations of it. Would they then not be asexual? What about if they agreed to have sex not just because they knew the other person wanted it, but because they knew that when they got into it they would probably enjoy it too?

In other words: They don't seek out sex or have any interest in having sex, but they know if they have sex they will enjoy it. That just doesn't mean they want to/have a drive to have sex. Would those people NOT be asexual in your book? To put it banally, one might know - from having eaten brownies before - that if you were ever to eat it, for one reason or another, you would like it while it lasted. But that does not mean one has any interest in eating brownies, or actually seek out brownies, or have a craving for them. If you were never to eat brownies (again) in your life, that would be fine by you.

It seems to me that you actually DO say that if you agree to sex partly because you know you'll gain physical pleasure from it, then you can NEVER be asexual, even if you have no interest in seeking it out and could happily go without. Or is this a complete misunderstanding?

[Star Bit]

When i mentioned to the revamp project team that there was a definition of sexual attraction, among other attractions, in the FAQ they were shocked and said they needed to be removed.

@booksoversex

How is there a problem on the meaning of desire, look up the definition, its meaning is clear as day.

[Guest]

@books:

Since I know Ficto and I are just about on the same page there...

Yep, it's a misunderstanding. It's purely the desire for partnered sex that decides whether someone is ace or not, not the enjoyment of it. Someone who doesn't enjoy sex, but does desires it, is not an asexual. Someone who enjoys sex, but doesn't desire it, is ace.

Think of a food item that tastes good to you, but for whatever reason, you simply never spontaneously get the idea of buying it for yourself, and would hardly notice if you never ate it again (because noone randomly ever ends up offering it to you, and as said, you simply don't get the idea of buying it). That's exactly how a sex-enjoying ace feels about partnered sex. If they actually actively do wish to eat that item, and go out to buy it - that's sexual, not ace.

Completely regardless of whether there is "sexual attraction" at play - that term has become so vague and subjective that "feeling sexual attraction" or not simply means absolutely nothing in terms of whether someone is asexual or not. It's time to discard it, and bring back a definition that actually means something (which incidentally, as Ficto correctly stated, is the definition that was the underlying meaning of the "sexual attraction" term all the time, including the way Mr AVEN, David Jay, himself uses it, before a blizzard of snowflakes buried it.)

When i mentioned to the revamp project team that there was a definition of sexual attraction, among other attractions, in the FAQ they were shocked and said they needed to be removed.

What...? Adding these definitions was a huge step forward for clarity, and they were decided upon by discussion in the community.

If what you say is true, the PT is either a) horrendously uninformed or b) ready to dictatorially overstep their bounds. Either way, that would be a very bad sign in terms of them actually being any good at doing the job they were elected for.

[Guest]

@books:

Since I know Ficto and I are just about on the same page there...

Yep, it's a misunderstanding. It's purely the desire for partnered sex that decides whether someone is ace or not, not the enjoyment of it. Someone who doesn't enjoy sex, but does desires it, is not an asexual. Someone who enjoys sex, but doesn't desire it, is ace.

Think of a food item that tastes good to you, but for whatever reason, you simply never spontaneously get the idea of buying it for yourself, and would hardly notice if you never ate it again (because noone randomly ever ends up offering it to you, and as said, you simply don't get the idea of buying it). That's exactly how a sex-enjoying ace feels about partnered sex. If they actually actively do wish to eat that item, and go out to buy it - that's sexual, not ace.

Completely regardless of whether there is "sexual attraction" at play - that term has become so vague and subjective that "feeling sexual attraction" or not simply means absolutely nothing in terms of whether someone is asexual or not. It's time to discard it, and bring back a definition that actually means something (which incidentally, as Ficto correctly stated, is the definition that was the underlying meaning of the "sexual attraction" term all the time, including the way Mr AVEN, David Jay, himself uses it, before a blizzard of snowflakes buried it.)

When i mentioned to the revamp project team that there was a definition of sexual attraction, among other attractions, in the FAQ they were shocked and said they needed to be removed.

What...? Adding these definitions was a huge step forward for clarity, and they were decided upon by discussion in the community.

If what you say is true, the PT is either a) horrendously uninformed or b) ready to dictatorially overstep their bounds. Either way, that would be a very bad sign in terms of them actually being any good at doing the job they were elected for.

Thanks heaps for that Mysticus! I am pretty sure I am all typed out for the next few days, so thanks for stepping in. You said what I would have said, and I always love how clearly you word things :)

And @ Star, whaaaat? That would need to be put to a community-wide vote, surely?

Lovely to know our Revamp Project Team is so keyed up on the AVEN website lol. Those definitions are on the front page, how didn't they know?!

[Star Bit]

<_< I know. That was literally the conversation btw; "But there is a definition for it, among other attractions; it's on the FAQ" "What?! None of those should exist; they all need to be removed." (I'm mobile so i don't have the actual skype conversation, but that's 99% accurate)

I had already had a brief rant on why the definition of asexuality needs to be changed, and hit a brick wall of ignorance with them, so by then i just gave up.

[Guest]

<_< I know. That was literally the conversation btw; "But there is a definition for it, among other attractions; it's on the FAQ" "What?! None of those should exist; they all need to be removed." (I'm mobile so i don't have the actual skype conversation, but that's 99% accurate)

I had already had a brief rant on why the definition of asexuality needs to be changed, and hit a brick wall of ignorance with them, so by then i just gave up.

I wonder if that was going to be happen, would it be possible to contact David Jay (as a team, present our concerns etc) and discuss his stance on the matter, as the founder of AVEN? I saw repeatedly throughout the documentary (A)sexual, he said ''I just don't want sex, I am asexual'', so I would be interested to know where he stands on the definition of ''sexual attraction'' and what he thinks about this whole matter.

[booksoversex]

I do think I misunderstood you, but it's this whole chore vs. sexual gratification-thing which seems plain wrong to me. Which is why I think it should be about PARTNERED sex. Based on what you write here, and in the Census thread - regardless of how much someone likes it, as you claim in this thread - asexuals cannot do sexual acts with a goal to achieve sexual gratification, iow an orgasm. Their goal is always something else, and the gratification is a side effect. In the census thread, you write that masturbation is just a chore while for sexual people it's something done deliberately to gain sexual gratification.

I believe an asexual can masturbate just because they like it and want an orgasm, and, yes, plan it/deliberately mean to stimulate themselves and get aroused so they can acheive orgasm, while still being asexual. Because that sexual drive is not directed at anyone else and they still do not want/have an urge to engage in partnered sex.

[Blue Phoenix Ace]

I've spent about an hour reading this discussion and it's been extremely helpful (I'm now also convinced I'm ace and not grey). What can be said to counter Anthony Bogaert's stance that asexuality is based strictly on lack of attraction? I suppose we can just chalk it up to being his opinion, albeit a well-informed one.

[Guest]

I do think I misunderstood you, but it's this whole chore vs. sexual gratification-thing which seems plain wrong to me. Which is why I think it should be about PARTNERED sex. Based on what you write here, and in the Census thread - regardless of how much someone likes it, as you claim in this thread - asexuals cannot do sexual acts with a goal to achieve sexual gratification, iow an orgasm. Their goal is always something else, and the gratification is a side effect. In the census thread, you write that masturbation is just a chore while for sexual people it's something done deliberately to gain sexual gratification.

I believe an asexual can masturbate just because they like it and want an orgasm, and, yes, plan it/deliberately mean to stimulate themselves and get aroused so they can acheive orgasm, while still being asexual. Because that sexual drive is not directed at anyone else and they still do not want/have an urge to engage in partnered sex.

The difference between partnered sex and masturbation is indeed huge, and the definition of asexuality should indeed solely be about lacking desire for partnered sex; masturbation has nothing to do with it. So, yeah, I 100% agree with that last paragraph there.

I'm not sure what makes you think Ficto doesn't draw that distinction clearly, though? I don't recall them ever disagreeing with what you say there.

What can be said to counter Anthony Bogaert's stance that asexuality is based strictly on lack of attraction? I suppose we can just chalk it up to being his opinion, albeit a well-informed one.

That's not as strict as you think. There have been enough quotes from Bogaert floating around that are actually clearly supporting the "desirist" definition. I'm sure Frigid Pink can provide some. :)

[Guest]

I do think I misunderstood you, but it's this whole chore vs. sexual gratification-thing which seems plain wrong to me. Which is why I think it should be about PARTNERED sex. Based on what you write here, and in the Census thread - regardless of how much someone likes it, as you claim in this thread - asexuals cannot do sexual acts with a goal to achieve sexual gratification, iow an orgasm. Their goal is always something else, and the gratification is a side effect. In the census thread, you write that masturbation is just a chore while for sexual people it's something done deliberately to gain sexual gratification.

I believe an asexual can masturbate just because they like it and want an orgasm, and, yes, plan it/deliberately mean to stimulate themselves and get aroused so they can acheive orgasm, while still being asexual. Because that sexual drive is not directed at anyone else and they still do not want/have an urge to engage in partnered sex.

You misread me, again. I have said it before and I shall say it again, I would really appreciate it if people would read what I say very thoroughly, and ensure they understand it, before replying to me. Otherwise I am having to reiterate the exact same things again, and again, and again, using slightly different wording each time. It's endlessly annoying.

In the discussion you are referring to*, I (repeatedly) said for SOME people, masturbation is more a bodily function (like urinating) than a pleasure-seeking activity. For said people, masturbation is not a means to seek sexual gratification, but a means to get rid of arousal when it won't go away on it's own.

I never once said that all asexuals experience this, or that someone can only be asexual if they experience it, but SOME people here do experience masturbation as an annoying, boring chore they'd rather not do, but don't really have a choice about due to having a healthy amount of 'sex hormones' (strong libido) which is why the question I was referring to needed to be broken into segments instead of lumping everything in together.

The original question (which you have to answer, there's no 'skip' option) automatically assumes that everyone with a high libido has a strong desire for sexual gratification through genital stimulation (whether through masturbation or partnered sex). But no, you can have a high libido and have no ''drive to seek sexual gratification through sexual stimulation'', or you can have a very low libido and still have a drive to seek gratification through stimulation, however you may not be able to experience adequate arousal to achieve orgasm due to hormonal issues etc, which can (and does) lead to depression etc in people experiencing this. The original question was flawed (for multiple reasons) yet if it had been broken into three segments: 1) How strong is your libido? 2) How often do you masturbate? 3) Do you desire partnered sex for sexual gratification? .. or something along those lines, the question would have been a lot easier to answer, and the end result would be much more accurate (ie there are plenty of asexuals who have a strong libido, masturbate, yet have no desire for partnered sex. There are plenty of sexuals who have a low libido, aren't that fussed about masturbating, yet do desire partnered sex. And all other manner of variations.

And again (just to reiterate) I repeatedly said (in this thread and others) that asexuals can enjoy the sensations of sex and even experience orgasm etc (I cannot personally, but I do know many asexuals who do) they just wouldn't care if their partner never wanted sex again. They wouldn't feel something integral to their pleasure in life and/or in their relationship was missing due to a lack of partnered sex, because partnered sex is just not important to them. And yes, if someone is literally going out and seeking partnered sex with other people for sexual pleasure/to being given an orgasm by another person etc, I do believe this disqualifies the person from being able to identify as asexual, because how are they any different than any other sexual person who has a drive to seek partnered sex for sexual pleasure/shared orgasm etc?

So, as I have always said, it's the desire for PARTNERED sexual gratification that defines one's sexuality. It has nothing to do with whether or not you masturbate, how often you masturbate, or why you masturbate. Masturbation was never a defining factor in any sexual orientation, as far as I can tell, and it will never be in asexuality either.

I do understand that you are actually agreeing with me, and did just (rather extensively) misread me, but that does not stop my frustration at having to reiterate all of this yet again (after having had to go to such extensive efforts last night to explain these exact same points)

*Here is the thread being discussed, if anyone here is interested:

http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/127432-the-2015-ace-community-census/?p=1061478850

What can be said to counter Anthony Bogaert's stance that asexuality is based strictly on lack of attraction? I suppose we can just chalk it up to being his opinion, albeit a well-informed one.

That's not as strict as you think. There have been enough quotes from Bogaert floating around that are actually clearly supporting the "desirist" definition. I'm sure Frigid Pink can provide some. :)

It also depends on exactly what Bogaert defines attraction as. I have noticed many ''experts'' use the terms attraction and desire interchangeably when discussing asexuality, not realizing the amount of discord there is in the asexual community due to these two terms. David Jay also often uses the terms ''sexual attraction'' and ''wanting to have sex'' interchangeably throughout the (A)sexual documentary, if I remember correctly.

[booksoversex]

I did understand you. I did read all your posts. It's just this "drive for/desire for"-thing where I think people interpret it to mean different things. Some, like you, interpret it as meaning "actively seeking" partnered sex. The difference in opinion here, I think, is whether it is the seeking out sex or the craving of sex, which is different, that matters. If an asexual person, have gone years without sex and not really minding it, one day decides to go seek out sex because it IS pretty good, after all - but it's something they have to decide to do, they don't have an ingrained drive for it - would they really not be asexual? They would be seeking out partnered sex for sexual gratification, after all. Would it mean they were just sexual with low libidos?

You don't need to reply to this, because I realize I am on the semantics wagon again, but the way I see it, whether or not someone craves/naturally desires sex (with a partner) is what matters. Most sexual people know they would actively want to have sex with others - their conditions for this and how often they would want to varies wildly - and they have a craving which seems almost a physical thing. The term "sexual frustration" comes to mind: It's like your body needs that sexual release with set intervals, and it prefers that release come through partnered sex. This is understandable, as a biological “need” for sex. Some sexuals have low libidos and they rarely feel this sexual frustration. Yet they still know they “need” sex on a basic level. Some asexuals feel this way about masturbation/have a need for sexual release, they just don't have a drive for getting this release through partnered sex.

Asexuals don’t need sex on a basic level, but could still seek it out and be sexually active purely because they enjoy having partnered sex. If they one day stopped having sex altogether, it wouldn’t bother them and they’d go on with their life.

I see what you say about ace people who “love” sex and who claim they want sex for “purer” reasons than sexuals, and I also agree that a lot of those people aren’t asexual. That being said, many asexuals go half their lives – having many sex partners – before they realize they’re asexual. They might not’ve had the interest in sex their peers have had, but they’ve still sought it out because it was expected and they’ve enjoyed it when they’ve had it. That they only did this because it was expected might not even be a conscious thought – a lot of aces, when they find out, say they believed EVERYONE thought like this, that they adhered to society’s standard or said people were hot/sexy etc. when they were good-looking, but that they didn’t actually mean anything sexual by it. Is this person asexual? Grey-sexual? Grey-asexual? It’s hard to tell. I am probably just contributing to the vagueness here now. But my point is that it’s difficult to have set rules: if you do this you’re ace, if you don’t you’re not – or the other way around. Which is why a definition is difficult either way, but something involving craving/desire and ingrained/similar words for partnered sex is the best definition, IMO, because it includes many people but it doesn’t open for as much vagueness as the current definition. Or, then people would probably start arguing about what desire/craving is, what ingrained is, etc.

Again: It doesn't mean that people don't understand you if they see other nuances/interpret things differently than you do. You don't need to repeat everything all over again and seem condescending when people comment what you write, claiming they haven't understood you.

[Guest]

For crying out loud. Somehow seeking out something is completely different from wanting/ craving/ desiring it? And why do you have to crave it to be sexual? So if two people both enjoy and voluntarily seek out partnered sex, but one says they don't "crave" it, then they're asexual? That's completely insane.

As for the argument that people may seek out sex before finding out about asexuality... so what? I don't see the relevance. I used to seek out sex with dudes until I figured out I was gay, but that doesn't confuse me... once I figured out i was gay, I stopped seeking out sex with men. If you figure out that you don't desire sex and identify with asexuality but still seek it out... well, sorry, but I call bullshit on that.

No one is saying that asexuals can't physically have sex, but I'm sorry, suggesting that the independent, active, seeking out of partnered sex is somehow vastly different - vastly different enough to switch someone from being sexual to asexual - from desiring sex... nah. That's not even a semantics argument, that's a "redefining desire to an absurd conclusion" argument.

EDIT: Incidentally, I'm very sexual and I've had sex with more people I wasn't attracted to than I was attracted to. I require an emotional connection for attraction, but i don't require an emotional attraction to want to have sex. Both tracks... desiring sex because of attraction and desiring sex despite attraction... those are both firmly within the normal range of sexual's sexuality.

[Perissodactyla]

I'm a vegan for many years. I realize now that I'm very fortunate that I don't need to sit through discussions of defining what is 'a-carnivore' or 'a-omnivore'.

I just find that, on physical, emotional and philosophical/moral levels, that exploiting animals bodies for food, and the desire/attraction that goes with that, is not for me.

I am not attracted to flesh, milk, eggs at all. And so I feel that this is somehow analogous to constructing definitions and discussion around '(a)sexuality'.

Although I have not analyzed it adequately, I feel there is some kind of common link for Some people in regards to 'the experience of flesh consumption' and 'flesh-exchanges-sexually'.

I just felt a little compelled to interject my somewhat alienated view regarding these endless discussions... from my perhaps non-ordinary perspective.

And now to my point. Ta-DUH!

Would it be eventually possible to find a NEW terminology that abandons the word 'sexuality' altogether as a primitive/starting point???

I know many people have already hinted at this or taken strong objection to the linguistic assumptions/acceptance of the importance of Starting with '(A)SEX' and then 'defining' concepts within that framework / set of assumptions, that is just ... seemingly... from the get-go....very Off Target.

I don't know. *shrug*

Perhaps my points seem bizarre.

LOL! :D

<3

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Wow this thread. Look, the way I determine asexuality is very simple, it's a question.

If there were no negative (external) consequences for remaining celibate for the rest of your life, would you still want to have sex with other people (whoever you would want/for whatever reason)?

a) Yes (sexual)

b) No (asexual)

c) I don't know/maybe/depends on the circumstances (demi/grey)

[Guest]

I like (a) and (b) but © muddies it up. Most sexuals still have circumstances under which they won't have sex, you know?

[Anthracite_Impreza]

I like (a) and (b) but © muddies it up. Most sexuals still have circumstances under which they won't have sex, you know?

I understand that, but in my question it states with whoever you want/for whatever reason, thereby hopefully including a situation every sexual would be interested in at some point :) Trust me, I know more now and I know you're not all slavering beasts :P

[Guest]

Ohhhh, yes I missed that part. Sorry! I that case I agree :)

[Guest]

I did understand you (I will reply to this at the end of this post) I did read all your posts. It's just this "drive for/desire for"-thing where I think people interpret it to mean different things. Some, like you, interpret it as meaning "actively seeking" partnered sex. The difference in opinion here, I think, is whether it is the seeking out sex or the craving of sex, which is different, that matters. If an asexual person, have gone years without sex and not really minding it, one day decides to go seek out sex because it IS pretty good, after all - but it's something they have to decide to do, they don't have an ingrained drive for it - would they really not be asexual? They would be seeking out partnered sex for sexual gratification, after all. Would it mean they were just sexual with low libidos?

Plenty of sexual people exist who don't actively crave sex, as you put it. However, they have it because it feels good (as well as multiple other reasons, all of which vary depending on the person). I know some sexual people don't seek sex at all, but once in a relationship they have it because it feels good and it can be an intimate, bonding experience with a lover. That doesn't make them any less sexual because they aren't out ''seeking sex'' or ''actively craving it'' ...they just prefer having partnered sex under some circumstances to not having partnered sex ever. So someone out actively seeking partnered sex because it feels good to them (regardless of whether or not they ''crave'' sex) is even more sexual, not less sexual in any way. I use the 'seeking out'' example when I am referring to people who say they are ''asexual'' yet have sex for pleasure, even when no sexual partner is present actively expecting sexual intimacy (which is why many asexuals end up having sex, as a compromise). These ''sex-seeking asexuals'' take the initiative to find partners (ie friends, acquaintances, a stranger at a bar, whatever) specifically for the purpose of ''having sex because it feels good'' ..Or they actively seek a sexual romantic partner because they ''enjoy sex for intimacy'' ...

Whether you have it because it feels good sexually or you have it because you enjoy it emotionally, that is certainly not asexual. An example of an asexual who has sex would be ''I have it because it's very important to him and I enjoy making him happy, if I get an orgasm out of it then that's a bonus for me'' not ''Partnered sex feels so good to me that I seek partners out to have it with'' The first is an example of asexuality, the second is an example of sexuality.

If an asexual person, have gone years without sex and not really minding it, one day decides to go seek out sex because it IS pretty good, after all - but it's something they have to decide to do, they don't have an ingrained drive for it - would they really not be asexual? They would be seeking out partnered sex for sexual gratification, after all. Would it mean they were just sexual with low libidos?

Just re-quoting to reiterate the next point I am about to make: I'd say they were just a sexual who had for whatever reason not felt like sex for the past few years (yes it happens) then maybe their libido peaks or something and they think ''hey, I'd really like to be sexually active again'' or in extreme cases, possibly fluid sexuality (which is very rare but does happen)

You don't need to reply to this, because I realize I am on the semantics wagon again, but the way I see it, whether or not someone craves/naturally desires sex (with a partner) is what matters. Most sexual people know they would actively want to have sex with others - their conditions for this and how often they would want to varies wildly - and they have a craving which seems almost a physical thing. The term "sexual frustration" comes to mind: It's like your body needs that sexual release with set intervals, and it prefers that release come through partnered sex. This is understandable, as a biological “need” for sex. Some sexuals have low libidos and they rarely feel this sexual frustration. Yet they still know they “need” sex on a basic level. Some asexuals feel this way about masturbation/have a need for sexual release, they just don't have a drive for getting this release through partnered sex.Asexuals don’t need sex on a basic level, but could still seek it out and be sexually active purely because they enjoy having partnered sex. If they one day stopped having sex altogether, it wouldn’t bother them and they’d go on with their life.

''Crave'' isn't an accurate term to define the entire sexual population, in my opinion. It sounds too much like how someone can feel about chocolate or alcohol. Sure SOME sexual people can crave sex, but I'd say in many cases, sexual people just prefer having partnered sex over not having it. There is definitely an innate, underlying desire there, obviously, and it is this desire that drives that preference for having sex over not having it. As in my first example, I explained that some sexual people don't ''crave'' sex at all, or actively seek it..But do have sex when in a relationship because not only is it very physically pleasurable, it is also (and more importantly) a deeply intimate experience, and yes in this situation they would rather have sex than go without it. Whereas an asexual would rather go without the sex than have it. That's WHY asexuality is so rare, it's not often someone would continuously prefer to not have sex, no matter what the circumstances. If someone would prefer not to have sex than to have it, they are not going to be seeking sex out for the sake of sex itself, are they? Sure an asexual might seek sex out in an effort to force themselves to be sexual, might be trying to look 'normal', might even be using sex as a form of self-punishment, but these are ulterior motives not directly related to the sex itself. Someone who seeks out partnered sex, for the sake of the pleasure sex gives them, is in my opinion not asexual, regardless of any other factors involved.

Asexuals don’t need sex on a basic level, but could still seek it out and be sexually active purely because they enjoy having partnered sex. If they one day stopped having sex altogether, it wouldn’t bother them and they’d go on with their life.

There are plenty of sexual people who enjoy sex and have it for the pleasure they receive from it (emotional and/or physical) but can give it up and cope without it. An admin on this site (she comments in this thread periodically) has been celibate for over two decades(? pretty sure that's how long) due to having an asexual husband. Sure I imagine if he started wanting sex all of a sudden, she would probably very happily have it, and I'm not saying that being celibate for her is ''easy'' .. I'm just saying, she clearly isn't going insane or running around screwing every Tom, Dick (no pun intended) and Harry behind her husband's back just because she craves sex so much and cannot go on without it. She has been able to go without it and still lives a relatively normal existence and (as far as I have read) is currently content in her relationship. Or there are religious people (monks, priests etc) who may previously have had sex and enjoyed it, and now live happily in celibacy. Sure they still experience their challenges, but that doesn't make them asexual just because they used to have sex and now they don't because of their religious beliefs, yet are perfectly okay.. Some sexual people can live without sex and not experience too much emotional discomfort, if the necessary situation arises. I am sure the admin I mentioned would prefer to have sex than not have it, if her partner all of a sudden became sexual, but her partner as an Asexual prefers to not have sex than to have it. Yes, most celibate sexual people (all that I have met here) have experienced some levels of emotional discomfort due to not being able to have sex (which is understandable, when you love someone its a very natural desire to want to connect sexually with them if you are a sexual person) and yes there are those who plunge into deep misery if not able to have sex, they exist too, but I'm just saying that there are sexual people who can live in celibacy without ''being driven insane with unrequited lust'' or anything like that.

To me, it’s preferring not to have sex than have sex, regardless of the situation, that is one of the big factors in defining asexuality. If someone enjoys partnered sex to such an extent that they seek out partners to have sex with, as opposed to sitting at home and reading a book, or masturbating to relieve arousal or whatever, then they are more sexual than some of the openly sexual-identifying people here.. Not (a)sexual at all. That’s what I think on that.

I see what you say about ace people who “love” sex and who claim they want sex for “purer” reasons than sexuals, and I also agree that a lot of those people aren’t asexual. That being said, many asexuals go half their lives – having many sex partners – before they realize they’re asexual. They might not’ve had the interest in sex their peers have had, but they’ve still sought it out because it was expected and they’ve enjoyed it when they’ve had it. That they only did this because it was expected might not even be a conscious thought – a lot of aces, when they find out, say they believed EVERYONE thought like this, that they adhered to society’s standard or said people were hot/sexy etc. when they were good-looking, but that they didn’t actually mean anything sexual by it. Is this person asexual? Grey-sexual? Grey-asexual? It’s hard to tell.

1) many homosexual people go half their lives having heterosexual sex, then eventually realize they are gay, this doesn't make them bisexual, just because it took them half their life to fully understand their sexual identity. I know some homosexual people (not all, but some) just automatically assume they are straight, have heterosexual relationships and heterosexual sex etc, and yes, even enjoy the sensations of the sex and orgasm etc, but these people often report something was always missing for them, they just couldn't work out what it was. It's not until they finally have a relationship and/or have sex with someone of the same gender as themselves that they find that ''missing piece'' emotionally and/or physically. That's what it's like for many asexuals, only they will often go through assuming they are hetero, to assuming they are gay, then realize the missing piece for them is that they are asexual.. they just don't get anything out of the sex, regardless of the physical sensations involved and regardless of who they have it with.

2) I had sex for years, with a LOT of people. I wasn't seeking it out for pleasure, I was forcing myself to get into situations where I would have to have sex, in an effort to make myself enjoy and want it they way ''normal''people do- that was the idea I had in my mind. I figured the more sex I had, the more I would eventually want the sex (and my doctor at the time confirmed this: just keep having sex and relax more, you'll enjoy it eventually, is what he told me) These past sexual experiences obviously don't make me grey asexual any more than having heterosexual sex before discovering you are gay makes someone bi. And that would apply even IF I was able to orgasm and enjoy the sensations of sex when I used to have it. If something is missing, then something is missing, regardless of whether or not you orgasm. This is all just one of those things that happens while you are learning who you are. (Just to reiterate, I am grey-A, but not because of the fact that I had sex while I was trying to force myself to be ''normal''. I also didn't know about asexuality back when I was having it, and had stopped having it two years before I discovered asexuality)

I am probably just contributing to the vagueness here now. But my point is that it’s difficult to have set rules: if you do this you’re ace, if you don’t you’re not – or the other way around. Which is why a definition is difficult either way, but something involving craving/desire and ingrained/similar words for partnered sex is the best definition, IMO, because it includes many people but it doesn’t open for as much vagueness as the current definition. Or, then people would probably start arguing about what desire/craving is, what ingrained is, etc.

A desire based definition is certainly clearer, but there will always be people who twist the wording to make themselves asexual. For example ''An asexual person has no innate desire to have partnered sex for sexual or emotional satisfaction'' ..''well, I don't have an ''innate'' desire; I do want sex, but I don't ''need'' sex. I enjoy having it because it feels good, but that doesn't mean I desire it, I am asexual'' - I have seen this multiple times before in relation to the desire definition.

Yes, a desire definition can be twisted, but the ''sexual attraction'' definition doesn't even need to be twisted as it can just be interpreted however anyone wants to interpret it. I have even seen Asexual education site webmasters (and some admods here) encouraging personal interpretation of the definition. One webmaster made a post here saying he was starting an asexual education website. I asked if he was going to clarify what sexual attraction is for the sake of education. He got quite irate with me and said ''sexual attraction is up to sexual people do define, if someone thinks they are asexual based on what they think sexual attraction is, then they are asexual. It's not up to you to label police'' or something like that. So yeah. Attraction definition: anyone is asexual. Desire-based definition: asexual people are asexual, plus a few people who need so strongly to be asexual that they twist the definition to include them.

Again: It doesn't mean that people don't understand you if they see other nuances/interpret things differently than you do. You don't need to repeat everything all over again and seem condescending when people comment what you write, claiming they haven't understood you.

You blatantly misunderstood what I was saying regarding masturbation in a different thread. You didn't interpret it differently than I meant it, or ''see other nuances''. I said ''some asexuals have a high libido but only masturbate to get rid of arousal, it's more a chore to them than a pleasure-seeking activity. Others actively desire the pleasure they receive from masturbation, and will even stimulate themselves to arousal (by self-touching and/or watching porn or reading erotica or whatever) SO they can experience sexual gratification, either through solo masturbation or (for sexual people) through partnered sex''. That was the gist of what I was saying, spread out over 3 long comments. And you referred to that discussion in this thread, saying:

In the census thread, you write that masturbation is just a chore while for sexual people it's something done deliberately to gain sexual gratification.

and used that statement in your argument against me. Even someone who didn't SEE that thread (Mysticus) knew you had quite possibly misunderstood me, as what you suggested I had said is so unlike anything I would say (a blanket statement about all asexuals seeing masturbation as a chore).. You completely misread me, and based your argument partly on your failure to make a full attempt to understand what I had written. That is what I was referring to when I explained my frustration at having to reiterate myself so often. Other examples are things like, when I say ''sure asexuals can have sex, and even enjoy the sensations of it and experience orgasm, I am just saying that if their sexual partner decided they never wanted sex again, the asexual person wouldn't experience emotional distress at this, and would be quite happy to continue the relationship with no sex'' and someone replies ''You're saying that having sex disqualifies someone from being asexual, which is incorrect and, if I am not mistaken, considered elitist'' (happens regularly when this topic is being discussed) I then have to go an reiterate everything I previously said in order to reply to them.. See what I am saying? I was not referring to genuine curiosity, or a negative/differing opinion regarding what I have said, I am referring to a blatant failure to accurately read my writing, then basing one's argument on what they misinterpreted me as saying, not what I actually said. THAT is frustrating, and if I come across as condescending, well really, that's too bad.

EDIT: Jesus, that had a lot of bad typos. I hope no one read it before I had a chance to fix it! D:

[Guest]

For crying out loud. Somehow seeking out something is completely different from wanting/ craving/ desiring it? And why do you have to crave it to be sexual? So if two people both enjoy and voluntarily seek out partnered sex, but one says they don't "crave" it, then they're asexual? That's completely insane.

As for the argument that people may seek out sex before finding out about asexuality... so what? I don't see the relevance. I used to seek out sex with dudes until I figured out I was gay, but that doesn't confuse me... once I figured out i was gay, I stopped seeking out sex with men. If you figure out that you don't desire sex and identify with asexuality but still seek it out... well, sorry, but I call bullshit on that.

No one is saying that asexuals can't physically have sex, but I'm sorry, suggesting that the independent, active, seeking out of partnered sex is somehow vastly different - vastly different enough to switch someone from being sexual to asexual - from desiring sex... nah. That's not even a semantics argument, that's a "redefining desire to an absurd conclusion" argument.

EDIT: Incidentally, I'm very sexual and I've had sex with more people I wasn't attracted to than I was attracted to. I require an emotional connection for attraction, but i don't require an emotional attraction to want to have sex. Both tracks... desiring sex because of attraction and desiring sex despite attraction... those are both firmly within the normal range of sexual's sexuality.

Thanks so much, I love it when sexual people post input here. It seems asexuals often automatically disregard what other asexuals say regarding sexuality, as ''theory'' or '' speculation'' (''how could you know PanFicto? you're asexual, you can only speculate at what drives sexual people'') When a sexual person comments however, it's not like they can say''How would you know Skullery? you can only theorize at what drives sexual people!'' - though I do know you have been accused of being ''asexual'' before by diehard attractionists - ''Wait, you have sex with people and it's not based on how you feel about their appearance?! have you considered you're asexual?'' (can't remember the exact comment but it was something along those lines, LOL) anyway yeah, just great to see support of the desire-based definition from the sexual community, cheers! (Geo was another regular commenter her a year or so back, always had really useful contributions to this topic from the sexual perspective)

Wow this thread. Look, the way I determine asexuality is very simple, it's a question.

If there were no negative (external) consequences for remaining celibate for the rest of your life, would you still want to have sex with other people (whoever you would want/for whatever reason)?

a) Yes (sexual)

b) No (asexual)

c) I don't know/maybe/depends on the circumstances (demi/grey)

I like that, and totally agree. Thanks for sharing ^_^

[Plectrophenax]

I wrote this when Mysticus' last remark was the newest, then fell unexpectedly rather ill and forgot to post. I have read the following contributions and edited some of my responses, but still [selfishly] feel that I could benefit from having them addressed as they stand.

[For those who take my posts as 'arguing for arguing's sake', by the way, rest assured that almost all questions posed below are made in an attempt to clarify implications (for me), not to criticise.]

Thanks for the detailed response. I realise that you've indicated a few of the things I enquired about, but rest assured I didn't just skim your post but rather failed to completely grasp the conceptual foundation of some of the terms you use. It may well be that this is just a problem from my part, and indeed I hope it is. I generally agree with you, and not having been exposed to many people who honestly say they enjoy sexual activity "just not the way a sexual person would" while providing an explanation that easily accounts for sexuals also, it just seemed to me rather hasty to assume that such a large part of the asexual community has such a simplistic stance on the matter.

I'll steal your formatting, if I may, not because I'm tired but to keep the amount of quotations used at bay.

No, grey-a falls in the grey area between asexuality and sexuality. If a person is closer to the asexual side of the spectrum, they are grey asexual. If they are closer to the sexual side, they are grey sexual. That is the whole point of the grey area, it's not clearly definable either way.

From what you said in your previous posts [and Star Bit seems to have gotten a similar impression] there doesn't seem to be a way to talk about an area 'between' sexual and asexual, because sexuality is a spectrum under which any kind of a multitude of reasons for sexual desire [i.e. not just primordial urge] falls, while asexuality is a lack thereof. So anything that isn't clearly asexual is on the sexual spectrum, not on a nebulous 'between' area. They may be closer to asexuality, sure, and utilising the term of asexuality in order to make note of that would make sense. But they would nonetheless be on the sexual spectrum, just on the very weak side of it - as opposed to the 'strong' side of asexual. Because there is no such spectrum for asexuality. Is this not what you said? Taking 'sexuality' as 'desire for partnered sex' [the addendum is nice, but according to Mysticus it is largely superfluous] there can be no spectrum to the lack thereof. Enjoyment gained, physical arousal satiated, all of these things don't matter in the slightest, since it is only a qustion of desire. You have it or you don't. No grey area possible. Unless you say that people who don't have such a desire at any given moment are, at that moment, asexual. Which, I trust, would make asexuals a rather large portion of humanity. That doesn't seem what you mean, but if it isn't - what is the main difference between a sexual and someone on the grey spectrum? The frequency of desire? The context of desire? Acting upon the desire - or, better, wanting to act upon the desire?

What I say is that a desire based definition is far more adequate as it pinpoints exactly what it is that makes a sexual person sexual, a desire for partnered sex (for various reasons) therefore also pinpointing what makes an asexual person asexual, a lack of said desire. I never said asexuals cannot have sex (I reiterated repeatedly that asexuals have sex for many reasons, they may even enjoy the sensations of the sex - ie they may orgasm etc, they just don't have any innate desire within them to seek sex [for sexual or emotional pleasure - why the addendum only here and not where you pinpoint what makes a sexual person sexual?]. It's something they do for other reasons: ie to try to fit in, to please a partner, to have a baby.. But that is not a desire for sex, it is a desire for an unrelated outcome of sex.

I think the notion I was trying to address in my previous post was the one of 'reasons' behind the 'desire' [as far as that is discernible or even possible according to you], as opposed to 'reasons' behind the act of sexual interaction itself. Performing sexual activity isn't the problem and one can be asexual in spite of doing so. Fine. Seeking out sexual activity [no matter the reason], that already seems like a more difficult statement, at least I assume that's why you attached your addendum there [seeking out does not necessarily imply desire, at least not in my book - probably why I seem like one of only two people who find the term to be something other than 'crystal clear'], as would be wanting sexual activity, or wanting to want sexual activity, etc. Those are the instances I wonder about.

[EDIT: Skullery Maid and others seem to take issue with the notion that seeking out need not be motivated by desire (for the thing sought out). I thought this, depending on the reason, was clear - social adaptation and the like are clear instances of seeking out, and surely it's not just something you do when you are oblivious to your lack of desire. People can lack desire, for example, but desire to desire, thus seeking out sexual interaction in the hopes of fitting in. PanFicto and others would, as far as I can say, still call these people asexual, albeit perhaps in denial. So there is a difference between 'seeking out' and 'desiring' - right? The notion of 'enjoyment' is more tricky, since people like PanFicto would deny the label of asxuality to those who's seeking out is in any way motivated by enjoyment ('seeking out for enjoyment' is very close or even synonymous with 'desire', it seems), while, from what I can tell, someone like Mysticus would not necessarily, since it is only the presence or absence of desire that matters (though they might instead argue that seeking out and desiring something are indistinguishable).]

You say that one can 'do' sex, but for reasons like procreation or social acceptance which you call 'an unrelated outcome of sex' [surely procreation is not unrelated to sex, and while social acceptance is not intrinsically related to it, it is nonetheless accidentally related to it in some places of the world - or would you say that any outcome of an act is generally 'unrelated' to said act?]. But under the desire-definition, they would be sexual [it would be a reason for desiring the activity - you can't just reduce that to a 'reason for the activity' or 'reason for desiring the outcome alone' because then 'desire' would be almost void of meaning].

With the addendum of "for sexual [i take it it's synonymous to 'physical'] or emotional pleasure" this issue doesn't occur, which is why I find it to be helpful, even though it reduces the meaning of 'desire' a bit [yet, Mysticus stated that desire without enjoyment is still sexual behaviour, not making clear that the desire is reliant on the expectation of enjoyment or something like that]. But then sexuals who have sex for the primary reason of procreation [in spite of not 'feeling like it'] would be indistinguishable from asexuals in that particular instance. I trust you would be perfectly fine with that implication? This isn't a critique, by the way, it serves only for my clarification - as do all my questions.

The current attraction definition is actually a desire based definition, just to be clear.

Right, I was referring to the 'slogan' of the site. It doesn't, to me at least, appear to be an elaboration of the 'definition' from the FAQ but effectively a different one [if it weren't, AVEN would have a clear definition of 'sexual attraction' pertaining to desire somewhere, ideally in the FAQ - you say further below that they do, but I must've missed it]. Nonetheless, this phrasing is one that AVEN clearly supports, else it would not be used as a header. Thus, referring to the FAQ is just saying that the FAQ definiton is better and the weird phrasing of the forum's banner should be adjusted. I agree. But since the implications of the two 'definitions' aren't the same at all, others might find the FAQ phrasing to be less appropriate than the banner one. Telling those people that AVEN supports only the FAQ definition would be the wrong way to advocate for it's application, it seems to me.

There are multiple types of sexuals (people who have sex for multiple different reasons, and I outlined many of the reasons in my previous comments) .. No, someone who needs an emotional bond to desire sex with someone is not necessarily demisexual at all. A demisexual person is predominantly asexual until a deep bond has developed with another person (which can take years) and it's not until then that they desire partnered sex with said person. For your average sexual person, they just need to have some form of bond with a person, either be close friends or develop a romantic bond (which doesn't take very long for many people) and will start actively desiring sex with that person as soon as those emotions develop.

Hm, okay then. The 'depth' is the prime difference, it seems. I have to agree that for many people this doesn't seem to be a major requirement, and any bond [even one formed in an hour] will suffice. I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying such a bond is necessarily less 'deep' than it would be for a demisexual person, though, especially considering people sometimes contemplate marriage or use a particular language that stresses the intensity - and implied duration - of their feelings after such a short time. Perhaps you would say that this is an outcome favoured by a sexual disposition? I.e. being sexual potentially 'speeds up' the process of 'forming bonds', which is something that doesn't happen to less sexual/asexual people [though their bonds can, in turn, become sexual]? I'm getting that impression, at least, through your use of the expression "actively desiring sex", possibly implying that they desire sex "passively" all the time, requiring some sort of 'incentive' in order to awaken it. My own assumptions on sexuals based on years of experience and observation [my life, effectively] would favour such an understanding of a looming 'passive' desire, but I'm naturally clueless as to it's appropriateness. [EDIT: If you are reading this, Skullery Maid, what would you respond to such an assumption?]

Even so, unless you say that the 'emotional bond' requires one to know the person in question particularly well [which takes time] in order to be 'deep', I think the distinction is not quite as easy to make as you seem to think it is. Or not quite as easy to understand - for me, that is.

I seem to be having to reiterate points that I made crystal clear in my previous post, which is frustrating (but hey, I am used to it on AVEN) I said for SOME people. ie SOME heterosexual men in prison will start having sex with other men (this goes for women too of course) This is their desire for partnered sex (preference for having a partner present over masturbation) overriding their gender preference. However it is very rare.

Since I have absolutely zero personal experience or even personal ['anthropologic'] inclinations on the matter, you are effectively talking to a child or, worse, an alien. You will inevitably have to repeat/clarify what, to you, is obvious in the process of explaining. I'm very glad that you take the time for doing so.

I should have said "every sexual can, essentially, be pansexual if need be" so as not to make an overgeneralised statement. I'm not sure about the numbers, but you say it's very rare. But, hypothetically, if a person were sexual with a certain orientation they cannot [conveniently] satiate, wouldn't it be the rule for such a sexual to 'make do' with what they have? Or could one potentially be sexual but not act upon it due to orientation for one's whole life [or, say, 40+ years] because of a limiting environment [a late-blooming heterosexual person that is imprisoned for life at a young age, for example]? I assume such people would desire sexual interaction - hence 'sexual' - but would their orientation/preference really be able to keep their desire in check for so long? Is this a difference in character/personality between people?

Again, I have no idea about any of this. But provided one has sexual desire, its satiation seems a bit like scratching an itch or responding to a feeling of peckishness. If the itch becomes too strong, most people would scratch it, if the hunger becomes too strong, most people would eat something they may normally not eat. Not everyone, I'm sure, but it seems more likely to affect a majority to me. If sexuals have a sort of "passive" desire for partnered sex, then I would expect them to act upon it even in a limited environment, at least after a certain time. Orientation, being a preference, is a completely different category to this desire. Though it seems you consider this desire potentially weak enough that one never feels the necessity to act upon it?

And I do realise celibate sexuals exist. But celibacy is a deliberate decision, is it not? It has to be actively set as a goal and needs to be actively adhered to [like, say, a diet]. This is clearly a special case, and doesn't necessarily enter the topic of desire overriding orientation.

I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say here (it's late and I am tired) .. you feel as though the difference between masturbation and partnered sex is fairly minimal?

Yes, I find the difference between masturbation and partnered sex to be somewhat exaggerated by some. The primary difference it the presence of one or more other people [and all that entails, like social bonding]. It's like watching a film alone or with others. It's not the same experience, but it isn't that different, at least not necessarily or inherently.

Of course, people do make a categorical, even terminological differentiation between masturbation and sex [which seems to imply it being 'partnered'], because the very presence of someone else is considered to be the actually interesting/appealing thing [hence why some might say that masturbation is nothing but a poor makeshift substitute for sex] - just like people might consider watching a film to be an inherently 'social' activity. What you are saying is, then, that the people who consider the presence of others to be the essential part of this are 'sexuals' while the rest would be 'asexuals'. It's definitely one way of making the distinction - and it makes sense on many levels - but it relies on the assumption that the interpersonal aspect is what this is all about [aside from, say, release or urge in general or something else like, say, affection or sensuality or intimacy], This is not a necessary assumption, it seems to me. It is a possible starting point for distinguishing types of people regarding sexuality, though, and I find it to be among the most helpful provided so far. But it is not the only one, and it doesn't even have to be considered a good one either [at least not when it comes to the 'special case' that is asexuality].

You make note of libido and arousal as bodily functions. This is the case for most people, including those we refer to as asexual. Masturbation is one way of dealing with it ['waiting' or 'distraction' might be others, though they can be a lot less effective], sex is another. Now you say that this is where the categories shift. Those who satiate their urges via masturbation and those who satiate their urges via sex are categorically different. But since you acknowledge that people can satiate their urge [and nothing more] via sex, the 'desire' is addressed to the sex itself. That way, if an asexual person doesn't happen to have a permanently willing sexual person nearby they can use as a means for release, they are sexual the moment they contemplate seeking someone else out [because simply preferring sex over masturbation - even merely for the purpose of release - is a qualifier for sexuality]. This notion of 'desire' or even just 'preference', provided I understood it correctly, seems rather too strict to me. That doesn't make it wrong [as little as it makes it right], it's just one of the things that leaps to mind whenever I hear the focus on the 'partnered'. It's also a reason why I like your addendum, though some might say that orgasm is always a "physical pleasure".

The reason I'm going on about this is not because I disagree, by the way, but because I'm trying to understand your suggestion in all its implications.

[EDIT: Regarding this, you rightly state in a later post that masturbation is not taken into consideration for determining 'other' sexualities, and as such should not enter the discussion of asexuality either. I would tend to agree if asexuality is considered a sexuality. But it could just as well be viewed as the negation of a sexuality, and masturbation may well be considered a factor then. Devil's advocate all the way.]

I have met many, many people here who have twisted the sexual attraction definition (while ignoring AVEN's definition of the definition) to such an extent that […] they actively seek sex out because they enjoy it, desire it, and love the way it feels.

I did get that. my last remark was only to make peripheral note on what the 'consensus' seemed to me according to my experience in contrast to yours.

I would still like to add that enjoyment of sex, even seeking it out, could easily not be a disqualifier for asexuality, provided the definition still manages to set up useful criteria. We are talking about definitions, after all, and while it would certainly make most pragmatic sense to adhere to AVENs outlined suggestion on the FAQ, it isn't instantly more adquate for that reason alone. I will say as well, however, that I have yet to see a comprehensive definition that isn't desire-based. I'd love for someone of that camp to chime in here [again].

---

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.

I felt I was extremely clear, and honestly, I don't think it's that hard to grasp. I think people intentionally make it hard to grasp because they want things to be as foggy as possible, so as many people as possible can be included in the asexual spectrum. That's how it seems to me.

It's not the actions themselves that define ones sexual orientation, it is the reasons behind those actions ie a drive to have partnered sexual pleasure for physical and/or emotional satisfaction = sexual. A desire to please ones partner by giving them sex even though you'd happily never have sex again in your life = asexual.

I didn't think it was clear because the way Star Bit phrased the objection was by [in accordance with various existing definitions] equating "sexuality" with "sexual activity" - meaning that saying asexuals are non-sexual would mean they don't perform sexual activity [and they included masturbation here as well], which is deemed to be an inadequate starting point. But sexuality doesn't mean 'sexual activity' - at least not necessarily [though maybe that's just me?]. Hence I fail to see the objection to viewing asexuality as 'non-sexuality' [especially since desire is taken by many to be included in the meaning of sexuality itself].

A quick question, though; actions don't define sexual orientation? Did you mean to say that, or did you mean to say something like "sexuality" or "sexual desire" here?

And I repeat that a desire to please a partner implies a certain desire for sexual activity, provided one knows that 'pleasing a partner' happens through sexual acts. That desire can even be motivated by emotional satisfaction, only not related to sex itself but to a consequence of having it for the relationship as a whole. I realise you acknowledge this, but the wording really doesn't strke me as unambiguous, which is why I advocated for a distinction into primary and secondary desires to clarify. But if "an asexual person doesn't need sex and would be perfectly fine never having it [for its own sake]" is the main differentiating factor most people seem able to agree upon, then that should be the definition advocated for, since it seems the most clear so far to me as well.

[…]

It's that they desire another person to have sex with that makes them sexual. They choose people through 1) physical appearance: some look at people, think they are smoking hot, and want to have sex with them based on that- this is a minority in my experience. 2) they have sex with people they have an already developed bond with, ie friends or in a romantic relationship: That connection makes sex more enjoyable and pleasurable. 3) they choose based on willingness: they want sex, someone else wants sex who the are acquainted with through work or whatever wants sex, sex feels better with another person than on their own. 4) Some will even do things like advertise online or on Craigslist for sex, meet the person who replies to their ad in a motel room never having met or seen them before, and engage in sex with them for the pleasure of the sex itself. […] Obviously the reasons differ from asexuals who engage in sexual intercourse, as asexuals are not driven by the same desire for sex, the same drive to seek partnered sex for sexual and/or emotional pleasure. […] But the REASONS an asexual chooses to engage in sex are different in that the asexual does not desire sexual or emotional pleasure from the sex: They seek an alternative outcome not directly related to the sex itself (ie having a baby, making a partner happy, looking ''normal'') They don't desire partnered sex for the pleasure of the sex itself or the emotional bond that sex brings.

I'll be presumptuous and add "the emotional bond that sex directly brings during the sexual act" since sexual activity can form an emotional bond as a secondary "not directly related" feature as well.

Anyway, thanks for that response. Having it worded so concisely was extremely helpful. In that sense, the "reasons" are not the issue at all and may indeed be the same [i suspected as much, hence why I asked about it], rather it's the direct focus on sex itself, indeed for its own sake, that is the key. Sexuals thus desire sex for its own sake, and asexuals do not [though they can 'desire' it otherwise]. Simple.

"An asexual doesn't desire sex for its own sake" would seem correct to you, then? Because despite making note of sexuals not just desiring sex constantly but rather can have particular criteria and conditions for their desire to manifest itself, it is nonetheless always desire for sex for its own sake that constitutes their desire. Am I getting this right?

When I said ''asexuals desire sex but not due to lust the way sexual people do: this is a mere opinion and not the view of AVEN'' (I was quoting a hypothetical mod at the time) I did so because that idea is an interpretation of ''sexual attraction'' that is extremely different from AVENs definition of sexual attraction, and is incorrect because, again, not all sexual people are horny beasts who seek sex only out of lust for each other.

The reason there is no ''consensus'' is that so many people refuse to accept the fact that ''finding people attractive in a way that makes you desire sex with them'' is not what [exclusively?] defines sexuality. It does not define sexuality, or that would be the experience of every single sexual person, which it most certainly is not. Maybe I just completely misread you though. There is no consensus because some people (ie myself and some others in this thread) know the facts, and others refuse to accept the facts so argue and deny the facts for 46 pages :P

Wait, so there is an official AVEN definition of sexual attraction? Where is it? Is it expressed as AVENs official stance, or is it expressed as a suggestion? Because it most certainly is not a part of AVENs definition of asexuality from the FAQ [because the word doesn't appear there].

And while I agree that there's a vital difference between the opinions formed by people asserting things about sexuals that are untrue and those who don't, there still is no consensus on what exactly distinguishes a sexual from an asexual person. The focus on desire and desire for [partnered] sex is a reasonable opinion on the matter. But it's not the only approach possible provided one knows 'the facts' [or would you disagree?] - it's just miles better than opinions supported by ignorance or misrepresentation of these 'facts'. Which, granted, seem to make out a significant part of people who dislike the desire-approach.

''Virginal sex'' (his terminology) is desiring sex for the sake of sexual pleasure itself, not out of a desire for the person you have sex with. Again, this is something that many people on AVEN agree with, believing this is the defining factor in asexuality (ie not desiring people, but desiring sex). This would make at least 20% of the population asexual, as there are many sexual people who desire sex as opposed to desiring people.

Interesting, because that's the very notion that many sexuals seem to hold, at least from what I can tell. I can see the merit in making a distinction here, though, but I would agree that it's not the one between sexual and asexual.

[…]

I would say the person who desires sex for reasons of bonding and intimacy is no different than any other sexual person who desires sex for bonding and intimacy, as opposed to desiring the physical pleasure sex brings (I understand that this is directed at Pink, but while I am here, I may as well give my two cents) hence why I quite like the idea of adding ''for sexual(physical) and/or emotional pleasure'' at the end of the desire definition.

I agree that the addendum seems necessary to distinguish, since I feel as though otherwise sexuals could engage in sexual interaction 'asexually', and asexuals could not perform any sexual interactions without it being 'sexual'. There needs to be a clarification to the nature of the desire.

Couldn't the asexual person here be capable of desiring sex? It seems to me difficult to say that this desire would be inherently different to a sexual's desire for sex, except if one makes the assumption that sexuals desire sex only or primarily for its own sake. No, because if this was the case, the ''asexual'' would not be asexual. If they are desiring sex with their sexual partner, then they are grey, demi or sexual: The whole point of being asexual (well, one of the points anyway) is that many asexuals can happily give sex, but if their partner did not desire it, they wouldn't miss it and would be very happy not having it.. […]

Of course many sexual people desire sex for bonding and intimacy, as opposed to desiring sex for sexual satisfaction in themselves, this is quite common. But as I explained above, even when they only desire sex for bonding and intimacy, or even when they only desire sex because they experience emotional pleasure from sexually pleasing the other person, the difference is that if denied these experiences for a long period of time, the sexual can become depressed, feel empty, and not feel entirely happy in the relationship. […] An asexual person is not going to ''feel like something is missing'' if they never have sex with their partner, whereas a sexual person will feel like something rather important is missing, even if they are able to choose celibacy for long periods of time and live relatively comfortably with that.

So an 'asexual' can be capable of desiring sex in that situation, only it would make them not "fully" asexual but part of the grey area [or flat-out sexual]. They would merely have to clarify their sexuality by saying they are "grey-a asexual" or the like. Okay.

What I was getting at was the abovementioned distinction of varying motivators. You essentially say the very same thing I would also say to that, namely that sexuals are distinct from asexuals in that, if they are denied the experience of sexual interaction [even if they don't know that they desire it], they will notice its lack - whether they enact upon this realisation or not. Not so asexuals, who might note an absence of something vital to [other] human experience, but only in an abstract sense, like through observation of others. In that respect, their desire would also be of an abstract nature, not of a deeply ingrained and basically instictvely motivated one [i know this all too well..].

[you forgot to highlight this part in purple, so some might miss it]

I think many people here have already made multiple attempts to distinguish primary and secondary goals? An asexual may have sex to achieve a secondary goal (ie keeping a partner happy, making a baby, looking ''normal'' etc) but emotional or physical pleasure derived from the sex itself is not a goal for an asexual person (or they would be no different from a sexual person, rendering the label asexual useless)

The difference between goals was indeed made, but not the difference between desires that this entails. I should have been more clear about that. "Desire for partnered sex" - as you said yourself earlier - can very easily include a person who pracices sexual interaction for secondary goals. But I think it can also include primary goals [depending on how the relation is understood, emotional gratification would be a primary goal, as would be desire for release or intimacy or perhaps even stability of an emotional relationship]. But even then, sexual interaction would not be primarily desired, but, at best, only secondarily on the basis of [primary or secondary] goals. That's why the distiction on the desire-front seems so important to me, because it seems both primarily and secondarily possible, yet it seems to be used only to describe primary motivation [regarding enjoyment or pleasure]. A distinction between goals and desires might serve to clarify. Does that make sense? I feel like it does, but it may well not.

---

It is impossible (as far as I can tell) to deem partnered sexual interaction ''extremely important'' without gaining some form of sexual or emotional pleasure from it: ''I find sex boring and mundane and it doesn't feel good but it is extremely important to me'' .. how can that be?

Really? Then we may have a differing understanding on the meaning of "emotional pleasure". To me, this would not include the utility and value sexual interaction can have for a romantic bond [also, "it's important to me, though I don't like it" seems perfectly reasonably applicable for other things as well, like perhaps dental hygiene].

Further, one could, I'd reckon, consider sexual interaction to be of considerable import in several more theoretical ways, like aiding intersubjective empathy or for a holistic anthropological understanding or things like that [likewise it can also be considered of considerable danger in many other ways]. This strikes me as completely independent of 'desire' or 'pleasure', though I assume, in the case of sex specifically, they often coincide.

The degree of importance and enjoyment gained from partnered genital stimulation doesn't really amount to much, as all sexual people have varying degrees of importance and enjoyment attached to partnered sexual activity/partnered genital stimulation. The one thing all sexual people have in common is that to some extent or another, sometimes (it's not usually a constant, never-ending thing) they desire partnered sexual activity for physical and/or emotional pleasure.

Varying degrees, perhaps, but I assume all sexual people would ascribe a not unsignificant degree of importance [perhaps even more so enjoyment] to this, while most asexual people will tend to ascribe only minimal importance [let alone enjoyment], if at all. What this does allow for is that a 'sexual' person that may feel sexual desire very rarely, and not find it overly enjoyable or important overall, would be quite close to asexual. But they would probably be so under your definition as well. And I feel, even though I may be completely wrong, that, to a sexual person, the importance of sexual gratification is constantly implicit [EDIT: Skullery, would you agree with that?]. This, I presume, would be why asceticism and celibacy are sometimes considered of particular 'moral' significance, because they reject something that is taken to be important, making the act of rejection more difficult and, relative to connotation of the thing abstained from, more virtuous.

And just to reiterate yet again, masturbation does not come into this equation as many asexuals have libidos, we do experience arousal, and need to get rid of it. But we have no desire to relieve that arousal with another person. I have seen asexuals say ''I am asexual because I do not desire people, but I prefer the feeling of being stimulated by someone else as opposed to stimulating myself, therefore I desire sex because of that'' .. but again, this would make at least 20% of the population asexual, as there are multitudes of people who prefer the feeling of being stimulated by another person as opposed to stimulating themselves, so seek partnered sex based on that factor. It's still a desire for partnered sex over solo masturbation. And solo masturbation for an asexual isn't a ''desire'' as such, it's just a necessary result of bodies being annoying and functioning properly, pretty much.

I undertstand the difference between masturbation and sex, but, like I said earlier, not on the basis of arousal alone. The fact that people we call asexuals have arousal doesn't mean masturbation has nothing to do with this. I really don't see that. You're right, of course, that preferring/desiring to be masturbated [?] by someone else, given arousal, is not quite the same as masturbation [i would be hesitant to call it a clear instance of 'sex' too, though], and if this, as opposed to preferring more explicit intercourse over masturbation, would still constitute asexuality, then 20%+ of people might indeed be asexual, provided they don't also prefer sex over masturbation of any kind. You don't count this, because you feel that this is "desire for partnered sex [for physical or emotional pleasure]" and that is your standard for determining sexuality. But I'm sure you see that this dismissal is somewhat circular.

What's more, people can enjoy masturbation as much as they want and be asexual, indulging in all sorts of activity on the sole condition that it isn't partnered [or implicitly partnered, to be more precice], while others can simply prefer release via sex and be borderline sexual, depending on the strictness of the criteria for 'desire'. This is simply a [perhaps bizzare?] consequence of your approach and need not be a problem at all. It just seems just as likely to me to say that people who masturbate for physical or emotional pleasure are, in fact, not asexual. I don't advocate for this, but if someone would, you can't dismiss it simply by stating "but partnered sex is the criteria" - since they obviously disagree. Likewise the position that only people without libido can be asexual, though don't have to be, while so-called asexuals with libido but no desire to satiate it [be it via masturbation or not - either way it's a chore] would merely be 'asexual-like'. Again, I'm not advocating for this, but I have seen people that do [and they always get shot down for being 'elitist'].

@books:

Since I know Ficto and I are just about on the same page there...

Yep, it's a misunderstanding. It's purely the desire for partnered sex that decides whether someone is ace or not, not the enjoyment of it. Someone who doesn't enjoy sex, but does desires it, is not an asexual. Someone who enjoys sex, but doesn't desire it, is ace.

Think of a food item that tastes good to you, but for whatever reason, you simply never spontaneously get the idea of buying it for yourself, and would hardly notice if you never ate it again (because noone randomly ever ends up offering it to you, and as said, you simply don't get the idea of buying it). That's exactly how a sex-enjoying ace feels about partnered sex. If they actually actively do wish to eat that item, and go out to buy it - that's sexual, not ace.

I posed this question above, but it's somewhat hidden among the reply to PanFicto, so here it is directly;

Would a sexual person who doesn't enjoy sex but does desire it, anticipate the sexual interaction to be enjoyable [in some way] when desiring it? If not, what kind of desire are you talking about? It would seem that a person who wants a child [the 'natural' way, not by artificial insemination, for the sake of argument] would desire sex in some way, potential enjoyment or aversion notwithstanding. If this is enough to put someone on the sexual spectrum, then I don't think you and PanFicto have the same idea. If this is not enough to put someone on the sexual spectrum, then an explication on what desire actually entails would be vital, even if most of you seem to consider it an unambiguous term.

You clearly have an understanding of desire that excludes 'secondary goals' - which is why you speak of 'sex-enjoying asexuals' only - and would probably disagree with my assertion that primary goals regarding sex are possible independent of desire for it. The understanding of 'desire' seems to be something like "craving/seeking something for its own sake", but that's me inferring. If it's just "seeking something [on the basis of wanting it for any given reason, primary and/or secondary]" then the definition would be very clear but also very narrow. [EDIT: Given the general consensus that there's no difference between 'seeking out' and 'desiring' something, I assume this would be your response?]

The difference between partnered sex and masturbation is indeed huge, and the definition of asexuality should indeed solely be about lacking desire for partnered sex; masturbation has nothing to do with it. So, yeah, I 100% agree with that last paragraph there.

Hoping you read my thoughts on why I would disagree, I wonder how you would respond. What constitutes the difference? That there are [potentially] different reasons for masturbating vs for sex? Or that some view masturbation as a 'lesser' form of sex and some don't? And what makes the difference thusly recognised 'huge' as opposed to a mere distingishing feature? I am very curious about this, since I have as of yet neglected to approach the subject of masturbation on AVEN [a serious oversight, I see now].

[Frigid Pink]

I do think I misunderstood you, but it's this whole chore vs. sexual gratification-thing which seems plain wrong to me. Which is why I think it should be about PARTNERED sex. Based on what you write here, and in the Census thread - regardless of how much someone likes it, as you claim in this thread - asexuals cannot do sexual acts with a goal to achieve sexual gratification, iow an orgasm. Their goal is always something else, and the gratification is a side effect. In the census thread, you write that masturbation is just a chore while for sexual people it's something done deliberately to gain sexual gratification.

I believe an asexual can masturbate just because they like it and want an orgasm, and, yes, plan it/deliberately mean to stimulate themselves and get aroused so they can acheive orgasm, while still being asexual. Because that sexual drive is not directed at anyone else and they still do not want/have an urge to engage in partnered sex.

The difference between partnered sex and masturbation is indeed huge, and the definition of asexuality should indeed solely be about lacking desire for partnered sex; masturbation has nothing to do with it. So, yeah, I 100% agree with that last paragraph there.

I'm not sure what makes you think Ficto doesn't draw that distinction clearly, though? I don't recall them ever disagreeing with what you say there.

What can be said to counter Anthony Bogaert's stance that asexuality is based strictly on lack of attraction? I suppose we can just chalk it up to being his opinion, albeit a well-informed one.

That's not as strict as you think. There have been enough quotes from Bogaert floating around that are actually clearly supporting the "desirist" definition. I'm sure Frigid Pink can provide some. :)

Yes, I can! (see below) (BOLD is mine)

Of note, Boegart doesn't seem to support one definition over the other and merely describes what the most common definitions are and a current understanding of "asexuality" based on scholarly research.

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

"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."

"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."

Please check out the actual article here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00224499.2015.1015713

[Guest]

Regarding the removal of the desire-based definition of sexual attraction from this website:

http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/124468-front-page-revamp-help-required/?p=1061481561

Does anyone else here (Mysticus? Lady Girl? Skullery? Summer? and everyone else who supports the desire-based definition) want to put your ideas regarding the definition of sexual attraction forward to the revamp team? They have said they want the desire-based definition removed, so I think it's really important that enough of us put our input in so as to possibly sway their decision on the matter. I not only want that definition to remain on the site, but want it placed somewhere where it will be visible to everyone (ie top of the front page)

[Lost247365]

Regarding the removal of the desire-based definition of sexual attraction from this website:

http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/124468-front-page-revamp-help-required/?p=1061481561

Does anyone else here (Mysticus? Lady Girl? Skullery? Summer? and everyone else who supports the desire-based definition) want to put your ideas regarding the definition of sexual attraction forward to the revamp team? They have said they want the desire-based definition removed, so I think it's really important that enough of us put our input in so as to possibly sway their decision on the matter. I not only want that definition to remain on the site, but want it placed somewhere where it will be visible to everyone (ie top of the front page)

I agree.

Removing the part about desire would be a HUGE step backwards. I think desire should be as prominent if not more so than sexual attraction at the top of every page.

Though, I am more of an "and/or" proponent myself.

EDIT: Thank you so much for the link. I would never have seen that otherwise!