What being a sex favorable asexual means to me

[Iam9man]

4 minutes ago, Snao van der Cone said:

I'm not sex-averse/repulsed, but from when I was first looking into asexuality I felt the "attraction" definition necessarily excluded me because I know what sexy is. I know what looks aesthetically good and I know how it feels to be aroused by it.

This I really relate to. When I first found AVEN I thought I met the desire definition but not the attraction definition, because I find some women physically attractive. As the definition was either (or both) attraction and desire I felt comfortable IDing as asexual, and have since worked out I don’t actually experience sexual attraction.

[Iam9man]

14 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

You want sex with someone, regardless of whatever sort of "connection" it is that you DON'T feel with them... you're still sexual, and you've still been pulled toward wanting sex with that person for SOME reason, even if it's just for another pair of hands.  There's clearly some reason you chose that person's pair of hands and not anyone else's.

I experience romantic, aesthetic and sensual attraction very intensely so am quite capable of being attracted to a person without experiencing sexual attraction, including during sex. I just have to concentrate on those other forms of attraction.

[Philip027]

Don't see what that all has to do with what you quoted.  The key part, again, is "wanting sex with someone".

[Snao Cone]

46 minutes ago, Iam9man said:

This I really relate to. When I first found AVEN I thought I met the desire definition but not the attraction definition, because I find some women physically attractive. As the definition was either (or both) attraction and desire I felt comfortable IDing as asexual, and have since worked out I don’t actually experience sexual attraction.

Yeah, through a lot of discussion here I've been able to examine the attraction element and say it's not really sexual, but aesthetic in a way that can ignite sexual attraction in people who have in them whatever it is that makes sexuality sexual - whether you call that its own distinct kind of attraction that must be acknowledged separately (which is how the attraction camp of asexual folks seem to view it, and what most of the sexual folks who get into definition debates disagree with) or if you call it intrinsic sexual desire. 

[Iam9man]

2 minutes ago, Snao van der Cone said:

Yeah, through a lot of discussion here I've been able to examine the attraction element and say it's not really sexual, but aesthetic in a way that can ignite sexual attraction in people who have in them whatever it is that makes sexuality sexual - whether you call that its own distinct kind of attraction that must be acknowledged separately (which is how the attraction camp of asexual folks seem to view it, and what most of the sexual folks who get into definition debates disagree with) or if you call it intrinsic sexual desire. 

Then we appear to have reached similar conclusions from fairly similar experiences 👍
 

My heterosexual friends seem to experience:

 

Aesthetic [Links to] Romantic [Links to] Sensual [Links to] Sexual attraction

 

(Can also bypass romantic, and possibly sensual?)

 

The way I experience it:

 

Aesthetic [Links to] Romantic [Links to] Sensual [Links to] ... nothing?

[Alejandrogynous]

10 hours ago, Mackenzie Holiday said:

I think a slightly more charitable example of what @gray-a girl was likely referring to might be a gay man who finds that sex with his wife is more enjoyable than masturbation, even though he's not attracted to her. If he wants to have sex with her because he enjoys it more than masturbation, but he doesn't want to have sex with men because reasons (religion, loyalty to his wife, what have you) even though he's attracted to men, he'd still easily be considered gay.

I don't think that's an accurate comparison. Yes, it's possible to have (and even enjoy) sex with someone you're not attracted to, but the point is that if that if the gay man had a choice and was free of all outside pressures/influences, he would choose to sleep with men instead of women. Just like an asexual person can have (and even enjoy) sex, but if they were given the same choice with no outside pressures/influences, they would choose to not have sex at all.

 

If the man had that freedom of choice and still chose to sleep with women, he would at the very least be bisexual.

 

18 hours ago, gray-a girl said:

I've actually never heard of playing with toys, especially, as ever referred to as sex. Fingering, still, isn't really sex to me and I don't think it is for most people.

I spend a lot (a lot) of time talking about sex with sexual people and yeah, as others have said, these things are definitely considered sex. It wouldn't even occur to most sexual people to question that, and if I said I'm asexual because I like getting fingered instead of doing PiV intercourse, they would be very confused. 

 

18 hours ago, gray-a girl said:

sex repulsed or indifferent asexuals aren't particularly interested in orgasming (Or so I gather)

I'm asexual and sex-repulsed (as in I will not have sex, not that the concept of sex scares or disgusts me) and I love orgasms. I just give them to myself instead of needing/wanting/using a partner to help me with it.

 

@gray-a girl You've said that the only reason you want sex with a partner is because you have a kink that, by nature, requires another person to be able to engage in. I kind of get it, because I also have sexual kinks that inherently require a partner. But to me, my kinks are irrevocably linked to sex. They can't be separated, and I'd feel every bit as uncomfortable if someone were to engage in my kinks with me as I would if they were trying to have non-kinky PiV sex with me. I can only enjoy my kinks the same way I can enjoy sex - in theory and fantasy only, because the reality is, as soon as another person is involved, all of my enjoyment stops. And even if I were less sex-repulsed and were able to enjoy partnered sex and/or kink-play when it happened, I'd still choose the solo method every time if all things were equal. That's what makes me different from "normal" sexual/kinky people.

 

I'm not saying this as a debate or like you have to feel the same way I do, just offering another perspective as someone who does have kinks that arouse them but IDs as asexual.

[GlamRocker]

I'm sorry, but until a person realizes that they actually just don't want to have sex, asexuality as an identity isn't for you. I didn't understand myself as an asexual or identify as an asexual while I was still having sex... because I believed I wasn't asexual, or else I wouldn't have kept trying to care for sex... I was still looking for my sexuality, I still had faith there was some sexuality to find. Why the HELL would I have identified as asexual during this time? When I wasn't living in any way significantly different than sexual people do?

 

The day identifying as an asexual became clearly correct for me was the day that I finally accepted the fact that I'M NEVER GOING TO CARE FOR SEX NO MATTER HOW HARD I TRY.  And so there is NO POINT in trying to "covert" myself anymore. If you really ARE an asexual, you WILL REACH THE SAME POINT. You WILL REALIZE YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE SEX. Why? Because, for some people, ASEXUAL PEOPLE,  sex is NOT ENJOYABLE.

 

If it were, YOU'D BE NO DIFFERENT THAN A SEXUAL PERSON, which means... you ARE a sexual person. Now, if you consider yourself closer to the asexual side than the sexual side (which I make no personal distinction between), no problem, so what? STILL not asexual.  You're gray or demi, or WHATEVER else... but you aren't ASEXUAL. I understand that identifying as gray or demi (or whatever else) communicates useful things to potential partners and the world... but those thing AREN'T ASEXUALITY.

 

Asexuality exists as a concept to portray ONE SIMPLE THING TO THIS WORLD: we DON'T want to have sex. And, YES, We are COMFORTABLE with that. And we don't care IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

 

(This disclaimer informs readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author, and not necessarily to the author’s employer, organization, committee or other group or individual.)

[Iam9man]

4 minutes ago, GlamRocker said:

Because, for some people, ASEXUAL PEOPLE,  sex is NOT ENJOYABLE.

To be clear: partnered sex can still be physically enjoyable to some asexuals, myself included, even if I’d rather not have sex for sex’s sake.

[GlamRocker]

Just now, Iam9man said:

To be clear: partnered sex can still be physically enjoyable to some asexuals, myself included, even if I’d rather not have sex for sex’s sake.

No point in identifying as asexual.

[Iam9man]

3 minutes ago, GlamRocker said:

No point in identifying as asexual.

I personally choose to identify as asexual because it accurately describes my experiences. In my book, anyone who meets the attraction definition and/or desire definition, and who honestly and thoughtfully relates to the term and wants to adopt it, can usefully and accurately refer to themselves as asexual. Past, present or future behaviour have no bearing on this.

[GlamRocker]

1 minute ago, Iam9man said:

I personally choose to identify as asexual because it accurately describes my experiences. In my book, anyone who meets the attraction definition and/or desire definition, and who honestly and thoughtfully relates to the term and wants to adopt it, can usefully and accurately refer to themselves as asexual. Past, present or future behaviour have no bearing on this.

You CAN, but there's still no point.

[Iam9man]

Just now, GlamRocker said:

You CAN, but there's still no point.

There’s no point in me identifying as asexual when I’m asexual?

[GlamRocker]

Just now, Iam9man said:

There’s no point in me identifying as asexual when I’m asexual?

What you describe is not asexuality but your personal feelings towards the act of having sex. These are SEX FEELINGS... SEX PREFERENCES... not asexuality. This is the same stuff all sexual partners go through with each other when figuring out how to best please each other sexually, to be the best lover they can be to their partners. NOT asexuality. An asexual doesn't describe their preferences to help their partner make BETTER LOVE TO THEM. Because the preference of an asexual is... DRUM ROLL... NO SEXUAL ACTIVITAYYYYYS

[crazy ace]

I'm sure this has been another calm and level-headed debate.

[GlamRocker]

Aye, somebody's got to do it.

 

[daveb]

3 hours ago, Snao van der Cone said:

Sometimes it's been "because if I don't get laid on this trip across Europe I won't have enough fun stories to come back with to brag about to my friends" (which was the thinking when, well, I was traveling across Europe).

I traveled around Europe in my early twenties and once spent the night sharing a hotel room with 3 young women. No sex involved.  

[Guest]

Actually, GlamRocker, your definition is gatekeeping the asexual identity and is not in line with AVENs definition. A persons actions do not have to match their orientation. You're describing celibacy.

[Missing]

3 hours ago, Philip027 said:

I wouldn't consider that gay; I would consider that straight, or bi at best.  I think most other people would too.  The "want to have sex (with a woman)" thing is the key factor here.

And there's nothing wrong with you thinking of it that way yourself, but a lot of other people would still consider him gay, and hopefully no one will use his situation to tell him otherwise. He might seem straight to you and gay to others. Maybe he'd appreciate it if we left it up to him to decide which one suits his experience best.

 

3 hours ago, Philip027 said:

You want sex with someone, regardless of whatever sort of "connection" it is that you DON'T feel with them... you're still sexual, and you've still been pulled toward wanting sex with that person for SOME reason, even if it's just for another pair of hands.  There's clearly some reason you chose that person's pair of hands and not anyone else's.

There may be a clear reason. That person might have the most trusted and most convenient set of hands available at the moment. Maybe the person in need of more hands just doesn't have a mic stand for their vibrator but wants to be hands free, so they ask their roommate to hold it for them because they're that comfortable with their body and their roommate. This could be a significant enough experience for someone that they think of their sexuality differently, but they might just not feel that asking their roommate for a hand was a big enough deal to change anything about who they are sexually, and that's okay too.

 

1 hour ago, Alejandrogynous said:

I don't think that's an accurate comparison. Yes, it's possible to have (and even enjoy) sex with someone you're not attracted to, but the point is that if that if the gay man had a choice and was free of all outside pressures/influences, he would choose to sleep with men instead of women. Just like an asexual person can have (and even enjoy) sex, but if they were given the same choice with no outside pressures/influences, they would choose to not have sex at all.

 

If the man had that freedom of choice and still chose to sleep with women, he would at the very least be bisexual.

We don't know that. Maybe he's romantically attracted to women but sexually attracted to men, and he wants to be monogamous because those are his values, and he just chose romance over sex. I sincerely think that defining orientation by who someone freely chooses to have sex with, and that factor alone, will not work for everyone. This would make at least 2/3 of people involved in a mixed gender threesome bisexual, even though a lot of people who participate in those threesomes don't consider themselves to be bi.

 

My point is just that sex and sexuality are funky, and they're personal. Every sex act is unique in its own way and so is everyone's sexuality. There is absolutely a level of subjectivity to how people experience their sexuality and their sexual experiences, which means the words we use to describe our sexualities to each other will need to have a certain level of flexibility if we want to understand everyone's experience as best we can.

 

The fact that someone behaves in a way you attribute to one orientation, but identifies with another, itself tells you that their experience of sex is different from yours, and that is a wonderful opportunity to learn about the diverse subjective sexual experiences human beings are capable of having.

[GlamRocker]

1 hour ago, Aris said:

Actually, GlamRocker, your definition is gatekeeping the asexual identity and is not in line with AVENs definition. A persons actions do not have to match their orientation. You're describing celibacy.

LOL!!!!

[Guest]

Just want to weigh in here with a story that may help a little, and it's true.

 

I knew a homosexual man who had two daughters with a woman in the 80's due to societal and family pressures to present as heterosexual. He was by no means heterosexual, he was entirely homosexual, but engaged in something that was against the definition of what he was at his core. This was by no means a stand alone case and still happens today. I just started another topic, similar but no bingo, considering asexuals engaging in sexual acts with sexual partners as a form of compromise. You may not feel an attraction to that other person, but it does not mean you are incapable of having sex with them for whatever reason. Homosexual men can have sex with women, heterosexual men have been known to have sex with other men (eg. gay for pay pornography). It is for this reason I have to request people consider that actions do not always equate feelings or categorisations. Many asexuals are capable of having sex or engaging in sexual acts and will with a sexual partner as a meet-in-the-middle, but it does not necessarily mean they feel sexual attraction etc and it certainly doesn't mean they are enjoying it.

 

Were I able to describe the psychology behind it all in detail, I would. Alas I am but an unlearned layman - I'm just hoping that you all 'know what I mean' and have heard of these situations so my lack of science and statistics doesn't entirely invalidate what I've just written.

[Philip027]

Quote

And there's nothing wrong with you thinking of it that way yourself, but a lot of other people would still consider him gay, and hopefully no one will use his situation to tell him otherwise. He might seem straight to you and gay to others. Maybe he'd appreciate it if we left it up to him to decide which one suits his experience best.

The problem here is that if orientation is defined solely as "whatever the hell we feel like it is", which is pretty much what you're advocating, it isn't really meaningful anymore as a descriptor.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, GlamRocker said:

LOL!!!!

My response wasn't funny. It's pure fact. Asexuals can have sex for a variety of reasons.

[Rynn]

2 minutes ago, spacecakes said:

I'm just hoping that you all 'know what I mean' and have heard of these situations so my lack of science and statistics doesn't entirely invalidate what I've just written.

I think most people personally know gay men with an ex-wife and kids. I certainly do  

[Missing]

2 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

The problem here is that if orientation is defined solely as "whatever the hell we feel like it is", which is pretty much what you're advocating, it isn't really meaningful anymore as a descriptor.

That's not what I'm advocating for. I'm advocating for our words to be flexible enough to be useful for everyone regardless of how unusual their experiences and situations may be. A side effect of overly strict definitions is that they become useless to the people whose experiences don't easily fit into any of those boxes. I think that instead of ascribing labels to others, we should listen to their experiences and seek to understand them as individuals, with their choice of labels being a guide for helping us clear up our assumptions about them.

[Philip027]

Quote

A side effect of overly strict definitions is that they become useless to the people whose experiences don't easily fit into any of those boxes.

To that I say, tough shit.  Definitions are meant to define things, not to cater to as many people as possible.

[Iam9man]

10 minutes ago, Mackenzie Holiday said:

That's not what I'm advocating for. I'm advocating for our words to be flexible enough to be useful for everyone regardless of how unusual their experiences and situations may be. A side effect of overly strict definitions is that they become useless to the people whose experiences don't easily fit into any of those boxes. I think that instead of ascribing labels to others, we should listen to their experiences and seek to understand them as individuals, with their choice of labels being a guide for helping us clear up our assumptions about them.

😊👍

[Guest]

Please be respectful of each others identities, and mindful that your posts may be seen as invalidating by others.

 

Aris, 

JFF & Welcome Lounge Mod.

[Guest]

On 10/9/2019 at 12:34 AM, gray-a girl said:

And, I’m sure, I will get some arrogant asexuals claiming I’m not asexual.

 

On 10/9/2019 at 12:34 AM, gray-a girl said:

I’d probably prefer sexual stimulation and orgasming that isn’t sex.

While I'm not claiming you're not asexual (because people can call themselves anything they want), I am interested to know your responses to the sexual people who have commented here saying they have similar preferences (no oral or PiV) yet came to the conclusion they were sexual due to  desire for partnered sexual intimacy involving pleasure and/or orgasm (without the actions you claim are 'valid' sex). And your thoughts about the validity of sexual couples who actually often have a necessity for toys and fingers if they desire any form of partnered penetrative sexual pleasure.

 

I do know some people are legitimately offended by some of your claims here (ie that anything not involving oral or PiV/PiA isn't sex) and our questioning is not coming from a place of arrogance or anything, just confusion. So I'm interested to know what your response is to those who have pointed out lesbian sex etc to you. Oh and just to clarify, I like Serran am a sexual person who doesn't desire or enjoy receiving oral or partnered PiV (but my preference is for a partner with a penis because I have a fetish for a certain type of fluid that only penis-bearers make. I don't even care that much about the partnered orgasm, don't need any sexual stimulation myself, but my fetish requires someone else be present and that they produce said fluid).

 

Not saying you're not ace though. What we are trying to understand us why you're defining things the way you are, because you seem to be invalidating the entire lesbian experience and a lot of non-PiV kink experience and a lot of us are confused by that

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Aris said:

 A persons actions do not have to match their orientation. You're describing celibacy.

I do think there's  a fine line when it comes to actions/orientation/celibacy.

 

I am celibate because I desire some forms of sexual intimacy (not PiV or receiving oral or even having an orgasm with another person) but I don't seek those things out in any way. I know if someday I meet a friend whom I develop a close enough bond with to consider for a relationship, then we could try some of things together for fun and pleasure (not orgasm on my part though, nor being stimulated sexually by the other person). This makes me a celibate sexual, because the desire for those actions is there even if I'm not actually doing them.

 

When someone says they desire the same acts that myself and many other sexuals do, and have a desire to actually receive orgasm from another person, and that they prefer that to solo masturbation, they're not describing a behaviour or an action, but a desire; A preference for an act of partnered sexual intimacy.. which is no different than why any other sexual person identifies themselves as a sexual person.

 

The fundamental factor that all sexual adults share is a knowledge that under some circumstances at least, they have an innate preference to experience sexual activity with another person. The label you add to that (hetero/homo/bi/pan) defines how and why you may choose partners (hence why I don't ID with any specific sexual orientation beyond 'sexual' - I am unable to define my partner preference really). For some it's who they fall in love with, for some it's just who they're comfortable with, for some it's who turns them on to look at (which not everyone experiences) and for some it's a mixture of those things, or none of them. For many, discovering their partner preference comes first. But there are also plenty who know they want the partnered sexual activity but they don't know their partner preference so they experiment to find out. There are some who just don't have partner preference. The thing they all have in common is a desire for partnered sexual intimacy, and a preference to have that over masturbation at least under some circumstances. 

 

So while of course I disagree with applying labels to anyone, or saying someone's label isn't valid (because at the end of the day people can call themselves anything they want!) I think it's important to emphasise the difference between

 

-behaviour/actions: an asexual woman having sex with her partner so she can get pregnant because they both want to have a baby (edit that's just one random example)

 

and

 

-desire/innate preference: an actual desire to have partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure and a preference for that over solo masturbation, at least sometimes.

 

And yes of course celibacy is not a requirement of asexuality.

 

Again, I'm not personally saying anyone can't use whatever label they want. It's just hard to understand why some people define some things the way they do (ie that fingering and toys aren't  valid sex...?) hence why these discussions have a tendency to get so heated sadly :c

[GlamRocker]

1 hour ago, Aris said:

My response wasn't funny. It's pure fact. Asexuals can have sex for a variety of reasons.

It is funny in that you say "gatekeeping" the way people say "fascist" or "toxic." It's a meaningless negative buzz word meant only to shut someone up. 

 

It's not gatekeeping to expect a definition to make sense or a community to serve the people it was created for. 

 

I say to you again, sir, "LOL."