Jump to content

Defining asexuality - a better definition?


thjb

  

779 members have voted

  1. 1. Please select your orientation;

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

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

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

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Absence of potential to intrinsically desire partner sex vs. No intrinsic desire for partnered sex... Why not just go for the simpler one when they're both saying the exact same thing?

I think it is important to include it as to avoid a person claiming to be asexual between periods of desire. Asexuality is an orientation not just a temporary state. Just because one is not experiencing sexual desire here and now doesn't mean they are asexual. Just because they are going through a lull doesn't mean they are asexual (think Caitlyn Jenner).

It recognizes that sexuals don't experience desire 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365.25 days a year. That certain conditions can temporary cause loss of desire.

But, if most everyone else dislikes it or feels it unnecessary I can live without it.

''an asexual is someone who has no desire to connect sexually with others for sexual and/or emotional pleasure, ever''

''an asexual person has no intrinsic desire for partnered sex, ever''

I almost always add ''ever'' at the end (I was just in a hurry this morning) ..it covers that whole ''potential'' thing but is less open to misinterpretation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

''an asexual person has no intrinsic desire for partnered sex, ever''

It's a shame that this would make the definition sound overly casual (more than I'd be comfy with to put on a banner), because I think it captures the "potential" thing pretty well. I think this would be a fine sentence in the FAQ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sage Raven Domino

The definition that I'm using internally is, 'an asexual is someone who is unlikely to ever have an intrinsic desire for partnered sex'.

I find it easier to prove asexuality in this sense than the categorical 'will never have' statement because 'never say never' is a strong counterargument that opponents (incl. my relatives) often use.

Leave alone that I can't conclusively prove the 'never' statement even to myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

''an asexual person has no intrinsic desire for partnered sex, ever''

It's a shame that this would make the definition sound overly casual (more than I'd be comfy with to put on a banner), because I think it captures the "potential" thing pretty well. I think this would be a fine sentence in the FAQ.

I thought we were just talking about definitions, not the banner. And I don't think it matters if the banner sounds "casual" as long as it clearly defines what an 'asexual' is. Now it has to clearly define an asexual but also do so with a particular tone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition that I'm using internally is, 'an asexual is someone who is unlikely to ever have an intrinsic desire for partnered sex'.

I find it easier to prove asexuality in this sense than the categorical 'will never have' statement because 'never say never' is a strong counterargument that opponents (incl. my relatives) often use.

Leave alone that I can't conclusively prove the 'never' statement even to myself.

Sounds good, and logically sound.

I thought we were just talking about definitions, not the banner. And I don't think it matters if the banner sounds "casual" as long as it clearly defines what an 'asexual' is. Now it has to clearly define an asexual but also do so with a particular tone?

Since the entire problem is that we have an banner implying to be an - nay, the - "official" definition... these two things can't really be separated IMO. And when it's "official"... yes, tone matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading all your AVEN posts over the past few weeks/months Mysticus, and you recently seem to have had a massive turn around in your opinion and perspective regarding what asexuality actually is. I'm not the only who has noticed it either. I'm not going to further engage in these discussions with you, it seems we are no longer on the same page regarding asexuality (and I don't mean the fact that to me, the label is becoming increasingly meaningless thanks to, well, AVEN)

Adios to this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I am too new to this thread, but I have always appreciated Myst's posts. They have been, and this is just my opinion, one of the most consistently logical posters I have seen.

That said, I enjoy your posts for the same reason.

But, I will admit AVEN can be....welll AVEN at times. Spending too much time here, and getting really involved with the discussion we have here, is probably not good for one's mental health. It probably a good idea to take a break from time to time or just focus on the Q&A/Welcome area where you can help people and not worry about definitions.

Sorry to see you leaving the thread Pan, but I do understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading all your AVEN posts over the past few weeks/months Mysticus, and you recently seem to have had a massive turn around in your opinion and perspective regarding what asexuality actually is. I'm not the only who has noticed it either. I'm not going to further engage in these discussions with you, it seems we are no longer on the same page regarding asexuality (and I don't mean the fact that to me, the label is becoming increasingly meaningless thanks to, well, AVEN)

I have no idea why you would think so, because I'm very certain that nothing at all has changed about the way I see things. I'm saying the same things I've been talking about for well over two years,

But if that's your opinion, I can't help it. *shrug*

Link to post
Share on other sites
just an owl

I haven't really been following this thread at all... I voted in it at some point but I think I've changed my mind.

Although I have to ask... "partnered sex"? Is that any different from just... sex? Why emphasis on the partnered part?

I fee like I'm missing something here..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sage Raven Domino

Although I have to ask... "partnered sex"? Is that any different from just... sex? Why emphasis on the partnered part?

The word 'partnered' is added because some people regard masturbation as (unpartnered) 'sex with oneself' (as in the term 'solosexual').

Link to post
Share on other sites
just an owl

Although I have to ask... "partnered sex"? Is that any different from just... sex? Why emphasis on the partnered part?

The word 'partnered' is added because some people regard masturbation as (unpartnered) 'sex with oneself' (as in the term 'solosexual').

Ah, I thought that but I've never really heard anyone who regards it as sex... Cheers for clarifying, though.

But yeah, I think I'm changing my original thoughts on this and think asexuality is better defined as having no desire for (partnered) sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, "no innate desire to have partnered sex" is the perfect definition of asexuality, I really don't see anything wrong with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

To me, "no innate desire to have partnered sex" is the perfect definition of asexuality, I really don't see anything wrong with it.

I feel the same. Adding too many words just complicates it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

because of a point Myst made yesterday, I'm changing my stance. I no longer have an oppinion on whether or the phrase "desire for sex" is relevant for asexuality, as I am not asexual I cannot say what makes most sense for them.

but I still firmly take the stand, that whether or not a person "desires sex" with whom is not sufficient for all orientations. if a person does desire sex, and if that makes that person not asexual, that by no means implies that they are a "normal sexual" as has been said or implied recently. that is pretty much a prejudiced claim. grey sexuality exists for one, and it is not always fair to "judge" a grey as "asexual or sexual" there is a grey area for a reason! and for a second thing, not all full sexual people are "normal" sexual people either!

sorry if this was untimely, and that I don't have anything specific to the current topic at hand.

ps. on the topic at hand, I find it incredibly frustrating for people to say "I'm done with you". I mean like, if you are really done and don't want to be a part of this, I will of course support the decison for you to walk away and not post. you have that freedom. but dramatically claiming so? in my personal experience, making a dramatic showing like that always backfired, and put my in a place where my ties were completely cut, and I had to awkwardly rekindle any peership from worse than scraps. as I assume we are all part of this community, I would please ask that we find better ways of walking out of a conversation than declaring not wanting to deal with certain posters or conversations. simply saying "I need to step down from this conversation" is worlds different from what I've often seen said, and what I myself at times have said.

it's basically like slamming the door in the face of someone you're angry at. even if you didn't mean to slam it in their face, it just sort of happened that you were angry and the door slammed behind you... the insult is still there. the feeling for the people you are walking away from of, "shit how do I even go forward after that" is still haunting them. and it's still going to be awkward when you see them next, anything you say will be hard to say because you don't know how they really feel after what you had done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but I still firmly take the stand, that whether or not a person "desires sex" with whom is not sufficient for all orientations. if a person does desire sex, and if that makes that person not asexual, that by no means implies that they are a "normal sexual" as has been said or implied recently. that is pretty much a prejudiced claim. grey sexuality exists for one, and it is not always fair to "judge" a grey as "asexual or sexual" there is a grey area for a reason! and for a second thing, not all full sexual people are "normal" sexual people either!

I will agree with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but I still firmly take the stand, that whether or not a person "desires sex" with whom is not sufficient for all orientations. if a person does desire sex, and if that makes that person not asexual, that by no means implies that they are a "normal sexual" as has been said or implied recently. that is pretty much a prejudiced claim. grey sexuality exists for one, and it is not always fair to "judge" a grey as "asexual or sexual" there is a grey area for a reason! and for a second thing, not all full sexual people are "normal" sexual people either!

I will agree with this.

So will I. IMO, Greys are definitely not asexual, but that doesn't mean that there weren't still pretty big differences between a grey person and a "normal/regular" sexual.

I just hold that "attraction" doesn't work to differentiate any of these groups from each other, at all... whereas (innate/inherent/"primary") desire for partnered sex does so, neatly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WinterWanderer

but I still firmly take the stand, that whether or not a person "desires sex" with whom is not sufficient for all orientations. if a person does desire sex, and if that makes that person not asexual, that by no means implies that they are a "normal sexual" as has been said or implied recently. that is pretty much a prejudiced claim. grey sexuality exists for one, and it is not always fair to "judge" a grey as "asexual or sexual" there is a grey area for a reason! and for a second thing, not all full sexual people are "normal" sexual people either!

I've made posts recently that probably sounded like I was saying gray = normal sexual, so I apologize if I'm one of the people you're referring to. I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, though. Gray-sexuality is neither asexual nor fully sexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

I think that attraction does matter, however. I cannot say what is right for sexual people though, or anyone else but myelf. for myself, attraction is not some thing I can freely name "sexual" or "romantic" neither of those labels really make a lot of sense. it is a different set of feelings from "attraction" that is important for me in building my relationships. the same thing is true of desire, however. and it is because I struggle to identify with either of those terms, that I suspected originally that I am ace. but the thing is, that I am certainly not ace either.

personally speaking, I do not like the idea of asexuality being "people who don't desire sex" because I literally cannot process what "desiring sex" means for me in such an encompassing way. but that could just be because I am grey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone doesn't understand what desiring sex means, I'd consider that a direct indication for a pretty damn good chance that they're grey, or outright ace.

For sexuals, that's pretty much a "...duh!?" kind of question. (Unlike the "what is sexual attraction?" question, which many, many self-identified sexuals don't have any better clue about answering than the aces of AVEN.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
PeterPanForever

I prefer the term does not 'will' to have sex, but I am the only one who uses it, lol. Sometimes I desire sex, like the other day when I was watching the girl outside wax her car, she had an amazing body, and God knows it, but most of the time I don't, and I NEVER 'will' to have sex. I never take action on the desire when it happens. I think the asexual community in general puts way too much emphasis on desire. It's like this one time, I had this sexual desire, and so I guess that I must be sexual. I haven't had sex in 105 years, but the other day, damn did I sure want to, I guess that I must be gray. I do see an enormous difference between the desire to have a sexual encounter, for whatever reason, be it attraction, pleasure, or erotic adventure, and the 'will' to bring it to fruition, that push to take what is a fantasy of the mind, and a figment of the imagination, and make it a reality. The desire of the asexual, if it is present, can many times be imaginary, therefore the asexual will say, nah, I don't think so, 99 times out of a hundred when they find themselves with an actual opportunity. The sexual personality will probably blame it on their nerves, they're just afraid they'll think. Where the celibate personality will go to war with the will to, versus the will not too, the asexual doesn't struggle with this, they just don't want to, even if at some point much earlier in the scenario the thought crossed their mind creating a kind of sexual desire in their imagination, and they know they don't want to, even if there was that place within their imagination that said hell yeah, maybe, I think, why not, sure. That's the difference. But again, if there were 100 asexuals in the room, we would have 100 different interpretations of what it means to be an asexual, and that's the way that it should be. Since I have stopped watching porn and masturbating, the desire has all but disappeared, minus the other day, which means that to me, sexual desire can be artificially generated/produced, even within the asexual. Why would an asexual want to watch porn to begin with??? Well if they haven't came to terms with their asexual metaphysical makeover, then they may use porn and masturbation to compensate for the lack of real world intimacy they experience. There is a recurring scenario within many asexuals where the desire to have sex is present right up to the point to where it is about to become a reality, and then it disappears, because that desire was in their imagination, not their physiology, and their body isn't responding to the moment like it should. I believe that there is imaginative sexual desire, and physiological sexual desire, and I believe that sometimes asexuals will experience imaginative sexual desire, and yes, still be asexual. I also believe that asexuality is NOT an absolute, but exists somewhere on an asexual/sexual spectrum in which "gray" is somewhere in the middle, and not right out of the gate of this absolute state of asexuality. But anyway, I am wrong more than I'm right, and I don't much care anymore. It is what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PeterPanForever

My only pet peeve is when you have had this experience that has followed you around for your entire life, like a shadow, and you try to put it into words, to explain what you are going through, and how you don't quite function the same way as others around you, and from your description, and terminology, a concept is created, and from the concept comes a theory, and then the theory gets disproved by someone who has no idea whatsoever what you are going through. It's annoying, which is why I just need to stay on a short leash in the JFF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

If someone doesn't understand what desiring sex means, I'd consider that a direct indication for a pretty damn good chance that they're grey, or outright ace.

and yet your argument is that since you don't understand sexual attraction it doesn't exist :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

My only pet peeve is when you have had this experience that has followed you around for your entire life, like a shadow, and you try to put it into words, to explain what you are going through, and how you don't quite function the same way as others around you, and from your description, and terminology, a concept is created, and from the concept comes a theory, and then the theory gets disproved by someone who has no idea whatsoever what you are going through. It's annoying, which is why I just need to stay on a short leash in the JFF.

this is like, pretty much the thought process I am coming from. the idea that any one definition is going to be clear for everyone is wrong. maybe it is better for most asexuals to have a "does not desire to have sex" definition... but that just doesn't force that definition to be universally meaningful for every human ever.

what made me first realize I was definitely not cishetero, was when DJ said, "sex just doesn't make sense to my body" and I thought, "whoa, that's like, me, exactly!" it wasn't when I met asexuals and heard their attraction definition, it wasn't when I talked to them about being sex-repulsed and agender, and honestly "sexual attraction" makes more sense to me than "sexual desire". the reality is, that with any definition, some people won't be able to take it and say, "oh, I am asexual then" and some people similarly won't be able to take it and say, "oh, I'm not asexual then". trying to find a less confusing definition is admirable, but it would take actual studies of real populations with control groups, to determine if a definition is better, and should replace the current one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PeterPanForever

Yeah, DJ nailed it! And so, I know that we should be talking about sexual desire, like it should be included in the conversation, while not becoming the root determination of asexuality. It would also be helpful to look at an actual asexual/sexual spectrum in which asexual is black, sexual is white (or vice-versa), and gray is at the 50% marker, and then there are lighter and darker shades of gray on both sides, and then say, okay, where are you, because you can be asexual without being absolutely asexual, which I don't think even exists because I don't believe in absolutes, but that takes me to another problem we have and that is an almost complete reliance on self-report, which is something that science itself gags on even though sometimes it is all we have. Sometimes I get the impression that on this asexual/sexual spectrum some of us want to list as gray those individuals who would place themselves at the 1-5 percentiles. The dialogue on AVEN, and I appreciate AVEN very, very much, but it's almost pseudo-science simply because it's all self-report, without a clear definition of terms at that! What the hell is sexual desire anyway??? When I speak of it it's an activity of the mind and imagination, when someone else speaks of it it's physiological, and to me, that's more libido, and then look up libido in the dictionary and it's going to tell you sexual desire, so anyway, it's back to the JFF for me, because I just don't care anymore, lol. It's a cold, or a flu, or some kind of bug that's never going to go away. Haaaaaaaaachewwwwwww! And the doctor can tell me that it's all in my head, it happens all the time, but whatever. Just whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

yeah like, like, as it stands, there is just not going to be a universal way for people to self-diagnose. that's just such a naive idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
PeterPanForever

When we get into the neuroscience of asexuality, it opens up a whole new can of health-related worms, but just like on AVEN, there is still this pesky sexual desire that's being used as the determinant. We're going to get you all set up and watch some porn and some explicit sexual material and measure levels of sexual desire to see if you are asexual. Maybe it would be better to rather than simulate artificial sexuality, you actually place the person in a real sexual experience and then measure the activity...who cares what is happening on the television screen. The other health-related issues are extremely interesting though, from hormonal problems to the malfunction of kidneys. I imagine that even if there were health-related issues to a persons asexuality, and these were corrected, would the person be ready to jump into the sack with their new-found sexuality, or would there still be issues? For myself, I believe I would still have issues, because it is a part of a deeper metaphysical orientation. I am also curious as to whether levels of asexuality rise relative to population density. It would be an interesting study.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone doesn't understand what desiring sex means, I'd consider that a direct indication for a pretty damn good chance that they're grey, or outright ace.

and yet your argument is that since you don't understand sexual attraction it doesn't exist :rolleyes:

Not just me. Lots of sexuals don't understand what you folks mean by sexual attraction. That's a much more important part of the argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sage Raven Domino

We're going to get you all set up and watch some porn and some explicit sexual material and measure levels of sexual desire to see if you are asexual.

This test would give a false result for fetishists who're, like me, repulsed by traditional porn (which depicts sex too unrealistically, to begin with).

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

If someone doesn't understand what desiring sex means, I'd consider that a direct indication for a pretty damn good chance that they're grey, or outright ace.

and yet your argument is that since you don't understand sexual attraction it doesn't exist :rolleyes:

Not just me. Lots of sexuals don't understand what you folks mean by sexual attraction. That's a much more important part of the argument.

there is a HGUE difference between seeing that, and going, "well, I guess it is an inconsistent measure" and seeing that and going, "well I guess it doesn't exist for anyone"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Noone consistently defines it. People who do use it say "yes it's super duper important for orientation" whereas other people, using and identifying by the same orientation labels, say they don't understand it and can define orientations just fine without it.

So, yes - unless someone delivers massive evidence to the contrary, doubting the existence of "sexual attraction" is exactly where the smart money goes. Proof, or it doesn't exist.

Either way, it's very clearly NOT the key to defining orientation. That much is absolutely obvious. How anyone can think it were without stubbornly closing their mind to all the evidence flying in their face is, quite frankly, beyond me. Equating "orientation = attraction" is weird, sheeplike ideology.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

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