Defining asexuality - a better definition?

[Turning]

Most people wont initially differentiate between sexual attraction and sexual desire. There isn't usually a need to. They go together for sexuals. So yes a lot of people would say they are sexually attracted to those they may only actually want to watch in porn. But the need to differentiate is apparent here.

Attraction is a pull toward someone or a desire to be with. sexual attraction is the desire to be with someone sexually. When referring to ones orientation that's just a given. common sense.

Sexual desire can just be the need to masturbate if it is without sexual attraction.

And there would be a reason to prefer sex with one sex/gender over another. That is sexual attraction as it defines orientation. Otherwise it is just sexual desire without any attraction to another person.

[Guest]

And there would be a reason to prefer sex with one sex/gender over another. That is sexual attraction as it defines orientation. Otherwise it is just sexual desire without any attraction to another person.

But that preference is there, even though we may not know the reason for it (yet?). Preference is very much a real thing (and for the overwhelming number of people I've talked to in my life, it is the very basis of sexual orientation); I just doubt it has anything to do with attraction. If "sexual attraction" even exists as a discrete phenomenon - and I really don't know if it does, it remains way too ill-defined for me to risk a guess on its reality - my money would be on that attraction is caused by preference, and not the other way around.

Not knowing the cause of something (yet?) doesn't make it a non-existent phenomenon. It's pretty damn likely that the Earth revolved around the sun long before Kepler and Kopernikus, and that evolution was happening long before Darwin. ;)

Celibacy has nothing to do with the desire to have sex.

i know! i was saying that the difference between sexuals and asexuals is not just who's having sex. that's pretty evident to anyone who's been on aven any amount of time, which i thought i made clear when i said, "as people on here already know" and "definitely." i never actually linked it to the whole desire/attraction issue, just demonstrating that the difference was a whole lot more complicated than just sex/no sex. did you have any comments about my actual response? i'm not debating for the sake of debating, i'm interested on your input on the actual issue.

Good to hear that. :) *sincere* I'm almost always glad when I find points of agreement/overlap in discussions with people I strongly disagree with, and even though I'm afraid I come across like it again and again, I'm not interested in debating for the sake of debating, either... (there's a reason why that guy is on my avatar, and it's not just "aww, pop culture ace". Sheldon is in rather many ways a comically exaggerated me. *sigh* )

So, okay, let's go there...

tangent that might help explain my views on terminology a bit further: and i don't feel comfortable applying the word "desire" to my own asexuality because desires can change- how many asexuals have said they thought they wanted sex but then realized it didn't mean the same thing to them as it did to their partner? in terms of my own experiences, i have been in a relationship despite being aromantic (though i didn't know it then). at the time, i would absolutely have said i desired that romantic relationship; however, i realized in hindsight that i hadn't felt that intrinsic attraction that drives other people to form romantic bonds. romantic orientation is a bit trickier than sexual orientation to begin with anyway (well, at least i find it trickier), but that's a bit more of why i prefer the term "attraction" over "desire" for myself. (end tangent)

That, to me, sounds like the "sexuality/orientation is fluid" argument. Which I think is true, but is a rather rare case. For most people, I think that (innate) desire for sex and partner preference are things that remain very stable. over the cause of years, even decades, without changing.

again addressing why it's important: i see my sexual friends saying that they think some guy is sexy, or that they want to find a cute guy to date. they instinctively know that they want sexual experiences with men because that's just something built into them. i rarely see my friends experiencing direct desire (to me, saying "i want to have sex with that person right there"), but i often see them experiencing something a bit more indirect, something innate that i can't relate to (saying "i want to make out with a random guy this summer"- i do know someone who said this). it was the lack of that thing that caused me to seek out and agree with the asexual label.

So they have an inherent desire to get sexual with guys, even when they don't see any partuiicular guy in question yet in fornt of their eyes. I'd say that is pretty strong indication that their sexuality is driven by desire for sex (with guys), not by attraction (which couldn't happen without a specific guy).

It's honestly baffling to me that you write this and argue pro-attraction, anti-desire. IMO, this example supports the exact opposite viewpoint - pro-desire, anti-attraction.

[WhenSummersGone]

And I still disagree on this "preference". Sexual Attraction makes more sense to me.

[PiF]

on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

That is not real.

Wanna bet? isn't that which we imply sexuals feel and how we then use that to differentiate what most of the grey section is?

rigaria don't worry...mystic often ignores others persepctives so don't beat yourself up about it

the simple fact IS ...WE as asexuals, those who are completely...are defined by it so sorry to those who are not full time asexuals and seeking to change the definition......but it aint gonna change anytime soon.

the definition stands...it is simple to understand, after 20 years now recognised outside of asexual circles and as such will be the definition that takes us forward...I'm kinda happy with that. :D :P

[Guest]

Wanna bet? isn't that which we imply sexuals feel and how we then use that to differentiate what most of the grey section is?

rigaria don't worry...mystic often ignores others persepctives so don't beat yourself up about it

the simple fact IS ...WE as asexuals, those who are completely...are defined by it so sorry to those who are not full time asexuals and seeking to change the definition......but it aint gonna change anytime soon.

the definition stands...it is simple to understand, after 20 years now recognised outside of asexual circles and as such will be the definition that takes us forward...I'm kinda happy with that. :D :P

LOL.

Yes, I wanna bet. You are ignoring the sexuals right here in this thread who tell you how wrong you are in your misconceptions and weird theories about how they feel.

Sorry, you're beginning to look like someone full of himself, utterly out of touch with reality checks, and talking out of his ass just to piss people off and police their identities.

If you wanna pretend "asexuality" exists, go ahead. I'll just set you on ignore from now on, because your view has no logical merit whatsoever. Good day. *tips hat*

[binary suns]

Something I see a lot used around the forums, is the interchange between "libido" and "sexual desire", but I think (while this may have been true once) it is no longer the case. "sexual desire" currently across the forums is often used to mean, "desire for partnered sex that isn't the same as intrinsic attraction," and this is 100% NOT what libido is...

Libido is on the other hand, "a need to be satisfied; arousal, when not concidering its source"

Sexual attraction: Attraction based on sexual desire.
This is not only Avens definition(in so many words) but everyone I can find in the English language with a quick google search. So despite feelings or confusion here that's what it actually means.

So that is to say sexual attraction is who you desire sexual interaction with. What you are suggesting as a definition, "asexual = no desire for sexual interaction" is the same thing as saying " a person who does not experience sexual attraction" except your definition says asexauls also cant have a libido - sexual interactions with themselves.

Gender preference is very close to orientation except it is missing a word. Sexual. Preferred gender sexually is closer. And this is again sexual attraction. The gender you prefer/desire sexually.

So - and please forgive me if I back you into a corner, but I feel it's necessary to get this answer clear and straight...

You do agree that people who use "sexual attraction" to mean something that is completely independent from and unrelated to sexual desire are using the term wrongly, or at least in such an exotic/idiosyncratic way that their abiulity for communication about "attraction" with the overwhelming amount of speakers of English is seriously impeded?

I don't believe sexual attraction is independent of sexual desire. That much is correct. I just looked up the definitions (Avens and others). All involved sexual desire.

Edit: Though as I have said before sexual desire can be independent of sexual attraction (masturbation)

I agree here! the keyword is "independent"; two things are indepenent if they both occur in the same pattern wether or not the other has also occured.

There is some amount that sexual attraction and sexual desire influence each other. It is not always the case, but it does sometimes occur. Sexual attraction and sexual desire CAN be so linked that they are close to inseperable, but this is not always the case.

Most people in this world experience attraction and desire pretty hand-in-hand, and that is what alienates people who are asexual: they do not experience one or maybe the other, or do not expereince the two strongly and the link isn't really there either.

People can experience sexual attraction without intrinsic sexual desire, and IMO those people should also be considered asexual. They will not be inclined to act on their attraction, and may equally be confused by the common conversations about sex. On the one hand I think the definition could include both cases, simply saying "this or that" is really confusing. "or" has multiple interpretations, and not only that but complicates the grammar.

I may have said it before: I am in support of using multiple definitions, like you see in dictionaries.

1. a person who does not feel sexual attraction.

2. a person who does not feel intrinsic sexual desire.

3. a person who feels no libido or arousal.

any or all of those definitions may describe someone who is asexual.

I think that by seperating out the definitions in that way, you introduce the concept that people who are asexual can vary greatly within the group, and if someone finds the terms "sexual attraction" "sexual desire" or "libido/arousal" ambivilent, the are more likely to look up those definitions (being introduced to the notion that there my be alternate words they can use).

[PiF]

Wanna bet? isn't that which we imply sexuals feel and how we then use that to differentiate what most of the grey section is?

rigaria don't worry...mystic often ignores others persepctives so don't beat yourself up about it

the simple fact IS ...WE as asexuals, those who are completely...are defined by it so sorry to those who are not full time asexuals and seeking to change the definition......but it aint gonna change anytime soon.

the definition stands...it is simple to understand, after 20 years now recognised outside of asexual circles and as such will be the definition that takes us forward...I'm kinda happy with that. :D :P

LOL.

Yes, I wanna bet. You are ignoring the sexuals right here in this thread

Nope, most of the sexuals have been open minded even if we have disagreed...from this point I'm just ignoring....you

[Lady Girl]

People can experience sexual attraction without intrinsic sexual desire, and IMO those people should also be considered asexual. They will not be inclined to act on their attraction, and may equally be confused by the common conversations about sex. On the one hand I think the definition could include both cases, simply saying "this or that" is really confusing. "or" has multiple interpretations, and not only that but complicates the grammar.

I may have said it before: I am in support of using multiple definitions, like you see in dictionaries.

1. a person who does not feel sexual attraction.

2. a person who does not feel intrinsic sexual desire.

3. a person who feels no libido or arousal.

any or all of those definitions may describe someone who is asexual.

This is quite accurate and in reality is what one of the main purposes of this site is...to allow people to discuss their asexual experience in the terms that describe them. The world would not be confused by this, nor would asexuals.

As to desire or attraction being dominant, I would venture to say sexual's feel their desire for sex as a constant...more so than attraction to various people all day long.

[binary suns]

That might be true. Before I realised I was asexual, I believed myself to be maybe pan, mostly bisexual. I thought about sex all the time: reading your comment ( " I would venture to say sexual's feel their desire for sex as a constant...") I am reminded how I would always be confident in my sexual interest in others. However, since I've identified as asexual, that 'constant desire' has significantly diminished, and I'm pretty sure it'll slowly dissappear altogether over the course of the next five years. I don't know if that speaks on the average case of someone sexual, but to me I feel that is an indication on how I was able to relate to the people around me; it is likely subconsciously mimicked behavior.

[shockkkk]

on the other hand, sexual attraction is 24/7, permanent, couldn't feel that way no matter the situation.

That is not real.

Wanna bet? isn't that which we imply sexuals feel and how we then use that to differentiate what most of the grey section is?

rigaria don't worry...mystic often ignores others persepctives so don't beat yourself up about it

the simple fact IS ...WE as asexuals, those who are completely...are defined by it so sorry to those who are not full time asexuals and seeking to change the definition......but it aint gonna change anytime soon.

the definition stands...it is simple to understand, after 20 years now recognised outside of asexual circles and as such will be the definition that takes us forward...I'm kinda happy with that. :D :P

Lol, nice ad-hominem there buddy. Newsflash, not everyone who disagrees with you are part-time asexuals, whatever the fuck that means.

[Lady Girl]

Just a friendly reminder. Discussing this topic does not mean things need to get personal...everyone has a right to their opinion. Two things in particular I'd like to ask people to keep in mind: please refrain from being demeaning to other people in response to whatever "weird" theory you may find objectionable (address the concepts, not the people and don't be insulting), secondly, please remember this, AVEN does not have the only definition...to say others are not asexual because they don't subscribe to it is not our place.

Lady Girl, Moderator

[Guest]

I still don't really understand what a "full asexual is" ... PiF can you explain that one? What is a "part time asexual" and what is a "full time asexual"?

rinnie - A multiple definition would work for me. I just find it horribly frustrating trying to explain how sensual/romantic/aesthetic attraction, especially when it causes arousal, is NOT sexual attraction - because I cannot. In which case, I can't make a good case for asexuality. So, I try to not even talk about it. My default right now is to send people to watch Ivy's channel on youtube. But, it hardly ever explains an answer to their question. And lacking the desire definition being acceptable at all on here, I also get tired of trying to comfort aces that it really doesn't matter if they got aroused looking at random hot person on the street, if they still have absolutely no desire to act on that attraction, they can hardly be considered sexual.

Having the desire actually matter somewhere visible would at least give me something to point to. And would mean I could use it in visibility discussion. Cause, really, trying to play verbal gymnastics once the questions start is annoying:

"But, they watch porn?"

"Well, yeah"

"And they get turned on?"

"Well, yeah"

"So how is that not sexual attraction?"

"Uh....well, cause, they are just attracted to the actions"

"So it doesn't matter WHO is doing them?"

"Well, no, aesthetic attraction has to exist for many"

"So, how is that not sexual attraction?"

"So, they never find someone hot?"
"No, aesthetic appreciation can exist"

"So they are attracted to people?"
"Well, yeah, but it doesn't mean they want sex with them"

"I don't want sex with people I find hot either, does that make me asexual?"

"Well, no, because you want sex"

"But, I don't experience sexual attraction the way you describe it. So, asexual is celibate?"
"Well, no, celibate people still experience sexual attraction"

"So, they never want sex?"

As my partner so rightly said - sexual attraction is a personal thing with a different definition for many people. Trying to get everyone to agree on one singular definition is difficult. As such, trying to get them to understand how something an asexual feels is NOT sexual attraction is, frustrating at the least.

Most other orientations do have the multiple definitions which INCLUDE desire:

¹ho·mo·sex·u·al

: sexually attracted to people of the same sex

Full Definition of HOMOSEXUAL

1

: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

bi·sex·u·al

: sexually attracted to both men and women

Full Definition of BISEXUAL

b : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes

¹het·ero·sex·u·al

: sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex

Full Definition of HETEROSEXUAL

1

a : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward the opposite sex

So, asexual:

1) Lacking sexual attraction to any sex

Full definition of asexual:

1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by a lack of sexual desire directed towards any sex.

And no, having sex with a partner is not desiring sex with them. I do not desire or want sex with my partner. I agree to it, because he wants it. It's like saying I want to eat foods I hate, no I want to be healthy. If I want a baby of my own, produced the natural way, I want a baby. My partner doesn't want to go to work every day, but he wants to be able to pay the bills. I don't want to exercise, but I do want to be fit. I want to be with my partner, therefore I have sex to achieve that goal.

There are people who want to want sex, but that is wanting to be different, "normal". Kind of like I wish I could enjoy comedies, people would stop making fun of me for it, but I don't want to watch them, because I don't have any interest in them.

¹de·sire

: to want or wish for (something) : to feel desire for (something)

Full Definition of DESIRE

1

: to long or hope for : exhibit or feel desire for <desiresuccess>

2

a : to express a wish for : <they desire an immediate answer>

I doubt many people in mixed relationships would say "desire for sex" really fits how they feel about having sex with their partner.

And explaining to someone how one can have sex when they do not actually want sex for themselves is easy:

"So, you do have sex?"

"Yes."
"But, you don't desire it?"
"No."

"Then why do you have it?"
"Do you always want to do everything your wife/husband wants you to do? Cleaning the gutters, going shopping, watching football, expensive dinners for special occasions?"

"Well, no"

"Exactly. Sex for me is like a guy going shopping with his wife even though he doesn't want to, it makes her happy and it doesn't really hurt him, so he goes"

"Sounds like a horrible way to have sex"

"Well, it isn't for everyone. Some sexuals require the mutual attraction/desire, some do not. My partner would like it, but it isn't needed. And some asexuals can't have sex, because it hurts them, but I am neutral so it doesn't have a negative impact on me. So, it works for us."

Note: All my definitions come from Meriam-Webster's dictionary.

[Vampyremage]

When I describe asexuality to others, I use a dual desire and attraction based definition despite what's listed as the 'official' definition on AVEN. The reason I do this is for clarity. Most seem to have a basic understanding of what sexual attraction is although that understanding generally seems to encompass both the sort of attraction that does lead directly to sexual desire for partnered sex as well as the sort of attraction that leads to sexual desire for masturbation. Adding the desire half of the definition mostly serves to clarify any lingering confusion. Asexuals experience no innate desire for partnered sex is something that most seem to understand rather clearly. If a lack of sexual attraction is supposed to directly imply a lack of innate sexual desire for partnered sex then why not baldly state as such? Otherwise you get exactly the sort of confusion that Serran illustrates above and that helps no one.

[PiF]

serran you have a pm

[Turning]

People can experience sexual attraction without intrinsic sexual desire, and IMO those people should also be considered asexual. They will not be inclined to act on their attraction, and may equally be confused by the common conversations about sex. On the one hand I think the definition could include both cases, simply saying "this or that" is really confusing. "or" has multiple interpretations, and not only that but complicates the grammar.

I may have said it before: I am in support of using multiple definitions, like you see in dictionaries.

1. a person who does not feel sexual attraction.

2. a person who does not feel intrinsic sexual desire.

3. a person who feels no libido or arousal.

any or all of those definitions may describe someone who is asexual.

This is quite accurate and in reality is what one of the main purposes of this site is...to allow people to discuss their asexual experience in the terms that describe them. The world would not be confused by this, nor would asexuals.

As to desire or attraction being dominant, I would venture to say sexual's feel their desire for sex as a constant...more so than attraction to various people all day long.

Asexuals may have slightly different experiences within the realm of asexuality. But I still feel lack of sexual attraction is the common denominator. I don't like the idea of suggesting libido or sexual desire as part of defining it.

I think low sex drive would be the first assumption for a anyone hearing these definitions for the first time without further explanation.

At its core I believe asexual is most simply put as a lack of sexual attraction to any sex/gender. There is a name for everything else - like non-libidoist or sex repulsed...

If the definition needed to be more explanatory and desire based (and in my opinion a more wordy definition creates further confusion but) I would try to suggest something like:

Asexual: Referring to a persons sexual orientation in which potential sexual desires are not directed at persons of any sex/gender.

But that’s just ‘does not experience sexual attraction to any sex/gender' imo. (using sexual attraction as it is well known when referring to sexual orientation) When using the wording direction of sexual desire instead of sexual attraction I find it becomes necessary to distinguish disorder from orientation.

[Guest]

I don't think the libido / arousal needs to be involved, but desire is involved in every other orientation as exampled above with the meriam webster definitions. So, there is no reason for us to have our own "attraction only" definition, to set us apart from other orientations. Especially when it's very clear the definition you are using for sexual attraction does not exactly fit as widely as you think. No sexual so far in this thread finds the sexual attraction definition so simple, actually. And if we want to be understood by the sexual world, we need to make sense to sexuals while remaining true to a definition for ourselves.

[Vampyremage]

Asexual: Referring to a persons sexual orientation in which potential sexual desires are not directed at persons of any sex/gender.

But that’s just ‘does not experience sexual attraction to any sex/gender' imo. (using sexual attraction as it is well known when referring to sexual orientation) When using the wording direction of sexual desire instead of sexual attraction I find it becomes necessary to distinguish disorder from orientation.

I actually find this definition to be much more clear than the standard one.

[Guest]

Asexual: Referring to a persons sexual orientation in which potential sexual desires are not directed at persons of any sex/gender.

But that’s just ‘does not experience sexual attraction to any sex/gender' imo. (using sexual attraction as it is well known when referring to sexual orientation) When using the wording direction of sexual desire instead of sexual attraction I find it becomes necessary to distinguish disorder from orientation.

I actually find this definition to be much more clear than the standard one.

Me too

[Turning]

I don't think the libido / arousal needs to be involved, but desire is involved in every other orientation as exampled above with the meriam webster definitions. So, there is no reason for us to have our own "attraction only" definition, to set us apart from other orientations. Especially when it's very clear the definition you are using for sexual attraction does not exactly fit as widely as you think. No sexual so far in this thread finds the sexual attraction definition so simple, actually. And if we want to be understood by the sexual world, we need to make sense to sexuals while remaining true to a definition for ourselves.

All of the definitions you gave had 2 definitions saying the same thing. One short and one long version.

So to combine 'direction of desire' and 'sexual attraction' into one single definition is repetitive.

Also when applying sexual desire to asexual definition you have to say " lack of sexual desire directed toward any sex" . I truly feel in this case it sounds like a lack of sexual desire. No libido. This is why I think the short sexual attraction version is just as accurate but less confusing in the case of asexuality.

[Geo]

People can experience sexual attraction without intrinsic sexual desire, and IMO those people should also be considered asexual. They will not be inclined to act on their attraction, and may equally be confused by the common conversations about sex. On the one hand I think the definition could include both cases, simply saying "this or that" is really confusing. "or" has multiple interpretations, and not only that but complicates the grammar.

I may have said it before: I am in support of using multiple definitions, like you see in dictionaries.

1. a person who does not feel sexual attraction.

2. a person who does not feel intrinsic sexual desire.

3. a person who feels no libido or arousal.

any or all of those definitions may describe someone who is asexual.

This is quite accurate and in reality is what one of the main purposes of this site is...to allow people to discuss their asexual experience in the terms that describe them. The world would not be confused by this, nor would asexuals.

As to desire or attraction being dominant, I would venture to say sexual's feel their desire for sex as a constant...more so than attraction to various people all day long.

Asexuals may have slightly different experiences within the realm of asexuality. But I still feel lack of sexual attraction is the common denominator. I don't like the idea of suggesting libido or sexual desire as part of defining it.

I think low sex drive would be the first assumption for a anyone hearing these definitions for the first time without further explanation.

At its core I believe asexual is most simply put as a lack of sexual attraction to any sex/gender. There is a name for everything else - like non-libidoist or sex repulsed...

If the definition needed to be more explanatory and desire based (and in my opinion a more wordy definition creates further confusion but) I would try to suggest something like:

Asexual: Referring to a persons sexual orientation in which potential sexual desires are not directed at persons of any sex/gender.

But that’s just ‘does not experience sexual attraction to any sex/gender' imo. (using sexual attraction as it is well known when referring to sexual orientation) When using the wording direction of sexual desire instead of sexual attraction I find it becomes necessary to distinguish disorder from orientation.

A few things. There will be no definition that doesn't have loopholes because asexuality is used as an umbrella term. There are several different kinds of people included, each of which is different from eachother. A person who is not attracted to anyone is different from a person who has no libidio. Those two are different from someone who is repulsed by sexual things. Then there are those that don't desire sexeal interactions with a partner. And there are those who have a complete and total disinterest in all things sexual. And probably a few I missed. There is no root cause or common factor to all of them, so trying to fit everyone in one definition is always doomed to fail. I believe you should just acknowledge this umbrella nature of the word officially and come up with additional definitions that fit each sub group more precisely.

Second. Asexuality, any of those types mentioned above, is not an orientation. Orientations are about where, not about how much. The word orientation means the direction something is pointed or facing. An asexual can have an orientation as a separate thing from their asexuality. But asexuality itself is not an orientation.

Lastly. Never, not once anywhere, outside of certain people in this thread have I heard the word attraction used to mean which gender you prefer. It has always meant a feeling you get towards an appealing individual. Using it that way will just confuse most people, especial those outside AVEN.

[Turning]

Well I strongly believe it is a sexual orientation. That is where we disagree I guess. This is Wikipedia but makes good reference and sums up my general feelings on it.

Sexual orientation is an enduring personal quality that inclines people to feel romantic or sexual attraction (or a combination of these) to persons of the opposite sex or gender, the same sex or gender, or to both sexes or more than one gender. These attractions are generally subsumed under heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality,^[1][2] while asexuality (the lack of sexual attraction to others) is sometimes identified as the fourth category.^[3][4][5][6] These categories are aspects of the more nuanced nature of sexual identity.^[1] For example, people may use other labels, such as pansexual or polysexual,^[7] or none at all.^[1] According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation "also refers to a person's sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions".^[1][8]

The term sexual preference largely overlaps with sexual orientation, but is generally distinguished in psychological research.^[9] A person who identifies as bisexual, for example, may sexually prefer one sex over the other.^[10]Sexual preference may also suggest a degree of voluntary choice,^[9][11][12] whereas the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice.^[13][14][15

Like I mentioned there are other lables to explain ones sex drive or other things but imo it should not be suggested one way or the other in the definition of asexuality as asexual orientation.

[Guest]

DeIeted.

[Lucinda]

the definition stands...it is simple to understand, after 20 years now recognised outside of asexual circles and as such will be the definition that takes us forward...I'm kinda happy with that. :D :P

The definition has been recognized for 20 years outside of asexual circles?

Well, you could do a Google book search to see how "asexual" and "asexuality" was used in every day language pre-AVEN and pre-20 years ago.

In one book, written in 1986, asexual was used to describe a person with no erotic interest in men or women.

In another book on Boston Marriages, asexuality was used to describe an intimate relationship without genital contact.

The Leather Spinsters wrote a book about Degrees of Asexuality which placed sex on a low priority in their lives regardless of whether the person was medically asexual or not.

A book written back in 1920 said an asexual was a person with no desire for sex. They claimed that it was a fallacy that all women were asexual and wrote it off to the Agnostic and Christian Puritan beliefs handed down. They claimed that asexuality was observed in highly educated folks.

The American Heritage dictionary has long defined an asexual as a person with no interest or desire for sex or sexual intercourse.

PiF, do you remember saying that your need/want/desire for sex was flatline ever since you noticed back at the age of 12? Do you also remember saying that you found people attractive, but were not attracted sexually because you had no interest in sex?

So if I say that I have no interest or desire for sex, and that is how I define asexuality and how I always heard it defined even before seeing the AVEN panel on television. do you really think I am trying to change the definition so that I fit in here? I'm fully aware that it was a political and strategic move to fashion asexuality as yet another separate and distinct sexual orientation and therefore it was finally decided to use the "sexual attraction" definition to make it fit in. However, sexual orientations are not defined strictly by "sexual attraction" as another Google search will demonstrate.

Anyways, perhaps I am not an AVENasexual and I'm kinda happy with that as it may have prevented me from running into the problems some people on here have faced. The moral of this thread story may be that if you meet an AVENasexual, you better drill them about what they mean by that lest you end up getting involved with someone who finds you as attractive as a chair and wants you to shag them all night long (unless that intrigues you, of course). I'm personally not attracted to the idea of doing sex which, to me, is HUGELY different than saying I am not attracted to people.

Lucinda

[thjb]

Post removed.

[WhenSummersGone]

I don't think the libido / arousal needs to be involved, but desire is involved in every other orientation as exampled above with the meriam webster definitions. So, there is no reason for us to have our own "attraction only" definition, to set us apart from other orientations. Especially when it's very clear the definition you are using for sexual attraction does not exactly fit as widely as you think. No sexual so far in this thread finds the sexual attraction definition so simple, actually. And if we want to be understood by the sexual world, we need to make sense to sexuals while remaining true to a definition for ourselves.

I agree that desire is involved with sexuals of any orientation, but it is sexual attraction that makes the difference between Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Pansexual etc.

[Sally]

thjb, on 01 Jul 2014 - 4:42 PM, said:

I've been mulling this over for a few days and I have a couple of things I would like to share (just some things to ponder).

1) I believe we need a concise definition that non-asexuals can understand unambiguously. This definition, however, most probably won't be something that asexuals will be able to comprehend, as for this definition to make sense to non-asexual people, it will have to be in non-asexual language. Currently, the AVEN definition is ambiguous enough that people who have no sex drive can identify as asexual which I believe is incorrect.

It has to be something that both sexuals and asexuals understand. We don't have an "asexual" language; all orientations must use the same language, or there'll be no possible communication.

[Guest]

I don't think the libido / arousal needs to be involved, but desire is involved in every other orientation as exampled above with the meriam webster definitions. So, there is no reason for us to have our own "attraction only" definition, to set us apart from other orientations. Especially when it's very clear the definition you are using for sexual attraction does not exactly fit as widely as you think. No sexual so far in this thread finds the sexual attraction definition so simple, actually. And if we want to be understood by the sexual world, we need to make sense to sexuals while remaining true to a definition for ourselves.

I agree that desire is involved with sexuals of any orientation, but it is sexual attraction that makes the difference between Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Pansexual etc.

And if you take away the desire (for partnered sex) you have an asexual, regardless of whether that asexual feels attraction or not.

[WhenSummersGone]

I don't think the libido / arousal needs to be involved, but desire is involved in every other orientation as exampled above with the meriam webster definitions. So, there is no reason for us to have our own "attraction only" definition, to set us apart from other orientations. Especially when it's very clear the definition you are using for sexual attraction does not exactly fit as widely as you think. No sexual so far in this thread finds the sexual attraction definition so simple, actually. And if we want to be understood by the sexual world, we need to make sense to sexuals while remaining true to a definition for ourselves.

I agree that desire is involved with sexuals of any orientation, but it is sexual attraction that makes the difference between Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Pansexual etc.

And if you take away the desire (for sex) you have an asexual, regardless of whether that asexual feels attraction or not.

Depends if the asexual relates more to the sexual attraction definition or not.

[binary suns]

on considering someone not asexual:

the problem with trying to define an all-inclusive term for asexuality, is the following progressiong:

1. the definition broadens

2. someone is close to the definition, but isn't quite, but uses the definition as their identity anyway

3. #2 repeated a bunch of times

4. they all to battle subtle inputs from themselves and others, cry out that the definition needs to broaden so that they are coverred.

While I would strongly discourage telling anyone EVER that they are not as they identify, it must be the case that we keep a definition strict, and we must never fool ourselves into believing that the way someone identifies determines reality.

to support my case further:

Myself and a handful of people on this forum have, before asexuality, identified as pan or bi, but no longer do. If someone told me before I identified as asexual that I wasn't pan/bi, I would've slapped their face! I would've been really insulted! but I never was pan or bi. I've always been without sexual or romantic attraction, and just instead subconsciously mimicked the behavior of what I observed.

Basically, it is definitely possible that someone misinterprets a definition and self-diagnosises themselves wrong!

while on the one hand I strongly encourage letting someone identify any way they choose, on the other hand I will strongly oppose changing the definition of something for the reason to capture more under the definition. Earnestly, I would recomend instead of changing an existing definition, defining concepts that aren't defined now, or encouraging the use of less-used terminology.

[Guest]

Asexual: Referring to a persons sexual orientation in which potential sexual desires are not directed at persons of any sex/gender.

*thinks about this hard*

Yes. Yes, that would be an excellent proposed definition that I think could stand behind 100%.

But that’s just ‘does not experience sexual attraction to any sex/gender' imo. (using sexual attraction as it is well known when referring to sexual orientation)

If you think it's effectively the same as current one, and the people who disagree with the current one think it's better than the current one, logic dictates that you have to support this one instead of the current one, because that way you lose nothing, and we win a lot. It would be unethical not to support the change.

I agree that desire is involved with sexuals of any orientation, but it is sexual attraction that makes the difference between Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Pansexual etc.

Wait, wait, wait... stop the presses... :o

Since you just mention sexuals in the first part, and only homo/hetero/bi/pan - and not ace - in the second... does that mean that you actually do acknowledge now that the difference between aces and sexuals is desire???