Most Aces Don't Want Sex

[Star Bit]

Oh yah, and we really need to come up with another name for the asexual end of the spectrum (or we could just call it that); it makes people think they're ace, and i even heard that ace is being stretched to include the whole Gray spectrum. Which will probably only increase considering it was in an asexual/aromantic term vid by a fairly popular LGBTQ+ youtuber.

just.. *facepalm*

[FoxEars]

I can't look at a person and think, 'that person makes me want sexual things' or 'I want to do sexual things with that person specifically' (I mean, I kind of can at the moment because I'm in a committed relationship; but while single, I couldn't).

Desire for sex isn't a driving force in my life or anything. But it's definitely there. And I'm definitely asexual -- not grey or demi, but purely asexual. These are not incompatible or contradictory to one another.

So, despite experiencing totally normal sexuality, you consider yourself asexual because you don't experience one single aspect of sexuality? You do realize that something like 60% of sexual women never experience the "look at someone, want to have sex" phenomena, right? So, that's great that you're not in the 40% of women who experience desire based on visual cues from another person, but that certainly does not make you asexual. I've never in my life wanted to have sex with someone I just saw with my eyes. I have, however, chosen to have sex with those people because I wanted to have sex. That is absolutely, 100%, sexual.

One's sexual activity has zero relevance to one's sexual orientation.

I do not 'consider myself' asexual; I am asexual. (Just a tip: it's generally considered rude and patronising to imply that people are identifying with the wrong sexual orientation, unless they themselves indicate feelings of uncertainty in regards to their orientation (which I didn't do). Remember, you will never understand the nuances of someone else's sexuality as well as they do, so while you can make suggestions as to what their sexuality is, it ultimately isn't your place to say.)

For the sake of brevity, my example there was a bit oversimplified. When I said 'I can't look at a person and think [...]', I wasn't referring exclusively to visually-based cues. I was using 'look at' in the less literal sense of 'think about' or 'consider'. (Meaning, even taking into account non-visible qualities of a person, I still cannot experience attraction to them.)

I don't desire sex with anyone in particular (that would be sexual attraction); I sometimes think sexual things would be nice to try because the thing is, I have nerve endings in the same places as non-asexual people do. And while these nerve endings can be stimulated without the intervention of another person, having sex and flying solo are very different experiences. (And having consensual sex with another person generally results in major oxytocin boosts for both people involved.) And as it happens in my case, I desire to fulfil those sexual curiosities with my partner. Because we're in a committed relationship and largely on the same page in terms of sexual things. But I'm not sexually attracted to him. Or anyone else.

I really didn't want to make this personal, but particularly after my sexual orientation was called into question by someone who doesn't even know me at all, I thought I may as well use my own personal experiences to try to illustrate the difference between sexual desire and sexual attraction.

^ FoxEars ^

[Star Bit]

want and desire are synonyms

Actually, we already have a problem with people asking what desire is, so why don't we just say want? Or would that really not change anything? I know "innately want" would clear up problems people previously mentioned of it sounding like asexuals couldn't sexually compromise.

[FoxEars]

Sexual orientation is about to whom you are (or aren't) attracted, not about what you do -- or even what you feel like doing.

What benefit do you get from using a label which runs completely contrary to your desires and behaviors?

I wouldn't know, because I've never done that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

^ FoxEars ^

[Lost247365]

Not being able to get physically aroused makes one a non-libidoist.

Actually no, someone can still desire to do sexual acts to someone without ever experiencing sexual arousal. They can also get sexually aroused but not desire to act on it. As i said, it just means they don't desire to masturbate, which may also include haveing sex (as allosexuals can be non-libidoists; which may sound like it's for religous reasons, but they genuinely don't desire to physically do it). And some asexual non-libidoists do sexually compromise.

I get what your saying, but I was not trying to say that one couldn't concurrently desire to engage in sex acts without getting aroused. Nor was I trying to say one cant concurrently be sexually aroused while not desiring sex (i was actually arguing that one CAN be aroused and not desire sex).

You're thinking of nonlibidoist, I think. Not all asexuals are nonlibidoists and vice versa.

Not desiring sex does not make one a non-libidoist. Not being able to get physically aroused makes one a non-libidoist. One can get aroused and not desire sex.

Plenty of non-libidoists can get physically aroused. That's just your body responding to something. Arousal to a non-libidoist just doesn't come with the urge to do anything with that arousal. Bodies still work the same though (most people if you touch them, their body will respond with the blood flow increase and all that) and we're not incapable of doing it (whereas, if we literally could not get aroused, sexual activity would be quite ... uncomfortable).

You and star are right. I didn't think that sentense through properly. The term Libido was coined by Freud in response to the concept of sex drive but he changed the definition to include masturbation.

To be blunt, this is simply false. Sexual attraction is a desire to have sex with a specific person. Sexual desire doesn't necessarily have to be directed at any particular person; rather, it's simply a desire to engage in sexual activity. You don't have to find anyone sexually attractive to want sexual activity.

From wikipedia:

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

Synonyms for sexual desire arelibido, sexual attraction, and lust.^[2

[Confusion 0]

Sexual orientation is about to whom you are (or aren't) attracted, not about what you do -- or even what you feel like doing.

What benefit do you get from using a label which runs completely contrary to your desires and behaviors?

I wouldn't know, because I've never done that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

^ FoxEars ^

So, the term "asexual" reflects your desires and behaviours?

[FoxEars]

Ok, Fox Ears, the point of asexuality is pretty much to define what allosexuals are not. Who else to know what allosexuals are but allosexuals on this site. And acording to those people half (if not more) of the the allosexual population has NEVER expereienced sexual attraction and desires sex for other reasons. Innately desiring sex period is what makes an allosexual person. You're also new. How long have we been on here and most likely know more than you? In germany they don't have such attraction definitions; all orientations are defined with desire and is what factually makes them so. People just use attraction phrases because they're neat basically. Somehow they became popular. *shrugs*

And Gray-A is a term for WHEN someone desires sex that differs from the norm.

Here's the thing.

Sexual orientation is an indicator of to whom one is a attracted.

Consider the following:

Heterosexual, i.e., being sexually attracted to the 'opposite' gender to that which one identifies as

Homosexual, i.e., being sexually attracted to the same gender as one identifies as

Bisexual, i.e., being sexually attracted to two genders

Polysexual, i.e., being sexually attracted to multiple (but not all) genders

Pansexual, i.e., being sexually attracted to all genders

(There are more I'm not including, of course.)

When defined as a sexual orientation (ignoring its other definitions, e.g. as a method of reproduction), 'asexual' follows the same pattern as those, except it's

Asexual, i.e., being sexually attracted to no gender.

It is not

'Asexual, i.e., not wanting to have sex ever'

That is a preference or a behaviour, not an orientation.

Asexuality is its own sexual orientation, not just an antonym to 'allosexual'.

^ FoxEars ^

[Guest]

I can't look at a person and think, 'that person makes me want sexual things' or 'I want to do sexual things with that person specifically' (I mean, I kind of can at the moment because I'm in a committed relationship; but while single, I couldn't).

Desire for sex isn't a driving force in my life or anything. But it's definitely there. And I'm definitely asexual -- not grey or demi, but purely asexual. These are not incompatible or contradictory to one another.

So, despite experiencing totally normal sexuality, you consider yourself asexual because you don't experience one single aspect of sexuality? You do realize that something like 60% of sexual women never experience the "look at someone, want to have sex" phenomena, right? So, that's great that you're not in the 40% of women who experience desire based on visual cues from another person, but that certainly does not make you asexual. I've never in my life wanted to have sex with someone I just saw with my eyes. I have, however, chosen to have sex with those people because I wanted to have sex. That is absolutely, 100%, sexual.

One's sexual activity has zero relevance to one's sexual orientation.

I do not 'consider myself' asexual; I am asexual. (Just a tip: it's generally considered rude and patronising to imply that people are identifying with the wrong sexual orientation, unless they themselves indicate feelings of uncertainty in regards to their orientation (which I didn't do). Remember, you will never understand the nuances of someone else's sexuality as well as they do, so while you can make suggestions as to what their sexuality is, it ultimately isn't your place to say.)

For the sake of brevity, my example there was a bit oversimplified. When I said 'I can't look at a person and think [...]', I wasn't referring exclusively to visually-based cues. I was using 'look at' in the less literal sense of 'think about' or 'consider'. (Meaning, even taking into account non-visible qualities of a person, I still cannot experience attraction to them.)

I don't desire sex with anyone in particular (that would be sexual attraction); I sometimes think sexual things would be nice to try because the thing is, I have nerve endings in the same places as non-asexual people do. And while these nerve endings can be stimulated without the intervention of another person, having sex and flying solo are very different experiences. (And having consensual sex with another person generally results in major oxytocin boosts for both people involved.) And as it happens in my case, I desire to fulfil those sexual curiosities with my partner. Because we're in a committed relationship and largely on the same page in terms of sexual things. But I'm not sexually attracted to him. Or anyone else.

I really didn't want to make this personal, but particularly after my sexual orientation was called into question by someone who doesn't even know me at all, I thought I may as well use my own personal experiences to try to illustrate the difference between sexual desire and sexual attraction.

^ FoxEars ^

Yes, asexuals and sexuals have the same nerve endings, which is exactly why it's noteworthy that asexuals don't desire sex. That's literally the entire point of asexuality... that despite a working body, there's no desire to have sex, and having sex is not so great. Asexuality is noteworthy exactly because, despite having the working parts, the experience is different. You, you have the same parts, the same desires, AND the same experiences as sexuals. The only thing you don't have is that thing that some sexuals do, which is the ability to have sexual desire arise from another person's presence (or whatever).

That you don't desire it with a specific person is wholly outside the point. Do you not recognize that when people go to bars to hook up, they're not looking for a specific person? They just want to get laid. That's sexual. That's something that sexuals experience.

[FoxEars]

Sexual orientation is about to whom you are (or aren't) attracted, not about what you do -- or even what you feel like doing.

What benefit do you get from using a label which runs completely contrary to your desires and behaviors?

I wouldn't know, because I've never done that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

^ FoxEars ^

So, the term "asexual" reflects your desires and behaviours?

Yes. Well, yes and no. Technically, no orientation indicates anything about anyone's behaviours. That simply isn't what a sexual orientation means. But that aside, yes.

^ FoxEars ^

[Guest]

So, despite desiring sex, you identify as someone who doesn't desire sex, and that's an accurate reflection of your sexuality? Cool bro.

[FoxEars]

To be blunt, this is simply false. Sexual attraction is a desire to have sex with a specific person. Sexual desire doesn't necessarily have to be directed at any particular person; rather, it's simply a desire to engage in sexual activity. You don't have to find anyone sexually attractive to want sexual activity.

From wikipedia:

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

Synonyms for sexual desire arelibido, sexual attraction, and lust.^[2

Wikipedia is not particularly reliable when it comes to things like this. Unless it is referring to loose synonyms rather than precise synonyms, that statement is simply false. (It would not be the first time Wikipedia was incorrect about something.)

^ FoxEars ^

[emma-can]

Holy arguments batman

[Guest]

One's sexual activity has zero relevance to one's sexual orientation.

Desire is not an activity, nor is it a conscious choice. It is an emotional state outside of one's conscious control.

One's sexual desires have infinite relevance to one's sexual orientation. They directly and immediately inform orientation, and nothing else does. Whatever "sexual attraction" is supposed to be, it is a thing that has little to no relevance to one's sexual orientation.

Also, for frak's sake, how often does it need to be repeated...

1) desire for partnered sex on the one hand, and libido on the other hand, are not at all the same thing. One of them is a thing that, if you experience it, means you are not asexual. The other does not mean that, at all. There are libidoist aces, but there is no such thing as an ace who (inherently/"primarily") desires partnered sex.

2) enjoying something is not the same as desiring it. A good number (though far, far from all) aces can enjoy partnered sex. That doesn't mean they desire it - if they did, they would not be ace.

[FoxEars]

So, despite desiring sex, you identify as someone who doesn't desire sex, and that's an accurate reflection of your sexuality? Cool bro.

I identify as someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction, because I don't experience sexual attraction. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to wrap your head around, or why I'm getting so much passive-aggression for it.

^ FoxEars ^

[Confusion 0]

One's sexual activity has zero relevance to one's sexual orientation.

Desire is not an activity, nor is it a conscious choice. It is an emotional state out of one's conscious control.

One's sexual desires have infinite relevance to one's sexual orientation. They directly and immediately inform orientation, and nothing else does. Whatever "sexual attraction" is supposed to be, it is a thing that has little to no relevance to one's sexual orientation.

Also, for frak's sake, how often does it need to be repeated...

1) desire for partnered sex on the one hand, and libido on the other hand, are not at all the same thing. One of them is a thing that, if you experience it, means you are not asexual. The other does not mean that, at all. There are libidoist aces, but there is no such thing as an ace who (inherently/"primarily") desires partnered sex.

2) enjoying something is not the same as desiring it. A good number (though far, far from all) aces can enjoy partnered sex. That doesn't mean they desire it - if they did, they would not be ace.

I cannot like this comment enough.

[Guest]

So, despite desiring sex, you identify as someone who doesn't desire sex, and that's an accurate reflection of your sexuality? Cool bro.

I identify as someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction, because I don't experience sexual attraction. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to wrap your head around, or why I'm getting so much passive-aggression for it.

^ FoxEars ^

Because what you're saying is incredibly wrong. I see no passive aggression, but I do see everyone disagreeing with you because what you're saying is not accurate. I mean, of course you can ID as a hoola hoop if you feel so inclined, but you can't stop people from pointing out what a hoola hoop actually is. Your definitions are simply not accurate. You've created this thing called "sexual attraction" and you've neatly defined it in a way that no one else on earth agrees with. Let's say some girl comes up to me and is like:

Her: I'm totally lesbian too!

Me: You only sleep with men.

Her: Well yeah I only like sleeping with men, it's enjoyable. Sleeping with women isn't enjoyable.

Me: You're straight, sweetie.

Her: No, I think female bodies are prettier.

Me: facepalm

[Guest]

*pokes Skulls back across the line between general and personal*

One's sexual activity has zero relevance to one's sexual orientation.

Desire is not an activity, nor is it a conscious choice. It is an emotional state out of one's conscious control.

Totally. I have participated in sex, but never desired it. They are totally different. I desired pleasing my partner, he desired sex. Sexual activity and sexual desire are not the same.

[Member54880]

want and desire are synonyms

If they're being used as synonyms, then how can sex-averse non-asexuals and sex-favorable asexuals be accounted for under this? I've been using want and desire separately to try and account for them.

[Guest]

want and desire are synonyms

If they're being used as synonyms, then how can sex-averse non-asexuals and sex-favorable asexuals be accounted for under this? I've been using want and desire separately to try and account for them.

I look at it kinda like...

I desire ice cream. It's tasty. I want to eat it.

But... it makes me ill, most the time. So, even though I want it, I don't want it at the same time. My negative reaction overrules my desire for it. Even though I really, really, really want it...

[Philip027]

That you don't desire it with a specific person is wholly outside the point. Do you not recognize that when people go to bars to hook up, they're not looking for a specific person? They just want to get laid. That's sexual. That's something that sexuals experience.

This is exactly the sort of thing that has me real confused about why people stick strictly to an attraction-based definition.

Because yeah, nobody (in the real world, anyway; I don't know about here) would ever call such a person asexual XD

[Snao Cone]

On the issue of want/desire meaning the same thing: they very often do, but "want" can straddle between what stems from desire and what is a consciously made choice. When an asexual person with a sexual partner decides they will have sex to meet their partner's needs, the sexual partner would (hopefully) ask "Do you want to have sex?" and the asexual partner would hopefully not answer "No, but I'm making a conscious choice to anyway." That would probably kill the mood, no?

[Guest]

On the issue of want/desire meaning the same thing: they very often do, but "want" can straddle between what stems from desire and what is a consciously made choice. When an asexual person with a sexual partner decides they will have sex to meet their partner's needs, the sexual partner would (hopefully) ask "Do you want to have sex?" and the asexual partner would hopefully not answer "No, but I'm making a conscious choice to anyway." That would probably kill the mood, no?

Ok but that's cheating... just because they say they want sex in that moment, because our vocabulary is limited, doesn't mean that they want it in the "innate desire" way. It's really just the difference between casual expressions and terms of art. If I say "ugh I'm so OCD about my paperclips", people understand what I mean in a casual sense, meaning that I'm not speaking clinically.

[Guest]

That you don't desire it with a specific person is wholly outside the point. Do you not recognize that when people go to bars to hook up, they're not looking for a specific person? They just want to get laid. That's sexual. That's something that sexuals experience.

This is exactly the sort of thing that has me real confused about why people stick strictly to an attraction-based definition.

Because yeah, nobody (in the real world, anyway; I don't know about here) would ever call such a person asexual XD

I have seen people exactly like that on here. It's (thankfully) rare, but it happens. And it's a failure of AVEN that the maximum inclusivity policy forbids giving them a much needed correction as clearly as it would be needed, if we took the Education bit seriously. They are indeed nowhere near asexual by any sane criterion, but TOS forbid it if you dare point that out to their faces.

[Sally]

Unless you are a sex-averse asexual, it is perfectly possible to be asexual and​ to desire sex for no reason other than that it feels nice / can be a bonding experience

No.

No, it isn't. You've just described a sexual.

[Philip027]

When an asexual person with a sexual partner decides they will have sex to meet their partner's needs, the sexual partner would (hopefully) ask "Do you want to have sex?" and the asexual partner would hopefully not answer "No, but I'm making a conscious choice to anyway." That would probably kill the mood, no?

I for one would appreciate that sort of blunt honesty, but I'm a weird one, I guess.

I mean, for the ace in question, there was probably no "mood" to be killed to begin with

[Guest]

On the issue of want/desire meaning the same thing: they very often do, but "want" can straddle between what stems from desire and what is a consciously made choice.

Three guesses why we "desirists" use (qualifying adjective) desire nearly to the point of it being Insistent Terminology. (tvtropes link)

When an asexual person with a sexual partner decides they will have sex to meet their partner's needs, the sexual partner would (hopefully) ask "Do you want to have sex?" and the asexual partner would hopefully not answer "No, but I'm making a conscious choice to anyway." That would probably kill the mood, no?

People whose mood would be killed that easily would make a lousy partner for me. But it's no secret that I'm very Sheldonesque in my communication. :D

[Snao Cone]

When an asexual person with a sexual partner decides they will have sex to meet their partner's needs, the sexual partner would (hopefully) ask "Do you want to have sex?" and the asexual partner would hopefully not answer "No, but I'm making a conscious choice to anyway." That would probably kill the mood, no?

I for one would appreciate that sort of blunt honesty, but I'm a weird one, I guess.

I mean, for the ace in question, there was probably no "mood" to be killed to begin with

Well, the asexual partner is doing this to please the sexual partner so that's why the mood is set, if not also to create a romantic backdrop for the asexual person if that helps them.

[Guest]

When an asexual person with a sexual partner decides they will have sex to meet their partner's needs, the sexual partner would (hopefully) ask "Do you want to have sex?" and the asexual partner would hopefully not answer "No, but I'm making a conscious choice to anyway." That would probably kill the mood, no?

I for one would appreciate that sort of blunt honesty, but I'm a weird one, I guess.

My assumption is that the sexual partner already has that baseline knowledge... if I were to ask my ladyfriend if she wanted to have sex, it's clear that what's meant is "are you willing to". I just wouldn't use those words because as Snow said... mood killer.

[Guest]

When an asexual person with a sexual partner decides they will have sex to meet their partner's needs, the sexual partner would (hopefully) ask "Do you want to have sex?" and the asexual partner would hopefully not answer "No, but I'm making a conscious choice to anyway." That would probably kill the mood, no?

I for one would appreciate that sort of blunt honesty, but I'm a weird one, I guess.

My assumption is that the sexual partner already has that baseline knowledge... if I were to ask my ladyfriend if she wanted to have sex, it's clear that what's meant is "are you willing to". I just wouldn't use those words because as Snow said... mood killer.

My go-to response was usually "OK" or "We can" ... cause I really didn't want. What I wanted was usually to go do something else. But, yeah, would not be polite to say that. So, I avoided the "want" thing completely.

[Snao Cone]

See, I would make an awful partner to a sexual person because I'd always say "no" or "go away" specifically to be a contrarian asshole. But that is, hopefully, just me :P