Any other Asexuals interested in sex with people?

[Guest]

But Craigslist folks usually do have preferences, right? Like, at the very least, the same dude will limit his posting to m4w and if he's the type who's extra picky he might add a "no fatties" just below his charming dick pic. So that would make them have sexual preferences right? And therefor sexuals who experience sexual attraction, as oppose to OP who is just looking for a person, any person, to do the sex with. I'm assuming here that gender and appearance is completely irrelevant to you OP. Please correct me if I am wrong.

What's most important if if they have the right equipment. There might be other physical characteristics I look for (or don't). But since I am not sexually attracted to people, the person doesn't need to be "attractive". They just need not be repulsive. And they they need to not have any diseases. But that would fall under the category of repulsive. Herpes is most defiantly not a turn on. :lol:

Makes sense to me. And totally makes you asexual in my book.

The OP wouldn't fuck just anyone. They clearly stated that the person needs to not be repulsive. Its frustrating when people are like ''oh an asexual can want sex with other people all the time, they'd just have sex with *anyone at all* because its only the sex that matters.'' That's a load of crap, because they always have *standards* ie.. not repulsive. Do you get that this does not mean ''would just have sex with anyone who isn't diseased or dangerous'' ?

''A person needs to not be repulsive for me to want sex with them''' is a sexual standard, meaning the person has to have some level of physical attractiveness, no matter how mild, for them to want to have sex with that person lol. So it's not ''it's only the sex that matters, not the person'' clearly there is more to it than that. (And even if that was the case, such a person - who would want to literally fuck any human of legal age no matter what their appearance or personality, because they just love partnered sex so much - is not asexual to me..maybe grey or cupio... but not asexual.)

My ex was hypersexual hetero (but only hetero because he was anti-gay *sigh* he absolutely would have had sex with men too if he wasn't homophobic) and he would fuck *anyone* with female parts, there was literally no barrier to who he would go with, as long as she had female genitals (facial hair, male appearance etc didn't matter, as long as a vagina was present EDIT and as long as she was willing too of course). He did not care for appearance, personality, anything, it was just the sex he wanted, the partnered sex, because it was better to him than masturbation and that was about the be-all and end-all of it. So by your definition, my ex was pretty much asexual.

There are plenty of sexual people who love sex for the sake of sex, and the person they are having sex with really isn't as important as the sex itself (this is certainly not true of all sexual people (!) but I have met more than a few like this in my time).. so by your definition Lukar, these people are all asexual as well lol. If asexuality really is ''not finding people sexually attractive regardless of how much you innately desire partnered sex'' then at least 10-15% of the population would be asexual, possibly more.

But only a small percentage of people have absolutely no innate desire for partnered sex, ever. Sure they may have sex to please a sexual partner for example, even enjoy the sensations while its happening, but they wouldn't actively seek the sex out if their partner didn't need sex to be emotionally satisfied; they'd quite happily coexist with their partner without the idea of having sex with their partner ever crossing their minds... that's asexual. Then you get grey, demi, cupio who do desire partnered sex for various reasons, just not in the same way most sexual people do (though I think the picture many asexuals paint of sexuals as a whole is pretty darned false, they aren't all horn-dogs who look at every hot person and think ''id fuck him/her/them''..sure there are some sexual people like that, but the vast majority of them look a lot deeper than that, and need a lot more than a person just 'being hot' before they would have sex with them)

EDIT: and no, not trying to label anyone, the OP can identify as whatever they want. Just pointing out that there are many sexual people out there just like this (ie prefer partnered sex over masturbation, find partnered sex more important than the people they are having sex with etc - not all sexual people are like this of course, but there are those who are and that's all I'm saying)

[Guest]

for me a sexual is a person for which partnered sex has no ready, completely satisfying substitutions available to satisfy a need. They always feel something is missing because it is.

That's an absurdly high bar to set to be "sexual". Do you think we only call someone a lesbian if she MUST have sex with a woman or else feel like something's missing? No, of course not, that would be a ridiculous definition. Example:

"I think I'm gay".

"Do you feel like you're going to die if you don't have sex with other men?"

"No".

"Then you're asexual."

In any case, the OP fits this definition of sexual because he prefers sex with other people to masturbation, etc. His assertion that he'd prefer a hologram is... is not relevant to the fact that above all other options, the OP prefers partnered sex.

[Member82318]

This thread is so interesting. I don't consider myself ace because I have a desire for it, but I just never desired a specific person before or I don't think I have? (Do fictional characters/celebrities count? Even then I'm not sure I desire them per se I just love the whole situation) Idk I guess I'll find out if I ever have sex. I'm so glad this thread exists even if people are getting a bit aggressive (not sure if that's the right word) because it helps me understand what sexual attraction is better than the other specific thread trying to do just that.

I think what's dividing people the most is if desire go hand in hand with attraction. I don't understand how people can be certain of such things. I guess I'll never know until I experience it? And if I never experience it I guess I'll just be forever confused about everything.

OP: If you feel you need a label to better understand yourself then go ahead and label yourself, but if you are comfortable just being you without a label that's fine also.

[Bad_Mr_Tree]

for me a sexual is a person for which partnered sex has no ready, completely satisfying substitutions available to satisfy a need. They always feel something is missing because it is.

That's an absurdly high bar to set to be "sexual". Do you think we only call someone a lesbian if she MUST have sex with a woman or else feel like something's missing? No, of course not, that would be a ridiculous definition. Example:

"I think I'm gay".

"Do you feel like you're going to die if you don't have sex with other men?"

"No".

"Then you're asexual."

In any case, the OP fits this definition of sexual because he prefers sex with other people to masturbation, etc. His assertion that he'd prefer a hologram is... is not relevant to the fact that above all other options, the OP prefers partnered sex.

I choose the words I used purposefully and it is the only point I'm arguing. Your example is an example for the definition you provided, not the one I wrote.

Having a preference for something, or a preference for variety, is not the same as having a need for it.

Finding something to be missing, is not the same as feeling like you are going to die.

Such hyperbole is yours alone.

[Tea.EarlGrey.Hot]

This thread is confusing because some of the things the OP is saying is very similar to what other people are saying. I don't exactly understand the argument in some ways.

But anyway--I personally feel nothing when I try sexual activities "alone," so to speak. And while I am not sexually attracted to my girlfriend, sexual activities are definitely more enjoyable with her. But maybe I've lost track of what the OP means, because I think I'm understanding it differently than everyone else lol

[HappyStart]

You are great with words, im with you. Im an asexual who had sex to reproduce. But i feel exactly the same way, being autistic and transgender isnt a barrier hun, id love a transgendered partner

I can say im asexual but had lots of sex with only one person my long term partner at the time. But with only one aim, to have my two children, for me it was like a business transaction. Nothing sexy about it, i wanted it over as quick as possible

[Alan Degas]

Well, I'm personally of the conviction that if someone says they are asexual (or whatever) then they are asexual. I honestly don't care much beyond that because it just doesn't matter. If the label asexual helps you, then use it. That's what I feel...

PanFictosaurusRex. Maybe your ex was asexual. If he wanted to identify as such then by all means he would be in my book. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Contrarian Expatriate]

I think you should do what you want and not care about the labels. If you are clear to yourself about what you want, you can be clear to partners about it.

Sometime we tends to let labels define what we are supposed to like. We like what we like and the labels are just there to put a context on it. But we can transcend catagories like it is nothing if we find a special partner or have a new, eye-opening experience.

I personally am not interested in having sex, unless it was with a woman with whom I was willing to produce a child.

[purplemutant]

I think I need to clarify some things. Sexual activity with other people is something I would like to do; not something I need to do. Also, I don't prefer it over masturbation. I masturbate daily, but I wouldn't want to have sex with a person daily. If I had the opportunity to have sex with a person whenever I wanted; I am not sure how often I would want to do that. I might not go beyond experimentation. Like I said, there are things I would like to try that require other people. After I have tried them, I may not want to do them ever again. I don't know. All I know is that I like orgasms and I would like to try other methods of achieving orgasm; some of which necessitate the involvement of other people. Maybe my issue is my masturbation technique. If I could give my self orgasms as good ( or better) as the couple of times I have messed around; I would prefer to do that.

FYI, I don't use male pronouns. I prefer female or gender neutral pronouns.

[eched]

Well Purplemutant you sound pretty curious in my book, but that doesn't = sexual, so I'm still calling ya ace! :D

I remember before I tried out some more 'kinky' ways to please myself(I'm not going into any more detail then that!) I was a lot more curious about sex in general and the sex drive spikes that I mentioned before happened a lot more often. Once I properly explored myself though things calmed down and now I'm not really that curious at all.

[Bad_Mr_Tree]

I think you should do what you want and not care about the labels. If you are clear to yourself about what you want, you can be clear to partners about it.

Sometime we tends to let labels define what we are supposed to like. We like what we like and the labels are just there to put a context on it. But we can transcend catagories like it is nothing if we find a special partner or have a new, eye-opening experience.

sage advice indeed

[Guest]

One of these threads that solidifies my perception that "sexual attraction" is a bogus concept that has nothing to do with how orientations work in real life, and that AVEN's definition of asexuality is badly in need of change. <_<

IMO, gray-pansexual seems to describe your experience just fine (I'm certainly not denying that there is a good bunch of gray-a in it - looking at post #43 especially), but it really doesn't sound like full-fledged asexuality to me. Whether you are "sexually attracted" to people or not really has nothing to do with it.

Now of course, you're free to call yourself ace if you choose to do so, but you won't find me validating that choice, as it makes no logical sense to me - asexuals do not innately desire partnered sex, you say you do. It just doesn't add up. sorry.

[purplemutant]

Posting this thread has been great to help in me sort things out. It occurred to me that there are things that turn me on in fantasy land but might not do it for me in the real world. Given my limited experiences with sex with people; I don't really know if I would enjoy X Y or Z sexual activity. In my head it seems like X might be fun; but in the real world maybe it isn't. I am also into BDSM. So I fantasize about being "forced" to do sex acts I might not enjoy. In that situation the power play is what gets me off not the sex act. To some extent the same might be true in the real world. I might get off on being "forced" do a sex act. I don't know. To find out I would have to find the right person to experiment with. Safety is very important. Psychological safety as well as physical safety. Finding such a person would be easier said than done. So I may never get to try out some of those things. If I don't get to try; that's fine. But it would be nice if I could find a safe person/environment to explore my sexuality.

[eched]

Yes, one can mislabel themselves if they don't have some real world experience. A fantasy always seems fantastic compared to the real world, and fantasies can cloud your thinking(one of the reasons why I stayed in the closet so long was cause I do fantasize a lot. Not about real people though.)

This is however another reason why I say it's not cool to label others. When you are first exploring your sexuality it's very easy to describe yourself improperly. As you say, you might not be sexually into X at all, but the idea sounds fun, and that makes everything all messy.

So, the proper response in my book is always let the person in question sort out their own sexuality. Like, it's not my job to sort out someone's sexuality. I don't get paid for that!

PS. That will be $25.99. ;)

[Rising Sun]

One of these threads that solidifies my perception that "sexual attraction" is a bogus concept that has nothing to do with how orientations work in real life, and that AVEN's definition of asexuality is badly in need of change. <_<

IMO, gray-pansexual seems to describe your experience just fine (I'm certainly not denying that there is a good bunch of gray-a in it - looking at post #43 especially), but it really doesn't sound like full-fledged asexuality to me. Whether you are "sexually attracted" to people or not really has nothing to do with it.

Now of course, you're free to call yourself ace if you choose to do so, but you won't find me validating that choice, as it makes no logical sense to me - asexuals do not innately desire partnered sex, you say you do. It just doesn't add up. sorry.

Sexual attraction is still a part of the definition, whether you like it or not.

The thing is that sexual attraction and sexual desire are two different things, and that usually, both need to be present to make a person desire sex with someone.

It's a well-known fact, a lot of people are on this forum precisely because they feel different, and why do they feel different ? Because they find nobody hot / desirable / sexually attractive. They're here. They definitely exist, and they need a community because they're different. So they should suddenly stop being considered as asexuals and be excluded from the community then ? That's horrible.

[Guest]

Sexual attraction is still a part of the definition, whether you like it or not.

I'm completely through with validating a definition worded like this. It's not helping V&E; it's not helping asexuality to be taken seriously as a valid orientation instead of as an internet fad.

The thing is that sexual attraction and sexual desire are two different things, and that usually, both need to be present to make a person desire sex with someone.

Not according to AVEN's own FAQ, it ain't. According to it, "sexual attraction" is the desire to have sex with someone.... whether you like it or not. We just haven't reached the point (yet - and in this one word lies tremendous hope for me) where we show the guts to explicitly write desire for partnered sex into that sentence at the top of the page, instead of hiding it in the fine print.

It's a well-known fact, a lot of people are on this forum precisely because they feel different, and why do they feel different ? Because they find nobody hot / desirable / sexually attractive. They're here. They definitely exist, and they need a community because they're different. So they should suddenly stop being considered as asexuals and be excluded from the community then ? That's horrible.

Nope, I really don't think they're different - at least not in the way you insinuate. That "difference" you postulate lies in a concept that I find less and less likely to exist in real life.

The actual, real-world, practical difference between an ace and an (allo)sexual is whether or not they innately desire partnered sex. Just go look in the SFPA subforum and read up on the realities of mixed 'ships, and you will clearly see this, over and over again. How ever does someone even notice they're "sexually attracted" to someone, if not as a direct function of sexual desire? And how ever do they know they have simply not found the right person yet? (Yes. I said it. Sue me.)

I don't see the difference between an "asexual with a desire for partnered sex" and a plain old pansexual. Attraction, schmattraction. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one here who just doesn't see it. And if we - asexuals ourselves, who have spent months and years on AVEN - don't see the difference, how dare we expect the world at large to understand it? And yes, I mean that "how dare we" without a trace of irony. While the lines are this muddy, it is presumptuous of us to expect to be seen and understood; we'd be better off abandoning that entitled attitude and learn to humbly stay in the sidelines of society.

As for community... an important part of a community (one based on an unusual/minority trait, at least) is to help people correctly identify themselves. That simply can't be done if we don't have a clear message of what isn't asexuality. To define by neccessity means to exclude; if we're not ready to exclude anyone, our attempts at "asexual visibility and education" are inherently misguided - if we keep the umbrella so damn huge that everyone can fit under it if they just say the magic word, then we're hurting LGBT's quest of being taken seriously by appropriating the concerns of well-defined (i.e., ready to exclude those who don't fit in; noone will hesitate telling a guy who wants to boink gals and only gals that he is not homosexual, and noone will fear that telling him he's not gay were "ruining the gay community") orientations. If we insist that asexuality is just the state of calling oneself asexual, then LGBT is better off without us babbling in public about this entire "asexuality" thing, lest we make a mockery of real orientations with real problems.

This isn't Twitter or Facebook. It's right in the name of the site that we're not here to just give any and all comers a place to hang out - there's a V&E between the A&N.

BTW, last time I checked, sexuals, pan- or otherwise, are and remain absolutely welcome on AVEN... and IMO. that is a very, very good thing. Be it as friends and allies; be it because AVEN is a mighty fine place to learn about the variety of genders and orientations, and can serve as an excellent resource to find one's own identity; or be it as a very much needed voice to shake up asexuals' misconceptions about what being sexual really is like (and dude, do folks on here repeatedly and stubbornly fail at listening to that third bit right there!).

That doesn't, and shouldn't, make non-aces into asexuals, though... and it's neither neccessary nor helpful for anybody to try and include them into conceptual categories where they simply. don't. belong.

[butterflydreams]

Yes, one can mislabel themselves if they don't have some real world experience. A fantasy always seems fantastic compared to the real world, and fantasies can cloud your thinking(one of the reasons why I stayed in the closet so long was cause I do fantasize a lot. Not about real people though.)

Yes, this is something I struggle with a lot myself. Everything else screams one thing, and I'm inclined to listen, but this is always the little wildcard that nags at me. It's true though. I imagine and fantasize about lots of things (some sexual, most not). It doesn't have much bearing on my reality because I know that's not real life. My fantasies of driving a car over 150mph, or taking an Audi Quattro S1 to a skid pad? I could fantasize about that all day! Be absolutely lost in it too! But walking up to that monster with keys in hand? That is a completely different situation. Fantasy != reality.

Just to throw it out there, I can't sexually fantasize about real people. I've tried. When I was younger and starting to become aware of myself in that way, I thought that's what you were supposed to do. Yeah, it only took 2-3 times of doing it and feeling like absolute shit for me to never bother again.

PS. That will be $25.99. ;)

I thought Psychiatric Help was 5 cents? :P

[Rising Sun]

Sexual attraction is still a part of the definition, whether you like it or not.

I'm completely through with validating a definition worded like this. It's not helping V&E; it's not helping asexuality to be taken seriously as a valid orientation instead of as an internet fad.

The thing is that sexual attraction and sexual desire are two different things, and that usually, both need to be present to make a person desire sex with someone.

Not according to AVEN's own FAQ, it ain't. According to it, "sexual attraction" is the desire to have sex with someone.... whether you like it or not. We just haven't reached the point (yet - and in this one word lies tremendous hope for me) where we show the guts to explicitly write desire for partnered sex into that sentence at the top of the page, instead of hiding it in the fine print.

It's a well-known fact, a lot of people are on this forum precisely because they feel different, and why do they feel different ? Because they find nobody hot / desirable / sexually attractive. They're here. They definitely exist, and they need a community because they're different. So they should suddenly stop being considered as asexuals and be excluded from the community then ? That's horrible.

Nope, I really don't think they're different - at least not in the way you insinuate. That "difference" you postulate lies in a concept that I find less and less likely to exist in real life.

The actual, real-world, practical difference between an ace and an (allo)sexual is whether or not they innately desire partnered sex. Just go look in the SFPA subforum and read up on the realities of mixed 'ships, and you will clearly see this, over and over again. How ever does someone even notice they're "sexually attracted" to someone, if not as a direct function of sexual desire? And how ever do they know they have simply not found the right person yet? (Yes. I said it. Sue me.)

I don't see the difference between an "asexual with a desire for partnered sex" and a plain old pansexual. Attraction, schmattraction. I know for a fact that I'm not the only one here who just doesn't see it. And if we - asexuals ourselves, who have spent months and years on AVEN - don't see the difference, how dare we expect the world at large to understand it? And yes, I mean that "how dare we" without a trace of irony. While the lines are this muddy, it is presumptuous of us to expect to be seen and understood; we'd be better off abandoning that entitled attitude and learn to humbly stay in the sidelines of society.

As for community... an important part of a community (one based on an unusual/minority trait, at least) is to help people correctly identify themselves. That simply can't be done if we don't have a clear message of what isn't asexuality. To define by neccessity means to exclude; if we're not ready to exclude anyone, our attempts at "asexual visibility and education" are inherently misguided - if we keep the umbrella so damn huge that everyone can fit under it if they just say the magic word, then we're hurting LGBT's quest of being taken seriously by appropriating the concerns of well-defined (i.e., ready to exclude those who don't fit in; noone will hesitate telling a guy who wants to boink gals and only gals that he is not homosexual, and noone will fear that telling him he's not gay were "ruining the gay community") orientations. If we insist that asexuality is just the state of calling oneself asexual, then LGBT is better off without us babbling in public about this entire "asexuality" thing, lest we make a mockery of real orientations with real problems.

This isn't Twitter or Facebook. It's right in the name of the site that we're not here to just give any and all comers a place to hang out - there's a V&E between the A&N.

BTW, last time I checked, sexuals, pan- or otherwise, are and remain absolutely welcome on AVEN... and IMO. that is a very, very good thing. Be it as friends and allies; be it because AVEN is a mighty fine place to learn about the variety of genders and orientations, and can serve as an excellent resource to find one's own identity; or be it as a very much needed voice to shake up asexuals' misconceptions about what being sexual really is like (and dude, do folks on here repeatedly and stubbornly fail at listening to that third bit right there!).

That doesn't, and shouldn't, make non-aces into asexuals, though... and it's neither neccessary nor helpful for anybody to try and include them into conceptual categories where they simply. don't. belong.

And if, as I tried to say, sexual attraction were sexual desire directed at particular persons ? Attraction is the direction that desire doesn't have.

Sexual desire : "I feel the urge to have sex." (I personally think that using "urge" gives more clarity)

Sexual attraction : "I feel the urge to have sex with [insert a name or a gender here]."

So what happens if the person feels sexual desire but no sexual attraction, their desire being not directed at anyone ?

[purplemutant]

And if, as I tried to say, sexual attraction were sexual desire directed at particular persons ? Attraction is the direction that desire doesn't have.

Sexual desire : "I feel the urge to have sex." (I personally think that using "urge" gives more clarity)

Sexual attraction : "I feel the urge to have sex with [insert a name or a gender here]."

So what happens if the person feels sexual desire but no sexual attraction, their desire being not directed at anyone ?

I would argue that sexual attraction isn't simply an urge to have sex with a given person. It's weather or not people turn you on in a sexual way. I might want to have sex with a specific person person for a variety of reasons; non of which are because they turn me on sexually just by being a person. They would have to do something to turn me on. You can make an analogy with lighting. You have traditional lighting that requires flipping a switch and you have lights with motion sensors. To turn me on you have to flip my switch; just walking into the room isn't going to do it. If you touch me in the right place and in the right way; you will trigger the physiological response of sexual arousal. If you keep touching me you are liable to trigger the physiological response of orgasm. ^_^ ;)

[Excandesco]

The actual, real-world, practical difference between an ace and an (allo)sexual is whether or not they innately desire partnered sex. Just go look in the SFPA subforum and read up on the realities of mixed 'ships, and you will clearly see this, over and over again. How ever does someone even notice they're "sexually attracted" to someone, if not as a direct function of sexual desire? And how ever do they know they have simply not found the right person yet? (Yes. I said it. Sue me.)

I don't see the difference between an "asexual with a desire for partnered sex" and a plain old pansexual. Attraction, schmattraction.

"How ever does someone even notice they're sexually attracted to someone, if not as a direct function of sexual desire?"

Damn, that is an amazing question. I love it. The obvious answer is that it is a direct function of sexual desire. This leads me to my conclusion in 1. which follows.

However... I disagree that sexual attraction is not important.

1. Does sexual attraction entail sexual desire? Yes. (I'd like to see someone argue against this point)

2. Does sexual desire entail sexual attraction? Nope. (In case anyone is wondering this is what seems to be the discussion at hand)

Now within 2. Is this person Asexual? Perhaps being asexual means having no sexual attraction and sexual desire.

The OP stated that they do not experience sexual attraction. This is also what they thought being asexual meant. (This is what is or should be up for debate) Once again a point by Mysticus.

^{"The actual, real-world, practical difference between an ace and an (allo)sexual is whether or not they innately desire partnered sex."}

This point captures people who fall under 1 and 2. Those who experience sexual attraction and therefore experience sexual desire and those who only experience sexual desire but do not experience sexual attraction. In both cases 1 and 2 both innately desire partnered sex.

N.B For anyone who 'experiences' sexual attraction but not desire, I tend to think, sorry that's not sexual attraction. It's something else.

So sexual attraction is.

"sexual attraction were sexual desire directed at particular persons ? Attraction is the direction that desire doesn't have"

Sexual attraction is merely directed sexual desire. (Thanks Rising Sun I like the way you worded that.)

Finally this point caught my attention.

I don't see the difference between an "asexual with a desire for partnered sex" and a plain old pansexual. Attraction, schmattraction

Well, a pansexual experiences sexual attraction. (Once again an obvious answer but whatever) Such an 'asexual' is one that does not experience directed sexual desire. Are they asexual? Well, if it is the case that the difference between someone sexual and someone asexual is the innate desire for partnered sex an 'asexual' with a desire for partnered sex is not really an asexual.

Btw I am so tired. I've probably made a huge mistake or error here. But I'll re read it in the morning. I'm pretty sure it's not entirely clear.

[WhenSummersGone]

Do pansexuals experience primary sexual attraction? If so then maybe Pansexual isn't the right term for those who don't experience sexual attraction but have desire.

[Guest]

And if, as I tried to say, sexual attraction were sexual desire directed at particular persons ? Attraction is the direction that desire doesn't have.

Sexual desire : "I feel the urge to have sex." (I personally think that using "urge" gives more clarity)

Sexual attraction : "I feel the urge to have sex with [insert a name or a gender here]."

So what happens if the person feels sexual desire but no sexual attraction, their desire being not directed at anyone ?

But I say again, all the people I have met (including the OP) who say they desire partnered sex but don't feel sexual attraction, and therefore are asexual, still don't say they'd literally have sex with just anyone. If it literally was just about the sex, and not at all about the person, then wouldn't literally any person of legal age suffice? (barring diseased and/or dangerous people here for the sake of fairness).. The OP quite clearly stated that the person mustn't be repulsive, therefore, they do have at least some sexual standards.. no?

PanFictosaurusRex. Maybe your ex was asexual. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Now that would be the most fucked up asexual relationship in history haha .. Me having to give my ''asexual'' ex partner sex twice a day (sometimes more) every day, to the extent that I would often be in so much pain I could hardly walk for days.. all in a vein (and naive) attempt to somehow keep him sexually satisfied :p (that was before I knew about asexuality, and I figured it was a females duty to give her partner sex to keep said partner happy, regardless of whether or not she wanted or enjoyed the sex)

Compare that to my relationship now, with a young asexual male. We are deeply loving, sensual, romantic, intimate... we just don't have sex, ever, because it's not something either of us desire (or enjoy) .. We've been together almost a year now, and the topic of us actually having sex has never even come up outside of the occasional lewd (and not at all serious) joke. We have both had to deal with the pressure of having to give sex(ual acts) to try to please our past partners, and we honestly could not be happier to now be in a relationship where we know sex will never, ever be an issue either of us will ever have to deal with.

What do these two separate relationships have in common? .. well... nothing... aside from the fact that both of these men, apparently, are asexual haha.

[LeaveOnYourColours]

Maybe some day so I could understand how it works :D Honestly I kinda have this doubt that it's a real thing that goes on all the time

[purplemutant]

And if, as I tried to say, sexual attraction were sexual desire directed at particular persons ? Attraction is the direction that desire doesn't have.

Sexual desire : "I feel the urge to have sex." (I personally think that using "urge" gives more clarity)

Sexual attraction : "I feel the urge to have sex with [insert a name or a gender here]."

So what happens if the person feels sexual desire but no sexual attraction, their desire being not directed at anyone ?

But I say again, all the people I have met (including the OP) who say they desire partnered sex but don't feel sexual attraction, and therefore are asexual, still don't say they'd literally have sex with just anyone. If it literally was just about the sex, and not at all about the person, then wouldn't literally any person of legal age suffice? (barring diseased and/or dangerous people here for the sake of fairness).. The OP quite clearly stated that the person mustn't be repulsive, therefore, they do have at least some sexual standards.. no?

Standards don't necessarily equate to sexual attraction. Presumably romantics have standards, some of which might relate to physical appearance. I don't know since I am aromantic. I am not going to have sex with just anyone. What genitals someone has is important. If I want to try vaginal sex, then I would need to find someone with a vagina. Aesthetic appeal is also a factor. If I am going to be in close proximity to someone, I would want someone who is nice to look at. Or at the very least not repulsive. Of course just because I think they are nice to look at doesn't mean they turn me on sexually. A painting might be nice to look at; but it doesn't mean I am sexually attracted to the painting. Here is a real world example. Once I visited the Lusty Lady strip club in Seattle. I mistakenly assumed it was union like the one in San Francisco is; otherwise I wouldn't have gone. It's one of those strip clubs where the women dance behind glass. You go into the booth, pop some money into the machine and the thing opens and you get to see the naked lady dancing behind the glass. The naked lady was nice to look at; but she didn't sexually arouse me in the least bit. Which at the time struck me as odd. Now I understand why she didn't arouse me.

Besides some physical characteristics; personality would be a big factor in who I chose as a sex parter. Of course it all may come down to who is available. I don't go out of my way to look for sex. So if an opportunity presents it's self I may take it; even if the person isn't what I would ideally want in a sex partner.

[Guest]

Oh okay.. so we're still going by the idea that all sexual people look at other people and get aroused by aspects of their appearance, and still ignoring the fact that for many sexual people, they don't even care about physical appearance (as long as the person isn't repulsive to them etc) they just enjoy sex and require someone to have an appealing personality (as one example), before they will want to have sex with said person. I say again, sexual people aren't all exactly the same! You can't just say "they all look at people and get horny" because they don't (plenty do sure, but not all)

What they do have in common is that, to some extent or another, they desire partnered sex.. for *many* varied reasons.

So again, not saying you can't be asexual if you want to be, if you feel that label is good for you, then yay! Just saying that if we're going by that definition, asexuals would be at least 10-15% of the population. Again, it doesn't really matter. I just know I (and many other people here) *wish* we could have wanted sex the way other people do.. that would have saved so much stress, so much confusion, so many extremely painful failed relationships etc etc.. if we had been able to really *want* sex, many of us never would have ended up on AVEN trying to find an answer as to what the hell might be wrong with us. Turned out there's nothing *wrong* with us, lots of people just like us don't have any innate desire for partnered sex.. So I guess the main thing here is us just not understanding why someone would need a label like asexual (ie non-sexual) when they are clearly very sexual (ie love and want sex) ..

And in your earlier posts, about especially wanting sex with other asexuals, I know that was pretty offensive for me (and probably plenty of other asexual people here as well) because the whole purpose of us identifying as asexual is *because* we don't desire sexual relationships.. seriously that whole asexual sex club thing just blew me away.. just what? If you love sex that much, go to a regular sex club? (they exist, you know, for people who love sex and really don't mind who it's with)

I understand that some commenters don't understand where this negativity is coming from, but I know I personally was just extremely offended by some of the things you said earlier in this thread. There was a sexual person in AVEN chat one day saying "I'm sexual but I have a fetish for asexual women, I'd love to be able to fuck them with no strings attached" (yes the person was banned from AVEN) and honestly, what you have said here, it felt like that. Predatory almost. I understand that's not how you meant it (not intentionally anyway) but it really did come across that you'd just prefer to fuck asexual people.. and also felt like you were in a way comparing us to robots or sex dolls (well you actually pretty much said outright: A ''RealDoll'' - a true to life looking sex doll - is too expensive so I'll settle for the next best thing; an asexual!'' which is objectifying asexuals for sexual purposes as far as I am concerned). So yeah, I'm generally pretty accepting here, but that's where my negativity is coming from in this thread. You also pretty much put yourself (and other people who have sex just because they love sex and/or for reasons other than 'sexual attraction' - there are sexual partners/allies on AVEN like that) in the same category as rapists, sexual predators, and people who have sex with drug-addicted hookers because they 'can't get a free lay' which was probably pretty offensive for them too.

I feel like you may as well have just titled this thread: ''I want to fuck asexuals!'' because really, that's the jist I got from your initial comments.

[purplemutant]

Sorry for offending anyone. I am just trying to figure my shit out like everyone else here. It seems that some of what I posted was misunderstood. I guess I didn't explain things well enough. All the negativity directed at me hurts. Finding out about asexuality and AVEN helped explain some things for me. It seemed this would a community I could fit in. But it seems that may not be the case. As an autistic person I have had trouble fitting in to groups of people my whole life. What's going on here just more of the same that has been going on my whole life. I understand that not everyone is guilty here.

Again, sorry for offending anyone. At this point I am not sure if there is any point in continuing to discuss this topic.

[Bad_Mr_Tree]

Sharing openly like you have comes with risks, and we see now what some of them are very clearly.

We live in a world that likes to force people into labels, and I don't really see an advantage from increasing the categories from 2 to 6, or 7 or 19 and how that truly creates an acceptance of a spectrum. There are over 7 billion of us here, thats a lot.

I think the best possible world is one which a spectrum is understood for all sorts of the unique, quarks we as individuals have; each allowing us to bring a unique perspective to those around us. We lose that perspective, we lose that richness, and for what gain? So that the sense of a word is so narrowly defined that we can fit people nicely into it?

Words never remain static. People never remain static. Let's not lose sight of that or much harm will be caused.

Many people have commented that fantasy != reality. This is true.

One of the difficult things for me to deal with that my sexual partner helped me work through was that my ideas of kink, which if expressed here would offend a lot of people, don't make me a bad, evil, or disgusting person. Having a fantasy where I disrespect someone doesn't mean I will automatically disrespect people in real life.

Whatever consenting individuals want to do is between them. That is my understanding, and my position.

[WhenSummersGone]

I still think Cupiosexual is the best label for those who have desire without attraction. I just read that it is part of the asexual spectrum which makes sense because there are people here who desire sex.

[Guest]

I still think Cupiosexual is the best label for those who have desire without attraction. I just read that it is part of the asexual spectrum which makes sense because there are people here who desire sex.

I agree with this. The only reservation I have about the term is that it was Tumblr-coined, but all terms have to start somewhere I guess. Also, all the descriptions of Cupiosexual that I can find say that a cupiosexual person desires an actual sexual relationship, as opposed to just sex with anyone for the sake of enjoying sex, but meh, still pretty close. Again though, people are free to identify as they wish, I just think it's a good term for people who say the desire partnered sex, yet don't feel sexual attraction (ignoring of course whole issue of AVENs definition of sexual attraction actually being: the desire for partnered sex)

[dash]

I still think Cupiosexual is the best label for those who have desire without attraction. I just read that it is part of the asexual spectrum which makes sense because there are people here who desire sex.

I agree with this. The only reservation I have about the term is that it was Tumblr-coined, but all terms have to start somewhere I guess. Also, all the descriptions of Cupiosexual that I can find say that a cupiosexual person desires an actual sexual relationship, as opposed to just sex with anyone for the sake of enjoying sex, but meh, still pretty close. Again though, people are free to identify as they wish, I just think it's a good term for people who say the desire partnered sex, yet don't feel sexual attraction (ignoring of course whole issue of AVENs definition of sexual attraction actually being: the desire for partnered sex)

I am confused by "wants partnered sex + also wants relationship with that person/those people" (in other words, not "sex just for the sensations of it") but also "does not experience sexual attraction." What is the difference between this and allosexual? What does "sexual attraction" mean in this context? (Sure, my sexuality isn't physical, but I would never describe myself as sexually attracted to someone I didn't want to have sexual interactions with at least on SOME level, even though for me "sexual interactions" doesn't mean the same things it means for most other folks.)

Assuming yes there is a significant difference between cupiosexual and allosexual, why are cupiosexuals under the asexual umbrella, rather than a different GRSM (gender/romantic/sexual minority) category?