Definition Debates

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Whatsis said:

I've no beef w/ you, @Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) -- I did agree with Kimmie on (many of) the sexuals here on AVEN, if you want to re-read the first part of my comment. 

The part where you said 'who self-ID as such' seemed to be implying that they don't know if they're sexual or not (in my brain I mean), so I'm sorry if I misread you. I'm really tired and was watching Netflix on my phone without my glasses on for the past 3+ hours.. let's just say that was a really bad idea lol.

 

And mmm, beef 🤤

[firewallflower]

I'm mostly in the effectively synonyms/sexual spectrum camps myself; for the last question, I went with all of the above because my feelings on definition debates go all over the place. Generally, though, find them useful and thought-provoking, and appreciate them and the people who engage in them.

 

Though I might wish for a gentler welcome to new members who inadvertently open worm cans in first posts - maybe sharing a link to a debate thread rather than taking the debate to the new thread? Dream on, @firewallflower...

[Karst]

I see "sexual" and "asexual" as being endpoints of a single spectrum, with the various demi/grey labels falling in the middle. 

 

As for the question of who gets to define things, I think that we need the input of both asexual and sexual folks, so that we can have an open discussion of feelings and experiences.  It's impossible to categorize something without points of comparison.

[daveb]

Just speaking for myself, I find the debates a bit silly and pointless (sometimes they remind me of the Monty Python argument clinic skit). Everyone has their own point of view, and I have no problem with that. I also have my own point of view on what asexuality means to me in my own case. That's good enough for me. I have no need or desire to "correct" other people's views and ideas on this. Live and let live is my motto.  

[Rynn]

I tend to avoid definition debates, because I am very much in two minds about them. I feel very strongly about this issue, but I don't want to hurt anyone who's on the other side of the debate, so I often choose to say nothing. In this post, I will probably say some things that will hurt some people, possibly on both sides of the debate.

 

The central conflict is not between attraction versus desire; it's between setting a hard definition of asexuality versus not doing so. The attraction camp, due to the inherent vagueness of the term, represents not setting a hard limit on who can identify as ace, and the desire camp represents the hard limit. While I am much more drawn to the desire camp, I don't know if I'm on the right side of history for choosing that one.

 

On the one hand, like @Serran, @AceMissBehaving @CBC and @Whatsis have said before, I need the word 'asexuality' to actually mean something (you don't desire sex/experience sexual attraction, effectively synonyms, I think, probably, but I've never experienced either, so how would I know?) and I need the word to be taken seriously. That 'need' comes from a place of hurt, from the times when it wasn't taken seriously, with serious consequences for my well-being. 

When people go around saying they're ace but still love having sex all the time, I'm scared 'normal' people will hear that and take asexuality less seriously. If people still expect aces to want sex 'like a normal person', then what are we fighting for here? What’s the point of all the awareness and visibility activism? There has to be a line drawn somewhere, right?

If you had self-identified lesbians going around saying how they loved having sex with men and that didn’t make them any less lesbian, confirming to men that they should continue pursuing lesbians sexually, you bet other lesbians would be hurt by that (emotionally & very probably in some cases also physically)  and would speak up about it, right? It's the same for us.

 

On the other hand, I feel like a douche for feeling that way. Who am I to tell people how to describe and label their experiences? I can’t experience other people’s emotions. I can’t ever truly know why they’ve chosen to identify with the label that they did. How far can we push our own definitions of words before we have to accept that some other people experience attraction/desire differently than us, and are not simply wrong in their usage of the words? How do we tell the difference between those who are confused and wrong about themselves (because yes that does happen), and those that really do fall in between the cracks of the available words and labels, and pick a side based on what feels closest to right to them?

 

I can't help but compare the ace definition debate to the debate between 'truscum' and nonbinary people. And in that debate I'm on the nonbinary side (obviously). People who don't want nb's to identify as trans do that from a similar place of hurt. They want to be taken seriously as the gender they are, and want to draw the line somewhere, so that not everyone can just identify as trans willy-nilly. And with that, they disregard the hurt and dysphoria that nb people experience, and pile more hurt on top of that themselves.

 

Maybe ultimately the issue is that we (aces) have been so culturally invisible for so long, that now that we've gained some visibility, there is still only space in most people's minds for one image of what asexuality can be. So, since all of us want to be seen as what we are, we are all trying to make that one representation of 'the asexual' resemble ourselves as closely as possible.

I don't mean to make this sound trivial. What people assume about us determines how they will treat us. When someone tries to alter that image of asexuality to make it resemble you less, you feel threatened, because in truth, you are. Their actions will influence how people will see you, and therefore treat you, in the future. I don’t want to be treated like a regular sexual after I come out as ace. I want to be believed.

 

(But we aren't all alike. One image isn’t enough.)

 

People pose this exact argument when it comes to nb's. "They make trans people look bad, hurting the trans community/ 'real' trans people." 

My counter-argument to that is that the existence of nb's isn't what causes the hate, shitty people who react to trans people in shitty ways are. Even the existence of self-identified NB’s who turn out to be wrong about their identities should not be blamed for the hate trans people receive. Questioning and confusion and mistakes are inevitable. They should not be vilified. They’re par for the course in any identity-based community.

 

Does my own counter-argument work against my own feelings on the definition of asexuality?

"The existence of people who claim the asexual label while still experiencing either sexual attraction or desire in some way, aren't what causes shitty people to not take asexuality seriously; the blame for that should be entirely on said shitty people."

 

Is that sentence true? Probably, at least partially. But it doesn't help solve the hurt shitty people are causing aces right now. As an ace, I want people to stop being dickbags to me sooner rather than later, and the quickest solution is to make the image of ‘the asexual’ resemble me, an ace who simply doesn't experience sexual attraction or desire, and not other people whose identities are more complex, harder to understand, less readily accepted, less logically sound within the confines of our current conceptual framework, taken less seriously. And that’s a shit thing to say. And it’s respectability politics. And it’s still how I feel, and I still don't feel I'm wrong. Asexuality needs a clear definition to be taken seriously.

 

As an NB, I want ‘truscum' to understand that I’m having a hard time too. I may not experience the exact same things a binary trans person does, but my dysphoria is similar enough to theirs that I feel we’re fighting for the same thing, and belong in the same community, under the same trans banner, and I want them to understand that rejection/invalidation from within the community hits so much harder than the same thing coming from elsewhere.

And I imagine I'm causing the same type of hurt to less conventional, self-identified aces, probably within this very post.

 

I’m not saying there should be no line drawn as to who is and isn’t trans/ace, because then the word would no longer mean anything, but I am saying that we need to be extremely careful with what we assume we know about people and their experiences.

 

In the end, I just don't know man. I 100% agree with one side, and simultaneously 100% agree with the other, even though they aren't reconcilable at all. I can't get rid of the cognitive dissonance. I can literally argue with myself back and forth forever, and still end up… well, with posts like this one. I can see what the problems are, I understand the hurt on both sides, but different people need different, contradictory, solutions, and I just don't know what the best way forward is.

 

Do we let the aciest aces continue to suffer the brunt of society’s acephobia and erasure for longer, due to the watering down of the meaning of the word ‘asexuality,’ and people subsequently not taking us seriously?

Or do we cause the grey-specs who are closer to the ‘sexual’ side of the spectrum more hurt by excluding them from our word and shoving them to the background?

 

To gatekeep or not to gatekeep, that is the question.

 

The only thing I really don’t agree with is people saying the definition debate is trivial and doesn’t really matter. If it didn’t matter, people wouldn’t care this much. We live in a society. We are all dependent on other people, whether you like it or not. Culture and concepts have profound influences on (the quality of) our lives. Saying it doesn’t matter is saying stereotypes and discrimination don’t matter, and have no influence on our lives. It trivializes and dismisses everyone’s hurt and it simply isn’t true. It’s a copout. Face the cognitive dissonance along with the rest of us, don’t just ignore it.

[Snao Cone]

I really like how @Laurann expressed it.

 

And I relate a lot to @AceMissBehaving's post about feeling a bit silenced by a lot of this. For me it was like finding a missing part of myself, then feeling like I'm not welcome because I'm not placing the ace sex-havers above all other priorities in awareness and education. It takes a lot of redundant and antagonizing debate to push my emotional state to that level, so it doesn't happen often. But I can't always have a rock solid emotional composure about these sorts of things when I know I'll just be antagonized.

[Kimmie.]

The only thing that is missing in the poll is if asexuality is a sexual orientation or the lack of one. And to be honest I don't know what i think about that. Because the definition of sexual orientation is based on who you want to have sex with, and because aces don't want to have sex with anyone then asexuality is not a sexual orientation, acording to my short and not so detailed research. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kimmie. said:

Because the definition of sexual orientation is based on who you want to have sex with, and because aces don't want to have sex with anyone then asexuality is not a sexual orientation, acording to my short and not so detailed research. 

I personally adhere to an experiential model of understanding, rather than try to jam this stuff into logical proofs.

 

Logic is just a tool, like mathematics. I can use logic to prove the sky is green and the ocean is purple... logic is still dependent on the accuracy of the underlying assumptions. 

 

We have on one side people who say desire and attraction are separate, and that feeling desire but no attraction is still asexual. That's logical. On the other side, people who say attraction and desire are the same thing or that either one of those will make someone sexual. Also logical. 

 

But what about the experience?? These are two very different experiences. Which experience most resembles the concept of "asexual"? Or, as has been demonstrated by many asexuals in this thread... which experience will be erased by including the other? If ace-favorable asexuals aren't asexual, they still have an identity... sexual. If ace-favorable asexuals are asexual, then no-sex asexuals are left with nothing. I see that as being hugely relevant. 

 

So, same thing for the orientation question. You could run a proof and show that it's not an orientation, but does that reflect the way it's experienced? Probably not. Probably it's experienced like every other orientation, so in my opinion that means it should be an orientation. 

 

 

[Snao Cone]

6 minutes ago, skullery said:

So, same thing for the orientation question. You could run a proof and show that it's not an orientation, but does that reflect the way it's experienced? Probably not. Probably it's experienced like every other orientation, so in my opinion that means it should be an orientation. 

I agree with this. "None of the above" is still an answer, and that's akin to asexuality among other sexual orientations. 

[Kimmie.]

Yeah my so could research was only a 3 minutes Google session. That pointed to that asexuality could be both, it depends on the person in question. 

So i guess it is similar enough to be a orientation. Which is fine by me i prefer that over having a half one (my romantic one) But there we have another question what does i count as?  Is it based on gender or biological sex?

[Guest]

I am with Pan in that I stopped IDing as ace well before I ever developed sexual feelings. Because I went onto asexual dating sites and looked for dates thinking yay no sex needed dating, this will be great! Only to be met with "cupiosexual asexual", "sapiosexual asexual" etc who all said they needed sex in a relationship... some twice a week! I was like uh.  What's the point of IDing as asexual when it means "needs sex twice a week to be happy in a relationship" and also "doesnt want sex at all" ...

 

If two lesbians go on a dating site they at least know both want sex with girls. It would be like a lesbian dating site where half of them want sex only with the opposite gender instead. 

 

I don't have that issue anymore since married to someone I am sexually into now. But... I feel sorry for aces trying to find someone, when a lot of self-identifying asexuals love sex and need it to be happy. Just how broken would it make you feel to go to ace meetups and be met with "Man, I need to get laid" type conversations ? Or, go to an ace dating event, meet someone, only to be told "Yeah I am ace. But, I still need sex. It is a basic human need and everyone is wired to love it. I just don't find you hot.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kimmie. said:

The only thing that is missing in the poll is if asexuality is a sexual orientation or the lack of one. And to be honest I don't know what i think about that. Because the definition of sexual orientation is based on who you want to have sex with, and because aces don't want to have sex with anyone then asexuality is not a sexual orientation, acording to my short and not so detailed research. 

Eh, I think "nobody" fits easily enough as an answer to "who do you inherently desire to have sex with?" among "people of the same sex/gender", "people of the opposite sex/gender", and "people of both/any sex/genders". Sounds like an orientation to me.

 

But I get your point - I think a logically consistent argument can be made both for and against asexuality being an orientation, as long as it's defined on grounds of desire for sex.

 

 

However, once desire for partnered sex goes out of the window in the definition in favor of "attraction only" (whatever the fuck that even means 🤷‍♀️), then asexuality most definitely isn't a legitimate orientation. And much as I'm no fan of the LGBT+ movement for various reasons, I fully back their right to keep confused Tumblr kids out of spaces meant for people with actually real, legitimate, and discriminated-against orientations.

[Sally]

3 hours ago, Laurann said:

Maybe ultimately the issue is that we (aces) have been so culturally invisible for so long, that now that we've gained some visibility, there is still only space in most people's minds for one image of what asexuality can be.

 

Yes.  And that image is the essence of asexuality, what it actually means:  not wanting to have sex, i.e. not being sexual.  

[Guest]

The other hurtful and frustrating thing in definition debates is the way self-identifying sex-favourable asexuals will always say "we're a minority within a minority, it's like we are invisible even in the most invisible orientation, woe is us. We do enjoy and want sex, but no one can understand us"... When what they describe to asexuals is the exact thing that caused aces to feel so isolated and broken for so long in the first place: That NEED for sex because it's pleasurable and everyone loves it, that expectation to have it within a relationship or else they'll feel something is missing. Sex favourable aces FEEL that, the same way the vast majority of the sexual population does. Regardless of what label they're using, sexually they're part of the 99% as far as desire goes. It's that EXACT experience (love and desire for sex) that causes aces to feel so isolated and broken, and often to suffer immensely when trying to navigate relationships and the world around them. Asexuals are left alienated within their own community, and like Serran said, they end up being faced with the exact same issue they had to begin with: they try to find a partner within the community and all the 'aces' want and need sex, WTF????

 

So the definition debates, while fucking frustrating (and I say that as someone who has written enough words within definition debates over the years to fill 20 books) are also necessary evils because at least they show aces concerned about this issue that someone is still on their side. A few vocal people (sexual and ace) are willing to try to make a stance to defend just how fucking difficult and how fucking horrendous it can be being an ace trying to navigate through the sexual world, especially for aces who desire relationships and are faced with a very, very difficult choice now even within their own damn community (to either remain single and hope to meet someone who doesn't want sex, or sacrifice your own happiness to compromise sexually within a relationship that will probably fail anyway due to the sexual disparity... WITH ANOTHER ASEXUAL). At least those original aces aren't being totally fucking erased amongst the sex-lovers within the community, because within debates at least there's a few of us (both sexual and ace) who stand in the court and try to give a voice to the people *actually* being pushed aside and alienated by this whole 'sex favourable asexual' debacle.

 

And yeah it pisses me off to see people in this thread, even longtime members here, say stuff like "the debates are silly. No one is hurt by people identifying as asexuals who love and need sex": ASEXUALS WHO DESIRE RELATIONSHIPS ARE HURT BY IT BECAUSE IT MEANS THEY NOW FACE THE EXACT SAME ISSUES THAT BROUGHT THEM HERE, BUT THOSE ISSUES NOW EXIST WITHIN THEIR OWN DAMNED COMMUNITY. AND THEY'RE GETTING CALLED GATEKEEPERS AND ELITISTS FOR BEING LIKE "EH? YOU LOVE AND NEED SEX?? BUT... THAT'S THE EXACT THING THAT CAUSED ME TO FEEL SO BROKEN AND BECOME SUICIDAL IN THE OUTSIDE WORLD, AND HOW I ENDED UP HERE IDENTIFYING AS ASEXUAL. NOW YOU'RE SAYING ASEXUALITY IS ACTUALLY THE EXACT THING I WAS FINDING A SAFE HAVEN FROM?? AND THAT ..WHAT? FOR ME TO DATE AN ACE I'D HAVE TO FACE THE EXACT SAME SEXUAL CHALLENGES I WAS TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM? SO ASEXUALITY MEANS NOTHING?????"

 

The debates are fucking important because asexuals are being hurt and pushed out by the very attitude (of people who love and desire sex) that caused them to suffer immensely in the outside world in the first place. That NEEDS to be addressed. Their experience NEEDS to be defended. People are getting hurt. Aces are abandoning the label because it's started feeling like something alien to them.

 

This whole thing fucking sucks balls (literally because hey, aces love sex..right?) 😕

[Guest]

@Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) Hope you take this the way I mean it... but it's refreshing to see you still lit and angry about it. I'm more in the embittered stage (though, like Ceebs, I take heart in seeing this poll so far indicating more reasonable views than there used to be back in the days.)

[R_1]

I personally don't get why people who want sex for the sake of it would identify as asexual. Why would you id as asexual if you would want sex for the sake of it. I get the idea of having sex because you want your partner to be happy, or to have children, or experimenting, but not for the sake of having it because you want it.

 

If I see someone typed this out or scream this out: I love sex so much, but I just don't experience attraction automatically. That's why I'm asexual. But, I'd be all up for a gangbang or threesome every once in a while because it feels good and I want it.

 

I read it as "I'm sexual. Definitely sexual. ".

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

and angry about it.

I'm meant to stay on my hiatus until AVEN doesn't make me angry anymore I think I failed already lol

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

@Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) Hope you take this the way I mean it... but it's refreshing to see you still lit and angry about it. I'm more in the embittered stage (though, like Ceebs, I take heart in seeing this poll so far indicating more reasonable views than there used to be back in the days.)

The desire model has led in the polls since about 2012... For reasons I'll never understand, despite a clear community consensus, the "specific people" and "attraction" parts were added to the desire definition as a compromise. As if you can compromise on a definition. I even got a mod's private assurance those elements would be removed, but they never were. 

 

As far as I'm concerned, these debates are encouraged by the site... rather than choose a side, the official stance is "fight it out." which is, imo, regrettable. Nothing actually gets solved... it's just evolved into an aven sport where people choose sides and tag their friends. 

[Snao Cone]

54 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

The other hurtful and frustrating thing in definition debates is the way self-identifying sex-favourable asexuals will always say "we're a minority within a minority, it's like we are invisible even in the most invisible orientation, woe is us. We do enjoy and want sex, but no one can understand us"... When what they describe to asexuals is the exact thing that caused aces to feel so isolated and broken for so long in the first place: That NEED for sex because it's pleasurable and everyone loves it, that expectation to have it within a relationship or else they'll feel something is missing. Sex favourable aces FEEL that, the same way the vast majority of the sexual population does. Regardless of what label they're using, sexually they're part of the 99% as far as desire goes. It's that EXACT experience (love and desire for sex) that causes aces to feel so isolated and broken, and often to suffer immensely when trying to navigate relationships and the world around them. Asexuals are left alienated within their own community, and like Serran said, they end up being faced with the exact same issue they had to begin with: they try to find a partner within the community and all the 'aces' want and need sex, WTF????

 

So the definition debates, while fucking frustrating (and I say that as someone who has written enough words within definition debates over the years to fill 20 books) are also necessary evils because at least they show aces concerned about this issue that someone is still on their side. A few vocal people (sexual and ace) are willing to try to make a stance to defend just how fucking difficult and how fucking horrendous it can be being an ace trying to navigate through the sexual world, especially for aces who desire relationships and are faced with a very, very difficult choice now even within their own damn community (to either remain single and hope to meet someone who doesn't want sex, or sacrifice your own happiness to compromise sexually within a relationship that will probably fail anyway due to the sexual disparity... WITH ANOTHER ASEXUAL). At least those original aces aren't being totally fucking erased amongst the sex-lovers within the community, because within debates at least there's a few of us (both sexual and ace) who stand in the court and try to give a voice to the people *actually* being pushed aside and alienated by this whole 'sex favourable asexual' debacle.

 

And yeah it pisses me off to see people in this thread, even longtime members here, say stuff like "the debates are silly. No one is hurt by people identifying as asexuals who love and need sex": ASEXUALS WHO DESIRE RELATIONSHIPS ARE HURT BY IT BECAUSE IT MEANS THEY NOW FACE THE EXACT SAME ISSUES THAT BROUGHT THEM HERE, BUT THOSE ISSUES NOW EXIST WITHIN THEIR OWN DAMNED COMMUNITY. AND THEY'RE GETTING CALLED GATEKEEPERS AND ELITISTS FOR BEING LIKE "EH? YOU LOVE AND NEED SEX?? BUT... THAT'S THE EXACT THING THAT CAUSED ME TO FEEL SO BROKEN AND BECOME SUICIDAL IN THE OUTSIDE WORLD, AND HOW I ENDED UP HERE IDENTIFYING AS ASEXUAL. NOW YOU'RE SAYING ASEXUALITY IS ACTUALLY THE EXACT THING I WAS FINDING A SAFE HAVEN FROM?? AND THAT ..WHAT? FOR ME TO DATE AN ACE I'D HAVE TO FACE THE EXACT SAME SEXUAL CHALLENGES I WAS TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM? SO ASEXUALITY MEANS NOTHING?????"

 

The debates are fucking important because asexuals are being hurt and pushed out by the very attitude (of people who love and desire sex) that caused them to suffer immensely in the outside world in the first place. That NEEDS to be addressed. Their experience NEEDS to be defended. People are getting hurt. Aces are abandoning the label because it's started feeling like something alien to them.

 

This whole thing fucking sucks balls (literally because hey, aces love sex..right?) 😕

I'm aro, so I'm not looking for a relationship and won't come across this kind of problem. But I think it applies to everyone in a way. It's not just understanding within an intimate relationship that's affected by this; it's the treatment we can get from anyone in our lives who is for some reason concerned with our life decisions and relationship status and sexual health. Nobody, no matter what their orientation may be, should told that they're ill or inadequate for choosing not to have sex. That's something that every reasonable person should be willing to stand up for, since it's a simple matter of consent. But the asexual community should be more heavily invested in that because a far greater number of us are going to encounter issues here. If sex-favourable asexuals - including people who are not only willing to have sex within a relationship, but find it a key factor in the health of their personal lives - don't place priority over consent and respecting decisions not to have sex, then I don't know what solidarity they could possibly feel with the rest of the asexual community. They're a minority in a minority, and they should have space to discuss things without fear of everything they say about themselves and their lives being turned into a political issue, but it seems common sense and basic respect to retain a central message of "it's okay not to want sex and it's okay not to have sex and it's natural for asexuals to feel that way". Does that sound like it's invalidating to sex-favourable aces? Maybe, I don't know, as I'm not one. But it seems to me it's a topic where more people in the community need more support and validation in society at large. If an asexual person is being judged by their peers or lectured by an authority figure for not wanting to have sex, we as a community should be supportive by helping to educate those peers and authority figures and whoever else so it sinks in that asexuality is valid, and a valid reason for not wanting to have sex. I can't imagine how angry I would get if someone who's close enough to me to be in a position to ask about my sex life would respond to my answer ("I don't have a sex life because I'm asexual") with "That's not a good enough reason! Plenty of asexuals have sex lives!"

 

[Grumpy Alien]

They synonyms, sexual, all of the above.

 

I think it's important to discuss but it gets out of hand and goes in circles. I mostly just state my opinion and leave the debate because it won't go anywhere. I am also pleasantly surprised by these results, as others have stated.

[henshin]

I'm just glad I'm not the only one who ticked 'hilarious'

[Snao Cone]

4 minutes ago, henshin said:

I'm just glad I'm not the only one who ticked 'hilarious'

Don't you care about our pain?????????

 

 

(jay kay, bee tee dubs)

[Kimmie.]

2 hours ago, Snao van der Cone said:

that asexuality is valid, and a valid reason for not wanting to have sex. I can't imagine how angry I would get if someone who's close enough to me to be in a position to ask about my sex life would respond to my answer ("I don't have a sex life because I'm asexual") with "That's not a good enough reason! Plenty of asexuals have sex lives!"

Yes that one, i have questioned if it is the label for me and still do. When I hear on the radio that they are talking about asexuality ( which makes me happy) and one of the questions that the asexual gets from the host is what stereotypes do you as a asexual get?, and one of the answers is that she don't have and don't like sex. And that that apparently is a stereotype.

[Galactic Turtle]

2 hours ago, Kimmie. said:

Quote

that asexuality is valid, and a valid reason for not wanting to have sex. I can't imagine how angry I would get if someone who's close enough to me to be in a position to ask about my sex life would respond to my answer ("I don't have a sex life because I'm asexual") with "That's not a good enough reason! Plenty of asexuals have sex lives!"

 

Yes that one, i have questioned if it is the label for me and still do. When I hear on the radio that they are talking about asexuality ( which makes me happy) and one of the questions that the asexual gets from the host is what stereotypes do you as a asexual get?, and one of the answers is that she don't have and don't like sex. And that that apparently is a stereotype.

I have actually experienced this. It took my parents two years to actually look into asexuality and when they did they came back with a huge speech about how asexual people have normal sexual relationships all the time and since that is true I must obviously have a problem. That was a contributing factor to why I was in therapy only a couple months later to get "sorted out."

[Kimmie.]

38 minutes ago, Galactic Turtle said:

I have actually experienced this. It took my parents two years to actually look into asexuality and when they did they came back with a huge speech about how asexual people have normal sexual relationships all the time and since that is true I must obviously have a problem. That was a contributing factor to why I was in therapy only a couple months later to get "sorted out."

Wow that really sucks and another reason to why i have no plans of coming out any time soon.

[Firefly8]

- Synonyms - though desire is a less confusing term
- Sexual 
- Pointless - because history here has shown nothing will change, not with Aven or others' misconceptions. These debates keep happening like a broken record with deja vu

[Gifted With Singleness]

So, I was very conflicted in answering the first question. I define "sexual attraction" as a feeling of intrinsic sexual desire targeted at a specific person (not necessarily demanding to be realized immediately). So yes, attraction and desire are pretty much synonymous. But I think it's VERY important to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic desire, and because the poll didn't make that distinction, I chose "sexual attraction" as the deciding factor (even though that definition is often misused due to misconceptions about how sexual attraction works).

 

There are plenty of gay people out there who still believe that homosexual activity is sinful. So while they have an intrinsic desire to pursue that kind of sexual activity, they have an extrinsic desire to abstain from it. Saying that homosexuality is "wanting to have sex with people of the same sex" can be misleading and harmful if you're not careful to make that distinction.

 

I think the same reasoning should apply here. Some asexual people do have an extrinsic desire for sex, whether it comes from a desire to fit in and be normal, intellectual curiosity, a sense of obligation in a romantic relationship, etc. What asexual people lack is the intrinsic desire for sex. Of course, figuring out whether your desires are intrinsic or extrinsic can be difficult, and there's not a clear dividing line between the two. But that's what the questioning process is all about.

 

As for the second question, I put "sexual spectrum", but I don't really have a problem with people saying they're on the asexual spectrum if their sexual desires and attractions are so low that they're basically negligible. However, I'm sure there are way too many people with very typical sexualities identifying as aspec due to misconceptions about other people's sexualities.

[Sally]

40 minutes ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

So, I was very conflicted in answering the first question. I define "sexual attraction" as a feeling of intrinsic sexual desire targeted at a specific person (not necessarily demanding to be realized immediately). So yes, attraction and desire are pretty much synonymous.

Attraction relates to a specific person, at a particular time, but desire doesn't.  I have no desire to have sex with any other person.  That definition makes any confusion about attraction unnecessary, because it relates to your feeling about SEX not your feeling about another specific person.   it's the SEX that asexuals don't want.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, GiftedWithSingleness said:

There are plenty of gay people out there who still believe that homosexual activity is sinful. So while they have an intrinsic desire to pursue that kind of sexual activity, they have an extrinsic desire to abstain from it. Saying that homosexuality is "wanting to have sex with people of the same sex" can be misleading and harmful if you're not careful to make that distinction.

 

I think the same reasoning should apply here. Some asexual people do have an extrinsic desire for sex, whether it comes from a desire to fit in and be normal, intellectual curiosity, a sense of obligation in a romantic relationship, etc. What asexual people lack is the intrinsic desire for sex. Of course, figuring out whether your desires are intrinsic or extrinsic can be difficult, and there's not a clear dividing line between the two. But that's what the questioning process is all about.

While I can't agree with that being a reason to ever go for "attraction" instead of desire...

 

This is a valid and important point. No matter whether you'll end up call it intrinsic, inherent, primary etc. - that qualifier is neccessary in the definition, for exactly the reasons you listed.

[kiaroskuro]

1. they're synonyms

2. unsure (As a side note, the option 'another spectrum' confuses me. What other spectrum could there be?)

3. both interesting and frustrating