Wanting To Have Sexual Intercourse For The Purpose of Having A Baby Is Still Sexual Desire

[m4rble]

I agree. But people who want to be accepted by the norm need to start by understanding how the norm sees them.

I have no desire to be accepted by the norm ever. I have the desire to have a job and home and some people who like me, the norm can never accept me for all I care.

Skullery: I want to have sex at some point, to see what it's like. I'm curious, even though I have no desire to go out and really have it, if that makes sense. For example in a world where people never had sex, I would never have any desire to have sex, but people have told me it's fun and enjoyable so I want to try it. Like skydiving, except if you gave me the choice between the two, I would pick skydiving (it's expensive :D) I have absolutely no idea how I will arrange this, because going bar hopping and telling a random someone that I am a virgin and just want to have sex for the experience, seems odd. I just wondered if you would classify me as a sexual because of that? I have no problem either way, just curious.

You're much less likely to end up squished flatter than a pancake after having sex(unless you do it while skydiving).

I love being in new places, and I like having new homes, new spaces to fill. But I hate packing and unpacking. They are merely required to achieve the purpose.

Same here. Wanting sex for the sake of a child isn't an interest in the act of sex, it's simply using it as a means to an end. It's not the sex that is desired, or really even the orgasm, only the final end product.

I'd discourage further attempts to start debates while high. ^^; Wait until you've had time to consider the idea while sober, first.

Herodotus wrote about how the persians wanted to consider an idea both while drunk and sober to be sure it was a good idea.

[Sally]

I agree. But people who want to be accepted by the norm need to start by understanding how the norm sees them.

I have no desire to be accepted by the norm ever. I have the desire to have a job and home and some people who like me, the norm can never accept me for all I care.

Yup.

As far as asexuals wanting to be accepted by the norm (if we do), we'll have to tell the norm how they should see us. They haven't a clue yet.

[Homer]

Sex for the sake of having sex doesn't mean a random partner. It just means that what you want from sex *that time* is just a damn good seeing to rather than a profound emotional bonding, and if you're in a relationship it'll probably be with your partner.

Not every fuck is in itself a deep bonding experience, but knowing that there's an extra channel to the relationship which is unique to the two of you, is bonding. It's a shared exclusivity. That's why polyamory doesn't work for a lot of people I guess - it removes the specialness of the primary relationship.

The other person barely matters at all. I've met up with my fair share of random older dudes from Craigslist Casual Encounters.

Thank you for the insight. Again :)

[Telecaster68]

I agree. But people who want to be accepted by the norm need to start by understanding how the norm sees them.

I have no desire to be accepted by the norm ever. I have the desire to have a job and home and some people who like me, the norm can never accept me for all I care.

Yup.

As far as asexuals wanting to be accepted by the norm (if we do), we'll have to tell the norm how they should see us. They haven't a clue yet.

That as well. But at the moment, we mostly see a bunch of millennial special snowflakes with weird ideas about sex, because that's what you're showing us.

[Guest]

Skullery: I want to have sex at some point, to see what it's like. I'm curious, even though I have no desire to go out and really have it, if that makes sense. For example in a world where people never had sex, I would never have any desire to have sex, but people have told me it's fun and enjoyable so I want to try it. Like skydiving, except if you gave me the choice between the two, I would pick skydiving (it's expensive :D) I have absolutely no idea how I will arrange this, because going bar hopping and telling a random someone that I am a virgin and just want to have sex for the experience, seems odd. I just wondered if you would classify me as a sexual because of that? I have no problem either way, just curious.

Once or twice in your life, just out of curiosity for finding out how it feels like, while being reasonably close to 100% certain that regardless of what it feels like, you'll be okeydokey fine afterwards with never, ever having sex again in your life?

Yep - while that's totally not for me, personally, even I as a hardcore "desirist" in the definition debate don't see anything in that that would invalidate an asexual identity.

However, I would advise one item of caution - in the case that you try it out and do end up finding out that you do indeed start desiring it... then please be ready to be honest enough to drop the asexual label, and acknowledge that you turned out to be just a "late bloomer" sexual whose desire was extraordinarily reactive/responsive. ;)

[Evren]

Skullery: I want to have sex at some point, to see what it's like. I'm curious, even though I have no desire to go out and really have it, if that makes sense. For example in a world where people never had sex, I would never have any desire to have sex, but people have told me it's fun and enjoyable so I want to try it. Like skydiving, except if you gave me the choice between the two, I would pick skydiving (it's expensive :D) I have absolutely no idea how I will arrange this, because going bar hopping and telling a random someone that I am a virgin and just want to have sex for the experience, seems odd. I just wondered if you would classify me as a sexual because of that? I have no problem either way, just curious.

Once or twice in your life, just out of curiosity for finding out how it feels like, while being reasonably close to 100% certain that regardless of what it feels like, you'll be okeydokey fine afterwards with never, ever having sex again in your life?

Yep - while that's totally not for me, personally, even I as a hardcore "desirist" in the definition debate don't see anything in that that would invalidate an asexual identity.

However, I would advise one item of caution - in the case that you try it out and do end up finding out that you do indeed start desiring it... then please be ready to be honest enough to drop the asexual label, and acknowledge that you turned out to be just a "late bloomer" sexual whose desire was extraordinarily reactive/responsive. ;)

Oh yeah, I am completely going to do that if I figure out that once I have sex I want it again. There will be a coming out allo thread :).

[Guest]

While debating definitions and giving strong opinions on them is fine, lets be careful with how we phrase our disagreements please. Do not direct personal insults towards any member, or group of members.

Serran

SPFA & Census Moderator

[ellastokes]

eh, I don't really care. I don't think that counts as sexual attraction. you're in here to discredit aces? make them seem like we're not really what we say we are? make us uncomfortable and question ourselves even more? I don't care.

people can identify however they want. if saying ace means it's easier for you to get on in the world and mostly describes your experiences, use the term!

it's a word, it's meant to serve you. meaning you're supposed to find ease of understanding yourself and find others like you by using it. it's supposed to be comfortable. but you don't have to worry yourself if you don't perfectly adhere to it's definition.

[Sally]

But at the moment, we mostly see a bunch of millennial special snowflakes with weird ideas about sex, because that's what you're showing us.

You (either singular or plural) must be deliberately ignoring the posts by me and all the other asexuals who've actually HAD sex and AREN'T millennials.

[Snao Cone]

eh, I don't really care. I don't think that counts as sexual attraction. you're in here to discredit aces? make them seem like we're not really what we say we are? make us uncomfortable and question ourselves even more? I don't care.

people can identify however they want. if saying ace means it's easier for you to get on in the world and mostly describes your experiences, use the term!

it's a word, it's meant to serve you. meaning you're supposed to find ease of understanding yourself and find others like you by using it. it's supposed to be comfortable. but you don't have to worry yourself if you don't perfectly adhere to it's definition.

I agree that people should use a word that effectively describes their orientation/experiences. However, words just don't serve the individual using them. They are supposed to serve a purpose for everyone who communicates in that language. People using "asexual" to describe themselves, and then demonstrating something very different from asexual behaviour* (this isn't specific to this thread, but in general) does not serve a useful purpose for the population as a whole - both the asexual population, who want to be understood, and the general population, who need to be educated so they understand.

* Yes, I know behaviour =/= orientation, but there is still little purpose being served when an asexual-identifying person chooses to make sexual activity a visible part of their life

[Guest]

But at the moment, we mostly see a bunch of millennial special snowflakes with weird ideas about sex, because that's what you're showing us.

You (either singular or plural) must be deliberately ignoring the posts by me and all the other asexuals who've actually HAD sex and AREN'T millennials.

In Tele's defense, he did say mostly.

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition, #76 - Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. ;)

[Sally]

But at the moment, we mostly see a bunch of millennial special snowflakes with weird ideas about sex, because that's what you're showing us.

You (either singular or plural) must be deliberately ignoring the posts by me and all the other asexuals who've actually HAD sex and AREN'T millennials.

In Tele's defense, he did say mostly.

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition, #76 - Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. ;)

That may be Ferengi's rule, and yours, Mysti; it's not mine.

[m4rble]

I agree. But people who want to be accepted by the norm need to start by understanding how the norm sees them.

I have no desire to be accepted by the norm ever. I have the desire to have a job and home and some people who like me, the norm can never accept me for all I care.

Yup.

As far as asexuals wanting to be accepted by the norm (if we do), we'll have to tell the norm how they should see us. They haven't a clue yet.

That as well. But at the moment, we mostly see a bunch of millennial special snowflakes with weird ideas about sex, because that's what you're showing us.

I'm tired of people getting upset with millennials for not putting up with having heterosexuality being forced down their throats and actually being open to what they actually want.

[Telecaster68]

I'm tired of people not reading posts properly.

[Cincinnatus]

I think we need to untangle "desire" and "attraction". I think sexual attraction is inherently biological, in other words, you were born that way. Desire definitely does not necessarily denote that.

To make an analogy to homosexuality, there are quite a few historical examples of figures who were suspected (or clearly) homosexual but nonetheless were expected to marry and have kids (and definitely not "sin against god"). Just because they "desired" to perform the act and had large families, it did not make them heterosexual (or bi- or pan-). And unless you are in the minority that believes gay therapy can make you straight, I don't think you can argue that asexuals who have sex for whatever reason other than sexual attraction are not valid asexuals.

The argument should not be about sexual desire at all. As the FAQ on the home page pretty clearly defines asexuality as a matter of attraction not of desire or want. Since the FAQ also states that some asexuals masturbate, I don't think you can argue that all such asexuals are sexually attracted to themselves and get horny whenever they see their reflection in the mirror. In addition, there are asexuals who are in relationships or marriage may have all sorts of reasons to have sex other than sexual attraction -- love requires compromise.

The initial post also seems to imply (I may be reading more into it than is there) that any sort of attraction is sexual attraction. I think the FAQ specifically states "sexual attraction", but experiencing non-sexual attraction does not mean that you are not asexual. Unless you are aromantic, you can even experience romantic attraction and still be asexual. Conversely, if you are experience attraction regardless of the source (trustworthiness, ability to support a family, cute clothes, etc) that leads you to want to have sex (for sex's sake), that is sexual attraction. I don't think the implication on AVEN is that sexual desire is simply a matter of physical appearance.

[Tarfeather]

I'm tired of people not reading posts properly.

I'm tired of taking these discussions seriously. :D Wanna head down to a bar or something and flush down the stupidity with some alcohol, Tele?

[Telecaster68]

9am on a Sunday morning? Sounds perfect.

[Guest]

I think we need to untangle "desire" and "attraction".

Yes, definitely. But not with the result you think that should have.

I think sexual attraction is inherently biological, in other words, you were born that way. Desire definitely does not necessarily denote that.

That still doesn't make "attraction" a valid criterion for orientation.

To make an analogy to homosexuality, there are quite a few historical examples of figures who were suspected (or clearly) homosexual but nonetheless were expected to marry and have kids (and definitely not "sin against god"). Just because they "desired" to perform the act and had large families, it did not make them heterosexual (or bi- or pan-). And unless you are in the minority that believes gay therapy can make you straight, I don't think you can argue that asexuals who have sex for whatever reason other than sexual attraction are not valid asexuals.

I completely disagree with the entirety of this paragraph, basically. The people you describe did not desire to perform the act with an opposite-sex person, even if they did end up doing it. If they desired it, they weren't valid homosexuals, end of story - they were either bi/pan or straight, absolutely most definitely not gay. "Attraction" does not inform orientation. Desire does.

The argument should not be about sexual desire at all. As the FAQ on the home page pretty clearly defines asexuality as a matter of attraction not of desire or want.

On the contrary, the FAQ clearly does define it as desire - "sexual attraction", as defined by AVEN's FAQ, is the desire for partnered sex. And it was a good first step to more clarity when it did get defined like this. We need to expand upon this first step, and scratch "attraction" from the definition, entirely. We surely must not ever go back from that first step.

[m4rble]

I'm tired of people not reading posts properly.

You're right, it's not really your post I was upset about.

[nanogretchen4]

I don't agree that anyone who has ever desired sex with a person of the opposite sex must identify as bi, pan, or straight. Asexuality may be understood as a single point, but gay, straight, bi, and pan are fuzzy overlapping ranges on the Kinsey scale. It's totally fine for someone who is maybe a 5 on the Kinsey scale to identify as gay, in fact that probably gives the most useful information about who they are likely to date the great majority of the time.

[Guest]

"Bi/pan with a strong preference for [X] partners" is a thing. When talking about desire (remember that the Kinsey scale, as it stands, just measures behavior, not desire), I regard only "0" as straight and only "6" as gay. "1-5" are all forms of bi/pan, to me, with different degrees of preference.

So, I stand by it - the person in the example is not validly gay.

[Snao Cone]

What level of responsibility does somebody 1-5 have to disclose their placement to a potential partner? Are they morally obligated to come clean to their family and friends? What about employers? Law enforcement? Should Kinsey numbers be put on people's passports? Will it affect their credit rating? Do zeroes or sixes get discounts at their neighbourhood drug store?

[Guest]

What level of responsibility does somebody 1-5 have to disclose their placement to a potential partner? Are they morally obligated to come clean to their family and friends? What about employers? Law enforcement? Should Kinsey numbers be put on people's passports? Will it affect their credit rating? Do zeroes or sixes get discounts at their neighbourhood drug store?

As usually, I'm just talking cool hard logic, not sociology. ;)

[Snao Cone]

Cold hard logic has no use outside of society, so I'm going to stick to sociology :P (as a totally non-biased person with a sociology degree she never gets to use these days)

[Guest]

That bias is not very logical. :p

[Snao Cone]

It is so!

...ciological, which in fact has the word "logical" in it :P

Anyway, the point is that we use labels to communicate our intentions. Somebody is "validly gay" if they are, for all intents and purposes, interested in people of the same sex/gender as sexual/romantic partners.

[Guest]

It is so!

...ciological, which in fact has the word "logical" in it :P

Snark Cone. :P

(Wouldn't want ya any other way though )

Anyway, the point is that we use labels to communicate our intentions. Somebody is "validly gay" if they are, for all intents and purposes, interested in people of the same sex/gender as sexual/romantic partners.

...if they also aren't interested in opposite sex/gender partners. So, I still stand by saying that your sentence is missing the important word "only".

[Snao Cone]

That was implied in "for all intents and purposes". As opposed to, you know, 80% of intents and purposes, whatever that would look like. Taking every Wednesday afternoon off to enjoy the opposite sex, just as a little break from being gay.

[m4rble]

That was implied in "for all intents and purposes". As opposed to, you know, 80% of intents and purposes, whatever that would look like. Taking every Wednesday afternoon off to enjoy the opposite sex, just as a little break from being gay.

:lol:

[Cincinnatus]

I think we need to untangle "desire" and "attraction".

Yes, definitely. But not with the result you think that should have.

I think sexual attraction is inherently biological, in other words, you were born that way. Desire definitely does not necessarily denote that.

That still doesn't make "attraction" a valid criterion for orientation.

To make an analogy to homosexuality, there are quite a few historical examples of figures who were suspected (or clearly) homosexual but nonetheless were expected to marry and have kids (and definitely not "sin against god"). Just because they "desired" to perform the act and had large families, it did not make them heterosexual (or bi- or pan-). And unless you are in the minority that believes gay therapy can make you straight, I don't think you can argue that asexuals who have sex for whatever reason other than sexual attraction are not valid asexuals.

I completely disagree with the entirety of this paragraph, basically. The people you describe did not desire to perform the act with an opposite-sex person, even if they did end up doing it. If they desired it, they weren't valid homosexuals, end of story - they were either bi/pan or straight, absolutely most definitely not gay. "Attraction" does not inform orientation. Desire does.

The argument should not be about sexual desire at all. As the FAQ on the home page pretty clearly defines asexuality as a matter of attraction not of desire or want.

On the contrary, the FAQ clearly does define it as desire - "sexual attraction", as defined by AVEN's FAQ, is the desire for partnered sex. And it was a good first step to more clarity when it did get defined like this. We need to expand upon this first step, and scratch "attraction" from the definition, entirely. We surely must not ever go back from that first step.

You make some valid points, and I probably shouldn't be posting so late as there are definitely some weird thoughts there, but I still contend there is a distinction between attraction and desire and sexuality really revolves around. Let me try another analogy so you can tear it apart...

I eat a lot of salad. Not that I'm crazy about it, but it's healthy. That doesn't make a "salad lover". In fact, it gets to be a drag after a while. My objective (or desire) is not to eat salad, but rather to stay healthy -- salad is just the means to that end. My desire is not to eat salad, and I'm not "attracted" to salads.

On the other, donuts are a different story altogether (really all I'm a sucker for all baked goods -- pan-bakery?). I LOVE donuts, and my mouth waters every time there is a plate of them out there. I am really "attracted" to donuts -- I "desire" to eat donuts for no other reason than the pleasure I derive from eating donuts. Having said that, I haven't had one in years (damned doctors!). I know they are delicious glazed heart attacks for me so I abstain from their siren call. Yes, I am admittedly an out-of-the-closet "donut lover", even though I am "donut celibate".

Being a donut lover is just who I am, I can't really change that, but it doesn't mean that I have to succumb. I wish I loved salad -- life would certainly be a lot easier.

It's not a perfect analogy -- I suppose if I grew up on an arugula farm and had to eat salad for breakfast, lunch, and dinner as a kid, I may have grown more of an affinity to salad. I don't *think* there is a similar situation where I can think upbringing would affect orientation, but that's a different argument.

If you are having partnered sex to have children, I would say you have a "desire" for naturally-conceived, biological children, not a "desire" for partnered sex. Partnered sex is the means to that end. If you are having partnered sex for your partner's (or partners') benefit, then your desire is to maintain that (those) relationship(s), not to have partnered sex. If someone chooses NOT to have sex whether it was for a religious decision, psychological trauma, or sexual dysfunction, they are celibate, but not necessarily asexual. In fact, if your behavior is contrary to your orientation, there can be results that can be destructive over time, or at least require outlets (remember Larry Craig?).

So I would argue, sexuality of any kind, including asexuality, it an orientation and inherently biological. When I see someone, my brain never releases the right hormones that makes me want to "hit that". I haven't always been celibate, but if my girlfriend had asked me in the middle of an act whether I wanted to watch TV instead, there would have been no contest (I don't know how many sexuals would make that same choice). If you narrowly define "a desire for partnered sex" to be a desire where partnered sex is the objective rather than just a means to some other end, then yeah, you might be able to equate attraction with desire. But if you expand the definition of the desire to have partnered sex to the degree you are doing it, I would argue that desire is a behavior and not an orientation.