Defining asexuality - a better definition?

[Star Bit]

In none of the dictionary definitions of sexual attraction do they say sexual arousal; they all equate to the same meaning of "a quality that evokes sexual interest." (Nor do any definitions of sexuality mention sexual arousal.)

[Lost247365]

In none of the dictionary definitions of sexual attraction do they say sexual arousal; they all equate to the same meaning of "a quality that evokes sexual interest." (Nor do any definitions of sexuality mention sexual arousal.)

I can't help but think if we had another word for when one experiences arousal based upon appearance that maybe things would not be so confusing. Something like "Erotic Attraction." BUT, the LAST thing we need is another type of attraction. I think the six we have now are problematic enough as is.

[Torquil]

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.

I kind of like the idea of defining asexuality as the lack of general underlying desire for sex (excluding desire for masturbation).

[Torquil]

In none of the dictionary definitions of sexual attraction do they say sexual arousal; they all equate to the same meaning of "a quality that evokes sexual interest." (Nor do any definitions of sexuality mention sexual arousal.)

I can't help but think if we had another word for when one experiences arousal based upon appearance that maybe things would not be so confusing. Something like "Erotic Attraction." BUT, the LAST thing we need is another type of attraction. I think the six we have now are problematic enough as is.

Primary sexual attraction?

"A sexual attraction to people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell) which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire."

I find it quite interesting that it explicitly says that such attraction does not necessarily lead to any desire for sex, yet somehow people who feel it are not classified as asexual. This is what happens when asexuality is defined by non-libidoists.

If I had to re-draw the table it would be like this:

[Starlit Sky]

Well, I've explained asexuality to several (and by "several" we are talking over thirty here; sometimes I was coming out, and other times they just asked what it meant, since it was on my profile). I'm actually pretty good at it. :lol: Or at least, if their acceptance and understanding is anything to go by, I am.

In the beginning there was a time where I tried to say that asexuals don't desire sex, but that never worked out in my favor. I'm positive that there are sexual people who would understand the "desire" definition more than the "attraction" definition! However, I also think it's pretty understandable as to why I prefer the "no sexual attraction" thing, when the other one has given me so much trouble.

Well, that, and the fact that "no desire for partnered sex" seems to be . . . vague. (TW for the rest of this paragraph.) I mean, sometimes when someone is homosexual but hasn't really come to terms with that yet, they say they "don't want sex"; sometimes, when someone has been sexually abused, they say they "don't want sex"; sometimes, when someone has spent years upon years upon years of having sex in the hopes that someone will love them, they say they "don't want sex." Yes, I know that there is an emphasis on "partnered," but I don't think that the word "partnered" would stop them from saying, "Oh, that's so me!" if that was at the top of this site, rather than what is now.

[Question: Why is there an emphasis on "partnered sex?" I guess you could say that masturbation is "sex" if you wanted to, but that comes off as really elitisty.]

[Double question: What are the problems with the attraction definition again? I've heard that there are supposed to be some, but I don't know them.]

[Lost247365]

I can't speak for others but when I add in the phrase "partnered sex " I do so specifically so that people don't think I mean masturbation.

There are multiple types of attractions, and some people can't tell them a part. It not like attractions comes up to you and says "Hi I am aesthetic attraction and he is sexual attraction." So, the question is, "how would you know you experienced sexual attraction if you never experienced it?" Maybe what you are feeling is romantic attraction? Or maybe it is just aesthetic attraction. It is hard to know.

This is further complicated by the fact that the term itself is very vague, and this cause people to become confused on what is or isn't sexual attraction. Is it about arousal? About being pulled to others? About desire? People can't seem to agree, and many people spend hours/days/weeks/etc wondering if they are asexual or not.

I have never desired to have sex in my life. But I do experience attraction to people, and get aroused. I spent months wondering if the attractions I felt were actually sexual attraction or not.

Personally, if I were forced to explain it I would say:

"Asexuality is a sexual orientation in which one lacks the potential to intrinsically desire sex with others."

Saying "lack of potentional" avoids the problem you mention. This prevents people from conflating a temporary lull in sexual desire with asexuality. I also add the word intrinsic in order to make it clear that the desire has to be for sex for its own sake. Otherwise, some people will think wanting to have sex in order to have a baby counts as sexual desire. It doesn't. That is desire for a baby not for sex.

[Lost247365]

In none of the dictionary definitions of sexual attraction do they say sexual arousal; they all equate to the same meaning of "a quality that evokes sexual interest." (Nor do any definitions of sexuality mention sexual arousal.)

I can't help but think if we had another word for when one experiences arousal based upon appearance that maybe things would not be so confusing. Something like "Erotic Attraction." BUT, the LAST thing we need is another type of attraction. I think the six we have now are problematic enough as is.

Primary sexual attraction?

"A sexual attraction to people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell) which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire."

I find it quite interesting that it explicitly says that such attraction does not necessarily lead to any desire for sex, yet somehow people who feel it are not classified as asexual. This is what happens when asexuality is defined by non-libidoists.

If I had to re-draw the table it would be like this:

I like your table better.

[Star Bit]

How the heck is "no desire for sex with anyone" vague?!!

Nothing you say supports that; only that people can have different reasons for not wanting sex, and all of which are perfectly valid as an asexual. Yah, some gay people thought they were asexual (and aromantic), but fact is that they came to sexually desire what they hadn't considered as a possibility before. They became allosexual and that's fine. Them previously identifying as asexual is fine. Yes, people who are sexually abused can nolonger desire sex. Them identifying as asexual is completely valid. If the trauma faxes with time or they get help to deal with the trauma and become allosexual again then that's fine. But not everyones trauma can go away and sometimes it's permanent and it's completely find if someone like that identifies as asexual. The person who spends years having sex in the hopes of finding love really does seem asexual. Most people who can't sustain a romantic relationship still desire hook-ups.

(somewhatly a repeat of what Lost said:)

Q1: Because some people consider masturbation sex. Specifying partnered sex also makes it more clear that we're not including masturbation/ indirectly saying asexuals can masturbate. But i prefer the "with others / with anyone" phrasing over the "partnered sex" phrasing because that can confuse people (when most consider sex to always be partnered).

Q2: 1) Because the definition of sexual attraction is to have something about someone trigger the impulse to have sex with them; targeted sexual desire; to find someone sexually alluring. And sexual people desire sex for many many more reasons than just that. Because of that definition, cupiosexuals can say "i desire sex for other reasons than finding my partner sexually alluring/ sexually attractive and may require it in my relationships, so I'm asexual." Which is wrong; it's a completely normal allosexual, and that's according to the allosexuals on here.

2) People misinterpret what it's supposed to mean because that phrase isn't regularly defined. If it's used then it's just self explanatory to most allosexuals. On top of that, other types of attraction are rarely known/ differentiated by the allosexual majority so they wouldn't know of the other terms to begin with. The word sexual is also very broad, which doesn't help in clarifying which version of the word is being used. (fyi, it refers to sex and nothing more) I've seen people mistake sexual attraction for many other things because they see allosexuals react that way and assume it's the same thing. They mistake aesthetic attraction (the pull to look at someone due to their looks and or mannerisms), sensual attraction (the impulse to have non-sexual physical contact), the desire to make out, or even the desire to express their torso licking fetish (asexuals can have fetishes), while none of those were the impulse to do genital involving things to a specific person.

(On the note of the word sexual being broad, this problem also happens with the word transsexual and why most people use the word transgender in its place now. But there's nothing "across/ through/ over/ beyond/ changing genders" about transsexuals [the word's literal translation]; they've always been a woman/man; what actually changes is their genitals and what pronouns they go by. The problem is that word transsexual can sound like a sexuality. Honestly it should just be transsex; there's no need for the encompassing word "sexual". But changing sexual attraction to "sex attraction" doesn't work; it needs a suffix in order to be paired with the word attraction and sounds odd or more misinterpretable if it were to be phrased that way.)

[Starlit Sky]

Star Bit - The reason you think that none of my points work is because you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. You think when I say that they lack a desire for sex they are experiencing the same thing that you and I feel, but that is most often not what is going on when someone says that they don't want to have sex.

(TW for this paragraph) The thing is . . . when someone is raped and doesn't desire sex they don't suddenly stop thinking that guys are hot, or girls, or anyone else. They don't necessarily lose the innate desire for sex, even though they don't want sex. That probably doesn't make sense, but I've been told this more than once by the victims. Some will say that they feel "sexual attraction," which I realize that the definition of sexual attraction is to do with a desire for sex--but that isn't how they use it, and it's not how they recognize it, and therefore confusion would inevitably result if we said asexuality was simply a lack of a desire for sex.

I respect your opinion about people turning asexual to allosexual, or vice versa, even if I don't agree with it (it certainly happens--I just don't believe it happens quite as often in the context that you say). If a man who is a homosexual but has not yet admitted that to himself says that he doesn't want sex, then what he really means is that he doesn't want sex with women, and if he does suspect that he's gay then he doesn't want sex with men, either, but that's because of whatever reason (be it religious or personal), not because he doesn't get turned-on when he sees their bodies; he does. Otherwise, he wouldn't be gay in the first place. Even if he says he doesn't want sex, that doesn't mean that he lacks the innate desire for sex.

Which is why I think that "no desire for sex" is vague. However . . .

Lost - Thank you for explaining that to me! With what you have said, I now understand that "a lack of sexual attraction" is far from clear-cut itself. :) I suppose the reason I never thought of it that way is that I never had any reason to. For me, once I realized that there is a difference between sexual and romantic attractions (namely, when I realized that "heteromantic" is a word), I understood immediately and did not have to go through any questioning phase from that point on.

I really like the potential definition that you gave out. I personally feel like it covers a lot more bases than either of the more popular ones. ^_^

[WhenSummersGone]

In none of the dictionary definitions of sexual attraction do they say sexual arousal; they all equate to the same meaning of "a quality that evokes sexual interest." (Nor do any definitions of sexuality mention sexual arousal.)

I can't help but think if we had another word for when one experiences arousal based upon appearance that maybe things would not be so confusing. Something like "Erotic Attraction." BUT, the LAST thing we need is another type of attraction. I think the six we have now are problematic enough as is.

Primary sexual attraction?

"A sexual attraction to people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell) which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire."

I find it quite interesting that it explicitly says that such attraction does not necessarily lead to any desire for sex, yet somehow people who feel it are not classified as asexual. This is what happens when asexuality is defined by non-libidoists.

If I had to re-draw the table it would be like this:

Just curious but why would it be yes and yes under primary and secondary attraction for an asexual with a libido? Or is that just hypothetical?

[Lost247365]

Just curious but why would it be yes and yes under primary and secondary attraction for an asexual with a libido? Or is that just hypothetical?

Because the way they describe primary sexual attraction in that section of the AVENwiki is erasing of all Libidoist asexuals.

Primary sexual attraction?

"A sexual attraction to people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell) which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire."

If it was phrased:

A sexual attraction to people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell) which leads to sexual desire."

Then it would be a "no."

[WhenSummersGone]

Just curious but why would it be yes and yes under primary and secondary attraction for an asexual with a libido? Or is that just hypothetical?

Because the way they describe primary sexual attraction in that section of the AVENwiki is erasing of all Libidoist asexuals.

Primary sexual attraction?

"A sexual attraction to people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell) which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire."

If it was phrased:

A sexual attraction to people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell) which leads to sexual desire."

Then it would be a "no."

Oh I see. That makes sense now and I agree with that.

[Torquil]

I was watching Ashley Mardell's Asexual and Aromantic video series recently.

Part 2 has an interesting description of "sexual attraction": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8o-l20NAsI8#t=49s

Joe describes it in two ways: “Physical and psychological yearning for some kind of sexual contact with a person.”

“Wanting to have intercourse or some kind of sexual acts with a person.”

In the way that I understand the terms, I believe he is describing sexual desire rather than sexual attraction, but I very much like the way that he put it.

For the sake of completeness, the definition of sexual attraction that I subscribe to is from Naosuu: an involuntary, subconscious reaction to sexual stimuli.

[SireninSpace]

A person who experiences little to no sexual attraction and or little to no desire for partnered sex is a much better definition IMHO. It's waaayyy more comprehensible, especially considering how ambiguous the term "sexual attraction" is to a lot of people.

[Star Bit]

But there are asexuals who experience sexual attraction; they just either don't identify with that being in their head or they never want to act on it, so the "little to no sexual attraction" part means they can't identify as asexual. And experiencing little sexual desire is subjective; a low libido is still a normal sexual person. An asexual never innately desires sex.

[WinterWanderer]

It confuses me that we argue so much over what "lack of sexual attraction" means here at AVEN. It's almost comical. We dissect it, we look at the word roots, we define it different ways based on our own experiences. We go as far as to separate into different camps based on what we think it means. And it just makes it all the more complicated to try to explain what asexuality is.

It's like if a red apple went up to another apple, and said, "You must be an orange, because you're not the same shade of red as I am." But they're both apples. That's how it often feels to me here.

I think that if we have a set definition for asexuality, it needs to be straightforward, so that we asexuals aren't confused about what we are. :p

[Lost247365]

It confuses me that we argue so much over what "lack of sexual attraction" means here at AVEN. It's almost comical. We dissect it, we look at the word roots, we define it different ways based on our own experiences. We go as far as to separate into different camps based on what we think it means. And it just makes it all the more complicated to try to explain what asexuality is.

It's like if a red apple went up to another apple, and said, "You must be an orange, because you're not the same shade of red as I am." But they're both apples. That's how it often feels to me here.

I think that if we have a set definition for asexuality, it needs to be straightforward, so that we asexuals aren't confused about what we are. :P

I think part of the reason there is so much argument over this definition actually has little to do with people actually caring what "sexual attraction" means at all. What we really are arguing about is "what makes a person a(n) (a)sexual or not."

If our culture had not shackled Sexual attraction as being "The deciding factor" for one's orientation (with regards to the English language), not a single person would give a shit.

[Star Bit]

But the details matter because misunderstanding can happen. If we were to put "asexuals do not desire sex" some people may think they can't sexually compromise, so we put "innately desire". I prefer panficto's addition of "for emotional and sexual pleasure" because it fully paints the picture rather than some people pondering "what is naturally desiring sex?"

[Guest]

Attraction at a chemical party..

[Star Bit]

XD that vid is adorkable

[tytech95]

Honestly, I like the definition of asexuality being that as a sexuality for those who do not feel sexual attraction. However, it seems to confuse others into thinking it is the same thing as celibacy.

When I use the current definition to explain my asexuality to others, they seem....confused, to put it lightly.

Here is my own form of the definition that I find actually enabled others to easily understand:

"An asexual person is a person who does not feel sexual lust towards anyone."

Yes, it seems to add more unwanted phrasing, but when I use this, they seem to understand that while asexuals do not feel sexual attraction, they can feel a desire for sex in general (or not), which seems to help them understand that sexual attraction and sexual cravings are not related.

[Star Bit]

And not every sexual person experiences lust; they can desire sex for different reasons. Your definition is no different than the banner definition; it has the same hole/is synonymous with sexual attraction. How does "an asexual does not desire sex (for sexual or emotional pleasure, even after foreplay)" not suffice?

Wow, wow, wait, did i read that right? You're saying asexuals can desire sex. No, no, no, wrong. They can want to make a partner happy, but it's exactly that and not them actually desiring sex. -_- Once again, a newbie that needs education on what normal sexual people are. (sorry, it's just getting old)

[binary suns]

In none of the dictionary definitions of sexual attraction do they say sexual arousal; they all equate to the same meaning of "a quality that evokes sexual interest." (Nor do any definitions of sexuality mention sexual arousal.)

I can't help but think if we had another word for when one experiences arousal based upon appearance that maybe things would not be so confusing. Something like "Erotic Attraction." BUT, the LAST thing we need is another type of attraction. I think the six we have now are problematic enough as is.

Primary sexual attraction?

"A sexual attraction to people based on instantly available information (such as their appearance or smell) which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire."

I find it quite interesting that it explicitly says that such attraction does not necessarily lead to any desire for sex, yet somehow people who feel it are not classified as asexual. This is what happens when asexuality is defined by non-libidoists.

If I had to re-draw the table it would be like this:

i don't think that row for demi is right.

what is primary verse secondary desire?

[binary suns]

But the details matter because misunderstanding can happen. If we were to put "asexuals do not desire sex" some people may think they can't sexually compromise, so we put "innately desire". I prefer panficto's addition of "for emotional and sexual pleasure" because it fully paints the picture rather than some people pondering "what is naturally desiring sex?"

I'm not sure if this was brought up yet. but " for sexual pleasure" doesn't that imply that asexuals can't physically enjoy sex?

[Star Bit]

It's actually wrong; that's not how primary and secondary work; the phrasing is wrong. What it means, and should just be called because no one ever gets what it's supposed to mean, is initial sexual desire/attraction and latened sexual desire/attraction.

And i don't think anyone has mentioned your second comment (at least to my memory; which has admittedly been quite a while since i first commented so i may not be remembering everything, and my time on this thread; which is admittedly late into its existance so maybe someone did before my time on here). But no, it would not mean that; enjoyment and desire are two different things.

[Torquil]

i don't think that row for demi is right.

what is primary verse secondary desire?

Secondary desire: "The desire to engage in sexual activity for the purposes other than personal pleasure, such as the happiness of the other person involved or the conception of children."

People in all categories are capable of this type of desire. Primary is "The desire to engage in sexual activity for the purposes of personal pleasure whether physical, emotional, or both."

What are your thoughts on the demi row?

[Torquil]

Honestly, I like the definition of asexuality being that as a sexuality for those who do not feel sexual attraction. However, it seems to confuse others into thinking it is the same thing as celibacy.

When I use the current definition to explain my asexuality to others, they seem....confused, to put it lightly.

Here is my own form of the definition that I find actually enabled others to easily understand:

"An asexual person is a person who does not feel sexual lust towards anyone."

Yes, it seems to add more unwanted phrasing, but when I use this, they seem to understand that while asexuals do not feel sexual attraction, they can feel a desire for sex in general (or not), which seems to help them understand that sexual attraction and sexual cravings are not related.

I think it's better than the blanket sexual attraction explanation. The sex researcher Anthony Bogaert has put it similarly: "an asexual is someone who doesn't have a lustful connection to others."

[Lost247365]

You are all wrong. An asexual is a person who likes to share cake memes...

[binary suns]

I looked it up

it seems, primary vrs. secondary attraction is talking about "love at first sight" versus "love after friendship" while primary vrs. secondary desire talks about wanting sex for pleasure verses sex for function.

Regarding the table... Now that I understand better the terms, I'd say the Demi table should be "No|Yes|Yes|Yes"

but... I do raise the question of, what is it when someone who ID's as libido'd ace wants to have sex because it is an alternative to masturbation. This is something that does not have enough clarity, and is often debated. Is there a clear difference between a sexual's desire for physical pleasure, and a desire for the function of physical pleasure? or would someone who finds sex agreeable enough to choose it interchangeably with masturbation always be a sexual or grey person? (I'm actually going to write a post on this topic in the forum)

[Star Bit]

While what Torquil said would be the correct use of the phrases (which cancels out the first half of the graph because there would be no secondary attraction and makes primary attraction pointless), that's not how they're used.