Most Aces Don't Want Sex

[Philip027]

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.

Yeah, this understanding of "moods" is beyond me, I think. Very acey thing for me to say, I'm sure.

With me I'd just be sitting there like "why are you asking the question you don't want the answer to?"

[WhenSummersGone]

Sexual attraction is nothing more than a synonym for sexual desire. They are in fact, the same exact thing.

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.

In fact, you say so yourself:

to think, '[insert quality / qualities about that person here] make(s) me want to have sex with them

You say sexual attraction makes you want to have sex. You say sexual desire is wanting to have sex. Distinction without a difference.

I don't have to be sexually attracted to anyone to desire sex

But you do have to have sexual desire to be sexually attracted to someone. If one lacks desire, that one is asexual.

You're placing emphasis on the wrong part of what I said. (That underlining is not my own, and not the part of the sentence I would have underlined). I apologise in advance for internet-shouting, but just for clarity, I'm going to use capitals to show what I intended to be emphasised: 'to think, '[insert quality / qualities about that person here] make(s) me want to have sex WITH THEM''.

That is, in essence, the difference between sexual desire and sexual attraction. Sexual desire could be something like, 'I'm really in the mood for oral sex'. Sexual attraction would be something along the lines of, '[insert specific individual here] makes me want to have oral sex with them'. (Or not just one individual, if you're into group stuff. Whatever floats your boat.)

^ FoxEars ^

This is what I think as well but even if you want to do something with a specific person it still is sexual desire. I don't think it matters where it comes from.

[kinky cupid]

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.

true, but do you not recognize that those sexuals usually limit themselves to people they find attractive? they see someone they think is attractive and want to have sex with them. the reason they want sex with that person is because they find them sexually attractive. an asexual could want to have sex simply for the sake of the act itself, because it feels good in the same way that masturbation feels good. yeah, there are certainly sexuals who would settle for sex with someone they don't really find attractive, but it isn't as good in their mind. the difference is that for the asexual, the desire to do the act is completely unrelated to the other person involved.

i think the difference here is that FoxEars views asexuality as an orientation, based only on sexual attraction in the same way that other sexualities (homo, hetero, bi, etc.) are, whereas you view it as "what sexuals aren't."

i'm curious, everyone here who thinks desire and attraction are the same: what do you think of asexuals who know they want to have sex some day, but have never met anyone they want to have sex with? so, they know sex is something they want to experience, but they haven't yet had the desire to actually act on it with anyone yet. is their general sexual desire still the same thing as sexual attraction, even though there has never been another person involved at all? how can it be attraction if there's no one there to be attracted to?

[Guest]

I don't think desire and attraction are the same. I think that it's desire, not attraction, that's relevant to orientation. All orientations.

As for your belief that people who get wasted at bars have sex with people they're attracted to... Nope. Wrong. There are a billion movies, TV shows, jokes, songs, expressions, etc. which reference this. Do you seriously think that people are only sexual when triggered by a specific person? No way. NO WAY.

[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 ^

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.

Asexuality is a sexual orientation. (Presumably we can all agree on this part at least.)

Here is what one's sexual orientation indicates about the given person:

• to whom (i.e., generally, to which gender(s)) one is sexually attracted, if any

Here is what one's sexual orientation does NOT indicate about the given person:

• how one feels about sex or sexual activity
• literally anything else

I do not have the same desires OR the same experiences as sexuals. Please, please for the love of god do not ever say that to me again (this is addressed not just at you, but at everyone who has suddenly decided to question my asexuality for me). I know who I am and I know who I'm not. My descriptions of my experiences were vastly oversimplified because I was trying to address the point of this thread, not to provide a full autobiography so that total strangers could determine my sexual orientation for me. Do not assume you are intimately familiar with me just because I made a few posts on a thread that indicate -- gasp! -- I'm not a 'gold-star asexual'.

As for your whole going to bars to hook up example -- you're sort of reinforcing my point. When I referred to 'a specific person', I didn't mean that in a necessarily demi way. I meant like, a non-asexual person could walk up to someone and determine whether or not they felt sexually attracted to that person in particular. (For total clarity, let's make sure we have it established that sexual attraction and willingness to have sex with someone are not the same thing.) In short, non-asexuals can determine whether a person -- any person -- is sexually attractive to them or not. Because they are capable of feeling sexual attraction. (I am not.)

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

... Either this was a total non sequitur and you just went completely off-topic there, or it was one of the most fallaciously-constructed attempts at analogy I have ever come across. This situation and that one are NOTHING alike.

I have not 'created this thing called "sexual attraction"', nor do I define sexual attraction in any false or unprecedented way. Sexual attraction is defined as to whom one is sexually attracted. Find me a credible source that defines 'sexual attraction' as 'whether or not one likes / is capable of liking sex', and then we can talk about how 'not accurate' the definition I'm using is.

*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.

Minor point, but just to set the record straight, I'm quoted slightly out of context here. It was never my intention to imply or otherwise indicate that desire and activity are the same thing; I'm well aware that they're not. I was simply referring to an earlier post that brought sexual activity into the discussion as well as sexual desire. (I don't really mind this because both of you are absolutely correct; I just don't want people on this thread to think they have even MORE reason to attack me (besides the fact that I'm not a 'perfect' ace), so I want to clear up any perceived inaccuracies in what I've been saying.)

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.

I honestly never realised just how bad asexual elitism was until this thread, and I'm really really disappointed.

Forgive me for being curious about, and open to, having sex with my partner. (The only sex I've ever had prior to this point was rape, and I hear that consensual sex is very different. And a lot better.) I could very easily and happily live a 100% sexless life -- my sexual desire isn't so strong that it must be acted upon. But it does exist, and apparently that makes me somehow ~not good enough~ for you guys. I'm really, really sorry I can't be the kind of asexual you want. But that doesn't make me non-asexual.

(Hint: people stick to an attraction-based definition because they're using asexuality as a label for their sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is a description of to whom one experiences sexual attraction.)

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.

No.

No, I didn't. I've just described an asexual who has sexual desires.

(That is a valid type of asexuality. Asexual and sex-indifferent may often go together, but they are not the same thing, nor is the second a prerequisite of the first.)

^ FoxEars ^

[Guest]

i think the difference here is that FoxEars views asexuality as an orientation, based only on sexual attraction in the same way that other sexualities (homo, hetero, bi, etc.) are, whereas you view it as "what sexuals aren't."

Nope, dead wrong.

I do see asexuality as an orientation. What I do not think is that any orientation is based on "sexual attraction". They are all based on desire for partnered sex, as the partner preference is already a part in this.

As for "asexuals" who desire partnered sex, but can't point to any person or category of persons they find noticeably attractive... to me, that's simply a pansexual who is way too hung-up on the concept of "attraction informs orientation" (which is simply a concept I consider completely false).

[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.

true, but do you not recognize that those sexuals usually limit themselves to people they find attractive? they see someone they think is attractive and want to have sex with them. the reason they want sex with that person is because they find them sexually attractive. an asexual could want to have sex simply for the sake of the act itself, because it feels good in the same way that masturbation feels good. yeah, there are certainly sexuals who would settle for sex with someone they don't really find attractive, but it isn't as good in their mind. the difference is that for the asexual, the desire to do the act is completely unrelated to the other person involved.

i think the difference here is that FoxEars views asexuality as an orientation, based only on sexual attraction in the same way that other sexualities (homo, hetero, bi, etc.) are, whereas you view it as "what sexuals aren't."

i'm curious, everyone here who thinks desire and attraction are the same: what do you think of asexuals who know they want to have sex some day, but have never met anyone they want to have sex with? so, they know sex is something they want to experience, but they haven't yet had the desire to actually act on it with anyone yet. is their general sexual desire still the same thing as sexual attraction, even though there has never been another person involved at all? how can it be attraction if there's no one there to be attracted to?

AVEN itself defines sexual attraction as ''the desire for partnered sexual contact with someone else'' so what they mean by their definition at the top of the page there is ''An asexual is a person who does not desire sexual contact with someone else''. For the sake of clarity, AVEN needs to remove the term sexual attraction from the definition, because it confuses far too many people. People come here with all sorts of strange notions as to what asexuality is, based on their own personal interpretations of sexual attraction, and a total misunderstanding of what makes sexual people ''sexual''.

true, but do you not recognize that those sexuals usually limit themselves to people they find attractive? they see someone they think is attractive and want to have sex with them. the reason they want sex with that person is because they find them sexually attractive. an asexual could want to have sex simply for the sake of the act itself, because it feels good in the same way that masturbation feels good. yeah, there are certainly sexuals who would settle for sex with someone they don't really find attractive, but it isn't as good in their mind. the difference is that for the asexual, the desire to do the act is completely unrelated to the other person involved.

Incorrect. This is the case for some sexual people, certainly not all. Sexual people innately desire partnered sexual contact, some sexuals want to have sex with people they find attractive to look at, some don't care about looks and just desire that partnered sexual connection so will just have sex with friends (or even strangers) for the enjoyment of partnered sex itself, with looks not coming into at all. Some sexual people only desire sex as an intimate, pleasurable expression of their love with another person.. someone they have an emotional bond to. They may or may not find this person attractive to look at. Many sexual people are attracted to personality, mannerisms, humor and place these things of much higher value than appearance. They may fall in love with someone based on these things, and desire partnered sex with that person as an intimate, pleasurable expression of that love. This is actually quite common.

i'm curious, everyone here who thinks desire and attraction are the same: what do you think of asexuals who know they want to have sex some day, but have never met anyone they want to have sex with? so, they know sex is something they want to experience, but they haven't yet had the desire to actually act on it with anyone yet. is their general sexual desire still the same thing as sexual attraction, even though there has never been another person involved at all? how can it be attraction if there's no one there to be attracted to?

They are not asexual, they are a sexual person who has not met someone they desire sex with yet.

Asexuality = no innate desire for partnered sexual contact with other people. Sexuality = innately desires partnered sexual contact with other people.

''Attraction'': Something that for some sexual people, defines who they desire partnered sex with. Asexuals can experience attraction and never experience any innate desire for partnered sex, no matter how attractive they find someone. On the flip-side, a sexual person can desire sex with someone without any ''sexual attraction'' (lust in relation to the other persons appearance is one of the many definitions of sexual attraction bandied about here) present.

[Guest]

You honestly think that people go to bars and only have sex with people they're sexually attracted to? You honestly like that everyone who hooks up in gay club restrooms, or sex clubs, or swingers' clubs are attracted to everyone they have sex with?!?! SERIOUSLY? You think the phrases "beer goggles" and "coyote ugly" are just jokes? You think that glory holes make sense under a theory of attraction? What about prostitutes and their johns?

Jesus Christ I can't even. My head is going to explode. Sexual people have non-attraction related sex All. The. Time.

[kinky cupid]

I don't think desire and attraction are the same. I think that it's desire, not attraction, that's relevant to orientation.

As for your belief that people who get wasted at bars have sex with people they're attracted to... Nope. Wrong. There are a billion movies, TV shows, jokes, songs, expressions, etc. which reference this.

which is why i said "there are certainly sexuals who would settle for sex with someone they don't really find attractive, but it isn't as good in their mind." i am aware that people get drunk and have sex with people they wouldn't normally want to have sex with. i'm saying that generally sexuals desire sex with people they find sexually attractive. generally, it is important to sexuals that they are attracted to the person they're having sex with, whereas an asexual wouldn't care about the attractiveness of the other person involved. the other person isn't an important part of the act for the asexual (aside from trusting them enough to feel safe having sex with them, of course). this is why a lot of sexuals feel conflicted when they like someone's personality but don't like their appearance, you hear about it all the time.

well okay. that's not how sexuality is typically defined but okay. i'm still curious as to what the people in this thread who have been saying that desire and attraction are the same think. [EDIT: just saw the new replies. i'll read them and respond to them.]

[Guest]

Asexuality is a sexual orientation. (Presumably we can all agree on this part at least.)

Agreed.

Here is what one's sexual orientation indicates about the given person:

• to whom (i.e., generally, to which gender(s)) one is sexually attracted, if any

Not agreed.

As for elitism... if having any applicable definition that actually means something tangible is already "elitism", then hell yes - "asexual elitism" is a good thing, and AVEN is in dire need of more of it. Anything else completely ruins visibility and education.

[FoxEars]

As for your belief that people who get wasted at bars have sex with people they're attracted to... Nope. Wrong. There are a billion movies, TV shows, jokes, songs, expressions, etc. which reference this. Do you seriously think that people are only sexual when triggered by a specific person? No way. NO WAY.

You honestly think that people go to bars and only have sex with people they're sexually attracted to? You honestly like that everyone who hooks up in gay club restrooms, or sex clubs, or swingers' clubs are attracted to everyone they have sex with?!?! SERIOUSLY? You think the phrases "beer goggles" and "coyote ugly" are just jokes? You think that glory holes make sense under a theory of attraction? What about prostitutes and their johns?

Jesus Christ I can't even. My head is going to explode. Sexual people have non-attraction related sex All. The. Time.

If you'll pardon the language, intoxication fucks up one's perception of the world. So the sexual natures of people while they're wasted is kind of an irrelevant topic anyway. (If we were discussing general social situations in which one is not thoroughly intoxicated, that would be a different matter.)

I think that it's desire, not attraction, that's relevant to orientation. All orientations.

I do see asexuality as an orientation. What I do not think is that any orientation is based on "sexual attraction". They are all based on desire for partnered sex, as the partner preference is already a part in this.

As for "asexuals" who desire partnered sex, but can't point to any person or category of persons they find noticeably attractive... to me, that's simply a pansexual who is way too hung-up on the concept of "attraction informs orientation" (which is simply a concept I consider completely false).

Where exactly did this opinion come from? In my experience -- which is not insubstantial -- I have never seen this echoed anywhere outside the discussions of elitist members of the asexual community. I'm not saying it doesn't exist elsewhere -- just that I've never seen it, and I'd be curious to know where you two are getting it from. (In recent posts there seems to be a lot of 'sexual orientation isn't determined by sexual attraction!', but no actual explanation of that.)

^ FoxEars ^

[Guest]

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.

No.

No, I didn't. I've just described an asexual who has sexual desires.

(That is a valid type of asexuality. Asexual and sex-indifferent may often go together, but they are not the same thing, nor is the second a prerequisite of the first.)

^ FoxEars ^

I've been explaining this in different threads for the past few hours now, and just can't go on any longer as it's so exhausting, but you need to realize, AVEN itself defines ''sexual attraction'' as ''the desire for partnered sexual contact'' .. If someone desires sex, they are not asexual.You have sexual people trying to explain basic facts about being sexual here in this thread (and in lots of other places of AVEN) yet still blatantly refuse to accept any definition of asexuality that doesn't fit inside your view of how it ''should be'' (you're not the only one, this happens all over this site and on Tumblr). ''Attractionists'' utterly refuse to accept so many basic facts about what it means to be sexual, because they want to stick so blindly to AVENs definition at the top of the page, not seeming to take into account that AVEN's explanation of their definition states clearly that an asexual person does not desire partnered sex. Someone who innately desires partnered sex for their own sexual and/or emotional pleasure, is a sexual person, regardless of any other factors. Sexuality = the innate desire for partnered sexual contact with other people. A-sexuality (the a literally means 'without') means being ''without'' an innate desire for partnered sexual contact with other people. This is why asexuality is so rare. There are very, very few people on this planet who do not innately desire sex with other people to some extent or another. The idea that all sexual people are aroused by aspects of other peoples appearance and desire sex based on this is a MYTH perpetuated on AVEN that does nothing but harm asexuality visibility and education, as it is based on an utter misunderstanding of sexuality. Someone who does not fully understand or comprehend sexuality cannot accurately define asexuality, so AVEN is doing a massive disservice to the entire asexual community by not having an educational section here about what actually makes someone sexual (ie, desiring sex with other people, and that may have nothing to do with the appearance of said people)

[Guest]

Where exactly did this opinion come from? In my experience -- which is not insubstantial -- I have never seen this echoed anywhere outside the discussions of elitist members of the asexual community. I'm not saying it doesn't exist elsewhere -- just that I've never seen it, and I'd be curious to know where you two are getting it from. (In recent posts there seems to be a lot of 'sexual orientation isn't determined by sexual attraction!', but no actual explanation of that.)

Extremely common outside English-language LGBT circles.

Over here (Germany), orientations simply aren't commonly defined by "attraction", and the definitions are all the clearer for it. (The only orientation that term is used on in the German Wikipedia page on sexual orientations at all is asexuality; AVEN's insistence on making it all about "attraction" makes it the odd one out. Trying to pretend asexuality has nothing to do with who you desire sex with directly makes it sound like asexuality is most certainly not a legitimate sexual orientation.)

This includes AVEN.de, which uses the official definition of asexuality = no desire/urge for sexual interaction. (dt.: Kein Verlangen nach sexueller Interaktion)

I simply do not agree that. e.g., homosexuals would be people who are "sexually attracted to the same sex". That definition is just as vague to me as the one on the banner up there. Homosexuals are people who inherently desire sex with partners of their own sex/gender (and mutatis mutandis, that goes for all sexual orientations... meaning, asexuals don't desire sex with anyone.)

[Guest]

I don't think desire and attraction are the same. I think that it's desire, not attraction, that's relevant to orientation.

As for your belief that people who get wasted at bars have sex with people they're attracted to... Nope. Wrong. There are a billion movies, TV shows, jokes, songs, expressions, etc. which reference this.

which is why i said "there are certainly sexuals who would settle for sex with someone they don't really find attractive, but it isn't as good in their mind." i am aware that people get drunk and have sex with people they wouldn't normally want to have sex with. i'm saying that generally sexuals desire sex with people they find sexually attractive. generally, it is important to sexuals that they are attracted to the person they're having sex with, whereas an asexual wouldn't care about the attractiveness of the other person involved. the other person isn't an important part of the act for the asexual (aside from trusting them enough to feel safe having sex with them, of course). this is why a lot of sexuals feel conflicted when they like someone's personality but don't like their appearance, you hear about it all the time.

As for your belief that people who get wasted at bars have sex with people they're attracted to... Nope. Wrong. There are a billion movies, TV shows, jokes, songs, expressions, etc. which reference this. Do you seriously think that people are only sexual when triggered by a specific person? No way. NO WAY.

You honestly think that people go to bars and only have sex with people they're sexually attracted to? You honestly like that everyone who hooks up in gay club restrooms, or sex clubs, or swingers' clubs are attracted to everyone they have sex with?!?! SERIOUSLY? You think the phrases "beer goggles" and "coyote ugly" are just jokes? You think that glory holes make sense under a theory of attraction? What about prostitutes and their johns?

Jesus Christ I can't even. My head is going to explode. Sexual people have non-attraction related sex All. The. Time.

If you'll pardon the language, intoxication fucks up one's perception of the world. So the sexual natures of people while they're wasted is kind of an irrelevant topic anyway. (If we were discussing general social situations in which one is not thoroughly intoxicated, that would be a different matter.)

I think that it's desire, not attraction, that's relevant to orientation. All orientations.

I do see asexuality as an orientation. What I do not think is that any orientation is based on "sexual attraction". They are all based on desire for partnered sex, as the partner preference is already a part in this.

As for "asexuals" who desire partnered sex, but can't point to any person or category of persons they find noticeably attractive... to me, that's simply a pansexual who is way too hung-up on the concept of "attraction informs orientation" (which is simply a concept I consider completely false).

Where exactly did this opinion come from? In my experience -- which is not insubstantial -- I have never seen this echoed anywhere outside the discussions of elitist members of the asexual community. I'm not saying it doesn't exist elsewhere -- just that I've never seen it, and I'd be curious to know where you two are getting it from. (In recent posts there seems to be a lot of 'sexual orientation isn't determined by sexual attraction!', but no actual explanation of that.)

^ FoxEars ^

OH MY GOD YOU GUYS >.<

Do you guys honestly think sexual people are drooling beasts who just want to fuck people they find attractive?? MANY sexual people desire partnered sex as an intimate, pleasurable aspect of their romantic bond with another person. How that person looks may mean nothing at all to the sexual person, as they may be one of the people (far more common than people here on AVEN seem to believe is possible) who actually, you know, look deeper than appearance and don't really care if someone they develop an emotional connection to does not match their ideas of ''aesthetic perfection'' and outside of this romantic bond, they just don't want to have sex with people. This is EXTREMELY COMMON, it does not mean the sex is any less enjoyable just because the person they are having sex with doesn't look like Megan Fox or Christian Bale, because it's the emotional aspects of the pleasure and the intimacy they desire, it has nothing to do with the other persons appearance.

This isn't elitism, it is basic facts about sexuality. O_O There are sexual people who desire sex for reasons other than appearance and just don't care what other people look like in relation to who they interact with sexually. Someone who says they feel like this and labels themselves asexual because of it has misunderstood sexuality. Again it's not elitism, it's basic facts.

Skullery Maid is trying to tell you guys what it's like for a sexual and she is sexual! For many sexual people, it's the sex itself that is important, and they couldn't give two hoots what the other person looks like physically, this is an aspect of sexuality, not asexuality, or like 40% of the entire fucking (no pun intended) population would be asexual! ..So we may as well get rid of the label asexual all together because if asexuals are no different from many sexual people (in that appearance really isn't that relevant when it comes to sex for many of them, as there are other factors that are more important, ie love, or just the sex for the sake of sex itself) then there is no point in calling anyone asexual!

[Guest]

Forgive me for being curious about, and open to, having sex with my partner.

Actually, no one has said being open to, or having sex, with a partner is innate desire. One can be quite open and still lack innate desire for it. If one thinks "Oh, I want to be laid right now" and seeks out sex for ones own emotional/physical fulfillment is the innate desire. Simply being open to it, or even enjoying it one ones partner wants it, is not what they are talking about.

As for your belief that people who get wasted at bars have sex with people they're attracted to... Nope. Wrong. There are a billion movies, TV shows, jokes, songs, expressions, etc. which reference this. Do you seriously think that people are only sexual when triggered by a specific person? No way. NO WAY.

You honestly think that people go to bars and only have sex with people they're sexually attracted to? You honestly like that everyone who hooks up in gay club restrooms, or sex clubs, or swingers' clubs are attracted to everyone they have sex with?!?! SERIOUSLY? You think the phrases "beer goggles" and "coyote ugly" are just jokes? You think that glory holes make sense under a theory of attraction? What about prostitutes and their johns?

Jesus Christ I can't even. My head is going to explode. Sexual people have non-attraction related sex All. The. Time.

If you'll pardon the language, intoxication fucks up one's perception of the world. So the sexual natures of people while they're wasted is kind of an irrelevant topic anyway. (If we were discussing general social situations in which one is not thoroughly intoxicated, that would be a different matter.)

I think that it's desire, not attraction, that's relevant to orientation. All orientations.

I do see asexuality as an orientation. What I do not think is that any orientation is based on "sexual attraction". They are all based on desire for partnered sex, as the partner preference is already a part in this.

As for "asexuals" who desire partnered sex, but can't point to any person or category of persons they find noticeably attractive... to me, that's simply a pansexual who is way too hung-up on the concept of "attraction informs orientation" (which is simply a concept I consider completely false).

Where exactly did this opinion come from? In my experience -- which is not insubstantial -- I have never seen this echoed anywhere outside the discussions of elitist members of the asexual community.

From the summary of Anthony Bogaert's paper:

"One reason that people might not see asexuality as a real orientation is because it involves the lack of desire. If an asexual person's sexual desire could be increased, they might turn out to have an underlying orientation of gay, straight, or bisexual. But some asexuals cannot increase their sexual desire through any known means. Others can increase their desire - or already possess desire - but do not direct it towards other people, preferring to satisfy themselves through masturbation."

[FoxEars]

One thing I'd like to address: there is a difference between the sexual desire felt by non-asexuals, and the sexual desire felt by asexuals. Desire and attraction are not the same thing, but in the case of non-aces they are often linked (I said often, SkulleryMaid, not 'always' -- don't shout at me!).

In my case, and perhaps in the cases of other asexuals, it has more to do with a sort of intellectual curiosity and a desire to experience a common phenomenon that many other people enjoy, or at least are familiar with. Other perks include that it's an activity that can boost certain pleasant neurotransmitters (the same way things like cuddling can), etc.. With non-asexuals, there are many other (including attraction-based) factors that asexuals cannot experience.

I don't know why it just occurred to me to put it this way, and I apologise for this way of wording it not coming to me sooner -- I'm not referring to innate desire for sexual interaction. (For those of you who decided that you had any right to tell me what my orientation is, I personally do not have any innate sexual desire (and I actually alluded to this on an earlier post in this thread). In case that helps you ~keep score~ of how asexual I am or am not.) However, it's important that we can distinguish between innate and non-innate desires (and non-innate desires can include far, far more than simply partner-pleasing or procreating), because it is entirely possible to have the latter and still be asexual. To suggest otherwise is to pointlessly -- and harmfully -- reject perfectly valid members of the asexual community.

At the end of the day, it's important to remember that human sexuality is a highly complex, nuanced phenomenon. Sexuality is not your high school and asexuality is not your clique. Some people may be completely asexual and have different experiences than you; that doesn't make them not asexual or 'wrong' about their asexuality.

^ FoxEars ^

[kinky cupid]

You honestly think that people go to bars and only have sex with people they're sexually attracted to? You honestly like that everyone who hooks up in gay club restrooms, or sex clubs, or swingers' clubs are attracted to everyone they have sex with?!?! SERIOUSLY? You think the phrases "beer goggles" and "coyote ugly" are just jokes? You think that glory holes make sense under a theory of attraction? What about prostitutes and their johns?

Jesus Christ I can't even. My head is going to explode. Sexual people have non-attraction related sex All. The. Time.

jesus christ dude, why are you being so hostile about this? calm down.

sexuals can have sex without attraction. sexuals can have sex just because it feels good and they want to get off, or just to feel a close bond to a person, or for any of the other reasons an asexual could have sex. my point was that those reasons are the only reasons an asexual would desire sex, whereas a sexual could desire sex for those reasons and/or because they are sexually attracted to the person, and sex where they are attracted to the person is ideal. sexuals also would feel an actual need for sex as a part of their life, whereas an asexual may just want to try it because they're curious or they think it might physically feel good or they might even want to have it somewhat regularly but still be okay with the possibility of not having it anymore. one could argue that this is a desire that isn't "innate" in the way that it is for sexuals, which would still set asexuals with sexual desire apart.

it seems that most of you think sexuality is based on sexual desire and sexual attraction doesn't matter. i disagree and i have never heard about sexual orientations being defined in that way before. i don't really have much of a response other than that, i don't think your definition is correct. and Panfictosaurus Asex, i know that people can be attracted to people for personality and mannerisms and such; that's still sexual attraction. if those mannerisms and such make someone think of that specific person in a sexual way and desire sex with them specifically, that is a form of sexual attraction. but i think that desiring sex in a general sense, independent of sexual attraction, is something that anyone of any orientation can do. it's just that asexuals would only be able to desire sex in that way, if they do desire it.

[FoxEars]

I don't think desire and attraction are the same. I think that it's desire, not attraction, that's relevant to orientation.

As for your belief that people who get wasted at bars have sex with people they're attracted to... Nope. Wrong. There are a billion movies, TV shows, jokes, songs, expressions, etc. which reference this.

which is why i said "there are certainly sexuals who would settle for sex with someone they don't really find attractive, but it isn't as good in their mind." i am aware that people get drunk and have sex with people they wouldn't normally want to have sex with. i'm saying that generally sexuals desire sex with people they find sexually attractive. generally, it is important to sexuals that they are attracted to the person they're having sex with, whereas an asexual wouldn't care about the attractiveness of the other person involved. the other person isn't an important part of the act for the asexual (aside from trusting them enough to feel safe having sex with them, of course). this is why a lot of sexuals feel conflicted when they like someone's personality but don't like their appearance, you hear about it all the time.

As for your belief that people who get wasted at bars have sex with people they're attracted to... Nope. Wrong. There are a billion movies, TV shows, jokes, songs, expressions, etc. which reference this. Do you seriously think that people are only sexual when triggered by a specific person? No way. NO WAY.

You honestly think that people go to bars and only have sex with people they're sexually attracted to? You honestly like that everyone who hooks up in gay club restrooms, or sex clubs, or swingers' clubs are attracted to everyone they have sex with?!?! SERIOUSLY? You think the phrases "beer goggles" and "coyote ugly" are just jokes? You think that glory holes make sense under a theory of attraction? What about prostitutes and their johns?

Jesus Christ I can't even. My head is going to explode. Sexual people have non-attraction related sex All. The. Time.

If you'll pardon the language, intoxication fucks up one's perception of the world. So the sexual natures of people while they're wasted is kind of an irrelevant topic anyway. (If we were discussing general social situations in which one is not thoroughly intoxicated, that would be a different matter.)

I think that it's desire, not attraction, that's relevant to orientation. All orientations.

I do see asexuality as an orientation. What I do not think is that any orientation is based on "sexual attraction". They are all based on desire for partnered sex, as the partner preference is already a part in this.

As for "asexuals" who desire partnered sex, but can't point to any person or category of persons they find noticeably attractive... to me, that's simply a pansexual who is way too hung-up on the concept of "attraction informs orientation" (which is simply a concept I consider completely false).

Where exactly did this opinion come from? In my experience -- which is not insubstantial -- I have never seen this echoed anywhere outside the discussions of elitist members of the asexual community. I'm not saying it doesn't exist elsewhere -- just that I've never seen it, and I'd be curious to know where you two are getting it from. (In recent posts there seems to be a lot of 'sexual orientation isn't determined by sexual attraction!', but no actual explanation of that.)

^ FoxEars ^

OH MY GOD YOU GUYS >.<

Do you guys honestly think sexual people are drooling beasts who just want to fuck people they find attractive?? MANY sexual people desire partnered sex as an intimate, pleasurable aspect of their romantic bond with another person. How that person looks may mean nothing at all to the sexual person, as they may be one of the people (far more common than people here on AVEN seem to believe is possible) who actually, you know, look deeper than appearance and don't really care if someone they develop an emotional connection to does not match their ideas of ''aesthetic perfection'' and outside of this romantic bond, they just don't want to have sex with people. This is EXTREMELY COMMON, it does not mean the sex is any less enjoyable just because the person they are having sex with doesn't look like Megan Fox or Christian Bale, because it's the emotional aspects of the pleasure and the intimacy they desire, it has nothing to do with the other persons appearance.

This isn't elitism, it is basic facts about sexuality. O_O There are sexual people who desire sex for reasons other than appearance and just don't care what other people look like in relation to who they interact with sexually. Someone who says they feel like this and labels themselves asexual because of it has misunderstood sexuality. Again it's not elitism, it's basic facts.

Skullery Maid is trying to tell you guys what it's like for a sexual and she is sexual! For many sexual people, it's the sex itself that is important, and they couldn't give two hoots what the other person looks like physically, this is an aspect of sexuality, not asexuality, or like 40% of the entire fucking (no pun intended) population would be asexual! ..So we may as well get rid of the label asexual all together because if asexuals are no different from many sexual people (in that appearance really isn't that relevant when it comes to sex for many of them, as there are other factors that are more important, ie love, or just the sex for the sake of sex itself) then there is no point in calling anyone asexual!

Sexual attraction is based on far more than simply appearances. I have enough sexual friends and acquaintances to know that. Attraction is very often based on far more intimate things such as personality. I never implied otherwise and I'm not aware of anyone on this thread who did.

I understand that you're frustrated, but you seem to be putting words in people's mouths, and that's not going to help anything.

^ FoxEars ^

[Guest]

However, it's important that we can distinguish between innate and non-innate desires (and non-innate desires can include far, far more than simply partner-pleasing or procreating), because it is entirely possible to have the latter and still be asexual.

Well, of course there can be a multitude of reasons that are not innate desires. Like, curious if you might like it. Wanting to see what the fuss is about. Experimenting to see where you fit. Etc, etc. That's why they keep making a mantra out of innate desire.

[Guest]

I simply do not agree that. e.g., homosexuals would be people who are "sexually attracted to the same sex". That definition is just as vague to me as the one on the banner up there. Homosexuals are people who inherently desire sex with partners of their own sex/gender (and mutatis mutandis, that goes for all sexual orientations... meaning, asexuals don't desire sex with anyone.)

Exactly ^^^ ..Or every hetero woman who thinks her friend looks damn sexy in that dress would be a lesbian or bi. What makes that woman ''hetero''sexual is that she innately desires partnered sex with other people, but prefers to have sex with men based on a number of factors. For some sexual people, it is possible for their underlying desire for partnered sex to completely override their gender preference, when completely unable to have sex with people of their preferred gender (ie in prison, or if they desire sex but no one of their preferred gender is available) .. So attraction in many cases is relatively irrelevant (because a heterosexual woman can also find other women ''hot'' and ''sexy'', she just does not innately desire to have sex with women specifically, she desires sex with men specifically for a number of reasons).. If sexual orientation really was as basic as ''who you find sexually attractive'' then there would be a lot less heterosexuals in the world lol (though in saying that, a lot of people who identify as heterosexual may realize they are bi if they had sex with people of the same gender and realized they enjoyed it, regardless of how they feel about the appearance and physical characteristics of people of the same gender as themselves. Many people just assume they are heterosexual if it's all they have ever known)

Sexual people: innately desire partnered sex with other people. Their orientation is defined by who they prefer to have sex with, for many various reasons (not just appearance, doesn't even have to have anything to do with appearance). Asexual people do not innately desire partnered sex with anyone, yet do still often have preferences (gender preferences and even *gasp* appearance preferences) that are not based solely on romantic drive. It's not that asexuals don't have ''preferences'', we do have preferences! (my intimate friend matches a lot of my ''preferences'') ... asexuals just don't have any innate desire to actually engage in sexual activity with others for their own sexual and/or emotional pleasure, regardless of whether or not that person matches all an asexual persons ''preferences''.

Asexuality is not, in any way, a lack of ''preferences'' ..it is a lack of an innate desire to connect sexually with other people.

I get really sick of seeing people on AVEN saying that an asexual can desire sex for their own sexual and/or emotional pleasure, they just don't have preferences as to who they have sex with. This is not asexuality, this is a relatively common aspect of sexuality.

[FoxEars]

However, it's important that we can distinguish between innate and non-innate desires (and non-innate desires can include far, far more than simply partner-pleasing or procreating), because it is entirely possible to have the latter and still be asexual.

Well, of course there can be a multitude of reasons that are not innate desires. Like, curious if you might like it. Wanting to see what the fuss is about. Experimenting to see where you fit. Etc, etc. That's why they keep making a mantra out of innate desire.

Except the thing is, there are too many instances where the 'innate' is left out. That's my problem with all this, really.

If people could just calm down and accept that asexuals can desire sex, that would be a great first step that would result in a lot less hostility and exclusivity. Then, the fact that they do not innately desire sex could be added to flesh out the definition.

I do have a slight problem with that wording because some of the reasons asexuals could desire sex -- e.g., curiosity -- could arguably be 'innate' sources of desire. But at the present moment I don't have a better suggestion for a way to phrase it, so I'm letting that slide.

^ FoxEars ^

[Guest]

I still don't see any convincing reason to believe this "sexual attraction" thing is a real, discrete phenomenon, let alone that is were the deciding factor in anybody's orientation. I've talked to people outside of AVEN - sexuals - who have no clue what you folks are going on about there with the talk of orientations based on "attraction", and who still are 100% certain they are sexual, and can tell their own place on the hetero/homo/bi etc. spectrum just fine, thank you.

I don't know why it just occurred to me to put it this way, and I apologise for this way of wording it not coming to me sooner -- I'm not referring to innate desire for sexual interaction. (For those of you who decided that you had any right to tell me what my orientation is, I personally do not have any innate sexual desire (and I actually alluded to this on an earlier post in this thread). In case that helps you ~keep score~ of how asexual I am or am not.) However, it's important that we can distinguish between innate and non-innate desires (and non-innate desires can include far, far more than simply partner-pleasing or procreating), because it is entirely possible to have the latter and still be asexual.

Now this part? I can agree with that.

There are quite a lot of types in which one can have what some models call "secondary" sexual desire, and partner-pleasing and getting pregnant are only the two most common types. And it is indeed only "primary" sexual desire that invalidates asexuality (but I stand by saying this: this is the one thing that does invalidate the choice of IDing as ace. People who feel tghis are not ace, no matter whether they "feel sexual attraction" or not).

Feel free to take that as an olive branch, if that's how you see this discussion. Frankly, I don't understand why you think anyone here is saying "you're not good enough". Not being asexual does not make anyone inherently a worse person, you know?

[FoxEars]

I simply do not agree that. e.g., homosexuals would be people who are "sexually attracted to the same sex". That definition is just as vague to me as the one on the banner up there. Homosexuals are people who inherently desire sex with partners of their own sex/gender (and mutatis mutandis, that goes for all sexual orientations... meaning, asexuals don't desire sex with anyone.)

Exactly ^^^ ..Or every hetero woman who thinks her friend looks damn sexy in that dress would be a lesbian or bi.

What you referred to there is æsthetic attraction / æsthetic appreciation. No-one is arguing that that is the same thing as sexual attraction (because it's not).

You may want to brush up on your terminology a bit before you go off on people like this. No wonder you're 'really sick of' this kind of thing.

^ FoxEars ^

[Guest]

You honestly think that people go to bars and only have sex with people they're sexually attracted to? You honestly like that everyone who hooks up in gay club restrooms, or sex clubs, or swingers' clubs are attracted to everyone they have sex with?!?! SERIOUSLY? You think the phrases "beer goggles" and "coyote ugly" are just jokes? You think that glory holes make sense under a theory of attraction? What about prostitutes and their johns?

Jesus Christ I can't even. My head is going to explode. Sexual people have non-attraction related sex All. The. Time.

jesus christ dude, why are you being so hostile about this? calm down.

sexuals can have sex without attraction. sexuals can have sex just because it feels good and they want to get off, or just to feel a close bond to a person, or for any of the other reasons an asexual could have sex. my point was that those reasons are the only reasons an asexual would desire sex, whereas a sexual could desire sex for those reasons and/or because they are sexually attracted to the person, and sex where they are attracted to the person is ideal. sexuals also would feel an actual need for sex as a part of their life, whereas an asexual may just want to try it because they're curious or they think it might physically feel good or they might even want to have it somewhat regularly but still be okay with the possibility of not having it anymore. one could argue that this is a desire that isn't "innate" in the way that it is for sexuals, which would still set asexuals with sexual desire apart.

it seems that most of you think sexuality is based on sexual desire and sexual attraction doesn't matter. i disagree and i have never heard about sexual orientations being defined in that way before. i don't really have much of a response other than that, i don't think your definition is correct. and Panfictosaurus Asex, i know that people can be attracted to people for personality and mannerisms and such; that's still sexual attraction. if those mannerisms and such make someone think of that specific person in a sexual way and desire sex with them specifically, that is a form of sexual attraction. but i think that desiring sex in a general sense, independent of sexual attraction, is something that anyone of any orientation can do. it's just that asexuals would only be able to desire sex in that way, if they do desire it.

Skullery IS sexual, I think she knows what she is talking about.

[Star Bit]

@Fox Ears

Being curious about and open to sex with your boyfriend, yes, is asexual. Desiring; wanting; wishing; craving; yearning to have sex with someone is not asexual.

[Guest]

However, it's important that we can distinguish between innate and non-innate desires (and non-innate desires can include far, far more than simply partner-pleasing or procreating), because it is entirely possible to have the latter and still be asexual.

Well, of course there can be a multitude of reasons that are not innate desires. Like, curious if you might like it. Wanting to see what the fuss is about. Experimenting to see where you fit. Etc, etc. That's why they keep making a mantra out of innate desire.

Except the thing is, there are too many instances where the 'innate' is left out. That's my problem with all this, really.

If people could just calm down and accept that asexuals can desire sex, that would be a great first step that would result in a lot less hostility and exclusivity. Then, the fact that they do not innately desire sex could be added to flesh out the definition.

I do have a slight problem with that wording because some of the reasons asexuals could desire sex -- e.g., curiosity -- could arguably be 'innate' sources of desire. But at the present moment I don't have a better suggestion for a way to phrase it, so I'm letting that slide.

^ FoxEars ^

Well, partly that is because Bogaert (as I did quote a few posts up) when he did his studies / wrote his paper on asexuality based on them, defines asexuality as a lack of desire. He doesn't make the innate distinction. But, he does list reasons within the paper why asexuals may have sex anyway. So, he makes it without saying it in the same words. And Bogaert is the lead "professional" studying asexuality, followed by Lori Brotto. On AVEN, most the "desirists" do try to make sure to say innate... usually.

[FoxEars]

Frankly, I don't understand why you think anyone here is saying "you're not good enough". Not being asexual does not make anyone inherently a worse person, you know?

Oh no, I understand that -- I just meant that there were several posts earlier on indicating that I wasn't 'good enough' of an asexual to be allowed to bear that label.

It's not a big deal anyway though because those who were suggesting it were wrong, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

^ FoxEars ^

[Guest]

Exactly ^^^ ..Or every hetero woman who thinks her friend looks damn sexy in that dress would be a lesbian or bi. What makes that woman ''hetero''sexual is that she innately desires partnered sex with other people, but prefers to have sex with men based on a number of factors. For some sexual people, it is possible for their underlying desire for partnered sex to completely override their gender preference, when completely unable to have sex with people of their preferred gender (ie in prison, or if they desire sex but no one of their preferred gender is available) .. So attraction in many cases is relatively irrelevant (because a heterosexual woman can also find other women ''hot'' and ''sexy'', she just does not innately desire to have sex with women specifically, she desires sex with men specifically for a number of reasons).. If sexual orientation really was as basic as ''who you find sexually attractive'' then there would be a lot less heterosexuals in the world lol (though in saying that, a lot of people who identify as heterosexual may realize they are bi if they had sex with people of the same gender and realized they enjoyed it, regardless of how they feel about the appearance and physical characteristics of people of the same gender as themselves. Many people just assume they are heterosexual if it's all they have ever known)

Sexual people: innately desire partnered sex with other people. Their orientation is defined by who they prefer to have sex with, for many various reasons (not just appearance, doesn't even have to have anything to do with appearance). Asexual people do not innately desire partnered sex with anyone, yet do still often have preferences (gender preferences and even *gasp* appearance preferences) that are not based solely on romantic drive. It's not that asexuals don't have ''preferences'', we do have preferences! (my intimate friend matches a lot of my ''preferences'') ... asexuals just don't have any innate desire to actually engage in sexual activity with others for their own sexual and/or emotional pleasure, regardless of whether or not that person matches all an asexual persons ''preferences''.

Asexuality is not, in any way, a lack of ''preferences'' ..it is a lack of an innate desire to connect sexually with other people.

Related to this: Fed up with people trying to turn "(partner) preference" into a badword, and try to differentiate that from orientations. Orientations are partner preferences. Preference does not equal conscious choice; in fact, there are strong indications that sex partner preference is to a large degree inborn and genetic.

A heterosexual man is someone who 1) inherently desires partnered sex, and 2) very strongly prefers women as sex partners. I still can't grasp why some people pretend there was a problem with this statement; it's obvious to the point of "duh" for me.

Oh no, I understand that -- I just meant that there were several posts earlier on indicating that I wasn't 'good enough' of an asexual to be allowed to bear that label.

It's not a degree. Either you don't feel primary/inherent desire for partnered sex (then you're not a "good" asexual... you're just an asexual, period), or you do feel primary/inherent desire for partnered sex (then you're not a "bad" asexual... you're just not an asexual, period).

[FoxEars]

@Fox Ears

Being curious about and open to sex with your boyfriend, yes, is asexual. Desiring; wanting; wishing; craving; yearning to have sex with someone is not asexual.

That's a messy distinction to make though.

I'm curious about consensual sex;

I want / wish / crave / yearn to know what consensual sex is like

See what I mean?

I do get what you're saying and you're not wrong exactly, it's just that you're making a very black-and-white distinction where in fact there isn't a very clear linguistic line drawn. (Several mentions have been made to how the German language deals with asexuality; my knowledge of German is minimal and frankly pretty weird, so I don't know, but perhaps in German this distinction is better made.)

^ FoxEars ^

[Guest]

I simply do not agree that. e.g., homosexuals would be people who are "sexually attracted to the same sex". That definition is just as vague to me as the one on the banner up there. Homosexuals are people who inherently desire sex with partners of their own sex/gender (and mutatis mutandis, that goes for all sexual orientations... meaning, asexuals don't desire sex with anyone.)

Exactly ^^^ ..Or every hetero woman who thinks her friend looks damn sexy in that dress would be a lesbian or bi.

What you referred to there is æsthetic attraction / æsthetic appreciation. No-one is arguing that that is the same thing as sexual attraction (because it's not).

You may want to brush up on your terminology a bit before you go off on people like this. No wonder you're 'really sick of' this kind of thing.

^ FoxEars ^

I'm not ''going off'', you just feel like I am because I am disagreeing with you, strongly. Don't tell me to ''brush up on my terminology'', if you knew me at all (you clearly don't) you would know I am very clued up on what I am talking about when it comes to terminology on this site. Don't try to resort to cheap shots in attempt to make yourself look ''more correct''.. just keep the discussion on topic. Many here agree that ''finding someone sexy'' feels a lot different than ''finding someone beautiful'' or ''appreciating a nice sunset'' (both of these latter are aesthetic appreciation) .. And I myself can attest to this as someone who finds certain people damn sexy, I just don't want to have sex with any of them, same as a heterosexual woman who finds her friend damn sexy, she just doesn't want to have sex with her. I had a heterosexual friend who would often touch my breasts and butt when I wore tight clothes, and tell me she thought I looked ''f*cking hot'' and things, but she has no interest in having sex with me, she only desired sex with men, no matter how attractive she found women.. This really is quite common among sexuals. Maybe not among your friends, but among many of the people I have known (on and off this site)