purplemutant Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) There has been some heated debate lately as to what asexuality is (or isn't). I think it would be helpful if we collected everyone’s definition of asexuality in a single thread. From there we can sort though them to come up with a definition most of us can agree on. Just post your definition of what you think asexuality is. Please leave the debate for another thread. Here is how I currently define asexuality An asexual is someone who does not experience an innate desire for sex with other people. Desire. Noun: "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen." Synonyms: Urge, Craving, Yearning, Need. Simply put: Can you go for the rest of your life without partnered sex? Yes = asexual, No = Allosexual *EDIT* If you agree with someones definition, please like the post. From there we can take the most liked definitions and conduct a pole. That can give us a definition to use. At least until this debate rears its ugly head again. *EDIT* I started a thread to debate the definition of asesuality. Lets take the debate there and keep it off this thread. http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/112965-debate-on-definition-of-asexuality/ Edited January 19, 2015 by purplemutant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubal Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 That's pretty good, but ought to be modified slightly for demisexuals. "An asexual is someone who experiences very little or rare innate desire for sex with other people." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-happyhippie Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I define asexual as someone who does not experience sexual attraction towards any specific gender. Like how homosexual means attracted to same sex, heterosexual means attracted to opposite sex, etc., asexual would mean attracted to no sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- Ętc - Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I identify as demisexual (dark-gray, low-libido) but still feel no innate desire/attraction (occasional desire/attraction, but not innate) and could easily go my entire life without any form of sex or sexual contact (including with my partner and solo) - I'm not sure if this is unusual for demisexuals. Not to get off-topic, just thought I'd mention it since we're talking about asexual definitions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 That's pretty good, but ought to be modified slightly for demisexuals. "An asexual is someone who experiences very little or rare innate desire for sex with other people." Disagree. The definition of asexuality should not include demis. Demis are demi, not ace, and the definition of demi must be different from the definition of ace. So, no, not very little or rare, just none. A correct definition of asexuality must, when strictly applied, exclude grays and demis, otherwise it is too loose. Purple's def for asexuality is one I completely stand behind; yours is a fine definition for gray-ace, but not for asexuality; and a good one for demi, I think, would be "... who usually experiences no innate desire for sex with other people, but might develop such desire when in an emotionally close relationship". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplemutant Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 That's pretty good, but ought to be modified slightly for demisexuals. "An asexual is someone who experiences very little or rare innate desire for sex with other people." Disagree. The definition of asexuality should not include demis. Demis are demi, not ace, and the definition of demi must be different from the definition of ace. So, no, not very little or rare, just none. A correct definition of asexuality must, when strictly applied, exclude grays and demis, otherwise it is too loose. Purple's def for asexuality is one I completely stand behind; yours is a fine definition for gray-ace, but not for asexuality; and a good one for demi, I think, would be "... who usually experiences no innate desire for sex with other people, but might develop such desire when in an emotionally close relationship". Lets leave the debate for another thread. I am going to start one. :) *EDIT* here is the debate thread http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/112965-debate-on-definition-of-asexuality/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 80814 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 That someone doesn't have any interest in dancing without the inclusion of pants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasha the Derp Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 That's pretty good, but ought to be modified slightly for demisexuals. "An asexual is someone who experiences very little or rare innate desire for sex with other people." Disagree. The definition of asexuality should not include demis. Demis are demi, not ace, and the definition of demi must be different from the definition of ace. So, no, not very little or rare, just none. A correct definition of asexuality must, when strictly applied, exclude grays and demis, otherwise it is too loose. Purple's def for asexuality is one I completely stand behind; yours is a fine definition for gray-ace, but not for asexuality; and a good one for demi, I think, would be "... who usually experiences no innate desire for sex with other people, but might develop such desire when in an emotionally close relationship". So we do agree on something. I don't think I could have worded that better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llama-Overlord Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I agree with the definition, but I feel we should add in something about why we have to define it. Like I define as asexual because it better describes my feelings. You know? Like I could have stayed heterosexual or bisexual or whatever I am, but asexual more fully defines my feelings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplemutant Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 I agree with the definition, but I feel we should add in something about why we have to define it. Like I define as asexual because it better describes my feelings. You know? Like I could have stayed heterosexual or bisexual or whatever I am, but asexual more fully defines my feelings. Without a definition a term has no meaning. The recent heated debates over what is (or is not) asexuality is what prompted me to start this thread. Clearly there are some serious disagreements as to what asexuality is. We wont be able to get everyone to agree, but we should at least try to get most people on here to agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satin Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 That's pretty good, but ought to be modified slightly for demisexuals. "An asexual is someone who experiences very little or rare innate desire for sex with other people." Disagree. The definition of asexuality should not include demis. Demis are demi, not ace, and the definition of demi must be different from the definition of ace. So, no, not very little or rare, just none. A correct definition of asexuality must, when strictly applied, exclude grays and demis, otherwise it is too loose. Purple's def for asexuality is one I completely stand behind; yours is a fine definition for gray-ace, but not for asexuality; and a good one for demi, I think, would be "... who usually experiences no innate desire for sex with other people, but might develop such desire when in an emotionally close relationship". Same here. I'm usually too lazy to join the tiring definition debates (more like wars) but I definitely fully support what Mysticus says here. I agree with the definition, but I feel we should add in something about why we have to define it. We have to define it because the term is useless otherwise. Speaks for itself, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 An asexual is someone who does not experience an innate desire for sex with other people. Desire. Noun: "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen." Synonyms: Urge, Craving, Yearning, Need. Can you go for the rest of your life without partnered sex AND not feel like you are denying your natural desires/urges? Yes = asexual, No = Allosexual There are celibate sexuals, such as priests and such, that go without sex for the rest of their lives. They are still sexual. They have the urges/cravings, but actively CHOOSE to not act on them. However, they describe constantly fighting temptations, there are meditations for them to help, there are support groups for those who are celibate to handle the struggle, etc. Even Gandhi wrote in his book that it was a constant battle for him to deny his sexual cravings, even after so many years practicing a non-sexual lifestyle and being so dedicated to his beliefs. Celibacy is celebrated BECAUSE it's denying themselves something. So, the definition I can get behind is nearly the same as yours, just a little different in wording, cause I had to nitpick. :D (Myst is rubbing off on me I guess...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francoise Wang Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 My definition of asexuality is quite simple. Although I don't know if other people here would agree this, but I think my definition would be helpful for asexuals and for those who are still trying to figure out their orientations. "If you won't be able to have partnered sex with any human being for the rest of your life, no matter whether you're in a romantic relationship or not, and no matter how many attractive people would want to have sex with you in the future. Would this make your future life unhappier than it originally supposed to be?" "No." or "My life would be happier without sex for the rest of my life!" Then you are asexual. "Yes." or "My life would be miserable living like that!" Then you are sexual. "Um, maybe?" or "Yes, but just a little." Then you are probably grey-asexual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplemutant Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 Thanks everyone for responding. Keep it up :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrecken Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I would define asexuality as a spectrum which would include anyone who falls outside of what would define a typical sexual (without getting into the sub-set areas like demi and grey). Of course, then one has to try and define typical sexuality (which might also be a good thing to do, for comparison points, since many do not know what "normal" is). From what I have seen in my lifetime, sexuals (including homosexuals and bisexuals) have a more or less constant interest in acquiring sex and finding a partner. The only thing that can interrupt that is something like a medical or psychological problem (which can encompass a huge number of issues), and those are often transient in nature (like someone who suffers from acute depression, for instance). So, it might be easier to define what isn't asexual IMO. Basically, the typical sexual process seems to dictate that someone will immediately seek out a mate for sexual purposes (they will have a strong desire to do so) as soon as they are physically sexually mature, and continue to do so for the remainder of their life as long as physical and psychological problems don't get in the way. For someone who is on the asexuality spectrum, their life will deviate from that process either a lot or a little. They may never have any of those urges or desires ever, or they may have them only once in a "blue moon", so to speak. So unless that deviation can be 100% attributed to a medical issue, then it is highly likely that person is asexual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eched Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I go with wikipedia on how to define asexuality: Asexuality (or nonsexuality)[1][2][3] is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity. You notice the OR there? It suggests that some asexual people would have no sexual attraction, while other asexual people would have no sexual desire, and some would be both. I honestly think some people on here desire sex, but don't find people attractive in a 'sexy' way and some people find people sexy, but don't desire sex. I think we need to say both of these things count as asexual and it's only sexual if you have BOTH sexual attraction and desire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhenSummersGone Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I go with wikipedia on how to define asexuality: Asexuality (or nonsexuality)[1][2][3] is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone, or low or absent interest in sexual activity. You notice the OR there? It suggests that some asexual people would have no sexual attraction, while other asexual people would have no sexual desire, and some would be both. I honestly think some people on here desire sex, but don't find people attractive in a 'sexy' way and some people find people sexy, but don't desire sex. I think we need to say both of these things count as asexual and it's only sexual if you have BOTH sexual attraction and desire. I do think they work together. There's an innate partner preference which to me is sexual attraction. My definition of sexual attraction though is a desire to have sex with a certain person or directed sexual desire. Some people may have a different definition. If it means desire I wouldn't mind a definition based on desire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKinley Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Since I personally find the term "sexual attraction" to be kind of hard to define, I like to define asexuality simply as a lack of desire for partnered sex. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romantic-woman Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Since I personally find the term "sexual attraction" to be kind of hard to define, I like to define asexuality simply as a lack of desire for partnered sex. :) Exactly This is the only phrase that sexuals can understand what is the difference between us and others. I don't care what others try to make me believe here and try to make asexuals believe that they are people who want and asks for sex but they just don't have any attraction. This is really pressing for people in society (like me and many others that i have met) that find difficulty when they really don't want to have sex with any gender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satin Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I honestly think some people on here desire sex, but don't find people attractive in a 'sexy' way It makes no sense at all for these people to identify as asexual. I remember a thread a while back where a bisexual guy showed up and said a friend told him he's asexual because he doesn't find anyone sexy - even though he clearly desires sex and wouldn't want to live without it. Those people want sex; that they're not attracted to somebody in particular doesn't change that - and most will probably still seek it out . How can somebody like that be considered asexual? At best they can be in the grey area when their desire is weak. The flip side of this, having no desire for sex but finding people sexy makes even less sense imho - what is the point of sexual attraction when it's not meant to mean "I want sex with that person in particular"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplemutant Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 Lets keep the debate/discussion to the other thread please :) I want to keep this thread uncluttered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francoise Wang Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The flip side of this, having no desire for sex but finding people sexy makes even less sense imho - what is the point of sexual attraction when it's not meant to mean "I want sex with that person in particular"? This makes no sense to me either. I find it incomprehensible when people recognize a certain kind of feelings as "sexual attraction" but that kind of feelings does not mean "I want sex with that person in particular". This bothers me a lot. The way I describe the attraction I feel towards people are almost exactly the same as the way sexual people describe "sexual attraction". But I still think that it would be meaningless for me to identify as sexual, because that kind of attractions I feel never lead to the thought of "I want sex with that person in particular", I simply have never desired partnered sex with anyone. I identify as heteromantic, because that kind of attractions I feel DO lead to the thought of "I want that person in particular to be my romantic partner". I would hate to call the attractions I feel towards people "sexual attraction", because no matter how much the feeling resembles the feeling of "sexual attraction" sexual people feel, it just makes NO sense to call it "sexual attraction" if it NEVER have a possibility to lead to the feeling of "I want to have sex with that person in particular", and it would be misleading to people, make people mistake that there's a possibility that I would eventually feel "I want to sex with that person". But have to notice that even sexual people don't immediately feel that "I want to have sex with that person in particular" when they find a person sexually attractive. Sexual people still need some emotional bond to start to "want to have sex with a specific person", even when they are sexually attracted to that person. It's just like I find people attractive very often, but I won't immediately feel that "I want that person in particular to be my romantic partner". I also need some emotional bond to start to "want to form romantic relationship with a specific person". But I still find that recognizing the attraction I feel as "romantic attraction" perfectly make sense to me, because that kind of attractions would eventually lead to the feeling of "I want that person in particular to be my romantic partner" when I've got close enough with the person I'm attracted to (but of course this doesn't happen to all the people I've been attracted to, I've only been close enough to a few of them). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purplemutant Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 If you want to reply to someone please do so on the other thread. I want to keep this thread free of debate/discussion. It's to bad I don't have mod powers over this thread. If I did, I would move discussions to the other thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fire & Rain Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I'm fine with both definitions as I fall under both. We can always use the "and/or" option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Member7783 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Seems difficult to settle on a singular definition for a term that covers so much. Feels like no matter ehat gets agreed upon, there will always be people who fall outside that definition that exhibit traits or feel a certain way and will somehow be excluded or feel that way. Kind of a can't please all the people all the time type of situation. That being said, I don't think the definiton on the banner is accurate, to me. I'm free to define asexulity as it applies to me in my own way, and that is - I do not feel sexual attraction towards other people, towards myself, do not engage in sexual thoughts or fantasies, do not associate with sexual people, do not engage in conversations with sexual overtones or subject matter. Granted, all kinds of folks could probably pipe up with "yeah, but that's more along the lines of [insert term here that is as obtuse as any other]", but nope - my life, my definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.