I don't fully understand asexuality.

[R_1]

I don't remember making that post. I don't usually make post without replies on the quote. Really.

[Alejandrogynous]

6 minutes ago, R_1 said:

I don't remember making that post. I don't usually make post without replies on the quote. Really.

Oh, alright, I'm sorry. I probably should have guessed it was a mistake. 

[Tame One]

In this post I intend to show that you can call me an a(n) (allo)sexual if and only if no one on AVEN, and no human, is an asexual.

 

19 hours ago, Sally said:

  However, there are definitions, as Ficto says, and those definitions do not  need to include 173 different made-up words describing every possible permutation. 

There are definitions. I'm glad you brought it up! I know that some people like to ignore them, so let's look at them!

 

"The definition of an asexual is “someone who does not experience sexual attraction or an intrinsic desire to have sexual relationships.” https://www.asexuality.org/?q=general.html#ex2

 

"An asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction" - http://wiki.asexuality.org/Asexuality

 

Okay, who exactly is messing with the definitions? Who? Not us. You want to change the definitions? It's probably late for that but you're welcome to try. Until then, don't act as if we're ignoring the definition. 

 

What you're doing is arguing the etymology, not the definitions. They're not the same thing. There are reasons why I use allosexual instead of sexual, but when people on AVEN use the term sexual it is (usually) a term of art which is not the same definition the public at large uses.

 

For comparison, the original definition of random as an adjective is "Having no definite aim or purpose; not sent or guided in a particular direction; made, done, occurring, etc., without method or conscious choice; haphazard." but stasticians reused the word, turning it into a term of art for something different "Governed by or involving equal chances for each of the actual or hypothetical members of a population; (also) produced or obtained by a such a process, and therefore unpredictable in detail.". I don't care for the moment whether or not anyone gets the difference between those definitions. What's important is that statisticians would be aghast if someone tried to use the more popular definition in a formal paper. Actually, some statisticians are aghast when non-statisticians fail to use their more limited definition.

 

Asexuals have defined (allo)sexuals as a term of art meaning, basically, the opposite of asexuals. Asexual is also a term of art that earned it's definition less than 2 decades ago. The older definition is "involving or reproducing by reproductive processes (such as cell division, spore formation, fission, or budding) that do not involve the union of individuals or gametes." Does that sounds like anyone here? There are a few vertebrate species that are asexual, but last time I checked the news, no human has done it. It may be possible in the future, but that's another matter--and at that point I'm sure we'll have more allosexuals reproducing asexually, but that is neither here nor there.

 

So 'sexual' and 'asexual' are both terms with two meanings, one is older and much longer established, one is recently established for more specific use by the asexual community. If you want to insist that term art definition of 'sexual' is the same as that older term, then you might as well throw away the term of art definition of asexual too.

 

:. You can call me an a(n) (allo)sexual if and only if no one on AVEN, and no human, is an asexual. 

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 

To be a little more serious, is either of those definitions ideal for the term 'asexual'? (And I hadn't noticed before that AVEN had a pair of slightly different definitions, though both allow a person who doesn't experience sexual attraction to claim the term). Maybe, maybe not. I'm going to say it's imperfect, but I don't know that there's a better definition that doesn't have other issues. I also think it might be better to ask whether it would have been better to pick a different term. It throws up a lot of confusion both inside the asexual community (where it leads to confusion between different definitions of the term (allo)sexual), and outside where it confuses allosexuals who haven't heard of asexuals before.

 

For the second matter, sexual attraction, sexual desire, libido, etc, are not terms we are making up. They are terms that we are borrowing from researchers into human sexuality.

 

14 hours ago, MichaelTannock said:

Here's I think the most relevant post in the aforementioned debate,

 

Okay. I read it. It's a moot point after the above. But I'll engage with it because I had to edit my settings temporarily to read it so I'm committed.

 

"This guy is pretty much asexual by some people's definition in that he has a general desire for sex but has preference for no one sexual partner,"

 

Okay, Ficto seems to be defining sexual attraction as the same thing as sexual preference. As @Star Lion and I have been pointing out metaphorically and otherwise, it's not just a preference. In fact, there's nothing in that description that says to me that this person doesn't experience sexual attraction. Rather, he's described as someone who has sex so broadly that sexual attraction doesn't play a role in the selection of sexual partners (preference in Ficto's terminology). I don't know whether there are details that Ficto's leaving out or if that never became clear. Ficto may respond to this to say more to that point, but I won't hear if that happens. It could be that he lacks sexual attraction, or it could just be that sexual attraction doesn't produce a noticeable effect on his behavior.

 

In that case it would be difficult to tell whether or not based on actions (which is not a surefire guide to any of the -sexual identities, N.B.). For that small percent of people (to get back to the sexual behavior research, those with high accelerators and low brakes) life wouldn't look different as an asexual or an allosexual (as defined by sexual attraction). But that just goes to my questions above of whether or not we have the best term and definition. But I'm going to argue that we don't throw out the baby with the bath water, because for the other 99% or whatever percent of people the presence or absence of sexual attraction does make a difference.

 

That doesn't make think I can find a better definition of asexual any more than mathematicians think they can come up with a better set of axioms because, while they're useful 99% of time, produces paradoxes like one where (and this is provable under the mathematics we all learned in school) you can disassemble a sphere, rearrange the pieces, and create 2 spheres of the same size of the first without changing anything about those pieces except the positions. It's called the Banach–Tarski paradox 

 

8 hours ago, Alejandrogynous said:

But if you do desire sex, what's the point of hammering home just how much you're not actually into your partner, just the fucking? It just seems cruel and unnecessary. 

 

I have had this conversation with my partner. It went fine. They're asexual too, though. And, more importantly, we have a lot connecting us. I'm 'into' my partner in many ways, it's just that sexual attraction isn't one of them.

 

But, let's be honest, when it comes up it's not to hammer home the lack of attraction.It's more likely to open up to a partner because sharing about one's self creates intimacy. Or maybe (and I've read other sex-favorable asexuals talking about this as a source of problems), because the allosexual partner feels a need to be an object of sexual attraction.

As I pointed out above, though, in a long term relationship between two allosexuals cease to be sexually attracted to each other (because sexual attraction is a limited time thing that evolved, perhaps, to keep a couple together long enough to bring a child into the world way back when). We wouldn't describe them, though, as 'not actually into their partner, just the fucking.' So why describe a sex-favorable asexual in so reductive a manner?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tame One said:

In this post I intend to show that you can call me an a(n) (allo)sexual if and only if no one on AVEN, and no human, is an asexual.

I'm making dinner so can't make a proper response to you yet (though I am going to), however I just have to say that literally no one here cares how you personally identify. You could have sex with 132 separate people every day of the year, purely because you just love sex so much, and no one is going to say 'you're a sexual person, not an ace' (we are literally not allowed to say that even if we thought it was true). You can call yourself a pink fluffy unicorn for all I care, we'll accept that and won't contradict your own personal identity. This is a debate about the definition of asexuality/(allo)sexuality, and the impact those definitions have on the asexual community as a whole. No one is going to call you an (allo)sexual though, unless you yourself start identifying as such.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tame One said:

Okay, Ficto seems to be defining sexual attraction as the same thing as sexual preference.

Also, just quickly, I'm assuming you haven't actually read any of my posts based on this comment. This is not at all, in any way, what I am saying and I've never said this Y_Y

 

Sexual attraction is the draw to have sex with someone else (for pleasure) as opposed to just being completely satisfied with solo masturbation. Asexuals don't experience that, ergo they don't seek out people to fuck just for the fun of it. Easy.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Tame One said:

Asexual is also a term of art that earned it's definition less than 2 decades ago.

Asexual (as a sexual orientation wherein a person does not desire sexual contact with other people) was coined at least 3 decades ago, actually, long before David Jay came along.

 

Again, I'm still going to respond properly for the sake of others interesting in hearing my counterargument to what @Tame One has said above, but yeah. Just wanted to point this one out before I go. The term 'asexual' (to define a lack of desire for partnered sexual contact) has been in use for 3 decades at the very least, and even made it into popular culture in the 80s.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Tame One said:

"The definition of an asexual is “someone who does not experience sexual attraction or an intrinsic desire to have sexual relationships.” https://www.asexuality.org/?q=general.html#ex2

 

"An asexual is someone who does not experience sexual attraction" - http://wiki.asexuality.org/Asexuality

 

Okay, who exactly is messing with the definitions? Who? Not us. You want to change the definitions? It's probably late for that but you're welcome to try. Until then, don't act as if we're ignoring the definition. 

Yet AVEN itself (the website you are on right now) defines sexual attraction AS the desire for partnered sexual contact with someone else. So when they say 'an asexual does not experience sexual attraction' they mean 'an asexual does not desire sexual contact with someone else'. No one is trying to change the definitions, we are just going by 1) common sense based on how sexual people define their own sexual attraction and 2) AVENs own definition of sexual attraction which coincides with how sexual people experience it (a draw to seek partnered sex with other people).

 

2 hours ago, Tame One said:

There are reasons why I use allosexual instead of sexual, but when people on AVEN use the term sexual it is (usually) a term of art which is not the same definition the public at large uses.

There are quite a few sexual people here who find the term 'allosexual' to be distasteful. The 'allo' means 'outside of oneself' or 'other than oneself', and is actually the opposite of autosexual (meaning someone who wants to have sex with themselves). Due to all that, many people choose to use the term 'sexual' to describe someone who isn't asexual. The 'A' means 'without', so if you take the A away, you're left with 'sexual'. Easy.

 

2 hours ago, Tame One said:

Asexuals have defined (allo)sexuals as a term of art meaning, basically, the opposite of asexuals.

Again, no, it's the opposite of autosexual. But moving on.

 

2 hours ago, Tame One said:

Asexual is also a term of art that earned it's definition less than 2 decades ago

I'll reiterate that it's been in use to define someone who doesn't desire partnered sexual contact for at least 3 decades. And in the 1800s/early 1900s it was used to define someone who would these days be described as androgynous. Yes the term is also used in biology but there are many words in existence that have multiple different meanings depending on the context they're being used in.

 

2 hours ago, Tame One said:

(And I hadn't noticed before that AVEN had a pair of slightly different definitions, though both allow a person who doesn't experience sexual attraction to claim the term).

Yes but again, it comes down to how one is defining sexual attraction. Many people define it completely incorrectly, in a way that does not apply to the average sexual person. Many of the sexual people here find a lot of the definitions of sexual attraction used by aces to be hilarious because they're so inaccurate. But it's sad at the same time because said definitions are taken so seriously by some people here. 

 

2 hours ago, Tame One said:

For the second matter, sexual attraction, sexual desire, libido, etc, are not terms we are making up. They are terms that we are borrowing from researchers into human sexuality.

And even many of them argue about how said terms should be defined.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Tame One said:

Okay, Ficto seems to be defining sexual attraction as the same thing as sexual preference. As @Star Lion and I have been pointing out metaphorically and otherwise, it's not just a preference. In fact, there's nothing in that description that says to me that this person doesn't experience sexual attraction. Rather, he's described as someone who has sex so broadly that sexual attraction doesn't play a role in the selection of sexual partners (preference in Ficto's terminology). I don't know whether there are details that Ficto's leaving out or if that never became clear. Ficto may respond to this to say more to that point, but I won't hear if that happens. It could be that he lacks sexual attraction, or it could just be that sexual attraction doesn't produce a noticeable effect on his behavior.

The fact is, some people (ahem) are defining asexuality as: the sexual orientation in which you will fuck anyone without preference. I gave an example of someone who would technically be asexual by that definition. Different topic though.

 

2 hours ago, Tame One said:

(as defined by sexual attraction).

Define sexual attraction? Maybe I missed it, but I still haven't seen you define sexual attraction in a way that actually applies to sexual people.

 

2 hours ago, Tame One said:

That doesn't make think I can find a better definition of asexual any more than mathematicians think they can come up with a better set of axioms because,

Asexual: Lack of an innate desire to connect sexually with others for sexual and/or emotional pleasure. Bam, there's your better definition (purely because it's much easier to get confused over).

 

[Guest]

This next part is just

 

 

3 hours ago, Tame One said:

Quote

But if you do desire sex, what's the point of hammering home just how much you're not actually into your partner, just the fucking? It just seems cruel and unnecessary. 

I have had this conversation with my partner. It went fine. They're asexual too, though. And, more importantly, we have a lot connecting us. I'm 'into' my partner in many ways, it's just that sexual attraction isn't one of them.

sigh

 

3 hours ago, Tame One said:

It went fine.

...because

 

3 hours ago, Tame One said:

They're asexual too

...So, as a result of identifying as asexual and being in a relationship with you... they're obviously of the same opinion as you already if they identify as asexual for the same reasons as you do. And if they're an asexual who compromises and gives you (another asexual..) sex because you want it, then ...wait, no. I'm just not even going to bother.

 

3 hours ago, Tame One said:

And, more importantly, we have a lot connecting us. I'm 'into' my partner in many ways, it's just that sexual attraction isn't one of them.

Again, how exactly are you defining sexual attraction here? Because believe me, many sexual people are into their partners in all sorts of ways. That doesn't mean they start gagging for sex every time they lay eyes on them or however you're defining it. Sure, some sexual people do experience that. But there are many (especially women) who certainly don't get aroused or want sex just from looking at or being near the person they are in love with. 

 

3 hours ago, Tame One said:

It's more likely to open up to a partner because sharing about one's self creates intimacy.

Believe me, there are many people (sexual and ace) who will be really fucking offended if you say to them 'I just want to fuck your body but don't find you attractive'.. that's generally not that conductive to emotional intimacy. Ahem. But you know what? There are actually plenty of sexual people who place no value on appearance at all and truly just enjoy the feelings of partnered sex, so they may not mind so much if you tell them you don't find them attractive but you still want to stick your cock in them. It probably won't be that intimate but meh, you both got to get off using each other's bodies, right? *shrug*. Again though, that's still a sexual trait, not an asexual one.

 

3 hours ago, Tame One said:

As I pointed out above, though, in a long term relationship between two allosexuals cease to be sexually attracted to each other (because sexual attraction is a limited time thing that evolved, perhaps, to keep a couple together long enough to bring a child into the world way back when). We wouldn't describe them, though, as 'not actually into their partner, just the fucking.' So why describe a sex-favorable asexual in so reductive a manner?

Er, if they're still enjoying sexual intimacy (even if they're old and wrinkly or whatever) we'd describe them as a couple who has maintained a healthy sex life? 

 

This next part is gold:

 

3 hours ago, Tame One said:

We wouldn't describe them, though, as 'not actually into their partner, just the fucking.' So why describe a sex-favorable asexual in so reductive a manner?

....because you've literally just tried to hammer home multiple times that a 'sex-favourable asexual' is into the fucking but not into their partner?

 

Or wait, are you saying (I think you might be saying) that a 'sex-favourable asexual' is into their partner for a number of reasons, and enjoys sexual intimacy with their partner as an aspect of that connection because sex feels good and it's fun and intimate? ....Which would mean...

 

....that you're actually talking about very normal, very average sexual behavior. Not asexual behavior. 

 

[iff]

3 hours ago, Tame One said:

They're asexual too, though. And, more importantly, we have a lot connecting us. I'm 'into' my partner in many ways, it's just that sexual attraction isn't one of them

Do you and your partner have sex? If so, why?

[Kaira Aitken]

On 12/6/2018 at 5:17 PM, Tame One said:

 

I've kind of checked out from this conversation. Because I'm totally lost. Have been for several posts now.

Edited December 7, 2018 by Kaira Aitken
I accidentally quoted a message I didn't want to quote

[Sally]

11 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

Which is another reason to define asexuality in terms of "not experiencing sexual desire". 

No, it isn't.  Some asexuals experience arousal/libido/desire, but not for partnered sex.  They're apt to satisfy their arousal/libido/desire with masturbation.  

 

The simplest way to define asexuality = not wanting partnered sex with anyone.  Period.  That way you don't have to get on the "attraction/desire" merry-go-round.   And it's REAL easy to explain to anyone: "I don't want sex."  

[everywhere and nowhere]

2 hours ago, Sally said:

No, it isn't.  Some asexuals experience arousal/libido/desire, but not for partnered sex.  They're apt to satisfy their arousal/libido/desire with masturbation.  

 

The simplest way to define asexuality = not wanting partnered sex with anyone.  Period.  That way you don't have to get on the "attraction/desire" merry-go-round.   And it's REAL easy to explain to anyone: "I don't want sex."  

To be honest, I personally understand "not experiencing sexual desire" as synonymous with "not wanting to have sex". And certainly the latter is closest to my experience of asexuality. I do have a libido, may experience desireless sexual-ish attraction, but absolutely don't want and can't want to have sex with anyone.

[letusdeleteouraccounts]

6 hours ago, Sally said:

No, it isn't.  Some asexuals experience arousal/libido/desire, but not for partnered sex.  They're apt to satisfy their arousal/libido/desire with masturbation.  

 

The simplest way to define asexuality = not wanting partnered sex with anyone.  Period.  That way you don't have to get on the "attraction/desire" merry-go-round.   And it's REAL easy to explain to anyone: "I don't want sex."  

Um, that’s a preference though. Asexuality is not experiencing sexual attraction towards anyone ever. Some asexuals really don’t care if they have sex or not

[R_1]

7 hours ago, Sally said:

No, it isn't.  Some asexuals experience arousal/libido/desire, but not for partnered sex.  They're apt to satisfy their arousal/libido/desire with masturbation.  

 

The simplest way to define asexuality = not wanting partnered sex with anyone.  Period.  That way you don't have to get on the "attraction/desire" merry-go-round.   And it's REAL easy to explain to anyone: "I don't want sex."  

But, then here we have a issue though it can be solved easily. The main issue is that not wanting sex could be due to external reason rather than having to do with internal motivations. External reason like you don't want the risk of the possibility conceiving a baby with gene-related issue, or spreading incurable STD (resistant STDs and those whose cure have yet to be found)...

 

So, if you define asexuality as prolonged state of being in which one does not want partnered sex  as if it was a default state. That would be pretty accurate and least problematic. Prolonged here means seemingly a permanent state of being, so that would include former sexuals that are very unlikely to go back, and born-this-way asexuals. Default means that it has nothing to do with external reason and the like, it is just the absence of sexuality.

[Jion]

Sorry, this thread is a bit strange for me, if you are asexual, why would you want to have sex with anyone and go searching for it? It's like a claimed straight woman looking for other women to have sex with or a claimed gay guy sleeping around with women in the sense that it's not really the behavior of the sexuality.

 

In that sense, what is sex positive asexuality? I can understand indifference but using the above analogy, why go out of your way to do something with someone you just don't see in that way when you can just masturbate it off? Unless by positive you mean that yeah it feels good and nothing more???

 

This is too confusing...

 

Also hi, I stopped lurking.

[Charna]

12 hours ago, Tame One said:

As I pointed out above, though, in a long term relationship between two allosexuals cease to be sexually attracted to each other (because sexual attraction is a limited time thing that evolved, perhaps, to keep a couple together long enough to bring a child into the world way back when). We wouldn't describe them, though, as 'not actually into their partner, just the fucking.' So why describe a sex-favorable asexual in so reductive a manner?

This reminds me of an online discussion with a guy, who claimed he was homosexual despite occasionally having sex with women. According to him, this didn't mean he was bisexual; he was only taking a swim in the pool from time to time. (I don't recall the exact words, only that he used some weird pool analogy)

[Charna]

7 minutes ago, Jion said:

Sorry, this thread is a bit strange for me, if you are asexual, why would you want to have sex with anyone and go searching for it? It's like a claimed straight woman looking for other women to have sex with or a claimed gay guy sleeping around with women in the sense that it's not really the behavior of the sexuality.

 

Hah, just read your post, seems that I'm not the only one to have met such people. And hi !

[R_1]

10 minutes ago, Charna said:

This reminds me of an online discussion with a guy, who claimed he was homosexual despite occasionally having sex with women. According to him, this didn't mean he was bisexual; he was only taking a swim in the pool from time to time. (I don't recall the exact words, only that he used some weird pool analogy)

It sounds like he prefers the feeling of sex to just taking care of himself, and he would have sex with women to satisfy the needs of sex. I think we had a long discussion about these people, and I still maintain the position that sometimes masturbation just isn't a option if they don't want that for reasons. Some people just don't get that sexual release using masturbation or something.

[Charna]

2 minutes ago, R_1 said:

It sounds like he prefers the feeling of sex to just taking care of himself, and he would have sex with women to satisfy the needs of sex. I think we had a long discussion about these people, and I still maintain the position that sometimes masturbation just isn't a option if they don't want that for reasons.

Well, he had a male partner and his explanation was that he simply liked the occasional sex with women. But at the same time, according to him, he was gay and not bisexual.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Star Lion said:

Um, that’s a preference though. Asexuality is not experiencing sexual attraction towards anyone ever. Some asexuals really don’t care if they have sex or not

Sexual attraction is the draw to seek sex with someone else, with another person other than yourself, for sexual and/or emotional pleasure. It manifests in many different ways for many different people, but at its core it's the need to seek someone else (different people have different criteria on how they choose partners) to share sexual pleasure with. 

 

However yes some asexuals (even the asexual you responded to in the comment I quoted) do have sex and maybe don't care much about that one way or another. Maybe because they want to make their partner happy, maybe because they want a baby, all kinds of external reasons. It's only sexual attraction if it's motivated by an actual need within oneself to experience sexual release/pleasure with another person.

 

Simple

[Guest]

 I wanted to avoid this part because it's just ... urgh. But it was directed at me as I did ask you to explain your idea of sexual attraction, so here goes: 

 

On 12/7/2018 at 1:30 AM, Star Lion said:

Some of them will go out and look for somebody that is willing to have sex with them so they can experience that pleasure again. A pansexual might enjoy or dislike sex, but eventually they will run into a person that triggers their involuntary sexual desire causing an emotional response throughout their body (and being pansexual, the person triggering the emotional response of sexual desire can be of any gender).

On 12/7/2018 at 1:30 AM, Star Lion said:

The (sex-favorable) asexual doesn’t have that involuntary desire, they just enjoy sex and some are willing to search for a person willing to help them enjoy it.

On 12/7/2018 at 1:30 AM, Star Lion said:

 

(Sex-favorable) Asexual: No person triggers sexual desire but they enjoy sex

 So you're saying that an asexual doesn't experience sexual attraction, and that sexual attraction is something that triggers a spontaneous desire to have sex with someone else.

 

Did you know there are people (especially many women due to how female sexual arousal often works) who can't 'spontaniously' want sex just from being near someone or seeing someone attractive or whatever?? For some women especially, sex just isn't something they can desire for until they've experienced adequate foreplay (which can sometimes take up to an hour or more) which gets their bodies and minds ready to open up to you sexually. There's times when it just won't work and they end up just saying 'sorry, I can't get in the mood, I just don't want it'..even after a fair amount of foreplay. Other times (depending on a number of different factors) the same lady may be 'switched on' by the same foreplay actions (done by the same person) and can actively start wanting to connect sexually once you've gone through those ropes with her. But many women can't just spontaneously want to fuck people based on personality or aspects of their appearance or whatever. I mean, looked at like that, even I don't experience that. I just know I could enjoy sexual intimacy with this or that person once a mental connection has developed with them, just for the enjoyment and fun of the act. But I'm not gagging for sex just from seeing or thinking about them or anything. They'd still need to get me aroused before I could actually actively want that sexual intimacy with them and if that failed, I still wouldn't actively want sex. I mean, that's honestly not that uncommon for women especially. Our sexuality isn't defined by who we spontaneously want to fuck, lol, well ..I'm sure it is for some people. But for others a lot more goes into it than that.

 

Tl;dr

 

Spontaneous desire for this or that person is a trait that some sexual people have and some don't. For others, sex might just be an enjoyable aspect of a pre-established bond, fun with friends, something enjoyed with strangers because sex just feels really good, whatever. The one thing all these experiences have in common is an underlying desire to connect sexually with others, regardless of how or why someone is choosing certain partners and not others.

[R_1]

@Ficto. Can I ask what about using my definition of asexuality I just brought up, and the negation of that is sexual? That would be clear, but it does erase grey-sexual where desire just don't exactly describe their feeling. Like, not knowing what they want and recognizing it.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, R_1 said:

It sounds like he prefers the feeling of sex to just taking care of himself, and he would have sex with women to satisfy the needs of sex. I think we had a long discussion about these people, and I still maintain the position that sometimes masturbation just isn't a option if they don't want that for reasons. Some people just don't get that sexual release using masturbation or something.

 

In these cases someone's drive for partnered sex is overriding their gender preferences, that's all. If they didn't have that innate desire to seek others out for sex they truly would just masturbate. I think also in a lot of those cases (where someone who claims to be a straight man might actively be seeking out men to have ex with just for pleasure) it comes down to the person not being willing to let go of the label they love so much. We see it happening on AVEN all the time. People become so attached to their label that it becomes like, their identity (as opposed to them being a separate thing from a mere word), and they get actually scared of or upset by the idea of maybe losing that label. Ergo I can see why a lesbian woman or a gay man might not want to admit they're bi even if they're actively seeking out people of a gender other than their own to have sex with. Or why a straight man or woman might not want to admit or even consider the idea they might be bi.  

 

Regarding your definition of asexuality, I don't see why the definition needs to be changed at all as long as people start defining sexual attraction accurately, lol. If someone has lived for years being 100% ace even if maybe a few times 20 years ago they did feel more heterosexual, well.. there's nothing really wrong with them identifying as ace now? I can't see why it would be a problem. It's when people start claiming that asexuality as an identity means 'will fuck anything because I just love sex so much' that I take issue because it's just so fundamentally flawed on so many levels 

 

[R_1]

@Ficto.

 

The reason why I put out that definition is that it's the one definition of asexuality with the least amount of problem. There's the clear word which would be the default state. Think of default as something like babies are atheist/asexual (before any one get offended, I am trying to clarify what I mean by default, and this is a pretty good example of what I mean by default state). So, sexuality is arguably anything that goes in contradiction of the default feeling of the absence of inclination to engage into partnered sex activity.

 

Asexuality: The indefinite state of being in which one do not have the inclination to engage into partnered sexual activities by default as if it was a natural state of being.

Sexuality: ~Asexuality - Indefinite state of being in which one at least every once in a few year have the inclination to engage into partnered sexual activity for one's own sexual gratification or emotional gratification.

[Sally]

10 hours ago, R_1 said:

But, then here we have a issue though it can be solved easily. The main issue is that not wanting sex could be due to external reason rather than having to do with internal motivations. External reason like you don't want the risk of the possibility conceiving a baby with gene-related issue, or spreading incurable STD (resistant STDs and those whose cure have yet to be found)...

 

So, if you define asexuality as prolonged state of being in which one does not want partnered sex  as if it was a default state. That would be pretty accurate and least problematic. Prolonged here means seemingly a permanent state of being, so that would include former sexuals that are very unlikely to go back, and born-this-way asexuals. Default means that it has nothing to do with external reason and the like, it is just the absence of sexuality.

No.  If you don't want to have sex because you don't want a baby, then what you don't want is a baby.   That's not an innate lack of wanting to have sex with another person.   

[R_1]

7 minutes ago, Sally said:

No.  If you don't want to have sex because you don't want a baby, then what you don't want is a baby.   That's not an innate lack of wanting to have sex with another person.   

I don't think you know what I mean by default. By default merely implies the absence of something as if it was not there. Hence why I mentioned babies are atheists/asexual, and that's what I mean by default state of being. Do they have any conception of theology or feelings of reverence to the supernatural? No. And without a society that promotes theism, that's what they would be, and the state of being reflects that. Prolonged state/Indefinite state of being implies that it's going to stay that way with zero chance of being positive regardless of one's born that way or not. Inclination is there to eliminate the issues with want, desire, and attraction.

[Sally]

16 minutes ago, R_1 said:

I don't think you know what I mean by default. By default merely implies the absence of something as if it was not there. Hence why I mentioned babies are atheists/asexual, and that's what I mean by default state of being. Do they have any conception of theology or feelings of reverence to the supernatural? No. And without a society that promotes theism, that's what they would be, and the state of being reflects that. Prolonged state/Indefinite state of being implies that it's going to stay that way with zero chance of being positive regardless of one's born that way or not. Inclination is there to eliminate the issues with want, desire, and attraction.

You were talking about not wanting sex because of not wanting to have a baby, and now you're talking about whether babies are atheists/asexual?   You've jumped issues and it kind of doesn't make any sense.  

[R_1]

6 minutes ago, Sally said:

You were talking about not wanting sex because of not wanting to have a baby, and now you're talking about whether babies are atheists/asexual?   You've jumped issues and it kind of doesn't make any sense.  

I'm talking about defining asexuality as the absence of inclination to engage into partnered sexual activity by default. External reasons would not make any one less asexual, and without external reasons, there's like nothing there. There still would be no internal inclination when there would be external reasons. That's why I brought up the babies are atheists/asexual analogy to try to clarify what I mean by default, but apparently that doesn't help clarify.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, R_1 said:

Asexuality: The indefinite state of being in which one do not have the inclination to engage into partnered sexual activities by default as if it was a natural state of being.

Sexuality: ~Asexuality - Indefinite state of being in which one at least every once in a few year have the inclination to engage into partnered sexual activity for one's own sexual gratification or emotional gratification.

But isn't it simpler just to say 'no innate desire to connect sexually with others' because that's saying the same thing with fewer words. I mean, if that's your preferred definition you're free to use it (you don't need to ask me!) I just personally can't see how it's any different than the innate desire one. Innate means it's already within you, as opposed to being something caused by external factors. 

 

1 hour ago, R_1 said:

I don't think you know what I mean by default. By default merely implies the absence of something as if it was not there. Hence why I mentioned babies are atheists/asexual, and that's what I mean by default state of being.

Default in this context means pretty much the same thing as innate or intrinsic. It's something that already existed within one. An asexual has the 'default' of a lack of desire to connect sexually with others (even if they choose to have sex with people for other reasons, like to have a baby or make a partner happy), that's just their natural state of being.. I suppose, yes, like a baby that hasn't developed sexuality yet even though it feels a bit strange putting it that way

A sexual person has the ability within them to desire that partnered sexual connection (for pleasure) under the right circumstances.

 

I personally think most asexuals are still quite different than the sexless state a newborn baby is born in, just because asexuals may still develop a strong libido and masturbate and stuff, but they still don't have an innate desire to connect sexually with others despite that high libido. I mean, hmmm..an asexual has still been through puberty, which is what separates them from the state of being a sexless baby. Still though, like I'm saying, if for you it's easier to think of it like that then I'm not going to argue because (I think) you're still pretty much saying the same thing: that it's about an innate lack of desire, you're just using the term 'default' instead.

 

1 hour ago, R_1 said:

I'm talking about defining asexuality as the absence of inclination to engage into partnered sexual activity by default. External reasons would not make any one less asexual, and without external reasons, there's like nothing there. There still would be no internal inclination when there would be external reasons. That's why I brought up the babies are atheists/asexual analogy to try to clarify what I mean by default, but apparently that doesn't help clarify.

 

I do understand what you mean myself, again I just think that 'by default' and 'innate' pretty much mean the same thing! They are both set states within one, if that makes sense?