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

Folks, I have the best definition so far. I think AVEN should adopt this definition. My definition is: a person who experiences little or no sexual attraction AND has little or no desire for partnered sex (again an emphasis on the "partnered") which is not caused by hormonal imbalances, low libido, bad experiences, and any medical defects. However, they may have sex to satisfy a partner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that you have good intentions, but I personally think this is doing the opposite of that a definition is. A definition tells what a word means, not what it does not. As in, a definition does not elaborate on what the word does not mean. "Blank means this." Instead, your meaning says "Blank means this, but does not mean that." I know it's frustrating that it has to be emphasized, believe me. I wish people understood when I tell them about my asexuality, but I just don't think that's what the definition is for.

Also, asexuality has nothing to do with desire of sex. Asexuals can have high desires for partnered sex. They could be low, but not all asexuals experience that.
Sexuality has to do with sexual attraction only, not how much (or how little) we desire sex, partnered or alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lemonasculine said:

Folks, I have the best definition so far. I think AVEN should adopt this definition. My definition is: a person who experiences little or no sexual attraction AND has little or no desire for partnered sex (again an emphasis on the "partnered") which is not caused by hormonal imbalances, low libido, bad experiences, and any medical defects. However, they may have sex to satisfy a partner.

I see that you have good intentions, but I personally think this is doing the opposite of that a definition is. A definition tells what a word means, not what it does not. As in, a definition does not elaborate on what the word does not mean. "Blank means this." Instead, your meaning says "Blank means this, but does not mean that." I know it's frustrating that it has to be emphasized, believe me. I wish people understood when I tell them about my asexuality, but I just don't think that's what the definition is for.

Also, asexuality has nothing to do with desire of sex. Asexuals can have high desires for partnered sex. They could be low, but not all asexuals experience that.
Sexuality has to do with sexual attraction only, not how much (or how little) we desire sex, partnered or alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who does everyone think they're writing a definition for and who thinks they are qualified to make such decisions? Do you honestly think people are so stupid they have no idea what you mean when you say you're asexual? Dream all you want but the only definition that will ever matter is what is in "official" dictionaries. That is where people go to find out what words mean. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so glad someone resurrected this thread!

I made a comment out of exasperation about a month back and was wondering what you all think.  

What about defining asexuality like this:


Asexual: A person who if stripped of all reason, logic and learned knowledge and put into a purely instinctual state, would never voluntarily seek or engage in sex.

This way we can just side step both attraction and desire.  Would there be any problems like this?  Any ways to make it shorter and more succinct?

 

5 hours ago, Just like Jughead said:

Who does everyone think they're writing a definition for and who thinks they are qualified to make such decisions? Do you honestly think people are so stupid they have no idea what you mean when you say you're asexual? Dream all you want but the only definition that will ever matter is what is in "official" dictionaries. That is where people go to find out what words mean. 

I suspect many of us (at least me) are debating over the definition for people who have heard about asexuality and thinks that they might be asexual.  People like this are probably not content with the dictionary definitions and want to hear from other self identifying asexuals to confirm their experiences.  

 

Notice how most respondents to this poll are asexual?  I have a feeling that is because being asexual is a not a cut and dry experience and many of us need solid confirmation.  Something that is never really going to happen no matter how much we wish it would.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lost247365 said:

I am so glad someone resurrected this thread!

I made a comment out of exasperation about a month back and was wondering what you all think.  

What about defining asexuality like this:


Asexual: A person who if stripped of all reason, logic and learned knowledge and put into a purely instinctual state, would never voluntarily seek or engage in sex.

 

Sexuality has nothing to do with how much one voluntarily seeks or engages in sex. Asexuals can have high sexual libidos and many do actively seek out sex voluntarily. One does not need to be sex-repulsed to be asexual.
Asexuality means lack of sexual attraction. Sexual attraction has nothing to do with the amount of sex one has or wants to have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tytech95 said:

Sexuality has nothing to do with how much one voluntarily seeks or engages in sex. Asexuals can have high sexual libidos and many do actively seek out sex voluntarily. One does not need to be sex-repulsed to be asexual.
Asexuality means lack of sexual attraction. Sexual attraction has nothing to do with the amount of sex one has or wants to have.

I am sorry, but I must disagree here.

The reason I disagree is three fold.  First, what I propose in no way says asexuals don't have a libido.  Libido also includes masturbation and nothing in my proposal prevents masturbation.  Secondly, I never once said a word about being repulsed.  

Finally, seeking out sex voluntarily and without instrumental goals in mind (like wanting sex because you want to have a baby) is pretty much the definition of  sexual attraction:


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/attraction

Quote

attraction


NOUN

 

1[mass noun] The action or power of evoking interest in or liking for someone or something:
‘the timeless attraction of a good tune’
‘she has very romantic ideas about sexual attraction’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1[count noun] A quality or feature that evokes interest, liking, or desire:
‘this reform has many attractions for those on the left’
More example sentences
1.2[count noun] A place which draws visitors by providing something of interest or pleasure:
‘the church is the town's main tourist attraction’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.3Physics A force under the influence of which objects tend to move towards each other:
‘gravitational attraction’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.4Grammar The influence exerted by one word on another which causes it to change to an incorrect form, e.g. the wages of sin is (for are) death.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sexual_attraction

Quote

 

sexual attraction

NOUN

Sexual allure; (an) attraction based on sexual instinct or sexual desire.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attraction

Quote

 

attraction

play

noun  at·trac·tion \ə-ˈtrak-shən\

Popularity: Bottom 50% of words

Examples: attraction in a sentence

Tip: Synonym guide 

 

Definition of attraction

1a :  the act, process, or power of attracting :  personal charm

2:  the action or power of drawing forth a response :  an attractive quality

3:  a force acting mutually between particles of matter, tending to draw them together, and resisting their separation

4:  something that attracts or is intended to attract people by appealing to their desires and tastes <coming attractions>

 

 

If they are voluntarily and instinctually seeking out  sex, that means they are drawn to it.  Being drawn to something is being attracted. Specifically they are attracted to having sex with others.  IE Sexual Attraction.  The people you are describing are Allosexual not asexual.  An asexual person would never seek out sex in a purely instinctual state specifically because they lack sexual attraction/desire.

 

6 hours ago, tytech95 said:

Sexual attraction has nothing to do with the amount of sex one has or wants to have.

I believe you are right on the first half of this sentence and wrong on the bolded part.  

 

There are many instrumental reasons why an asexual would have sex like wanting to have a baby.  This is why I said put the person into a purely instinctual state.  

 

 As for the second part of the quote, Attraction and desire are actually synonyms of each other.  This is why oxford defines sexual attraction as sexual desire above and almost every definition of attraction involves "evoking interest or desire."

 

Check Wikipedia or a thesaurus if you don't believe me:

 

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

 

 

Quote

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”.[1] Synonyms for sexual desire are libido, sexual attraction, and lust.[2] 



http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/desire?s=t

 

Quote

Synonyms for desire
noun want, longing
ambition appetite aspiration cravings devotion eagerness  fascinations greed hunger inclination love lust rmotive need passion thirst will wish yearning admiration ardor attraction

 

Even AVEN defines sexual attraction in terms of desire:


http://www.asexuality.org/?q=general.html#def

 

Quote

Sexual attraction: Desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them.

So sexual attraction has a lot to do with desiring sex.  

 

But this is all old material that we have been over and over and over again in this thread.  My hope with the definition I was trying to create was to form a definition that explicitly did not say either "desire" or "attraction" and avoid all these definitions debates over those two words entirely.  

 

I guess it is back to the drawing board if this definition is bringing back all these old debates.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone
21 hours ago, tytech95 said:

Sexuality has nothing to do with how much one voluntarily seeks or engages in sex. Asexuals can have high sexual libidos and many do actively seek out sex voluntarily. One does not need to be sex-repulsed to be asexual.
Asexuality means lack of sexual attraction. Sexual attraction has nothing to do with the amount of sex one has or wants to have.

Actually I think wanting/desiring sex sounds sexual to me and I support the desire dedinition. I think you may mean Cupiosexual if someone seeks out sex but even then it is a type of sexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
binary suns

regarding "seeking out sex = sexual" it is more appropriate to say "seeking out sex would not be an activity an asexual does" as some grey people might seek out sex. and the grey area necessarily is neither asexual nor allosexual. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns
On 12/22/2016 at 7:53 PM, Lost247365 said:

A person who if stripped of all reason, logic and learned knowledge and put into a purely instinctual state, would never voluntarily seek or engage in sex.

this would describe a relevant number of allosexual people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2016 at 7:07 AM, tytech95 said:



Also, asexuality has nothing to do with desire of sex. Asexuals can have high desires for partnered sex. 

So just how are asexuals differentiated from sexuals?   :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24.3.2017 at 7:50 PM, Sally said:

So just how are asexuals differentiated from sexuals?   :blink:

By political credo, mostly.

 

(sadly enough, I'm only semi-sarcastic <_<)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/24/2017 at 8:04 AM, Meow. said:

And the grey area is necessarily neither asexual nor allosexual. 

While allosexual is used for 'normal' sexual people, the above quote (despite technically being correct) makes it sound like you're saying Gray spectrum people aren't sexual (when they are, just abnormal).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
binary suns
On 4/2/2017 at 7:54 PM, Star Bit said:

While allosexual is used for 'normal' sexual people, the above quote (despite technically being correct) makes it sound like you're saying Gray spectrum people aren't sexual (when they are, just abnormal).

no, not all grey people are allosexual. 

 

and, technically speaking, "sexual" means "of or relating to sex", so in this way all asexual people are sexual too :P

 

words are difficult, I know... 

 

 

but, no, the grey area sometimes an individual appears approximately ace, sometimes an individual might be more sexual. but if there were only such clear cases, then why have grey at all? the vast majority of grey people, it would be innapropriate to force them into an ace assumption and likewise inappropriate to force them into a sexual assumption. this is the most useful approach to the manner of nomenclature. Grey is the "bi" of gay/straight - it isn't necessarily both, and it isn't necessarily either. it depends on the individual, in the individual sircumstance. and technically speaking, someone could take a liberal approach to the categories and claim most people are bi, or most people are grey, but Usually the people who lean more one way or the other just prefer to identify by the binary terminology. 

 

 

This is the reason why "self assessment" is as important in sexuality, as is "attraction" as well as "desire" - self assessment is basically the influence a person's expectations and intentions have on their resulting behavior. 

 

 

really, honestly, we need to cease the useless obsession with making sexuality some kind of precise measurement. Sexuality is an abstract categorization of patterns of experience and intentional behavior. It inherently is loaded with subjectivity, wiggle room, and conflicting interest of nomenclature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Meow. If it's so cut and dry why else would we have the Gray spectrum? Because, as I said, allosexual refers to normal sexuals, and Gray-sexual and Gray-asexual refers to abnormal sexuals (specifically in what point in time they desire sex). Gray and Allosexual are under the Sexual umbrella. Gray does only refer to abnormal sexuals (with the single exception of some using Gray-A to refer to not desiring sex but having a fetish that's too sexual; e.g. breast feeding fetish). They are on the Gray spectrum period because they mentally or physically (IRL) desire sex (with the exception of the obvious aforementioned). You either want sex or you don't, it is cut and dry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

if it were that cut and dry, there would be no debate over the definition, there would be no grey area, and there would not be desirists and attractionists. they'd all agree. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Meow. said:

if it were that cut and dry, there would be no debate over the definition, there would be no grey area, and there would not be desirists and attractionists. they'd all agree. 

No, not true.  People are arguing about details within two groups, not the prime fact that there are two groups: sexuals and asexuals.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Skycaptain

That this thread is closing on 2000 posts rather proves the difficulty in definitely defining a definitive definition 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Guest Jetsun Milarepa

We all have different angles on it , a wider or narrower definition than that of AVEN's....this one will run and run.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...
  • 1 month later...
binary suns
On 2/25/2018 at 11:47 PM, Pramana said:

The lesson here is that defining asexuality requires a PhD thesis. Followed by a second PhD thesis to define aromanticism.

Oh does that mean you have a dream you’re working towards :D

 

maybe I should go to grad school to become a researcher myself ! 😆

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
everywhere and nowhere
On 22.12.2016 at 8:50 AM, Lemonasculine said:

Folks, I have the best definition so far. I think AVEN should adopt this definition. My definition is: a person who experiences little or no sexual attraction AND has little or no desire for partnered sex (again an emphasis on the "partnered") which is not caused by hormonal imbalances, low libido, bad experiences, and any medical defects. However, they may have sex to satisfy a partner.

And why should people who have a low libido, hormonal imbalance or who have experienced trauma have no right to identify as asexual?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nowhere Girl said:

And why should people who have a low libido, hormonal imbalance or who have experienced trauma have no right to identify as asexual?

All these are treatable conditions, whereas a sexual orientation is not. Any of those people could be asexual on top of that (they'd still not 'experience attraction/desire' if you remove these treatable conditions), but none of these indicate asexuality on their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I hesitated to answer because I'm not sure what label really fit's me. I know I'm in the asexual spectrum but not sure if I'm 100% ace.

 

Being unsure myself who I am, it's hard for me to come up with a good definition. However, I do feel like the current definition is too specific and exclusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2014 at 2:38 PM, Vampyremage said:

Its also true that AVEN appears to be the only place that uses a purely attraction based definition. When you look up definitions of asexuality on google, most of them including something pertaining to desire. To me, is just doesn't make much sense.

Yeah I have a fetish and sometimes I'll get aroused when I see someone who looks attractive and reminds me of the fetish but I have NO DESIRE to have sex. But I still have a libido, it just doesn't need or want other people. I actually hate the fetish because I feel it controls me so ideally I would like to have no arousal at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that 1) this thread is still going and 2) that the original poll is still worded the same despite most of the preferred definitions being very different from the definitions in the poll. Those definitions were devised by one person years ago who then said they didn't want to be a part of the discussion anymore and then stopped coming to AVEN :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Desire for partnered sex doesn’t necessarily mean attraction...’desire’ could mean you are in love with an allosexual and desire to make them happy so you want to do it for them. Or you want sex for other reasons. I don’t think this would be a good definition because desire doesn’t always mean attraction. I think the current definition is the most technically correct...but it leaves people confused. A lot of people find themselves wondering, what is sexual attraction in the first place? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mewtwo said:

Desire for partnered sex doesn’t necessarily mean attraction...’desire’ could mean you are in love with an allosexual and desire to make them happy so you want to do it for them. Or you want sex for other reasons. I don’t think this would be a good definition because desire doesn’t always mean attraction. I think the current definition is the most technically correct...but it leaves people confused. A lot of people find themselves wondering, what is sexual attraction in the first place? 

Then that "desire" is for other reasons and not actually for the sex. 

 

I think it's a rather good explanation of what sexual attraction is, the "desire to be sexually involved with a specific person". 

The current definition is a bit vague, hopefully most people can somewhat understand it anyway, but if I were to explain it to someone, it would be "I do not experience any desire/lust/whatever to involve myself sexually with anyone".

 

 

 

Also, sorry for contributing to this dead old thread... >>

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

This is a zombie thread.  It never truly dies.

 

On 1/10/2019 at 7:20 AM, Mewtwo said:

Desire for partnered sex doesn’t necessarily mean attraction...’desire’ could mean you are in love with an allosexual and desire to make them happy so you want to do it for them. Or you want sex for other reasons. I don’t think this would be a good definition because desire doesn’t always mean attraction. I think the current definition is the most technically correct...but it leaves people confused. A lot of people find themselves wondering, what is sexual attraction in the first place? 

If that is the case then they don't desire sex, they desire to make their partner happy.  Sex is merely a means to that end.  This goes back to the whole "instrumental want" versus "intrinsic desire" discussion.  

And, attraction means something that brings one thing to another.  It could be a physical force (as with magnets) or an emotional need.  Desire is a part of the latter.  Ipso facto, desire is a form of attraction.  Not all attraction is desire but all desire is attraction, just like not all mammals are cats but all cats are mammals.  In the case of sexual attraction, desire is the key component.  

The definition is bad as many people can't tell the differences between different types of attractions.  It all feels the same to them.  The best solution is to simply say "sexual attraction and/or desire."  That removes the confusion.  It is describing the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Although complicated and pretty useless as a definition, I did hear an analogy to help explain asexuality that I like.

 

Imagine sex as a donut, and attraction as a craving. Most people in the world CRAVE donuts a lot. And when they see one, they will probably eat it. Some people are on a diet, and while they crave donuts, they will not touch a donut. (That's celibacy.)

 

Then there are people who don't crave donuts, at least not always. Some people will only eat the donut if it is their absolute favorite type. (Demi) Some people occasionally crave donuts, but not often. (Grey) Some people don't particularly want a donut, but will eat it anyway. (Aces who will have sex) Others will pass on the donut in favor of something else, like cake ;) or ice cream, but don't mind that others enjoy donuts. (Aces who won't have sex) And some would pull out a flamethrower and incinerate the donut if they could. (Sex-repulsed)

 

There are also people who crave donuts, but when they find someone else who also wants that donut, they don't want it anymore. (I forger the name but you know what I'm referring to) Some others crave donuts sometimes, but how bad it is depends on the day. (Abrosexual)

 

This has been an overly complex analogy explaining various parts of the asexual spectrum. It's not 100% fool-proof, but I think it works for the most part.

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...