Jump to content

A statement about the "definition discussion"


timewarp

Recommended Posts

The recent message from the Board of Directors about AVEN’s values has led to several rather strong reactions from members.

 

A big part of the discussion seems to focus on the following points:

  • “AVEN uses a “lack of sexual attraction” definition as default, but there is no requirement every member has to agree with this.”
  • “It is for each person to decide what sexual, romantic or gender identity fits them.”

 

Not only do I fully agree with the message of the BoD, but I would also like to show that these points agree with the current knowledge (or maybe rather lack of knowledge) about asexuality. In particular it is worth noting that there is no universally agreed definition of asexuality yet, and therefore we cannot dictate which definition members should use. Consequently it is up to each member to decide which identity fits them best.

 

I do not agree with the argument that this would be bad for education - frankly I think the opposite is the case. While AVEN policy does not allow to say “you are not asexual”, it is by no means discouraged to say “using definition X, this would probably not count as asexuality”.

 

The following is a small overview of what has come out of asexuality research in terms of the definition discussion. It is not intended to be complete (I wish I had the time for that), but I hope this helps a bit to illustrate how far we still are from an undisputed definition.

 

Kinsey [1][2] defined sexual orientation in terms of type, extent and frequency of erotic fantasies. His continuous scale from 0 = exclusive heterosexuality to 6 = exclusive homosexuality did not include asexuality, but he acknowledged the existence of those outside the scale.

 

Storms [3] proposed a two-dimensional scale with one axis for homo-eroticism and the other for hetero-eroticism. According to Storms, asexuals are classified by low homo-eroticism as well as low hetero-eroticism. The proposed scale classifies, but does not define, sexual orientation in terms of erotic fantasies.

 

Bogaert [4] analysed a national probability sample of > 18000 British residents [5] to investigate asexuality. He counted those participants as asexual who replied “I have never felt sexually attracted to anyone at all.” to the question “I have felt sexually attracted to…”

 

In a later publication [6], Bogaert defined sexual orientation in terms of subjective sexual attraction (perceived eroticism/fantasy directed toward others) as opposed to physical attraction/arousal, and asexual persons as “anyone who does not have sexual attraction toward people, objects, and so forth”.

 

Prause and Graham [7] defined asexual persons as “those who identify as asexual” and used online questionnaires to investigate characteristics of a sample of 1146 individuals, 41 of which identified as asexual. They found a significant correlation between low sexual desire and self-identification as asexual.

 

The Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®) [8] mentions asexuality only in the context of low sexual desire, but does not give an overall definition of asexuality. According to the DSM-5®, female sexual interest/arousal disorder (FSIAD) would not be diagnosed “if a lifelong lack of sexual desire is better explained by one’s self-identification as ‘asexual’”. Analogously, If the man's low desire is explained by self-identification as an asexual, then a diagnosis of male hypoactive sexual desire disorder is not made.”

 

Van Houdenhove et al. [9] analysed the results of an online survey with 566 participants in order to understand how asexuality is best defined. They compared three different criteria: self-identification, lack or absence of sexual attraction and lack of sexual behaviour. They found that only 33.5% of participants were asexual according to all three definitions. The overlap between self-identification and the attraction-based criterion was 57.6%, whereas only 38.2% and 39.7% respectively were according to both the attraction/behaviour or self-identification/behaviour criteria. When asked about their opinions about criteria for describing asexuality, 81.4% indicated that “not experiencing any sexual attraction toward others” was important, compared to 65% for “not experiencing sexual desire”. 43.4% found “calling oneself asexual” important. Importance was given to “not behaving sexually with a partner” by 33.8% and to “not masturbating” by 13.9% of participants.

 

In a more recent review article [10] Bogaert suggests “a lack of sexual attraction as an open definition that may fluctuate over time”. He argues that asexuality research is too recent and phenomena too diverse to have a fixed definition yet, not without mentioning that definitions based on lack of desire have also been forwarded.

 

Van Houdenhove et al. [11] see sexual behaviour, sexual attraction and self-identification as “three independent dimensions in the multidimensional construct of asexuality”. However, they state that a definition based on sexual behaviour is neither commonly used nor backed up by empirical evidence, whereas an attraction-based definition is broadly accepted, and evidence has been provided by several authors. Finally they argue that, “given the major influence of AVEN”, the importance of self-identification should not be underestimated.

 

An alternative approach was suggested by Yule et al. [12]. The Asexuality Identification Scale consists of 12 questions that were gradually developed and tested to distinguish between sexual and asexual individuals. In the first stage, 209 participants were asked open-ended questions. Based on the replies a set of 111 questions with answers on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = Completely False to 5 = Completely True). In a further analysis, 37 of these questions were left and then tested on 1242 participants, 316 of which self-identified asexuals. The resulting 12-item questionnaire consists of questions that were identified as good predictors for distinguishing between self-identified sexuals and self-identified asexuals.

 

Which brings us to the ongoing research. Towards the end of last year, we were looking for participants for a class project about the Asexuality Identification Scale. I’m very happy that this has been so overwhelmingly successful that the student project has turned into a full research project, with the aim of publishing it. It’s still in the preparation stage, but hopefully I can announce it within the next few weeks. I hope lots of you will participate.

 

So, what does all of this tell us? The definition of asexuality is still work in progress. Whereas the attraction-based definition currently is the most accepted one, it is by no means carved in stone. The definition also depends on what we actually know about asexuality, and together with the growing body of knowledge it will probably change over time. We should be open minded and allow for definitions we don’t agree on, while certainly any arguments for our own favourite definitions are important and welcome.

 

Consequently we should not discard it right away when people self-identify as asexual, even if according to our own personal definition they would probably not be. Rather than telling them they are not asexual, it will help them more to point them at more information to see if they can find themselves in typical traits of asexuals, sexuals or somewhere in the grey area. It might be possible that in many years from now researchers will have gathered enough evidence about asexuality to tell more clearly if somebody is asexual or not, but right now we’re simply not there yet.

 

timewarp

Dedicated Research Contact

 

[1] Kinsey, Alfred Charles, et al. "Sexual behavior in the human male." (1948).

[2] Sexual behavior in the human female: by the staff of the Institute for Sex Research, Indiana University: Alfred C. Kinsey [and others]. Saunders, 1953.

[3] Storms, Michael D. "Theories of sexual orientation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38.5 (1980): 783.

[4] Bogaert, Anthony F. "Asexuality: Prevalence and associated factors in a national probability sample." Journal of Sex Research 41.3 (2004): 279-287.

[5] Wellings, Kaye, et al. Sexual behaviour in Britain: the national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles. Penguin Books, 1994.

[6] Bogaert, Anthony F. "Toward a conceptual understanding of asexuality." Review of General Psychology 10.3 (2006): 241.

[7] Prause, Nicole, and Cynthia A. Graham. "Asexuality: Classification and characterization." Archives of Sexual Behavior 36.3 (2007): 341-356.

[8] American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub, 2013.

[9] Van Houdenhove, Ellen, et al. "Asexuality: A multidimensional approach." The Journal of Sex Research 52.6 (2015): 669-678.

[10] Bogaert, Anthony F. "Asexuality: What it is and why it matters." Journal of sex research 52.4 (2015): 362-379.

[11] Van Houdenhove, Ellen, et al. "Asexuality: Few facts, many questions." Journal of sex & marital therapy 40.3 (2014): 175-192.

[12] Yule, Morag A., Lori A. Brotto, and Boris B. Gorzalka. "A validated measure of no sexual attraction: The Asexuality Identification Scale." Psychological assessment 27.1 (2015): 148.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mychemicalqpr

Thanks for putting all this interesting information here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to at least give you kudos for shattering the myth that science agreed that "attraction" was the be-all and end-all criterion of sexual orientations.

 

Now it's your job to speak out, in the firmest and most unambiguous of terms, against any and all "attractionists" who perpetuate that demonstrably false myth on here.

 

If BoD and admods cannot or will not do so, they fail their job and are demonstrably unfit for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I checked, it wasn't against the ToS to say whether a definition is absolute or not (at least in the abstract). If a rule like that is to exist then it would need to apply to all definitions equally anyway, not just the attraction one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

I have to at least give you kudos for shattering the myth that science agreed that "attraction" was the be-all and end-all criterion of sexual orientations.

 

Now it's your job to speak out, in the firmest and most unambiguous of terms, against any and all "attractionists" who perpetuate that demonstrably false myth on here.

 

If BoD and admods cannot or will not do so, they fail their job and are demonstrably unfit for it.

I'm not sure specifically who you're referring to when you speak of people who claim that "attraction" is the be-all and end-all criterion of sexual orientations. I've been defending an and/or attraction and desire model for defining asexuality all along, so obviously I don't think attraction is the be-all and end-all. I have said repeatedly that attraction is the main way in which academics model sexual orientation (although not necessarily the only factor relevant to determining it), which is reflected in the above research.

I've also said many times that so far psychologists have predominantly favoured the attraction-model for defining asexuality, as the research cited above demonstrates. This research also shows that lack of desire is relevant to determining asexuality (as one would expect), although so far it doesn't seem like any of the main researchers are defending a desire-only definition. In response to a recent exchange with you in another thread, I suggested that there is some evidence that Bogaert may be starting to lean towards an attraction/desire definition. And I used that as evidence to support my "attraction and/or desire" proposal.

Based on the above evidence, one could reasonably defend an attraction-only definition, given that that's still the most commonly held view. I'd also suggest there's enough evidence to support a combination attraction/desire definition (my position all along). But I don't see sufficient evidence or support for a desire-only definition. The evidence shows that both attraction and desire are important to determining asexuality, and while a desire-based definition has been suggested as a possibility, the main researchers are all still working with an attraction-based model.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I'm not sure specifically who you're referring to when you speak of people who claim that "attraction" is the be-all and end-all criterion of sexual orientations. I've been defending an and/or attraction and desire model for defining asexuality all along, so obviously I don't think attraction is the be-all and end-all. I have said repeatedly that attraction is the main way in which academics model sexual orientation (although not necessarily the only factor relevant to determining it), which is reflected in the above research.

I've also said many times that so far psychologists have predominantly favoured the attraction-model for defining asexuality, as the research cited above demonstrates. This research also shows that lack of desire is relevant to determining asexuality (as one would expect), although so far it doesn't seem like any of the main researchers are defending a desire-only definition. In response to a recent exchange with you in another thread, I suggested that there is some evidence that Bogaert may be starting to lean towards an attraction/desire definition. And I used that as evidence to support my "attraction and/or desire" proposal.

Based on the above evidence, one could reasonably defend an attraction-only definition, given that that's still the most commonly held view. I'd also suggest there's enough evidence to support a combination attraction/desire definition (my position all along). But I don't see sufficient evidence or support for a desire-only definition. The evidence shows that both attraction and desire are important to determining asexuality, and while a desire-based definition has been suggested as a possibility, the main researchers are all still working with an attraction-based model.

How would a combination of an attraction and desire model work? Also, how would attraction be defined within this model?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, m4rble said:

How would a combination of an attraction and desire model work? Also, how would attraction be defined within this model?

I've been suggesting a definition like this: "People who do not experience sexual attraction to anyone else and/or people who do not desire partnered sex." Most asexuals would probably answer no to both. There's ambiguity with regard to the rare cases where people report desire for partnered sex in the absence of sexual attraction, and debate about whether those people are sexual or asexual. My view is that we should leave this open. People who defend a desire-only definition have to say that those people cannot be asexual, but I don't think we know enough about the phenomenon to take a strong position one way or the other at this point. I'd also suggest that a definition which leaves it open for such people to identify as asexual if they choose shows respect for AVEN's self-identification principle. And, realistically, there's probably always going to be some conceptual ambiguity concerning borderline cases. Therefore, I don't think it's a problem if there's definitional overlap with people who decide to identify as sexual in these instances.

Additionally, I'd suggest that this is a straightforward and clear working definition of sexual attraction: "Preferences with respect to potential sexual partners based on gender and/or other personal characteristics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns
5 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

I have to at least give you kudos for shattering the myth that science agreed that "attraction" was the be-all and end-all criterion of sexual orientations.

 

Now it's your job to speak out, in the firmest and most unambiguous of terms, against any and all "attractionists" who perpetuate that demonstrably false myth on here.

 

If BoD and admods cannot or will not do so, they fail their job and are demonstrably unfit for it.

 

Dear Mysticus Insanus, 

 

 

I am, as I have always been, glad to see you are posting. I value your contribution to the AVEN community, and feel friendly regards towards you.

 

 

I find the comments made by Bogaert and  Van Houdenhove et al. to be very significant in constructing the following conclusion: 

 

Between lacking sexual behavior, lacking sexual attraction, lacking sexual desire, and subjectively claiming asexuality as an appropriate identity - none alone are universally determinant of asexuality. I would interpret their finding with the statement that each of the four aspects are, individually speaking, important for a very significant number of asexuals; however that most asexuals find at least one of the four of little importance compared to the other three.

 

It then would follow to endorse the rebuttal of a statement such as "attraction is a false myth."

 

Do note that this is not a quote of what you said, but an example meant to show what I am assuming you might endorse. Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions and do not understand which false myths you may be otherwise referring to. But attraction, in comparison to desire - both are significant for a majority of asexuals. some asexuals like both. some like one. some like the other. and I am sure some even like neither concept. 

 

 

I am sure that you do not prefer to have intuitive and anecdote-based responses but this is the line of thinking that I find to be very powerful in enabling me to explore ideas and  my understanding of the world, so I will now offer, earnestly and honestly, my intuitive and anecdotal statements as follows:

 

 

I would not consider myself to be a person who experiences sexual desire. I do consider myself to be a person who experiences sexual attraction.

 

by this I mean that I drive down the road and double-take attractive women and feel elated emotionally. this, as it is, does not feel sexual or romantic or anything. But if in social interactions, perhaps flirty, or even physical closeness in private quarters, can find this sense of attraction towards her image, body, scent, character, etc. to lead to sexual arousal. however sexual touching itself - that is not on my mind - and if it is on the table I want none of it. But there were times I did have sex - but I did not feel wanting, desire, or otherwise for it - only a sense of "should do it" and "she wants it and I can offer it". As such, I assume that this would not adequately count as desire.

 

I should also before my next statement, note that I do enjoy erotic fantasies, but these are never fantasy about sex - they are me creating a backstory for a fictional character - a girlfriend that I would meet - but I would lose interest in enjoying the erotic emotions that are subtly called upon by the fantasy before or upon coming to the sexual acts. If I would depict the sexual acts they would be rushed or the imagined me would not directly be interested in it, but instead willing themselves to go along and encourage the partner for the parnter's sake. out of interest in being there for their desires. 

 

 

 

So if I understand what is meant by sexual desire. I do not desire sex. I do not experience sexual desire. But I do experience pretty normal amounts of sexual attraction - because I often had "date interests" who would be flirting with me - but never was I comfortable being anything other than friends. By strictly looking at sexual desire or more specifically at desire for sex, I would be categorically asexual. However, I certainly do not feel very comfortable with the asexual label on my shoulders. there are times when, due to lack of need to explain myself or asexuality, I may imply to a stranger or peer that I am asexual, tho I will usually find ways to frame such a statement so it is not so conclusive, and I will prefer to identify myself as grey if ever a person does care to know. 

 

 

I do not consider myself an attractionist because while "generally speaking" I understand sexual attraction to be a concept that does matter for sexuality - I see it to be very clear that it is far from the only relevant factor of sexuality - but at the same time, I see that attraction is in high correlation with sexual orientation  - and so is sexual desire. I would not say that either are universal, and I would not say that either are negligible. There are times when I attempt to endorse considering desire a subdivision of attraction, however I recognize that this endorsement may not be found useful by others.

 

 

 

 

I would like to offer a conclusion to recap my statements in this post. 

 

- I agree that desire for sex is very important regarding the discussion of sexuality

- I disagree adamantly with the notion that [endorsement of attraction as relevant] is a myth

- I am a person who feels attraction towards others that I notice has sexual elements to it, but does not desire sex. and I actively identify as grey, and Not as ace, and Not as sexual.

- I apologize if I misunderstood your quoted statement, specifically, what exactly the myths are, the ones which you dislike the proliferation thereof. 

 

 

Sincerely, with kind regards, 

 

 - Teagan. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pramana said:

I've been suggesting a definition like this: "People who do not experience sexual attraction to anyone else and/or people who do not desire partnered sex." Most asexuals would probably answer no to both. There's ambiguity with regard to the rare cases where people report desire for partnered sex in the absence of sexual attraction, and debate about whether those people are sexual or asexual. My view is that we should leave this open. People who defend a desire-only definition have to say that those people cannot be asexual, but I don't think we know enough about the phenomenon to take a strong position one way or the other at this point. I'd also suggest that a definition which leaves it open for such people to identify as asexual if they choose shows respect for AVEN's self-identification principle. And, realistically, there's probably always going to be some conceptual ambiguity with respect to borderline cases.

Additionally, I'd suggest that this is a straightforward and clear working definition of sexual attraction: "Preferences with respect to potential sexual partners based on gender and/or other personal characteristics.

So, I suppose that with the definition above someone who does not desire sex cannot experience sexual attraction because they would not have any preference for sexual partners considering they would prefer to have no sexual partners. However, with that definition I am not sure how someone could have attraction without desire. If they had no gender preferences for their partners but desired sex that would be pan-sexuality. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I'm not sure specifically who you're referring to when you speak of people who claim that "attraction" is the be-all and end-all criterion of sexual orientations. 

Not you.

 

You've probably noticed that I strongly disagree with you, but I did not mean to insinuate that you were among the group who makes the (factually wrong, as proven by the OP of this thread) statement I criticized above, and which I expect the admods to stay vigilant for in future, when I'm no longer here.

 

It's upon you colored-name folks to say "No, that's wrong" to curb and stamp out such false claims. You folks can absolutely be expected to say it with strong authority, unfailingly, and relentlessly. It is a failure of your job to leave it to the mere footfolk, as if this were a matter of opinion. It is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, m4rble said:

So, I suppose that with the definition above someone who does not desire sex cannot experience sexual attraction because they would not have any preference for sexual partners considering they would prefer to have no sexual partners. However, with that definition I am not sure how someone could have attraction without desire. If they had no gender preferences for their partners but desired sex that would be pan-sexuality. 

I'm not sure what it would mean to experience sexual attraction without experiencing sexual desire. From what I've read, sexual attraction is described as overlying and directing sexual desire in some instances (although sexual desire can operate in its absence). But I should stress that I'm not prepared to say that sexual attraction can't happen in the absence of sexual desire, only that I think it's unlikely.

My understanding is that even though pansexuals lack gender preferences, most still have preferences based on other personal characteristics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Not you.

 

You've probably noticed that I strongly disagree with you, but I did not mean to insinuate that you were among the group who makes the (factually wrong, as proven by the OP of this thread) statement I criticized above, and which I expect the admods to stay vigilant for in future, when I'm no longer here.

 

It's upon you colored-name folks to say "No, that's wrong" to curb and stamp out such false claims. You folks can absolutely be expected to say it with strong authority, unfailingly, and relentlessly. It is a failure of your job to leave it to the mere footfolk, as if this were a matter of opinion. It is not.

You're making the assumption that all, "color-name folks" strongly agree with your opinion on this. Not all of them do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns
2 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I'm not sure what it would mean to experience sexual attraction without experiencing sexual desire. From what I've read, sexual attraction is described as overlying and directing sexual desire in some instances (although sexual desire can operate in its absence). But I should stress that I'm not prepared to say that sexual attraction can't happen in the absence of sexual desire, only that I think it's unlikely.

My understanding is that even though pansexuals lack gender preferences, most still have preferences based on other personal characteristics.

what is your understanding of sexual desire? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2017 at 3:23 PM, Meow. said:

what is your understanding of sexual desire? 

I would take sexual desire to be an urge for sexual stimulation, whether solo or partnered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, m4rble said:

You're making the assumption that all, "color-name folks" strongly agree with your opinion on this. Not all of them do. 

It's not an opinion, it's a hard fact. Look at the opening post again, giving crystal clear evidence for it. There is no such thing as a scientific agreement that attraction is the one and only thing informing orientation, nor that asexuality is informed by lack of attraction.

 

Frankly, admods disagreeing with me on this are unqualified for their position, because they put their ideological agenda over scientific findings. What I say is factually correct and 100% scientifically sound; disagreeing with me on this is factually wrong and blatantly unscientific. Fullstop, end of story.

 

Admods in disagreement should be chased out of office for being ideologically compromised, tendentious, and in rejection of science. That's not the type of person you should tolerate making decisions that impact what is, for better or worse, the leading face of education about asexuality. You don't want Young Earthers to be the leading face in teaching origin of species, either, now do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Not you.

 

You've probably noticed that I strongly disagree with you, but I did not mean to insinuate that you were among the group who makes the (factually wrong, as proven by the OP of this thread) statement I criticized above, and which I expect the admods to stay vigilant for in future, when I'm no longer here.

 

It's upon you colored-name folks to say "No, that's wrong" to curb and stamp out such false claims. You folks can absolutely be expected to say it with strong authority, unfailingly, and relentlessly. It is a failure of your job to leave it to the mere footfolk, as if this were a matter of opinion. It is not.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I would consider changing my view to a desire-only definition if academic opinion shifts to support it. Currently, I find that an attraction/desire model is the farthest one can reasonably go in that direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perissodactyla

I, for one, am super relieved that the default definition does not appear at the top of the forums webpage any longer.

 

I think it was removed around November 20 during the server/system upgrade, but I'm not certain.

 

For many of us who found the definition problematic in so many ways, it is so nice to not have to read it anymore. :)

 

I know that it's still on the main asexuality.org page, and I have no problem with that at all, since it's a reasonable starting point for new visitors to the site... a point of departure as people gradually introspect about their personal meaning around these feelings, meanings and shared articulated concepts.

 

Of course, some definitions and articulated concepts are super important to SOME people and maybe not so critically important to Others. A definition is a method for clarifying discussion and understanding. But, as any tool, it's not so much an end in itself.

 

I'm in favor of an eventual optimal definition, but as stated above... I'm also uncertain that there's a generalized one-size-fits-all definition that would ever please Everybody.

 

An undefined person is a person who does not experience definition attraction. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, euco said:

I, for one, am super relieved that the default definition does not appear at the top of the forums webpage any longer.

 

I think it was removed around November 20 during the server/system upgrade, but I'm not certain.

 

For many of us who found the definition problematic in so many ways, it is so nice to not have to read it anymore. :)

Hell to the yes!

 

:cake: to whoever was responsible for removing the banner, when we moved to the new layout.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest And Peggy

If you guys agree that attraction =/= desire, you're gonna need to change the FAQ. Right now it says "Sexual attraction: Desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them," which basically says attraction = desire. If you want a community to function, you have to be consistent.

 

That being said, I do appreciate you using sources to explain. I'm starting to see your point now :cake: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CakeSpadeAce said:

If you guys agree that attraction =/= desire, you're gonna need to change the FAQ. Right now it says "Sexual attraction: Desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them," which basically says attraction = desire.

 

That being said, I do appreciate you using sources to explain. I'm starting to see your point now :cake: 

The AVENwiki has a significantly better, detailed explanation:

http://wiki.asexuality.org/Sexual_attraction

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the definition at http://wiki.asexuality.org/Attraction: "Sexual attraction is an emotional response that sexual people often feel that results in a desire for sexual contact with the person that the attraction is felt towards."

 

This relates attraction to desire without equating the two.

 

But they are closely related enough that, if I understand this AVENwiki definition correctly, it means that if you do not have the desire to act on what you feel, it is not sexual attraction.

 

So to me, really, there is no conflict between a desire-based and an attraction-based definition.

 

The only quibble I might have with this AVENwiki definition is the phrase "...that sexual people often feel...". My only hesitation is that for myself as demi, I hope this phrase wouldn't exclude me (or people like me) from identifying with the asexual spectrum. But I guess the phrase is OK with me after all, because I don't "OFTEN" feel sexual attraction.

 

(Edit note: I corrected and added to the last paragraph after Pramana responded to my post.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tofer said:

I like the definition at http://wiki.asexuality.org/Attraction: "Sexual attraction is an emotional response that sexual people often feel that results in a desire for sexual contact with the person that the attraction is felt towards."

 

This relates attraction for desire without equating the two.

 

But they are closely related enough that, if I understand this AVENwiki definition correctly, it means that if you do not have the desire to act on what you feel, it is not sexual attraction.

 

So to me, really, there is no conflict between a desire-based and an attraction-based definition.

 

The only quibble I might have with this AVENwiki definition is the phrase "...that sexual people feel...". My only hesitation is that for myself as demi, I hope this phrase wouldn't exclude me (or people like me) from identifying with the asexual spectrum.

 

I think this definition is pretty good, as well. I would clarify that it's probably not intended to say that you actually want to have sex with everyone you're attracted to, only that you think they are sexy and a potentially desirable sexual partner. In many cases, sexual desire won't be strong enough to motivate action, or it will be negated by other conflicting desires.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pramana said:

I think this definition is pretty good, as well. I would clarify that it's probably not intended to say that you actually want to have sex with everyone you're attracted to, only that you think they are sexy and a potentially desirable sexual partner. In many cases, sexual desire won't be strong enough to motivate action, or it will be negated by other conflicting desires.

Yes, I totally agree with your clarification. I think the AVENwiki definition is not intended to mean anything other than what you're clarifying that it can mean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always heard asexuality as being defined as simply not experiencing sexual attraction, which made sense to me. The desire things seems odd because I thought that desire would be like if you have two straight men in prison and after some time they become sexually involved. Their acts don't define their sexuality. I myself can enjoy sex and do like having it with certain partners, though the reason for doing so is hard to explain. I love touch and I am very sensual and so I love the sensual aspect of sex, though I don't ever 'get off'. I very much like making my partner happy though if my partners were asexual or never wanted sex, it wouldn't bother me. I have never been sexually attracted to someone. I can be sensually attracted to someone but there seems to be this odd disconnect when it comes to sensuality vs sexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perissodactyla

These definition-discussions have gone on and on for years, of course.

 

It would be extremely worthy and significant and practical for an academic research project to serve the asexuality community to hammer out an optimal asexuality definition or set of definitions based on very focused, interpreted and analyzed input from many asexual research subjects over the course of a project to accomplish this aim.

 

If we don't all agree to request this (demand this!), we're likely going to spin our wheels much longer than is actually necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

@Pramana actually then I should say, I am a person who experiences sexual attraction but not sexual desire.

 

I actually would revise the AVEN wiki description of sexual attraction. a rough estimate in the now, :

 

Sexual attraction is an emotional experience felt where one person finds another person sexually appealing, and may lead to or be in conjunction with a desire for sexual contact with the person

 

and actually I'd go and adjust it (or at this point rewrite it) further to:

 

 

 

attraction is an emotional experience felt where one person is drawn to another person, item, or activity.

 

attraction is considered sexual if it leads to or correlates with sexual arousal or desire for sexual or erotic activity.

 

 

 

 

do note that this is broad enough to include use of porn, and an ace's libido!**

 

this is what really makes sense to me. naturally this is in-the-moment so I'm encouraging of discourse and revision regarding it. But really, what I'm inspired by in this rewrite, is that it seems trivial, meaningless, or outright unobservant to try to differentiate the experiences of attraction otherwise - attraction has all the same signs whether it's sexual, romantic, just a magnetic personality, or a sandwich!

 

what is different is very exclusively nameable however - arousal and/or desire for sexual action; fantastical* emotional bonding and/or desire for life partnership; [I apologize for skipping magnetism]; and sensations in the mouth or stomach associated with taste, hunger or need for the food.

 

 

 

and even with that definition we aren't yet approaching a satisfied conclusion regarding asexuality. It would at first seem that with such a description of attraction, that it is necessary for asexuality to be classified based on desire. But - even so I am still adamant that I, despite lacking desire for sex, am grey, not ace. Tho it may be possible "desire for sex" could be worked upon to a point where I consider it fair to claim it places me in the grey areas where I claim to belong. Perhaps "desire for sexual activity with a partner" or something idk. I still don't like it totally lol but like I said I'm working on the fly here. And while my understanding is intuitively influenced by what I've seen others say on the matter, any preference I have naturally will be biased, as any human's preferences will be. ;)

 

 

ps.

*fantastical as in the bond is one of fantasy, or perhaps mystery, or perhaps fate, etc.

** it occurs to me to ponder if including sex drive as part of the method of classifying asexuality v grey v sexual in some way

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns
45 minutes ago, Octandempus said:

I have always heard asexuality as being defined as simply not experiencing sexual attraction, which made sense to me. The desire things seems odd because I thought that desire would be like if you have two straight men in prison and after some time they become sexually involved. Their acts don't define their sexuality.

my thoughts regarding this are that there's the straight/bi/gay orientation and the desire-sex/grey/lack-desire orientation. tho note, however those details of that loose description would be arranged, I am not sure how best to say it.  the point is in noting how preference for certain sexes and/or genders is different from desire and/or enjoyment of partnered sexual contact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, euco said:

These definition-discussions have gone on and on for years, of course.

 

It would be extremely worthy and significant and practical for an academic research project to serve the asexuality community to hammer out an optimal asexuality definition or set of definitions based on very focused, interpreted and analyzed input from many asexual research subjects over the course of a project to accomplish this aim.

 

If we don't all agree to request this (demand this!), we're likely going to spin our wheels much longer than is actually necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

To clarify on this point, when researchers in fields such as psychology and sexology do these studies where they ask self-identified asexuals how strongly they agree or disagree with various statements, they are looking for strong correlations between asexual people and particular statements that will then aid them in creating predictive measures of asexuality. As in, they want to create measures that have a high rate of accuracy for correctly identifying people who already know they are asexual. If they achieve this, that means they have extremely valuable data on what it means to be asexual, which allows them to create an accurate description/definition of what asexuality is. So, TL;DR? There is research being conducted right now to reach an objective and accurate definition/description of asexuality. It can just take years to do all this properly, unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...