Jump to content

Potentially conflicting definitions of asexuality


everywhere and nowhere

Are you asexual according to the two most common definitions of asexuality (see below)?  

132 members have voted

  1. 1. Depending on how you personally interpret these definitions, do you meet both, one or neither of them?

    • I am asexual according to BOTH definitions (I experience neither sexual attraction nor desire).
      100
    • I am asexual according to the FIRST definition, but NOT the SECOND (I desire sex, but don't experience sexual attraction).
      17
    • I am asexual according to the SECOND definition, but NOT the FIRST (I experience sexual attraction, but don't want to have sex).
      13
    • I am NOT asexual according to EITHER definition (I experience sexual attraction and desire for partnered sex).
      2

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

But I thought sexual attraction was desire for partnered sex?? Like with a specific person? And that libido was separate from that? If that's not what sexual attraction is, then what the fuck is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Grumpy Alien
2 minutes ago, Transformed said:

But I thought sexual attraction was desire for partnered sex?? Like with a specific person? And that libido was separate from that? If that's not what sexual attraction is, then what the fuck is it?

That depends on who you ask!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be considered asexual according to either definition, but I prefer the second one. I don't see how it makes sense to say that somebody who wants to have sex with someone else, for their own sake and not for any pragmatic reason or for the sake of someone they're in a relationship with, to be asexual. It muddies the definition to the point of rendering it nearly meaningless, at which point it's no longer helpful.

 

On 4/24/2019 at 2:24 AM, Sally said:

Asexuality = not wanting to have sex with any other person.   Period.  

This one, however, seems to me the most clear definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/23/2019 at 11:24 PM, Sally said:

Asexuality = not wanting to have sex with any other person.   Period.  

 

23 minutes ago, Remmirath said:

This one, however, seems to me the most clear definition.

Although there are asexual people who want to have sex to please their partner, or sometimes they even like sex. So while that's probably a better definition, it's still not totally accurate. 

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

Although there are asexual people who want to have sex to please their partner, or sometimes they even like sex. So while that's probably a better definition, it's still not totally accurate. 

The first one I can understand even if it's something I'd never consider doing myself, but there are plenty of things people might not strictly want to do but will do for other reasons. I don't think that disqualifies the definition, and I'd definitely consider people who do that to be asexual. Not wanting to do something but doing it anyway for a reason (either to please someone else, or to achieve a goal) isn't that uncommon.

 

However, I really don't see how someone can be asexual and like having sex with other people. It's not an expansion of the definition that makes sense. It's actually contrary to the definition. What's the point of being considered asexual if you like to have sex with people? What does it get you, aside from confusion? Plus, expanding the definition that far makes asexuality look from the outside like a completely meaningless category, and furthers the misconception some have that most asexuals actually just like sex less. I get that there are people who don't fall neatly into being either asexual or sexual, but I don't think the answer is to lump them all into the asexual category; liking sex or wanting to have it with people only sometimes is much more towards being sexual than not. A third intermediary category would probably be the best solution, but I there's a bigger difference between not wanting to do something at all and wanting to do it only rarely than there is between only wanting to do something rarely and wanting to do it frequently, so if it's a question of two categories then 'not wanting to do it at all' and 'wanting to do it, no matter how much or how often' are the ones that make the most sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 7:58 AM, HonoraryJedi said:

I am technically autochorissexual, which fits the second definition but not the first. The attraction definition always confused me a lot. Especially since the first things I saw when looking into asexuality was visibility for more sex-indifferent and positive aces "Remember asexuality only means lack of sexual attraction" "Remember that you can be asexual and still be ok with having sex." "Remember you can be asexual and still enjoy sex" <-- Not at all like my experience. I just... don't want to have sex. So I spent some time wondering if I could call myself ace at all, but I figure I can. Especially now since the second definition has started showing up.

 

But I do recognise that someone could fall into just the first category, still be asexual, and have an experience that is very far from my own. Me and the 'no attraction but enjoys sex' person are very different types of aces.

I feel so related to this, Im also kind of an autochorissexual, I struggled with sexual atraction a loooot just like you since I read about it. ---"Remember asexuality only means lack of sexual attraction" "Remember that you can be asexual and still be ok with having sex." "Remember you can be asexual and still enjoy sex"---<< I remembered me saying about 2 years ago "How can a full asexual feel better than me, who can feel sexual atraction at some level?" Just two days ago, or even less I started thinking how they could feel good without even fantasizing. And that was it, they lack psychological arousal. But aegos don't. So, we actually feel the same way while having sex, but for them, that's the best sex they can get. But aegos can masturbate while fantazasing, which means psychological arousal + physiological arousalwhich feels actually good. We instictively know how sex should feel like, but the one we expirience it's not nearly as good as expected, that's when we feel disatisfied "Why would I want sex if it feels like drinking water when you are actually hungry? I can satisfie myself better"

Trying to masturbate imagining a person I like feels like trying to masturbate to an apple, having sex feels the same. Fantasizing to stuff feels good. sexual atraction is focused in fantasies instead of people. OK, well,  Im ace 😂 That pretty much made it for me, there's no way I can keep questioning that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere

@cigarettesatmidnight - I can definitely relate to what you write, except for the "sex we experience" part. For me there's no sex I could experience, because I'm definitely autochorissexual too, but also fully sex-averse when it comes to the issue of personally having sex.

Although, to be honest, I experience another level of conflict due to my autochorissexuality. Yes, perhaps "I instinctively know what sex should feel like" and I can imagine passionate sex between people who aren't me - but the fact that I enjoy it makes me feel that it would be hypocritical to identify as sex-negative. Which I sometimes feel tempted to do. Perhaps I'm anyway also technically sex-neutral because I don't believe that sex has any inherent moral value outside of a context - "sex as such" has zero moral value, only an individual sex act could be judged as "good", "bad", "neutral"... But I have a lot of sex-negative instincts, for example my generally pessimistic outlook on how having sex and relationships with men is not in women's interest. Or how, if we could know about the circumstances of every single sex act happening on Earth within one month, for example - I really feel that not a large proportion could be judged as entirely consensual, free of coercion and mutually wanted...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 5:02 AM, Nowhere Girl said:

@cigarettesatmidnight - I can definitely relate to what you write, except for the "sex we experience" part. For me there's no sex I could experience, because I'm definitely autochorissexual too, but also fully sex-averse when it comes to the issue of personally having sex.

Although, to be honest, I experience another level of conflict due to my autochorissexuality. Yes, perhaps "I instinctively know what sex should feel like" and I can imagine passionate sex between people who aren't me - but the fact that I enjoy it makes me feel that it would be hypocritical to identify as sex-negative. Which I sometimes feel tempted to do. Perhaps I'm anyway also technically sex-neutral because I don't believe that sex has any inherent moral value outside of a context - "sex as such" has zero moral value, only an individual sex act could be judged as "good", "bad", "neutral"... But I have a lot of sex-negative instincts, for example my generally pessimistic outlook on how having sex and relationships with men is not in women's interest. Or how, if we could know about the circumstances of every single sex act happening on Earth within one month, for example - I really feel that not a large proportion could be judged as entirely consensual, free of coercion and mutually wanted...

No, I don't think you should feel like that. I get what you mean though, Im really masturbation-negative in a sense, I still do it and enjoy it 😓. As for sex, I used to be really possitive about it. Like "That's the normal thing you have to do to get pleasure." I don't think sex is bad. People is. Sex is an action that by itself is harmless. Every single action depends on the person. Even killing can be seen as something good depending on the context.

 

 

 

PD: I said "I used to think sex was possitive" It's entirely due to not being able to do it myself 🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites
RiverSongTwin
On 5/10/2019 at 7:17 PM, Transformed said:

But I thought sexual attraction was desire for partnered sex?? Like with a specific person? And that libido was separate from that? If that's not what sexual attraction is, then what the fuck is it?

   It's a bit like it is with food to me. You could eat something because you're hungry (libido). You could eat something even though you're not hungry, just because you're craving it (sexual attraction). But it could also be that you're neither hungry nor craving, but there's ice cream around, so you eat it.

But maybe you don't because you don't like ice cream at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
chairdesklamp

I claim grey, and am worried about being dogpiled because the first fits me, but the second is more like I want to want it. I never have enjoyed it, but can't say for sure if that wasn't partially because of abusive partnerships (basically, it seems my choice is be alone or be abused, so I've jumped into relationships hoping I was wrong about what would happen. I really need to be okay with being alone because that's the only other choice I apparently get) and how much of it was based on how I feel about me having sex vs how I felt about them. 

 

So I can't actually say if I could find sex better than "oh, joy. I must now perform" (and usually failing, and often feeling disgust) with the right person, but I would want to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...

I think the second definition disregards people who are sex positive. Doing a shared activity that can feel good (orgasm) can be nice even if you aren’t sexually attracted to the other person.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
10 hours ago, Purple2 said:

I think the second definition disregards people who are sex positive. Doing a shared activity that can feel good (orgasm) can be nice even if you aren’t sexually attracted to the other person.

I don't ignore the existence of such people (although I really have doubts if its has much to do with asexuality), but that's not what "sex-positive" means. Sex positvity is a political stance. I am neither sex-favourable to any extent nor sex-positive, but I will continue reminding it because there are people who are politically sex-positive while not being personally open to having sex. Yes, I still think that there is an increased pressure on asexuals to "at least" be sex-positive, but if that's someone's honest stance, it's fine.

What you meant is probably "sex-favourable", but this term is extremely muddled. It's used at least in two meanings:

a) open to having sex (more than "sex-indifferent") even if not actively desiring it.

b) actively desiring sex while being blind to sexually attractive traits in partners.

The first is "sex-favourable asexuality", sure. The second is what is called "desire without attraction", or "cupiosexuality" and I don't think that it's asexual. Asexuality is about not desiring sex - a characteristic which shapes our lives to a high degree - and not about what do we personally think about sexual attractiveness. Which is why I believe more and more that insistence on the attraction-based definition is a mistake. A lot of people just misunderstand it, particularly believe that sexual attraction can only be based on appearance, and thus one of the most harmful misunderstandings of asexuality is born: that asexuals are, supposedly, people who can desire sex "just like everyone else" (to me it's obvious that not "everyone else" desires sex), but don't care about appearance.

People who desire sex, even if in an admittedly more or less untypical way ("desire without attraction") will do fine. People who don't want to have sex are much more vulnerable and obviously already under a lot of sociocultural pressure to have sex anyway, because never having sex is not recognised as a valid - or even possible - lifestyle. So people really should be careful about the message a particular understanding of asexuality does convey. I have nothing against aces who are able to enjoy sex, but I also want people to recognise that for some asexuals, including myself, asexuality means not being open to sex with any person, under any circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

@Nowhere Girl

 

This poll is being locked and moved to the read only Census archive for it's respective year. As part of ongoing Census organisation, and in an attempt to keep the demographics of the polls current with the active user base at the time, the polls will last for one year from now on. However, members are allowed and even encouraged to restart new polls similar to the archived ones if they like them.

  

iff, Census Forum Moderator

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...