Defining asexuality - a better definition?

[Guest]

Maybe my confusion is because I don't know if I fully understand the difference between wanting to have sex and wanting to have partnered sex. Those here who call themselves asexual and also say that they want sex are very well-aware that sex can only be had with at least one partner . . . so, what's the difference? All you are doing is taking out one little word ("partnered") and saying it makes a world of difference, but no, it doesn't, because all sex is partnered. There really has to be something I'm not getting here, so please, feel free to explain.

Some people count masturbation as a form of sex. That's why the word "partnered" is very important - without it, everyone who masturbates could not possibly be asexual by that definition of sex. (And there's very broad consensus between both "attractionists" and "desirists" that this implication would be elitist nonsense.)

So, the problem is that a bunch of people do not agree that all "sex" is partnered, but think that you can have "sex" alone in your room. I don't agree with that definition - masturbation definitely isn't sex, in my vocabulary - but it's a view too common to be left unaddressed.

For me:

I sometimes say I desire sex to make someone happy, but that probably isn't the best thing to say as I would much rather not have sex at all, ever. Sex is boring, it is not love (at least not to me), and even if a partner and I had it I would prefer for it to be a one-time thing. :P I suppose when I say that I "desire" sex, I really don't mean it in the same way that the others do. It is more because I feel that if they aren't going to have sex with someone else (which, incidentally, I'd be fine with) then the relationship would have a strain that need not be necessary. Of course, that strain would probably be there because I could never, ever have sex as much as they wanted, but whatever.

Thus, it isn't that I desire sex, it's that I desire to make the relationship work, and if sex is how the relationship works then I can probably do it from time to time.

Again, that's just what I mean when I say that I desire sex. Different people probably mean different things.

This sounds like you fit the "doesn't inherently desire partnered sex" definition perfectly fine. I honestly don't see the problem?

As you say, you'd be okay with sex - that's totally not the same as desiring it. If you'd desire sex, it would mean you could never be fully content without having sex, and having to abstain from it in a partnership would be a compromise (or even a sacrifice) for you.

[binary suns]

the "Desired partnered sex" feels a little off to me. "desire" is a strong word that some people might get caught up over it saying they don't "desire" it. "partnered" implies to me that it's a dedicated partner as opposed to hookups, and anyway the thing is... I mean yes at some point a sexual person will willing go forward with sexual intimacy. but I feel like there is something they feel that some people (demi's for example) feel before desiring sex is a big thing to them. IDK tho, I am asexual, and just... don't know if "desire partnered sex" is a fair way to put it.

I wish there was a way to define the word that wasn't in the form of "not sexual" when it came down to it.

[Star Bit]

AGAIN, Sexuality is not about ACTIONS, it is about DESIREING SEX.

Merriam Webster:

The sexual habits and desires of a person

Oxford:

Capacity for sexual feelings

A person's sexual orientation or preference

When some dictionaries put "sexual activity" into the definition of sexuality they are doing one of two things; not realizing people can have sex when they don't want/desire it or pertaining to the technicality of things (that technically having sex is sexual and this can be under another suffix of the word like sexuality). Most people know that sexual activity is not sexuality/know that just because a Bi-curious person has sex with either sex does not mean they are factually Bi/that just because a gay man had heterosexual sex prior to their realization does not mean they are Bi. Sexuality can involve sexual activity but it itself is not sexual activity. Just like sexual arousal can accompany sexual desire, but sexual arousal does not have to be present for someone to desire sex. Nor do any dictionaries even mention sexual arousal in their definitions of sexuality. A pedophile that has never acted on their desires is still a closeted pedophile; sexuality is about desire and not action.

[Qwerty321]

I think the concept of "desire" is even more vague than "attraction". Many people prefer the "desire" definition, just because they feel sexual attraction to people, but they like being a part of the asexual community.

It depends, what is "desire". Such reasons as curiosity, striving to get sexual experience and do like most people do, shame of masturbation more than partnered sex, belief that sex is good for woman's health are count?

No it isn't. Attraction is far more vague. You know when it is sex your desiring, you don't know if you are attracted to people because of sex or not. I don't even think sexual attraction is real. It is just attraction coupled sexual desire. I experience attraction to people but not desire.

And technically, if you don't experience desire then you don't experience this alleged sexual attraction thing by definition. So assuming sexual attraction is real, then that is wrong. What is and does happen is that people experience attraction but have no clue "what type" of attraction it is and think it "might" be sexual attraction. They don't understand that to be sexual attraction it has to be accompanied by sexual desire as well (another reason why attraction is more vague it requires two different feelings at one time).

It seems you've never expierenced sexual attraction. I can easy understand when I feel it. It can be pure sexual attraction to a complete stranger (and I don't feel any desire actually have sex with him, but I feel kind of instintive attraction), or it can be a mix of different attractions. Perhaps, some people can easy confuse different types of attraction, but it doesn't mean sexual attraction is "not a thing". And yes, sexual attraction isn't nesessary accompanied by actual sexual desire. One can find a person attractive instinctively, but doesn't have any desire to interact with them for some reason.

[CNGB]

AGAIN, Sexuality is not about ACTIONS, it is about DESIREING SEX.

Merriam Webster:

The sexual habits and desires of a person

Oxford:

Capacity for sexual feelings

A person's sexual orientation or preference

When some dictionaries put "sexual activity" into the definition of sexuality they are doing one of two things; not realizing people can have sex when they don't want/desire it or pertaining to the technicality of things (that technically having sex is sexual and this can be under another suffix of the word like sexuality). Most people know that sexual activity is not sexuality/know that just because a Bi-curious person has sex with either sex does not mean they are factually Bi/that just because a gay man had heterosexual sex prior to their realization does not mean they are Bi. Sexuality can involve sexual activity but it itself is not sexual activity. Just like sexual arousal can accompany sexual desire, but sexual arousal does not have to be present for someone to desire sex. Nor do any dictionaries even mention sexual arousal in their definitions of sexuality. A pedophile that has never acted on their desires is still a closeted pedophile; sexuality is about desire and not action.

While I do understand where you're coming from, particularly with the Webster's definition, I don't really get what desire has to do with "capacity for sexual feelings," as Qwerty321 just said, "I can easy understand when I feel [sexual attraction]. ... (and I don't feel any desire actually have sex with them, but I feel kind of instinctive attraction)." Yet, they describe themselves as heterosexual. They might feel sexual attraction, but not necessarily desire--and this is another way where the "desire = sexual orientation" definition fails.

"Capacity for sexual feelings" is probably a bad definition anyway, because what are "sexual feelings?" Wanting to have sex? Or just arousal? Arousal is a pretty sexual feeling. If it's arousal, then I'm definitely not ace. ^_^ Maybe it's not fair of me to nitpick at an arguably vague definition in the first place, but I am honestly not sure where desire comes into play there. (I'd talk about the Webster "sexual habits," but you've already done that for me, so there's no reason.)

That being said it seems to me that sexuality might be one of those things, at least for the time being, where people are going to have their own connotations. What do you call a woman, I wonder, who is sexually attracted to women but doesn't desire to have sex with women, be it for religious purposes or otherwise?

EDIT: When I look up the definition for heterosexual on Google, do you know what I get? "(of a person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex."

Homosexual: "(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex."

Bisexual: "a person who is sexually attracted to both men and women."

Therefore, no, sexuality does not equal desire. It's about sexual attraction.

. . . I'm going to dig my own grave here, however. At the very least nobody can say I don't at least try to understand the other viewpoint. If you look up asexual on Google, and you ignore the "asexual reproduction" definition, then there are two definitions:

1) without sexual feelings or associations. I think most of us here can agree that this is sort of a terrible definition. What are sexual feelings (again, like I said earlier, is arousal lumped into that)? And what are sexual associations? There are aces here (and I'm not talking about those who say they desire to have sex) that have "sexual associations" in that they have sex, but that doesn't mean they aren't ace.

2) a person who has no sexual feelings or desires. While ignoring the "sexual feelings" bit, I'm not sure what else I can say about desire that I haven't already said. (As an off note, though, I wonder why the definition for asexuality would need anything to do with desire if hetero-, homo-, and bisexual don't.)

[Guest]

EDIT: When I look up the definition for heterosexual on Google, do you know what I get? "(of a person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex."

Homosexual: "(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex."

Bisexual: "a person who is sexually attracted to both men and women."

Therefore, no, sexuality does not equal desire. It's about sexual attraction.

In English, maybe. The only orientation using the term "Anziehung" (attraction) in German Wikipedia is asexuality (it's also the only one stated as being at controversy whether it is an actual orientation.). No other definition uses that term; they use "sexuelles Begehren" (sexual desire) instead. German AVEN also goes in the same direction, defining asexuality as "no desire/longing for sexual interaction".

And it makes a ton more sense. If what Skulls said in the other thread actually is sexual attraction, then I hold that who you are sexually attracted to simply has nothing at all to do with your orientation, and that goes for all orientations - ace, straight, gay, pan, whathaveyou. Being "sexually attracted to persons of the same sex" does not make you gay. You're homosexual if, exactly if, and only if, you desire to boink people of the same sex, but don't desire to boink people of the opposite sex.

[nanogretchen4]

So, if a man is consistently attracted only to other men but does not want to have sex with them because he thinks it's perverted or he's afraid of going to hell, does he desire sex with men? If not, does that make him straight?

[Guest]

It depends on whether he feels the desire/urge to have sex with them, and actively abstains from that.

If he doesn't feel that urge in the first place, then he is either straight (if he desires sex with women, despite not being "attracted" to them) or asexual (if he doesn't desire sex with anyone). What he's definitely not is gay or bi.

[nanogretchen4]

The first time I fell in love with a woman, I was extremely unclear on how two women could have sex and I'm pretty sure I didn't really want to know. If someone had explained it to me I probably would have thought it was gross. As far as I knew all I wanted to do was kiss her, although I definitely got turned on thinking about that. In my own mind it seemed pretty clear that there was some gayness going on, and by an attraction based definition there certainly was. But what about by a desire based definition? I don't think I even knew enough to desire actual sex with her.

[Guest]

Well, that's right where all these nifty split-up terms come into play, don't they?

I think that from your description, this really does not sound homosexual. Homosensual, homoromantic - yes, obviously. But I would surely not have got any idea of it being any sign at all sign of homosexuality.

And that means that before I encountered these split terms on AVEN, that means that literally nothing about your experience would have suggested to me that you might be Lesbian (as you were obviously not homosexual, and Lesbian == female homosexual).

[nanogretchen4]

Okay, so a person can desire something yet choose to abstain from it, so desire is not as conscious or voluntary as choice or intent. On the other hand a person can consistently become aroused by thoughts of another person yet not desire sex with them. So desire seems more conscious and voluntary than arousal or the chain smoking hooker definition of attraction. Is it possible to desire sex with someone without realizing you desire it?

[Guest]

I don't think desire is voluntary, at all. It's not a choice.

But yeah, it's certainly a conscious thing. Desiring something without realizing you desire it... well, I'd say that depends on how you stand towards psychological terms such as "repression and denial" (in a quasi/neo-Freudian sense). I wouldn't totally rule out that this is possible, but I don't think it's too common. If you desire something, you are probably quite keenly aware that you do so, even if and when you voluntarily choose not to act on it.

[Lost247365]

It seems you've never expierenced sexual attraction. I can easy understand when I feel it. It can be pure sexual attraction to a complete stranger (and I don't feel any desire actually have sex with him, but I feel kind of instintive attraction), or it can be a mix of different attractions. Perhaps, some people can easy confuse different types of attraction, but it doesn't mean sexual attraction is "not a thing". And yes, sexual attraction isn't nesessary accompanied by actual sexual desire. One can find a person attractive instinctively, but doesn't have any desire to interact with them for some reason.

How can you not feel desire if that is the definition of sexual attraction?

These conversations go no where because no one, not even nonasexuals, actually agree on what sexual attraction is. I am of the opinion that if people can't even agree on a definition of a basic concept they probably don't understand it themselves and it is possible that it doesn't even exist.

I guess this makes me igsexual attractionist? :P

Hell, this IFLS article is disagreeing with the very research it is covering because they say sexual arousal from appearance is different from sexual attraction.

A major criticism this paper is likely to receive when it is published is that arousal is not precisely the same as sexual orientation, despite the language of the lead authorsuggesting so in the media.

That said, I am going to say that any definition of sexual attraction that is BOTH defined in by arousal AND used to determine orientation is horribly flawed.

With regards to your last sentence, again, if it is without sexual desire how do you know if it is this so-called sexual attraction and not another?

While I do understand where you're coming from, particularly with the Webster's definition, I don't really get what desire has to do with "capacity for sexual feelings," as Qwerty321 just said, "I can easy understand when I feel [sexual attraction]. ... (and I don't feel any desire actually have sex with them, but I feel kind of instinctive attraction)." Yet, they describe themselves as heterosexual. They might feel sexual attraction, but not necessarily desire--and this is another way where the "desire = sexual orientation" definition fails.

The attraction definition fails in the exact same way. So I don't see your point.

That said, Qwerty321 defines sexual attraction radically different than what I or the online oxford dictionary do. We might as well be speaking different languages. What Qwerty calls sexual attraction, If I am understanding them right, I consider just aesthetic attraction combined with arousal.

Of course a person can have that and not have sexual desire. According to the study I linked from IFLS, there are tons of women who are sexually attracted (by which we mean get sexually aroused by others appearances) to other women but identify as heterosexual.

Now you are left with these choices, 1) make the absurd claim there is no such thing as a heterosexual woman and deny the stated experience of the vast majority of women on the planet, 2) accept that sexual attraction (defined in terms of arousal) doesn't have anything to do with orientation, 3)reject that sexual attraction is based on arousal, 4) some combination of 1)-3).

I personally 1) don't think most women who call themselves heterosexual are gay, 2) don't think sexual attraction (defined in terms of arousal) has anything to do with orientation and 3) reject that sexual attraction should be defined in terms of arousal.

"Capacity for sexual feelings" is probably a bad definition anyway, because what are "sexual feelings?" Wanting to have sex? Or just arousal? Arousal is a pretty sexual feeling. If it's arousal, then I'm definitely not ace. ^_^ Maybe it's not fair of me to nitpick at an arguably vague definition in the first place, but I am honestly not sure where desire comes into play there. (I'd talk about the Webster "sexual habits," but you've already done that for me, so there's no reason.)

Doesn't have to be an either or situation. It probably means both desire and arousal among other feelings. Take either one away and without some external factor involved the organism isn't going to be sexual. Non-libidoist are every bit as ace as one who doesn't desire sex.

That being said it seems to me that sexuality might be one of those things, at least for the time being, where people are going to have their own connotations. What do you call a woman, I wonder, who is sexually attracted to women but doesn't desire to have sex with women, be it for religious purposes or otherwise?

If the woman doesn't desire sex then she is asexual. Religion has nothing to do with it.

HOWEVER, if she DOES desire it, but overrules that desire with a religiously motivated desire to stay a virgin then she is a sexual who is abstaining from sex. Having competing desires doesn't mean that the losing desire goes away, it just got ignored. She still consciously desires sex.

EDIT: When I look up the definition for heterosexual on Google, do you know what I get? "(of a person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex."

Homosexual: "(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex."

Bisexual: "a person who is sexually attracted to both men and women."

Therefore, no, sexuality does not equal desire. It's about sexual attraction.

And what does sexually attracted mean? According to Google:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=sexually+attraction

Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest.

So what they are saying is a

Heterosexual: (of a person) attracted to people on the basis of sexual desire of the opposite sex.

Homosexual: "(of a person) attracted to people on the basis of sexual desire of one's own sex."

Bisexual: "a person attracted to people on the basis of sexual desire to both men and women."

So yeah, sexuality does require desire. Sex doesn't, but sexuality does. At least sexuality in the sense of sexual orientation. If we are going to get scientific sexuality is a complex interaction of neurons, hormones, chemicals, instincts, drives, feelings, and yes attractions...but that is not what we are going for here.

We are going for a single definition (which if you followed me when I first got involved in this thread you will know I don't agree with a single definition) for asexuality as an orientation. Thus defining it in terms of lack of desire makes the most sense.

I personally though, would want to see "Desire and/or attraction" to avoid confusion and false negatives.

. . . I'm going to dig my own grave here, however. At the very least nobody can say I don't at least try to understand the other viewpoint. If you look up asexual on Google, and you ignore the "asexual reproduction" definition, then there are two definitions:

1) without sexual feelings or associations. I think most of us here can agree that this is sort of a terrible definition. What are sexual feelings (again, like I said earlier, is arousal lumped into that)? And what are sexual associations? There are aces here (and I'm not talking about those who say they desire to have sex) that have "sexual associations" in that they have sex, but that doesn't mean they aren't ace.

Feelings associated with having sex. Attraction, desire, arousal all probably fall under that tent. Sexual associations are when people associate for the purpose of having sex. IE hooking up.

2) a person who has no sexual feelings or desires. While ignoring the "sexual feelings" bit, I'm not sure what else I can say about desire that I haven't already said. (As an off note, though, I wonder why the definition for asexuality would need anything to do with desire if hetero-, homo-, and bisexual don't.)

Because the definition of hetero/homo/and bi- sexual all rest on a definition of sexual attraction that is a straight up synonym for sexual desire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_desire

Sexual desire is a motivational state and an interest in “sexual objects or activities, or as a wish, need, or drive to seek out sexual objects or to engage in sexual activities”.^%5B1%5D Synonyms for sexual desire are libido, sexual attraction, and lust.^%5B2%5D Sexual desire is an aspect of a person's sexuality, which varies significantly from one person to another, and also varies depending on circumstances at a particular time.

Further look at the definition of just the word attraction:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/attraction

noun

1The action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something:

she has romantic ideas about sexual attractionthe timeless attraction of a good tune

MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCESSYNONYMS

appeal, attractiveness, desirability, seductiveness, seduction, allure, animal magnetism;

charisma, charm, beauty, good looks, eye-appeal

View synonyms

1.1A quality or feature of something or someone that evokes interest, liking, or desire:

this reform has many attractions for those on the left

the main attraction of Peking duck is the crackling texture of its skin

Note the synonyms. DESIRABILITY.

Further:

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/desire

Attraction is a synonym of desire. They are the same thing. To the rest of the English speaking world they mean the same exact thing.

And again, my complaint is that is not how I define attraction. To me attraction is just a feel of being drawn to someone. It doesn't tell me what for or what evoked it. All attractions are the exact same to me. So, my personal truth is that there is no emotional attraction. No aesthetic attraction. No romantic attraction. There is just attraction. It is the exact same feeling.

And I have come to the conclusion that all this fluff about this attraction and that attraction is people acting like just because it syncs up with another emotion that somehow makes attraction different.

What the dictionary calls sexual attraction I call attraction synced with desire. I don't experience that. What you call sexual attraction I call attraction synched with physical arousal. I experience that.

That said, I don't believe for a second attraction synced with arousal should have any freaking say in orientation, and I believe firmly that the ONLY way asexuality makes any sense at all is to either define it by the dictionary definition of sexual attraction or to redefine it as lack of sexual desire.

PS: The more dictionaries, encyclopedias, and etymology on these terms I see, the more convinced I become that asexuality is SOLELY about lacking desire.

[Lost247365]

I don't think desire is voluntary, at all. It's not a choice.

But yeah, it's certainly a conscious thing. Desiring something without realizing you desire it... well, I'd say that depends on how you stand towards psychological terms such as "repression and denial" (in a quasi/neo-Freudian sense). I wouldn't totally rule out that this is possible, but I don't think it's too common. If you desire something, you are probably quite keenly aware that you do so, even if and when you voluntarily choose not to act on it.

I posted this before, but there are philosophers who believe that for something to be a desire, it has to be conscious.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desire/

Galen Strawson defends a pleasure-based theory on two grounds: first, Strawson holds that being a desire for anything (or being a belief aboutanything or otherwise exhibiting intentionality) requires consciousness, and pleasure and displeasure are the states of consciousness most closely linked to desire

Some philosophers hold that all occurrent desires are elements of one's conscious life. Just as I have a capacity to see red that is not exercised until seeing red is an element of my consciousness, so too I have a capacity to desire that my French be fluent, and this capacity is not exercised until desiring that my French be fluent is an element of my consciousness. Notice that the thesis is not just that desires are only sometimes objects of one's conscious life. That is, the thesis is not merely that I am only sometimes conscious of my desires in the same way that I am only sometimes conscious of my toes. Rather, the thesis in question is that there is a qualitative character to desire, a qualitative character that can be an element, feature, or aspect of one's consciousness. Any philosopher holding that desires are constituted by pleasures or seemings might well take this position (e.g., Oddie 2005; Stampe 1987; Strawson 1994). Against it the argument has been made that the direction of fit of desire is incompatible with the direction of fit of elements of consciousness, on the grounds that desires (roughly) say how things should be while consciousness (roughly) says how things are (Hulse, Read, and Schroeder 2004).

[CNGB]

I certainly agree that arousal isn't sexual attraction, but I do believe it has something to do with it. For many people--women, men, and everything in between--it's very easy to get aroused. If you get aroused by another person--and not thoughts of other people (if that makes sense; I've explained this better before but now I can't find where I did), I wouldn't call that asexual. If a person fantasizes and thinks about having sex with other people, and that "having sex" part is what is arousing (rather than being aroused because sexual thoughts may be arousing--again, I've explained this better somewhere), I don't know if I see how that isn't whatever-sexual. If it's more of the idea of having sex, rather than sex, I think pretty much everyone here will agree then that can be asexual, depending on the person.

If nothing else, I at least understand the "desire" definition a little better, so thank y'all! I don't see how it isn't vague, though. There are many reasons why people may say that they desire sex, and those reasons may not always be "actual" desire. I strongly disagree with the statement that if a man is sexually attracted to other men (and in this case when I say "sexually attracted" in the sense that he fantasizes about other men not because of the idea but because they are other men), but doesn't "desire to have sex with them," he isn't gay. He is. I would say only if it's because they're men, and not because the idea.

It is a very good point that what we say in English doesn't actually reflect what people say in other languages; however, it might be worth it to note that this is an English-speaking website. That isn't to say that the definitions are "wrong" if they aren't in English, but it should be taken into account that if English-speakers are mostly the ones who are reading this then word play should be an important part in helping them understand. When you say you're heterosexual, people know what you mean: you mean that you get turned on by people of the opposite sex. That doesn't mean that you feel a desire to have sex with every single person that you think is sexually attractive; you might, yeah, but what about all those times you don't?

Now I'll bring up Qwerty--you know, there is a difference between sensual, aesthetic, and sexual attractions. I am actually very sure that Qwerty knows what they're talking about when they say they are sexually attracted to people, but don't necessarily feel desire to have sex with them. Sexual people don't go around desiring to have sex 24/7, you know, even if they think a person is hot.

That, I suppose, is another reason why I disagree with the "desire" definition. So, are sexuals only sexual when they're feeling desire to bang somebody? Are they asexual the other times? No, they aren't. (NOTE: I'm not talking about people whose sexuality is very fluid here, I'm talking about your average heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc.)

[Guest]

It is a very good point that what we say in English doesn't actually reflect what people say in other languages; however, it might be worth it to note that this is an English-speaking website. That isn't to say that the definitions are "wrong" if they aren't in English, but it should be taken into account that if English-speakers are mostly the ones who are reading this then word play should be an important part in helping them understand.

Two problems with that, that have already been pointed out earlier in this thread.

1) The English language AVEN is the international part of AVEN, and needs to be understandable to people with other languages (some of which will not even have a native-tongue AVEN as an alternative). If there's just one site in the AVEN family that cannot afford "language imperialism", it's the English one.

2) If definitions of orientations differ irreconciliably between cultures and languages, then it very strongly suggests that orientations are social constructs. If we want to go down that route, we simply cannot support the idea that orientations could ever be a case of "born that way" - culture being inborn is a primitive idea, outdated by centuries and tinged with strong connotations of racism. If culture decides whether you're ace, straight, or gay, then that means it's pure nurture/education, with zero amount of nature/genetics. Your orientation becomes a choice - you may have been raised into gayness by your early surroundings, but you can choose to convert to heterosexuality later on. Sexual orientation realignment should work just as easily as acclimatizing to another culture... if, say, a German can become adapted to US culture by learning and assimilation, to the point of one day no longer seeing themselves as German, but as just another American, then it stands to expect that a gay man can learn to be straight the same way.

Needless to say, that's a very, very dangerous idea. (Not to mention that it appears pretty thoroughly debunked by real life evidence.)

I strongly disagree with the statement that if a man is sexually attracted to other men (and in this case when I say "sexually attracted" in the sense that he fantasizes about other men not because of the idea but because they are other men), but doesn't "desire to have sex with them," he isn't gay. He is. I would say only if it's because they're men, and not because the idea.

This makes absolutely no sense to me, but you knew I'd say that. I find it utterly ridiculous to assume that a man could be homosexual if he doesn't desire to have sex with guys, because that's exactly what homosexuality means. Unless he's "gay but not homosexual" - thus, a "gay asexual" or a "gay heterosexual". I consider these terms silly, too, especially the latter -.I see them as a misleading abuse of the word "gay", that I would strongly advise against using.

No, I stand by it: Sexual attraction is not a (let alone the) deciding factor on sexual orientation. Who you desire to have sex with is.

That, I suppose, is another reason why I disagree with the "desire" definition. So, are sexuals only sexual when they're feeling desire to bang somebody? Are they asexual the other times? No, they aren't. (NOTE: I'm not talking about people whose sexuality is very fluid here, I'm talking about your average heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc.)

Sexuals feel desire for sex again and again, as a stable and recurrent pattern in their life (even though it's indeed not 24/7, except in case of pathological sex addicts).

Asexuals never, ever feel desire for sex.

Gray-aces feel desire for sex occasionally, but far too rarely to see any stable, recurrent pattern in it.

That's the entire difference, and it's really not rocket science.

[Torquil]

Oops, didn't see the response above answering the same question.

[Frigid Pink]

So, are sexuals only sexual when they're feeling desire to bang somebody? Are they asexual the other times? No, they aren't. (NOTE: I'm not talking about people whose sexuality is very fluid here, I'm talking about your average heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc.)

Sexuals feel desire for sex again and again, as a stable and recurrent pattern in their life (even though it's indeed not 24/7, except in case of pathological sex addicts).

Asexuals never, ever feel desire for sex.

Gray-aces feel desire for sex occasionally, but far too rarely to see any stable, recurrent pattern in it.

I agree with this. And "demi-sexual" people are those who feel a desire for sex only after they've developed an emotional bond with someone (never before).

[Torquil]

as Qwerty321 just said, "I can easy understand when I feel [sexual attraction]. ... (and I don't feel any desire actually have sex with them, but I feel kind of instinctive attraction)." Yet, they describe themselves as heterosexual. They might feel sexual attraction, but not necessarily desire--and this is another way where the "desire = sexual orientation" definition fails.

I agree with Qwerty's description of sexual attraction. The definition that I use is very similar: "an automatic unconscious reaction to sexual stimuli".

I guess I'm in the camp with Mysticus that sexual attraction is not the relevant criteria for asexuality. It's about the conscious urge to have sexual contact with other people.

[Torquil]

Analogy time. I think I came up with a pretty good one for the difference between sexual attraction and desire.

Let's say that there are two friends deciding what to do. Person A suggests to to Person B that they should go snowboarding.

Person B responds: "I don't want to go snowboarding. I'm not a snowboarder."

Person A wouldn't respond with: "Yes, but aren't you attracted to the idea of going snowboarding? Because, if you are, it means you're really a snowboarder".

Person B would be like: ... what? What does attraction have to do with it? Yeah, maybe I have some pleasant associations with snowboarding, maybe sometimes I think it would be nice to feel a cool breeze running through my hair going down a mountain, but it never amounts to any real desire to go snowboarding.

Person A responds: "You're just a snowboarder in denial. You're attracted to it therefore it means you want to do it."

Person B: ..... no it doesn't.

It's like this with sexual desire/attraction. An asexual is someone who simply doesn't want to have partnered sex. Attraction is beside the point. A person may or may not feel attraction, but that doesn't change their conscious desires.

I think allosexuals have a very hard time understanding this because for them attraction and desire are aligned. If they're sexually attracted to a person, they're open to have sex with them, given the right conditions and timing. That's not the case for asexuals.

[Lost247365]

I certainly agree that arousal isn't sexual attraction, but I do believe it has something to do with it. For many people--women, men, and everything in between--it's very easy to get aroused. If you get aroused by another person--and not thoughts of other people (if that makes sense; I've explained this better before but now I can't find where I did), I wouldn't call that asexual. If a person fantasizes and thinks about having sex with other people, and that "having sex" part is what is arousing (rather than being aroused because sexual thoughts may be arousing--again, I've explained this better somewhere), I don't know if I see how that isn't whatever-sexual. If it's more of the idea of having sex, rather than sex, I think pretty much everyone here will agree then that can be asexual, depending on the person.

Then going back to the IFLScience article I linked then you are stating that there are no heterosexual women as that is exactly what they showed. You are pretty much telling billions of women and millions of men (as the same research says there are no bisexual men) that they have no understanding of their own orientation.

If nothing else, I at least understand the "desire" definition a little better, so thank y'all! I don't see how it isn't vague, though. There are many reasons why people may say that they desire sex, and those reasons may not always be "actual" desire. I strongly disagree with the statement that if a man is sexually attracted to other men (and in this case when I say "sexually attracted" in the sense that he fantasizes about other men not because of the idea but because they are other men), but doesn't "desire to have sex with them," he isn't gay. He is. I would say only if it's because they're men, and not because the idea.

A man fantasizes about rescuing a beautiful women from a gang of bikers and beating them all up. Does this mean the man wants to go start a fight with the Hell's Angels? A woman fantasizes about a man forcably having sex with her against her will, does this mean the woman wants to be sexually assaulted in real life? Things that happen in dreams and fantasy don't necessarily translate to reality.

Sexuality in dreams and fantasy are just that, dreams and fantasy. If there is no sexual desire in real life, in real situations there is no real sexual desire. Just fantasies about having sexuality.

It is a very good point that what we say in English doesn't actually reflect what people say in other languages; however, it might be worth it to note that this is an English-speaking website. That isn't to say that the definitions are "wrong" if they aren't in English, but it should be taken into account that if English-speakers are mostly the ones who are reading this then word play should be an important part in helping them understand. When you say you're heterosexual, people know what you mean: you mean that you get turned on by people of the opposite sex. That doesn't mean that you feel a desire to have sex with every single person that you think is sexually attractive; you might, yeah, but what about all those times you don't?

That is not what the sexual desire definition says. The sexual desire definition says that one is asexual if they lack the potential for the intrinsic desire for sex with others. This does not mean that sexuals go around constantly desiring sex with others or desiring sex with every single member of the gender they naturally prefer. This lack of potential is required for both the desire and the attraction definition of asexuality.

But yes, different language definitions should have near exact same definitions because we are describing something that occurs identically across the entire globe.

Now I'll bring up Qwerty--you know, there is a difference between sensual, aesthetic, and sexual attractions. I am actually very sure that Qwerty knows what they're talking about when they say they are sexually attracted to people, but don't necessarily feel desire to have sex with them. Sexual people don't go around desiring to have sex 24/7, you know, even if they think a person is hot.

That, I suppose, is another reason why I disagree with the "desire" definition. So, are sexuals only sexual when they're feeling desire to bang somebody? Are they asexual the other times? No, they aren't. (NOTE: I'm not talking about people whose sexuality is very fluid here, I'm talking about your average heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc.)

Again, that is not what the sexual desire definition says. The sexual desire definition says that one is asexual if they lack the potential for the intrinsic desire for sex with others. This does not mean that sexuals go around constantly desiring sex with others or desiring sex with every single member of the gender they naturally prefer. This lack of potential is required for both the desire and the attraction definition of asexuality.

Further, if you take sexual arousal as being a part of sexual attraction then you are telling every single heterosexual identifying woman in the study I linked that Qwerty knows more about their orientation than they do.

Sexuals are always sexual because they always posses the potential to desire sex. They don't desire sex 24/7 but they always have the potential.

Asexuals don't have the ability to posses sexual desire ever.

Further, even if you don't accept the sexual desire definition this "lack of potential" applies to every definition of asexuality. Sexuals don't go around experiencing sexual arousal or attraction 24/7 either. Even those definitions are about a lack of potential. Why does this bother you with regards to the sexual desire definition and not the other definitions as well?

[Star Bit]

They might feel sexual attraction, but not necessarily desire--and this is another way where the "desire = sexual orientation" definition fails.

That's circumstancial; sexual people don't desire sex with every person or every person they're attracted to but they are still capable of desiring it.

By sexual feelings, Webster probably means sexual desire. They define feeling as "an emotional state or [emotional] reaction" so that seems very likely the way they meant it. Why didn't they just say that? idk.

@Lost

All the dictionaries that define sexual attraction virtually define it the same way; many wording it like sexual allure/pull to be sexual with someone. But as Mysticus says, and many people already know, desire (or an orientation) is not a decision; it's an impulse.

links to dictionaries that define it:

link

link

link

link

link

(there are more that define it but I'll look for them later)

All of the above define it "as attraction on the basis of sexual desire", some of which clarify what attraction means; "a quality of arousing interest". So really it translates to "impulse to have sex with someone specific."

[Torquil]

All of the above define it "as attraction on the basis of sexual desire", some of which clarify what attraction means; "a quality of arousing interest". So really it translates to "impulse to have sex with someone specific."

In my opinion, the traditional definition gets things ass-backwards.

Desire is not the basis of attraction. Attraction is the basis of desire. As I discussed with Tarfeather elsewhere a very typical sequence is like this:

Attraction --> Relationship --> Intimacy --> Desire.

I think this is part of the reason why the "no attraction" definition of asexuality makes a lot of sense to allosexuals, because it implies that the whole process never gets started. There is no initial attraction, so there is nothing from desire to emerge from. They don't imagine that things could break down at the level of desire instead.

[Guest]

All of the above define it "as attraction on the basis of sexual desire", some of which clarify what attraction means; "a quality of arousing interest". So really it translates to "impulse to have sex with someone specific."

In my opinion, the traditional definition gets things ass-backwards.

Desire is not the basis of attraction. Attraction is the basis of desire. As I discussed with Tarfeather elsewhere a typical sequence is like this:

Attraction --> Relationship --> Intimacy --> Desire.

I think this is part of the reason why the "no attraction" definition of asexuality makes a lot of sense to allosexuals, because it implies that the whole process never gets started. There is no initial attraction, so there is nothing from desire to emerge from. They don't imagine that things could break down at the level of desire instead.

However, from what some sexuals - notably Geo, dunno if he's around anymore? - said, it should rather be:

Desire --> Attraction --> Relationship/Intimacy

(I slashed the last two together because I really can't separate them into two different factors. "Relationship", to me, is just a label two or more people choose to put onto their intimate "contact structure".)

I find it hard to see how one would even notice and classify attraction (as "sexual" attraction, "romantic" attraction, etc.) unless it's due to an underlying desire (sexual desire, romantic desire etc.). The desire is the root cause that is always there, even when there is noone around to direct it to. A homosexual man will desire sex with guys even when he's on a lonely island with not a single other man around. Thus, attraction cannot be the cause of desire - desire is far more primal.

[Notte stellata]

Desire is not the basis of attraction. Attraction is the basis of desire. As I discussed with Tarfeather elsewhere a very typical sequence is like this:

Attraction --> Relationship --> Intimacy --> Desire.

I think this is part of the reason why the "no attraction" definition of asexuality makes a lot of sense to allosexuals, because it implies that the whole process never gets started. There is no initial attraction, so there is nothing from desire to emerge from. They don't imagine that things could break down at the level of desire instead.

That only applies to desire for a specific person. Sexuals still have a general desire for sex even if they're not attracted to anyone specific at the moment. According to many sexuals here, it's the underlying general desire that defines their sexuality.

[Torquil]

All of the above define it "as attraction on the basis of sexual desire", some of which clarify what attraction means; "a quality of arousing interest". So really it translates to "impulse to have sex with someone specific."

In my opinion, the traditional definition gets things ass-backwards.

Desire is not the basis of attraction. Attraction is the basis of desire. As I discussed with Tarfeather elsewhere a typical sequence is like this:

Attraction --> Relationship --> Intimacy --> Desire.

I think this is part of the reason why the "no attraction" definition of asexuality makes a lot of sense to allosexuals, because it implies that the whole process never gets started. There is no initial attraction, so there is nothing from desire to emerge from. They don't imagine that things could break down at the level of desire instead.

However, from what some sexuals - notably Geo, dunno if he's around anymore? - said, it should rather be:

Desire --> Attraction --> Relationship/Intimacy

(I slashed the last two together because I really can't separate them into two different factors. "Relationship", to me, is just a label two or more people choose to put onto their intimate "contact structure".)

I find it hard to see how one would even notice and classify attraction (as "sexual" attraction, "romantic" attraction, etc.) unless it's due to an underlying desire (sexual desire, romantic desire etc.). The desire is the root cause that is always there, even when there is noone around to direct it to. A homosexual man will desire sex with guys even when he's on a lonely island with not a single other man around. Thus, attraction cannot be the cause of desire - desire is far more primal.

Interesting. For the example of the single guy on the island, I would argue that he has this desire for sex with men based on past experiences with attraction. Before he got on the island, he was attracted to men, and this formed the basis of his desire. So yeah, when he's on the island he still desires men, but he feels no attraction to men (because they're aren't any there). I don't see any contradiction with my opposing account.

I think attraction is what it is and doesn't need desire to define it. Sexual attraction is an innate response to certain sexual stimuli. Romantic attraction is an innate response to certain people/situations deemed romantic (what exactly counts as romantic is hard to pinpoint, and involves a cultural component).

[Lost247365]

@Lost

All the dictionaries that define sexual attraction virtually define it the same way; many wording it like sexual allure/pull to be sexual with someone. But as Mysticus says, and many people already know, desire (or an orientation) is not a decision; it's an impulse.

links to dictionaries that define it:

link

link

link

link

link

(there are more that define it but I'll look for them later)

All of the above define it "as attraction on the basis of sexual desire", some of which clarify what attraction means; "a quality of arousing interest". So really it translates to "impulse to have sex with someone specific."

Isn't that exactly what I have been saying my last couple of posts? That sexual desire is the basis of sexual attraction and the two words are pretty much synonyms for each others using the actual dictionary defintion.

I mean impulse literally means desire, so *desire to have sex with someone specific.*

Also, I don't think I ever claimed it was a decision, but if something I said came out appearing like that then I worded my post poorly. I have never considered sexual desire to be a choice. We can't control what we feel.

[Star Bit]

Sexual attraction is not a responce to sexual stimuli; someones trigger for sexual attraction could be as simple as someones laugh. Sexual arousal is not sexual attraction.

@Lost

That's just one of impulse's many definitions.

Impulse also means "a driving/motivating force" and "influence of a particular feeling."

None of which mention desire.

[Torquil]

Sexual attraction is not a responce to sexual stimuli; someones trigger for sexual attraction could be as simple as someones laugh. Sexual arousal is not sexual attraction.

You and I clearly have very different conceptions of sexual attraction. In my view it would not occur because of a laugh. The attraction is specifically due to sexual stimuli (breasts, butts, shoulders, etc.).

Maybe sexual desire could be influenced by enjoying someone's laugh, but not attraction imo.

And yeah, in my version attraction is indeed pretty close to arousal. But it's kind of like the beginning stage of arousal, and does not imply the full-blown thing.

[crazypimpernelfan]

I voted for "bisexual", even if that doesn't really explain me, it's what I typically define myself as. xD