Jump to content

I went to an LGBT group and it was helpful


gray-a girl

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Serran said:

I have talked to hundreds of sexuals about what counts, inside and outside of AVEN. Many within the context of what is a sexual person vs who would be different enough to not count as that label anymore. None of them would understand "I want sex, wouldnt be happy giving it up, but I am not sexual like you cause looking at people doesnt arouse me". And I know this because we regularly came to the conclusion sexual people vary a lot, but basically we all desire sex with an actual person for some reason. Even those of us who have lost desire (want it back so bad they go to doctors for it because they still want it, just their body wont respond right), or are scared, ashamed, or disgusted by it still have that internal drive to I cant be truly happy without sex in my life again. That is the only thing they could all agree on. 

 

I ID'd as asexual for fiveish years, because I had no attraction (didnt find people hot) beyond romantic appeal based on personality and trying to have sex was... boring at best, pointless, did nothing and just made me feel further apart from my partners. But, they wouldnt be happy never having sex again, so I had sex with them and ended up hating it to the point of repulsion developing. 

 

During that time and the following time of developing sexual desire for my wife (only person that sex has ever felt good with, everyone else might as well have been poking my tongue despite doing the same movements), I talked at length about sexuality with a lot of people. Then partners, here, people IRL, family, etc. I listened to their stories and their reasons for picking people. And they were all varied. That person aroused me was one experience, but not the only one. A lot of the times it was "I was horny and I trusted them to be safe", or other mundane reasons that had little to do with the person, especially not their appearance. 

 

So, no, we aren't disagreeing because we don't have experience. We just hold a different definition because we have experience and have talked to people and have researched it and have looked into it quite a lot and came to a different conclusion than you are.  It took me 15 years of being in relationships to figure out my sexuality. I guarantee I spent a lot of time talking to a lot of people, not just AVEN. 

 

You know a specific type of sexuals in your friend circle. We are varied. We desire sex for many, many reasons. Please don't do what you are yelling at people like sith for doing by telling us we have to fit your narrow definition of sexual attraction, cause that is what a sexual is. It isn't the only experience sexuals have. The reason sexual attraction cannot have a pinpointed definition is because you ask a bunch of people, you will get a bunch of definitions of what they feel when they experience sexual attraction. You don't get to define sexual and tell the rest of us we are too ignorant / strange to know our own orientation. 

 

You can choose your label for whatever reason you want. You can disagree with definitions. But it seems a tad... well, like pot kettle when you tell sexuals we dont know what we are talking about cause we are too strange and inexperienced with sexuals. 

I honestly don't understand why anyone who is not kinky would do sexual stuff with someone if they did not feel aroused by them. What reason would they engage in sex if the person didn't find them arousing? I do not understand this. Something has to be arousing for you to want to do stuff.

I think, maybe part of the reason you think a person can not be sexually attracted to someone yet desire sex... is therefore sexual,  is the way you have worded it with sexuals. If you define sexual attraction as wanting to have sex with someone and thats it, then that doesn't really go far enough. There are many reasons why someone would want to have sex with someone else.... and some of them I think you would still qualify as asexual such as to make the person happy. But there are reasons why a person does something with another, other than because they are sexually attracted to them.

Maybe it's hard to grasp, but here is an example: Many people like to sexually play with toys when they masterbate. Does that mean they are sexually attracted to the toy? No. It serves a purpose.

I also don't know what LGBT groups you go to, but from the few I have been to (I identified briefly as gay because, I didn't find men attractive, so I thought I must be gay) and I don't think they would ever tell you what your orientation is, unless you genuinely asked and needed help clarifying something. But they wouldn't tell someone who identifies as gay "oh you aren't really gay, because x, y z". They would never say that.

 

Here's the thing. Labels are meant to be useful. They have a purpose. Intrinsically, they have no meaning and are sounds. The meaning they have is what we give them. I look at the definition of asexuality on this website, and I look at it in other places too. I look at wikipedia, for example, and it says the same thing: Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity.

It doesn't say AND, it says or. That is the definition. So right now, that is the agreed upon definition that most people are going by. According to that definition, I do fit as an asexual. So you telling me I'm not, is really you just defining the word in a way that most people are not agreeing upon. And actually, it is a minority of people who are telling me that I am sexual here. I have actually gotten many PMS with people apologizing for the way some people here  (for example people saying what you say) are acting towards me. The majority are going by the definition that AVEN puts out.


But even, if you are confused about what sexual attraction is, there are definitions of that too. Wikipedia basically says: "Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest." I understand that to mean, that something about the person makes you want to have sex with them... ie arouses you. For example it could be the way they look or move, the way they talk, what they wear etc. So even when this is more clearly defined, I still fit asexuality.

And you know what? If a lack of sexual attraction was not part of asexuality, I'd form a community online and create one. Because I need a word to describe my experiences, which are different from sexuals experiences. I don't understand your conversation with your sexual friends, but, most likely they are assuming, when you spoke to them, that if someone wants to have sex with a person, it is because of the person and being sexually attracted to them that they want sex. For sexuals, these two things are not distinct, they are one and the same. So to separate them is going to confuse them just as much as separating romantic attraction and sexual attraction confuses them.

You can redefine the word the way you want. That doesn't mean its the agreed upon definition, and it doesn't mean its the way the word is being used. I look at the definition of asexuality, as mentioned on AVEN and elsewhere, and I fit that definition. There is nothing more to say on it. If you want to exclude me from using this label, you will need to talk to AVEN about changing their definition, and also get it changed on wikipedia and elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

I honestly don't understand why anyone who is not kinky would do sexual stuff with someone if they did not feel aroused by them. What reason would they engage in sex if the person didn't find them arousing? I do not understand this. Something has to be arousing for you to want to do stuff.

Because they are aroused already and want sex and want to share the experience and be able to make someone else feel good? It's not like I see my wife, I want sex, so I jump her. It's my libido flares up, I would like to get off, I prefer doing it with her because it's sharing the pleasure and also makes her feel good, like giving her a massage. She doesn't have to be anywhere around me for me to want it. And, if she isn't available, I just masturbate instead and I'm good for a while. But, my preference is sharing it, thus desire for partnered. Also, I never said I am not into kink or fetish. We have a slave/master dynamic, so sometimes the power play is what is desired.

 

 

21 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

I think, maybe part of the reason you think a person can not be sexually attracted to someone yet desire sex... is therefore sexual,  is the way you have worded it with sexuals. If you define sexual attraction as wanting to have sex with someone and thats it, then that doesn't really go far enough. There are many reasons why someone would want to have sex with someone else.... and some of them I think you would still qualify as asexual such as to make the person happy. But there are reasons why a person does something with another, other than because they are sexually attracted to them.

I get the feeling you're skimming posts, or missing bits. Because, I did say I have talked to hundreds about what they consider the difference. As in, I ask them to define sexual attraction and I ask them to define the difference in sexual and asexual in their minds, where the line would be to stop someone being an average sexual person with average sexual experiences and desires. I don't define anything. I listen to them doing it. And, again, the only thing that everyone came up with in common was the desire for partnered sexual interactions. Everything else varied - the what they considered sexual attraction, what qualities were attractive, what they considered sex, etc. 

 

 

21 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

Maybe it's hard to grasp, but here is an example: Many people like to sexually play with toys when they masterbate. Does that mean they are sexually attracted to the toy? No. It serves a purpose.

A toy and a person are very different. So, this one seems completely irrelevant to me as for orientation of any type. 

 

 

21 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

I also don't know what LGBT groups you go to, but from the few I have been to (I identified briefly as gay because, I didn't find men attractive, so I thought I must be gay) and I don't think they would ever tell you what your orientation is, unless you genuinely asked and needed help clarifying something. But they wouldn't tell someone who identifies as gay "oh you aren't really gay, because x, y z". They would never say that.

Trans groups, general LGBT groups, also my Aunt ID'd as lesbian for 20 years (so I grew up around it, which included people questioning my Aunt's ID because she was someone who was straight til a lot of abusive relationships with men), my cousin is gay, my other cousin is a cross-dresser and gay, I have pride beads hanging on my wall that i picked up at pride parade. And, they all welcome people saying "you sound lesbian to me" or "you sound straight to me" or "you sound bi to me" etc when people open up a discussion about their own sexuality. They also welcome people going "I think we have varied definitions, because this is how I ID and why, which you say you ID as that for same reason and yet it's a different label". They also fully allow people to vent when the conflicts cause distress. The only thing they do not allow is angry insulting. They make sure everyone is heard and they mediate the discussion if tensions get high, they don't attempt to silence anyone. They don't force a dysphoric trans person to celebrate the person who comes in and goes "I think I am trans because I am a girl and I don't like pink", without being able to correct them on that not quite understanding what trans means. They also are very welcoming of cis and straight allies coming in and sharing their experiences, like "Well, I am cis and I dislike pink as well. Not liking stereotypical girly things isn't really the definition of being trans"... and no one runs around shouting about it all, it's just adult conversation about personal topics and accepting some people may agree with your definitions and some people may not, but you're welcome to vent frustrations no matter what. Some of them even have Trump supporting I don't agree with fluidity or queer type people. Yet, they can all get along and disagree respectfully without all the hurt feelings AVEN has. Another member on here who is LGBT and has been far longer than I have tried to get into the community, @Skullery Maid was confused last time people called LGBT spaces all accepting as well. So, maybe it's just your local LGBT group has a more anyone can label themselves whatever and never hear any disagreement vibe, but not any of the ones I have been around. 

 

21 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

 

Here's the thing. Labels are meant to be useful. They have a purpose. Intrinsically, they have no meaning and are sounds. The meaning they have is what we give them. I look at the definition of asexuality on this website, and I look at it in other places too. I look at wikipedia, for example, and it says the same thing: Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity.

I agree. They are meant to be useful. To me, IDing as asexual when I have sex with my wife 1-5 times a week (hands and toys only, no PiV/oral/anal) would be... silly. And translate nothing. Despite the fact I don't find "people arousing" which is your definition of sexual attraction. 

 

 

21 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

It doesn't say AND, it says or. That is the definition. So right now, that is the agreed upon definition that most people are going by. According to that definition, I do fit as an asexual. So you telling me I'm not, is really you just defining the word in a way that most people are not agreeing upon. And actually, it is a minority of people who are telling me that I am sexual here. I have actually gotten many PMS with people apologizing for the way some people here  (for example people saying what you say) are acting towards me. The majority are going by the definition that AVEN puts out.

But even, if you are confused about what sexual attraction is, there are definitions of that too. Wikipedia basically says: "Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest." I understand that to mean, that something about the person makes you want to have sex with them... ie arouses you. For example it could be the way they look or move, the way they talk, what they wear etc. So even when this is more clearly defined, I still fit asexuality.

 

I'm not confused about what sexual attraction is, after feeling it. It actually stopped being confusing at all. The thing that makes you choose a sexual partner - be it that I trust them enough, they are into the same kink/fetish I am and them being submissive to my dominant is arousing, or whatever. Whatever the thing is about the person that makes me choose them = attracted to them sexually. Even if it's just that the way they beg when I am whipping them makes my orgasms feel better at the end. So, unless it's a literally anyone will do, I could even go to a glory hole and never know who is doing it to me kind of thing, to me the desire for sex leading you (general you)  to choose an actual partner (for whatever reason - they are available and their willingness is good, they are trusted, they are my partner and we agreed to be monogamous, they are into my kink, etc)  means sexual attraction. And, I've never had a sexual person disagree with me on that, out of all of my years talking to them about it. Only on AVEN does that statement run into arguments. 

 

Also, if you read my post, I never once said in either  of my posts you aren't asexual. I said I disagree with your definitions and that is why I apply a different label and it isn't based on ignorance of sexuality. You desire hand stuff/toys/kink with a partner and ID as asexual. I desire hand stuff/toys/kink with a partner and ID as sexual. I do not find people "hot" or "arousing" randomly. I desire sex with my wife because it feels nice, the kink aspect is fun and she's the first person to ever give me an orgasm (others tried, it was so boring, because I had nothing making me want sex with them... despite being romantically into them enough to be with them 2-10 years romantically). 

 

In fact, I said specifically you can identify however you like or have whatever definitions you like. I just dislike the fact you're basically insulting everyone who disagrees with you by 1) Saying they are invalidating you, when most have clearly stated you are free to ID however you like. You're putting words in peoples mouths and 2) Saying anyone that disagrees with you is ignorant, inexperienced or strange and that is why they disagree because your definition is clearly the only definition that is right.  

 

 

And you know what? If a lack of sexual attraction was not part of asexuality, I'd form a community online and create one. Because I need a word to describe my experiences, which are different from sexuals experiences. I don't understand your conversation with your sexual friends, but, most likely they are assuming, when you spoke to them, that if someone wants to have sex with a person, it is because of the person and being sexually attracted to them that they want sex. For sexuals, these two things are not distinct, they are one and the same. So to separate them is going to confuse them just as much as separating romantic attraction and sexual attraction confuses them.

 

I think the big issue is a lot of aces who do not desire partnered sexual activity feel they need a word to describe their experience. And, asexual meaning both wants sex and will never want sex, no matter how hard you try, means they don't have that. So, you run into hurt feelings, like with sith and Mysticus and various other aces. Because, the DSM-V exception is based on asexuals lacking interest in partnered sex naturally due to orientation. Because they want to be able to explain to potential partners they are ace, so expect to never get sex. And, since their definition of the word and yours differ into polar opposites, they feel like they have lost the word by you claiming it. 

 

Again, it isn't lack of understanding, ignorance, etc that leads to disagreeing with your definitions. You interpret them one way, others interpret them another way. You cannot make everyone agree with your definitions. 

 

 

Anyway, you're likely to claim me disagreeing with you and IDing my way despite sharing some of your experiences is invalidating you again... so I'll say it a second time in the same post. You can ID however you like. Your label is yours to choose. But, some people will not agree with applying the label the way you are, that doesn't make us ignorant, inexperienced or strange. And you claiming invalidation while outright insulting me for my own way of IDing is rather... ironic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Serran said:

Because they are aroused already and want sex and want to share the experience and be able to make someone else feel good? It's not like I see my wife, I want sex, so I jump her. It's my libido flares up, I would like to get off, I prefer doing it with her because it's sharing the pleasure and also makes her feel good, like giving her a massage. She doesn't have to be anywhere around me for me to want it. And, if she isn't available, I just masturbate instead and I'm good for a while. But, my preference is sharing it, thus desire for partnered. Also, I never said I am not into kink or fetish. We have a slave/master dynamic, so sometimes the power play is what is desired.

 

 

I get the feeling you're skimming posts, or missing bits. Because, I did say I have talked to hundreds about what they consider the difference. As in, I ask them to define sexual attraction and I ask them to define the difference in sexual and asexual in their minds, where the line would be to stop someone being an average sexual person with average sexual experiences and desires. I don't define anything. I listen to them doing it. And, again, the only thing that everyone came up with in common was the desire for partnered sexual interactions. Everything else varied - the what they considered sexual attraction, what qualities were attractive, what they considered sex, etc. 

 

 

A toy and a person are very different. So, this one seems completely irrelevant to me as for orientation of any type. 

 

 

Trans groups, general LGBT groups, also my Aunt ID'd as lesbian for 20 years (so I grew up around it, which included people questioning my Aunt's ID because she was someone who was straight til a lot of abusive relationships with men), my cousin is gay, my other cousin is a cross-dresser and gay, I have pride beads hanging on my wall that i picked up at pride parade. And, they all welcome people saying "you sound lesbian to me" or "you sound straight to me" or "you sound bi to me" etc when people open up a discussion about their own sexuality. They also welcome people going "I think we have varied definitions, because this is how I ID and why, which you say you ID as that for same reason and yet it's a different label". They also fully allow people to vent when the conflicts cause distress. The only thing they do not allow is angry insulting. They make sure everyone is heard and they mediate the discussion if tensions get high, they don't attempt to silence anyone. They don't force a dysphoric trans person to celebrate the person who comes in and goes "I think I am trans because I am a girl and I don't like pink", without being able to correct them on that not quite understanding what trans means. They also are very welcoming of cis and straight allies coming in and sharing their experiences, like "Well, I am cis and I dislike pink as well. Not liking stereotypical girly things isn't really the definition of being trans"... and no one runs around shouting about it all, it's just adult conversation about personal topics and accepting some people may agree with your definitions and some people may not, but you're welcome to vent frustrations no matter what. Some of them even have Trump supporting I don't agree with fluidity or queer type people. Yet, they can all get along and disagree respectfully without all the hurt feelings AVEN has. Another member on here who is LGBT and has been far longer than I have tried to get into the community, @Skullery Maid was confused last time people called LGBT spaces all accepting as well. So, maybe it's just your local LGBT group has a more anyone can label themselves whatever and never hear any disagreement vibe, but not any of the ones I have been around. 

 

I agree. They are meant to be useful. To me, IDing as asexual when I have sex with my wife 1-5 times a week (hands and toys only, no PiV/oral/anal) would be... silly. And translate nothing. Despite the fact I don't find "people arousing" which is your definition of sexual attraction. 

 

 

 

I'm not confused about what sexual attraction is, after feeling it. It actually stopped being confusing at all. The thing that makes you choose a sexual partner - be it that I trust them enough, they are into the same kink/fetish I am and them being submissive to my dominant is arousing, or whatever. Whatever the thing is about the person that makes me choose them = attracted to them sexually. Even if it's just that the way they beg when I am whipping them makes my orgasms feel better at the end. So, unless it's a literally anyone will do, I could even go to a glory hole and never know who is doing it to me kind of thing, to me the desire for sex leading you (general you)  to choose an actual partner (for whatever reason - they are available and their willingness is good, they are trusted, they are my partner and we agreed to be monogamous, they are into my kink, etc)  means sexual attraction. And, I've never had a sexual person disagree with me on that, out of all of my years talking to them about it. Only on AVEN does that statement run into arguments. 

 

Also, if you read my post, I never once said in either  of my posts you aren't asexual. I said I disagree with your definitions and that is why I apply a different label and it isn't based on ignorance of sexuality. You desire hand stuff/toys/kink with a partner and ID as asexual. I desire hand stuff/toys/kink with a partner and ID as sexual. I do not find people "hot" or "arousing" randomly. I desire sex with my wife because it feels nice, the kink aspect is fun and she's the first person to ever give me an orgasm (others tried, it was so boring, because I had nothing making me want sex with them... despite being romantically into them enough to be with them 2-10 years romantically). 

 

In fact, I said specifically you can identify however you like or have whatever definitions you like. I just dislike the fact you're basically insulting everyone who disagrees with you by 1) Saying they are invalidating you, when most have clearly stated you are free to ID however you like. You're putting words in peoples mouths and 2) Saying anyone that disagrees with you is ignorant, inexperienced or strange and that is why they disagree because your definition is clearly the only definition that is right.  

 

 

 

 

I think the big issue is a lot of aces who do not desire partnered sexual activity feel they need a word to describe their experience. And, asexual meaning both wants sex and will never want sex, no matter how hard you try, means they don't have that. So, you run into hurt feelings, like with sith and Mysticus and various other aces. Because, the DSM-V exception is based on asexuals lacking interest in partnered sex naturally due to orientation. Because they want to be able to explain to potential partners they are ace, so expect to never get sex. And, since their definition of the word and yours differ into polar opposites, they feel like they have lost the word by you claiming it. 

 

Again, it isn't lack of understanding, ignorance, etc that leads to disagreeing with your definitions. You interpret them one way, others interpret them another way. You cannot make everyone agree with your definitions. 

 

 

Anyway, you're likely to claim me disagreeing with you and IDing my way despite sharing some of your experiences is invalidating you again... so I'll say it a second time in the same post. You can ID however you like. Your label is yours to choose. But, some people will not agree with applying the label the way you are, that doesn't make us ignorant, inexperienced or strange. And you claiming invalidation while outright insulting me for my own way of IDing is rather... ironic. 

You know, it's all ok. If I'm upsetting people, then I'm sorry about that. I do think its invalidating to tell someone that they are or aren't something, and I have been very upset by this as have a ton of other sex favorable asexuals (who have left because of the way they were treated) but you know what? It doesn't matter. Those who invalidate are a minority.

 

According to the asexuality definition you could choose to identify as asexual if you wanted to. You choose not to, and then thats fine. Someone can call me sexual here, it doesn't matter either.

I do think, though, that sexual people who have never encountered asexuality before don't necessarily know anything about it, so going by what they think it is, isn't necessarily going to be helpful. Myths and beliefs about things are rampant. For example, people have a ton of ideas about what it means to have bipolar disorder. People think they're always violent, can never be stable, that they go out and kill people, that they are always capable of getting psychotic or delusional or to hallucinate, etc. But the reality is actually quite different. So you can't always base things off of what people who know nothing about a topic think.

 

I'm going based on the agreed upon definition here and elsewhere. Personally, if someone feels sexual attraction and just doesn't want to have sex, that isn't asexual to me, but since its part of the agreed on definition, then thats whats agreed on and I'll respect that.

 

I am curious though, and I mean this in no way to insult you or offend you, but why are you even here if you identify as sexual? The only reason I can think of is that you know someone who identifies as asexual, but you don't seem to think your partner fits the definition of asexual either. So why do you feel such a kinship with this group if you don't identify as such? Why did you come here in the first place? Is it a friend or relative? I don't understand this. There's nothing wrong with allies supporting sexual minorities, (since you see yourself as an ally) I just wonder what draws you here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Serran said:

And they all give their opinion on what label I fit in their opinion and no one takes offense to it... it is educating and helpful and people agree / disagree with no issues. They freely say I think you are or arent this or that respectfully and people thank them for providing opinions. AVEN is the only sexual minority group I have encountered that finds such interactions a negative. And I dont really get why.

Not touching the rest of the thread, but I'll repeat what I've often said before.

 

I think it's all down to the experience with the "Nonlibidoist Society" all those years ago, and overcompensating in the other extreme, to the point that it ended up equally as bad as those pricks were.

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

Not touching the rest of the thread, but I'll repeat what I've often said before.

 

I think it's all down to the experience with the "Nonlibidoist Society" all those years ago, and overcompensating in the other extreme, to the point that it ended up equally as bad as those pricks were.

I have also heard from many sex favorable asexuals, that they have felt a lot of hostility towards them. And a lot of invalidating too. So much so that it drove them off the forum, and even with the changes they have no interest in returning. I left for awhile too.

 

So actually, AVEN is doing the right thing if they want to be welcoming to people of all types. If they want to be exlusionary, then thats different but the seem to want to be welcoming.

Maybe people who don't identify as sex favorable asexuals just aren't seeing how bad it has been, but it's really not good. There's a reason I've gotten so angry at certain people on here. These things don't come out of the blue, they come from being treated poorly. 

 

I think the problem is that, a lot of people who don't identify as sex favorable asexuals, just aren't seeing how bad it is.

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

We have a slave/master dynamic, so sometimes the power play is what is desired.

Also just curious but, are you the Master or the slave?

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

You know, it's all ok. If I'm upsetting people, then I'm sorry about that. I do think its invalidating to tell someone that they are or aren't something, and I have been very upset by this as have a ton of other sex favorable asexuals (who have left because of the way they were treated) but you know what? It doesn't matter. Those who invalidate are a minority.

 

According to the asexuality definition you could choose to identify as asexual if you wanted to. You choose not to, and then thats fine. Someone can call me sexual here, it doesn't matter either.

I do think, though, that sexual people who have never encountered asexuality before don't necessarily know anything about it, so going by what they think it is, isn't necessarily going to be helpful. Myths and beliefs about things are rampant. For example, people have a ton of ideas about what it means to have bipolar disorder. People think they're always violent, can never be stable, that they go out and kill people, that they are always capable of getting psychotic or delusional or to hallucinate, etc. But the reality is actually quite different. So you can't always base things off of what people who know nothing about a topic think.

I feel it would be very offensive to many of my asexual friends on here to ID as asexual. And it would feel very wrong and communicate absolutely nothing useful to anyone. So, I don't. 

 

As for going by what sexuals say - yes, it is useful to go by what sexuals say when defining sexual attraction, because they are the ones that feel it ... we don't let color blind people define colors, why should asexuals define sexual attraction? That would be odd. And I didn't ask the sexual people I know to define asexuality. I asked them to define sexual attraction. What it means for them. Then, I asked them what they felt was the common trend among sexuals that connected them all as an orientation. Then, I asked them at what point they would feel like someone didn't fit the definition of a sexual person. Because, what they all feel connects them is the important part. What makes them a community of sexuals and what do they relate to each other on. And the one thing they all agreed on was - we desire partnered sexual activities for a variety of reasons. Attraction levels varied, what attracted people varied, what they liked to do varied. 

 

Quote

 

I'm going based on the agreed upon definition here and elsewhere. Personally, if someone feels sexual attraction and just doesn't want to have sex, that isn't asexual to me, but since its part of the agreed on definition, then thats whats agreed on and I'll respect that.

 

I am curious though, and I mean this in no way to insult you or offend you, but why are you even here if you identify as sexual? The only reason I can think of is that you know someone who identifies as asexual, but you don't seem to think your partner fits the definition of asexual either. So why do you feel such a kinship with this group if you don't identify as such? Why did you come here in the first place? Is it a friend or relative? I don't understand this. There's nothing wrong with allies supporting sexual minorities, (since you see yourself as an ally) I just wonder what draws you here.

I used to ID as asexual for fiveish years, as I said in my other post. I met my wife here. We both stopped IDing with asexuality and moved away from it, especially once we developed a sexual relationship we both enjoyed and desired. I still have lots of friends here. I nearly quit, but then I had a personal issue and the support of the friends I have made here was welcome, so decided to stay active for now. 

 

What saddens me about the whole issue of differing definitions is... due to this one word fitting two polar opposite experiences, many people feel cast out and some of the people I really enjoyed being here have since left and dropped asexual and went to calling themselves "non-sexual" and such again, losing the community. It would be nice if we could separate the two experiences so each side had their own word rather than trying to share when it's obviously not working out for either side. People tried at one point, with cupiosexual, but I think it sounded a bit too... out there for a lot of people. But, both experiences being asexual also doesn't really seem to be working, for either side of it. It's kind of like trying to get homosexuals and bisexuals to share a label and harmoniously agree on what it means. It's a recipe for conflict. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

Also just curious but, are you the Master or the slave?

Oh. And just saw this :P I'm the Mistress, she is the slave. Though, sometimes she gets in a more dominate mood and flips it, but that is rare. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Serran said:

I feel it would be very offensive to many of my asexual friends on here to ID as asexual. And it would feel very wrong and communicate absolutely nothing useful to anyone. So, I don't. 

 

As for going by what sexuals say - yes, it is useful to go by what sexuals say when defining sexual attraction, because they are the ones that feel it ... we don't let color blind people define colors, why should asexuals define sexual attraction? That would be odd. And I didn't ask the sexual people I know to define asexuality. I asked them to define sexual attraction. What it means for them. Then, I asked them what they felt was the common trend among sexuals that connected them all as an orientation. Then, I asked them at what point they would feel like someone didn't fit the definition of a sexual person. Because, what they all feel connects them is the important part. What makes them a community of sexuals and what do they relate to each other on. And the one thing they all agreed on was - we desire partnered sexual activities for a variety of reasons. Attraction levels varied, what attracted people varied, what they liked to do varied. 

 

I used to ID as asexual for fiveish years, as I said in my other post. I met my wife here. We both stopped IDing with asexuality and moved away from it, especially once we developed a sexual relationship we both enjoyed and desired. I still have lots of friends here. I nearly quit, but then I had a personal issue and the support of the friends I have made here was welcome, so decided to stay active for now. 

 

What saddens me about the whole issue of differing definitions is... due to this one word fitting two polar opposite experiences, many people feel cast out and some of the people I really enjoyed being here have since left and dropped asexual and went to calling themselves "non-sexual" and such again, losing the community. It would be nice if we could separate the two experiences so each side had their own word rather than trying to share when it's obviously not working out for either side. People tried at one point, with cupiosexual, but I think it sounded a bit too... out there for a lot of people. But, both experiences being asexual also doesn't really seem to be working, for either side of it. It's kind of like trying to get homosexuals and bisexuals to share a label and harmoniously agree on what it means. It's a recipe for conflict. 

I agree. All these problems are stemming from two different people sharing the same label. 
Personally, I find it sad that you feel you can't identify as asexual anymore, and that you have no label to define your orientation. I just find it sad. I also find it sad because, some people who CAN identify as asexual according to your definition, actually have a phobia that can be cured (if they wanted to). To me that shouldn't count as an orientation, but under your definition it does. I find it especially sad because, you met your slave here. 

 

Btw, great analogy with the bi and homosexuality sharing the same label.

 

I do find it interesting that you're a Mistress. I tried the M/s dynamic. I gravitate for the s side, but depending on how you define slave, I either do or don't count as one. I'm kind of liking "semi-slave" because I think it gets the point across better. Still trying to figure things out though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

I agree. All these problems are stemming from two different people sharing the same label. 
Personally, I find it sad that you feel you can't identify as asexual anymore, and that you have no label to define your orientation. I just find it sad. I also find it sad because, some people who CAN identify as asexual according to your definition, actually have a phobia that can be cured (if they wanted to). To me that shouldn't count as an orientation, but under your definition it does. I find it especially sad because, you met your slave here. 

 

Btw, great analogy with the bi and homosexuality sharing the same label.

 

I do find it interesting that you're a Mistress. I tried the M/s dynamic. I gravitate for the s side, but depending on how you define slave, I either do or don't count as one. I'm kind of liking "semi-slave" because I think it gets the point across better. Still trying to figure things out though.

I don't really want to ID as asexual. I don't feel it fits. Because, the DSM-V and such exempt it from HSDD for orientation meaning lacks desire for sex naturally.... which I think it's really important they have that word and I have no interest at all in taking it. Especially since it protects them from being diagnosed as mentally ill for not wanting sex. 

 

I don't much care about labels enough to claim one. If anything, likely demisexual, as I only desire sex with my wife and I've dated lots of people that I wanted nothing to do with sexually (despite being romantically involved), but I don't personally find the label useful in communicating anything to people. They already know I want sex with my wife (they assume that from marriage, given most are sexual people). They don't really need to know I don't want anything sexual from anyone else. So, it's a non-issue for me. My main concern right now is ... what do I call myself as for gender-related one. Homo, bi, pan? :lol: I don't know. Likely pan with a preference for males but love can overcome the preference. But, even if I did claim the demisexual label, I don't personally go by the asexuality spectrum idea... I believe sexuality is a spectrum, with aces on one end and sexuals on the other end and all the greys and such in the middle. I relate just fine to either side, because I have had four romantic non-sexual relationships where I felt zero desire / attraction in the sexual sense. I now like sex with my wife and if we have it every day after a long time away from each other, people just see that as normal, they don't really need to know it's a BDSM toys/hands situation and not PiV or oral. So, I don't really feel out of place in either community and I am perfectly fine IDing as sexual, as I feel it fits best with the least harm. I just call myself a sexual with odd preferences, or super picky. I cannot enjoy sexual activities without absolute comfort in the idea that it's not an obligation, no expectations to do this as often as they want, they aren't gonna get mad if I don't, etc and only my wife has ever given me that ability to relax about it. 

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

I don't really want to ID as asexual. I don't feel it fits. Because, the DSM-V and such exempt it from HSDD for orientation meaning lacks desire for sex naturally.... which I think it's really important they have that word and I have no interest at all in taking it. Especially since it protects them from being diagnosed as mentally ill for not wanting sex. 

 

I don't much care about labels enough to claim one. If anything, likely demisexual, as I only desire sex with my wife and I've dated lots of people that I wanted nothing to do with sexually (despite being romantically involved), but I don't personally find the label useful in communicating anything to people. They already know I want sex with my wife (they assume that from marriage, given most are sexual people). They don't really need to know I don't want anything sexual from anyone else. So, it's a non-issue for me. My main concern right now is ... what do I call myself as for gender-related one. Homo, bi, pan? :lol: I don't know. Likely pan with a preference for males but love can overcome the preference. But, even if I did claim the demisexual label, I don't personally go by the asexuality spectrum idea... I believe sexuality is a spectrum, with aces on one end and sexuals on the other end and all the greys and such in the middle. I relate just fine to either side, because I have had four romantic non-sexual relationships where I felt zero desire / attraction in the sexual sense. I now like sex with my wife and if we have it every day after a long time away from each other, people just see that as normal, they don't really need to know it's a BDSM toys/hands situation and not PiV or oral. So, I don't really feel out of place in either community and I am perfectly fine IDing as sexual, as I feel it fits best with the least harm. I just call myself a sexual with odd preferences, or super picky. I cannot enjoy sexual activities without absolute comfort in the idea that it's not an obligation, no expectations to do this as often as they want, they aren't gonna get mad if I don't, etc and only my wife has ever given me that ability to relax about it. 

Well, one of the reasons I need to ID as asexual is because I'm still looking for people. I need a label that helps describe why I react the way I do, and why I do what I do. And why I won't do certain things. I pretty much always say "sex favorable asexual" though. People don't seem to think thats a contradiction. So it works for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gray-a girl said:

Well, one of the reasons I need to ID as asexual is because I'm still looking for people. I need a label that helps describe why I react the way I do, and why I do what I do. And why I won't do certain things. I pretty much always say "sex favorable asexual" though. People don't seem to think thats a contradiction. So it works for me.

One thing you're getting a lot of backlash from is a lot of them say asexual - simply that. And they go on dating sites, ace meetups, etc and act very sexual, need sex to be together, etc... and sometimes they don't even clarify anything, because they are asexual so people just naturally assume two asexuals together = compatible enough in sexual orientation, right? So, aces are going to meetups or dating sites and being asked for sex and panicking because they can't even get away from it among other asexuals. Sexting, cybering, trading nudes, webcam sex, even ONS IRL at ace events is becoming a thing. Someone even posted earlier that their asexual friends taught them romance means you want sex, even if you're asexual, so anything else can't be romantic... like, seriously asexuals are invalidating the idea of romantic attraction without sex since they enjoy sex as sex favorable, so teach their sexual friends that it's the ace experience too. 

 

So, a lot of the anger isn't so much directed at you as at the whole situation. I know people who feel unsafe dating self-identifying asexuals cause they end up wanting sex from them. And since they just simply ID as asexual, it's impossible to tell them apart from the others and so the person may spend a lot of time/energy finding an ace to date, arranging meetups, going to dinner... to be met with "wanna go back to my place and have sex? ;) " which can then make them discouraged ever dating again since aces and sexuals are ending the night the same way, with unwanted sexual advances. 

 

So, I mean, as long as you're totally up front with you want sex and respect the spaces that are ace to leave that desire at the door (cause seriously, aces need an escape from sex sometimes), OK. If you find it a useful way to explain to people not really into a lot of sex acts and I may be more mechanical than you expect, fine. I'm not gonna tell you what label to pick, nor will anyone here (without getting a warning anyway). But, the sharing the label is causing a lot of issues and it's causing a lot of conflict within the asexual community as a whole. And running both sides off, not just the sex favorables. 

 

Which, is where you're getting a lot of the anger coming from. The ones that are ace due to never desiring sex are having to share with those that do desire sex. Which means, finding someone to date is harder than before. Finding a safe space free of sexual advances is harder than before. Feeling like they fit in their label is harder than before. 

 

Obviously, not all feel that way. Some don't mind sharing. But, many do and it's becoming this big war rather than bringing the community together. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

Personally, I find it sad that you feel you can't identify as asexual anymore, and that you have no label to define your orientation. I just find it sad. I also find it sad because, some people who CAN identify as asexual according to your definition, actually have a phobia that can be cured (if they wanted to). To me that shouldn't count as an orientation, but under your definition it does. I find it especially sad because, you met your slave here. 

Sorry to but into the convo here, but I've heard other people echo this kind of thinking and it's baffling to me that it seems to be unique to the asexual community but not to other communities with other orientations? Or maybe it's true there too, I just haven't seen it?

 

My point is, why would it be sad to not be able to identify as asexual? Serran is still very welcome here in the ace community. They are in fact a wonderful addition to it and they spread lots of awareness and education.

 

Is it sad to no longer identify as straight? As gay? As anything else? It shouldn't. In fact it should be celebrated. Serran has learned more about themselves by figuring out they aren't actually asexual, and they've made friends and community along the way, friends and community that are happy to accept them at whatever label they ultimately find fits them, even if that isn't asexual. Perhaps identify as asexual was helpful for a time, perhaps it let them figure other things out. But at the end of the journey, Serran (not to put words in their mouth) is probably happier not identifying as asexual.

 

I'm guessing all that because it was similar for me. I ID'd as asexual and it gave me a chance to stop seeing sex as an expectation of me rather as something that should only happen if I enjoyed it, if I wanted it. Once I experienced that change of thinking, when my current partner happened to come into my life, sex was different with her than I ever thought it could be, ever had before. Sex to me before her was weird and awful and pointless. Sex with her is intimacy and love and care. I've never wanted to have sex with anyone else, but I also could see myself building this with another very special person because I now understand better how to build a sexual relationship I actually want (though I hope I don't have to, I really like her). It's certainly not the kind of relationship most media seems to expunge, but that's media's problem.

 

Similar to Serran, idk what orientation I actually am and honestly don't care. I usually roll with queer as I'm dating someone of my own gender so people don't exactly assume I'm straight so you gotta tell them something :P For some people, a label feels like freedom and validation and a strong part of their identity. For me, it doesn't. It's just one part of me, one small part of me. What's more important to me than whatever label I could use is that I love my partner. I don't love her for her gender, I love her for her whole person. That's just all that matters to me in terms of relationships. One day, my partner and I may split (though again, fingers crossed we don't). Then I'll be searching for another person to love all of and that will most likely include sex.

 

So yeah, I no longer identify as asexual. But that's just as empowering to me as identify as asexual could be to others because it means I've done the hard work and learned enough to understand myself. And knowing that I'm not asexual empowers me to find the kinds of relationships that bring me the most joy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Puck said:

Sorry to but into the convo here, but I've heard other people echo this kind of thinking and it's baffling to me that it seems to be unique to the asexual community but not to other communities with other orientations? Or maybe it's true there too, I just haven't seen it?

 

My point is, why would it be sad to not be able to identify as asexual? Serran is still very welcome here in the ace community. They are in fact a wonderful addition to it and they spread lots of awareness and education.

 

Is it sad to no longer identify as straight? As gay? As anything else? It shouldn't. In fact it should be celebrated. Serran has learned more about themselves by figuring out they aren't actually asexual, and they've made friends and community along the way, friends and community that are happy to accept them at whatever label they ultimately find fits them, even if that isn't asexual. Perhaps identify as asexual was helpful for a time, perhaps it let them figure other things out. But at the end of the journey, Serran (not to put words in their mouth) is probably happier not identifying as asexual.

 

Hmm. I'm kind of biased in this because IDing as sexual means I found my wife who I adore, so by default to me that is better than any experience IDing as asexual. :lol:  

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

Hmm. I'm kind of biased in this because IDing as sexual means I found my wife who I adore, so by default to me that is better than any experience IDing as asexual. :lol:  

Dude same :P Only after shedding the asexual label did I find my partner and she's brought more happiness into my life than I could have every expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Puck said:

My point is, why would it be sad to not be able to identify as asexual? Serran is still very welcome here in the ace community. They are in fact a wonderful addition to it and they spread lots of awareness and education.

I agree. I'm in the same(ish) boat as Serran in that I discovered I can desire some sexual acts, even though for me, I'm perfectly happy to live without them and don't need them to be happy. I don't have to try and twist myself into the ace label though just because I have some things in common with asexuality. I'm still welcome here regardless and the only time anyone argues with me about my sexual identity is when sex-favourable asexuals try to insist I'm actually asexual, lol!

 

12 hours ago, gray-a girl said:

I honestly don't understand why anyone who is not kinky would do sexual stuff with someone if they did not feel aroused by them. What reason would they engage in sex if the person didn't find them arousing? I do not understand this. Something has to be arousing for you to want to do stuff.

Well not everyone gets aroused *by* stuff. I'm certainly not someone who gets aroused *by* things, and there are plenty of sexuals like me out there. For me, I just get aroused hormonally and when I'm aroused, I'm able to be open to certain kinks and fetishes that I crave if aroused. That's how it works for many, many people.

 

Then of course you get all the aces who engage in sex to try to keep their partner happy (even though they don't inherently desire the sex themselves and it generally makes them unhappy and stressed).. I mean, many aces here have had to go through that and many are still going through it right now. Funny(sad) thing is, they'd also have to deal with that with their own asexual partner if they ended up with a 'sex favourable asexual'... which is just... Mind boggling.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Puck said:

Similar to Serran, idk what orientation I actually am and honestly don't care.

Oh and same to this too. I have no idea what I actually am, I just know I'm not ace. And that's okay ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gray-a girl said:

Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity.

Just looking through this thread again. 

 

I see you took the definition of asexual from AVEN's FAQ page but then linked to other sites for the definitions for those words. However, AVEN's definition of asexuality was written with AVEN's definition of the terms within it in mind.

 

AVEN's definition of sexual attraction is: Desire to have sexual contact with someone else or to share our sexuality with them. (Note: sexual attraction does not need to be based on appearance, and can also develop gradually over time.)

 

This suggests that if a person wants to have sex with another person for any reason, they are experiencing sexual attraction.

 

Just thought that might clear up where people on this particular site might be confused on how you are using the "or" in the sentence or defining sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Puck said:

AVEN's definition of sexual attraction is: Desire to have sexual contact with someone else or to share our sexuality with them. (Note: sexual attraction does not need to be based on appearance, and can also develop gradually over time.)

Just quoting this to reiterate in case it's missed.

 

Sex favourable asexuals always seem to miss this part when saying that AVENs definition of asexuality (lack of sexual attraction) proves that asexuals can have an innate desire for partnered sexual contact.

 

But AVEN defines sexual attraction *as* the desire for partnered sexual contact. So what the definition means is "Asexuality is the lack of a desire to connect sexually with others".

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

Just quoting this to reiterate in case it's missed.

 

Sex favourable asexuals always seem to miss this part when saying that AVENs definition of asexuality (lack of sexual attraction) proves that asexuals can have an innate desire for partnered sexual contact.

 

But AVEN defines sexual attraction *as* the desire for partnered sexual contact. So what the definition means is "Asexuality is the lack of a desire to connect sexually with others".

Yup :) I know I don't need to tell you, but take my words as commiserating ;)

 

It just follows the generally agreed upon attraction definitions of other orientations:

 

People who are gay want to connect sexually with people of their gender... they are sexually attracted to their gender

 

People who are bi want to connect sexually with people who are male or female... they are sexually attracted to both males and females

 

People who are straight want to connect sexually with people who are opposite their gender... they are sexually attracted to their opposite gender

 

And people who are asexual don't want to connect sexually with anyone of any gender... they don't experience sexual attraction.

 

(and so on for other orientations)

 

That's what AVEN's main pages insinuate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Puck said:

People who are gay want to connect sexually with people of their gender... they are sexually attracted to their gender

 

Exactly, to everything you said. And if a man went into a gay bar and said "I'm gay because I find men very attractive to look at, but I only desire sex with women and have no interest in having sex with men.. because yeah I just adore the feelings of being inside a vagina" ...literally every gay man in that bar would say "eeer, dude, that means you're straight".

 

Because when it comes to defining sexual orientation, it's who you desire sex with that matters. If you literally don't desire sex with anyone at all because you don't experience that drive to experience sexual pleasure with other people, then that's when 'not experiencing sexual attraction' is a definition that applies to you.

 

But yeah, it's about who you desire to connect sexually with. Not about getting turned on by specific people and desiring sex with them as a result (because not all sexual people experience that. That's only one expression of sexuality that some people experience).

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

All seems very complicated. I'll stick with donuts 🍩 

Donuts are easier. 

 

But yeah. I agree with Puck and Pan on definitions, for myself. 

 

Each person has to go through searching and researching and settle on what feels comfortable. Many of us are comfortable settling on sexual, because we feel it fits best, once we desire sex. Some of us are not. So, to be clear again, no one is saying the label cannot be used by sex favorables (that one has always been a big no on AVEN and anyone that does it gets a warn fast). Everyone is free to choose what label they find most comfortable. But, as we can see, a lot of us have similar journeys and a different destination (label). Which, I like that AVEN allows sharing stories even when we disagree and that would not be a good thing to change, imo. I know in my journey of finding out there are ways I enjoy sex, I appreciated the sharing of experiences from all viewpoints. It was really helpful. Even though, due to my partner's privacy, I didn't straight up ask since it would have required details shared that she may not have been OK with. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox
2 hours ago, Halffull said:

All seems very complicated. I'll stick with donuts 🍩 

It’s all a lot of hot air that expands that never releases in the colder days.  I’d stick to foxes 🦊 or my spiritual wolfie 🐺

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 2:25 AM, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

Just quoting this to reiterate in case it's missed.

 

Sex favourable asexuals always seem to miss this part when saying that AVENs definition of asexuality (lack of sexual attraction) proves that asexuals can have an innate desire for partnered sexual contact.

 

But AVEN defines sexual attraction *as* the desire for partnered sexual contact. So what the definition means is "Asexuality is the lack of a desire to connect sexually with others".

The only reason someone would have an INNATE desire for partnered sex, is because they get aroused by them. I just find it more convenient if someone else takes the reins. It doesn't mean I have an innate desire to have sex with them.

Ok heres the thing: If you have a sex indifferent asexual... with a strong libido... they don't mind having sex with someone else, or they can do it themselves. They like to do it but it doesn't matter how. Either is good for them. BUT, what if that sex indifferent asexual had no hands? And no way to masterbate? What if the only way they could masterbate is to have someone else do it for them? Would you immediately classify them as sexual, because, gee, they like partnered sex and would like to do that over nothing?

Thats somewhat analogous to my situation. There are certain things, like bondage, that I cannot do myself. I cannot tie myself up, it just doesn't work. I've tried. So, it's analogous to the sex indifferent asexual without hands, that likes partnered sex, because he can't do it him or herself.

 

If I wasn't kinky at all, and I still wanted partnered sex, I'd agree with you that that would probably make me sexual. (Can't think of any other reason you might prefer sex to masterbating... except maybe because of the emotional closeness? I don't know. Who knows maybe there is a reason, I just don't know what it is). But, because its the kink that turns me on, not the person, and most kinks cannot be easily done alone if at all, then I'd say that my situation is different. If I wasn't kinky, I'd most certainly be indifferent... I might have sex to make the other person happy, but thats about it. If I was in a relationship where my partner didn't want to do kinky stuff, I'd be  very much sex indifferent. And actually, for most of my twenties, guys would beg me to have sex (Piv) and usually I would turn them down. It hurt to have sex, but I had no desire to fix it or find out why. If I hadn't discovered an interest in kink, I'd still be saying no to PiV sex, and I'd be indifferent to sexual activity.

Just these past few weeks, I've been meeting a guy, for "sexual stuff". But, he wasn't doing any of my kinks. I really started to feel like seeing him was a chore, and not wanting to go. I was trying to be open minded and etc, but we just broke it off. All he did was finger me... and we did one of his kinks. none of mine. Not interested. No kink? None of mine? I don't care how beautiful, well built, or attractive according to societies standards you are. Not interested. I'm not interested in doing sexual activity with anyone based on how they look, who they are, their personality, how smart they are, their vanilla skills, etc. I'm interested in what they can do for me, as far as, actions. It doesn't matter if the person is unattractive by societies standards... doesn't matter anything about them, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just pulled this from AVEN:

"Sexual attraction - Seeing someone and not only finding them attractive, but thinking you'd like to have sex with them, like fantasies and such. It's attraction to another person that at it's end wants to be physically intimate, as opposed to being attracted to someone in a way where you think, "I'd like to get to know them" or "I want to be their best friend" or "I want to be close to that person"."

 

That doesn't happen with me. I don't fantasize about people, or anyone, really. I do fantasize about kink, but usually I don't fill in the details about the person. I don't even imagine how they look, or anything about them. I just imagine the actions.

 

I also don't see or meet or get to know people, and think "I'd like to have sex with them". It doesn't work that way for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ok heres the thing: If you have a sex indifferent asexual... with a strong libido... they don't mind having sex with someone else, or they can do it themselves. They like to do it but it doesn't matter how. Either is good for them. BUT, what if that sex indifferent asexual had no hands? And no way to masterbate? What if the only way they could masterbate is to have someone else do it for them? Would you immediately classify them as sexual, because, gee, they like partnered sex and would like to do that over nothing?

Funny you should mention that, because pretty much the only way I can do that is with the help of someone else.  Doesn't change the fact that if I would desire/pursue that with others for the sake of my own sexual gratification, that'd still very much make me sexual.  It wouldn't just "not count" simply because solo doesn't work for me for whatever reason.  Most people prefer partnered to solo.  It's why they're sexual.
 

Quote

Just these past few weeks, I've been meeting a guy, for "sexual stuff". But, he wasn't doing any of my kinks. I really started to feel like seeing him was a chore, and not wanting to go. I was trying to be open minded and etc, but we just broke it off. All he did was finger me... and we did one of his kinks. none of mine. Not interested. No kink? None of mine? I don't care how beautiful, well built, or attractive according to societies standards you are. Not interested. I'm not interested in doing sexual activity with anyone based on how they look, who they are, their personality, how smart they are, their vanilla skills, etc. I'm interested in what they can do for me, as far as, actions. It doesn't matter if the person is unattractive by societies standards... doesn't matter anything about them, really.

Most sexual people also won't care for a partner that's "attractive" but just lays there during sex and isn't engaged/interested at all, either.  That is, again, pretty normal for sexuals.

 

I'm just really not getting what has you feeling like you're way different from the norm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Funny you should mention that, because pretty much the only way I can do that is with the help of someone else.  Doesn't change the fact that if I would desire/pursue that with others for the sake of my own sexual gratification, that'd still very much make me sexual.  It wouldn't just "not count" simply because solo doesn't work for me for whatever reason.  Most people prefer partnered to solo.  It's why they're sexual.
 

Most sexual people also won't care for a partner that's "attractive" but just lays there during sex and isn't engaged/interested at all, either.  That is, again, pretty normal for sexuals.

 

I'm just really not getting what has you feeling like you're way different from the norm.

So wait, if you had a high libido sex indifferent asexual (they'd be indifferent they had hands) but they had no hands, (maybe the suddenly lost them in an accident) and they preferred partnered sex like fingering because it was the only way they could do it, that would actually mean sexual to you? Wow, ok... I don't even think I can argue with you if you take up that position.

 

28 minutes ago, gray-a girl said:

That doesn't happen with me. I don't fantasize about people, or anyone, really. I do fantasize about kink, but usually I don't fill in the details about the person. I don't even imagine how they look, or anything about them. I just imagine the actions.

I said this. This still seems NORMAL to you? Even though the sexual attraction quote I quoted, FROM AVEN, said that the opposite is part of sexual attraction? 

All this seems normal to you? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...