Jump to content

Defining Sexuality


yam

Recommended Posts

So I am placing this topic here very purposely. I am interested on takes from 'older' asexuals (i.e. those who have had more time to develop and define sexuality) because many at the 'younger' end of the spectrum define sexuality based on the media and young peoples' acts based on media/pop culture (not that media/pop culture doesn't have a place). But I want to give credit to sexuals because at some point sex is more than just 'fucking someone' (though it is sometimes just that too).

I am thinking around this topic because I am constructing a biography for a graduate level education class called Multicultural Ways of Knowing. My instructor is offering critiques of our rough drafts to help us think through our final projects (an artistic endeavor). And so she questions not so much my asexuality but how I define asexuality in opposition to sexuality. She points out that sexuality is more than just sex. In thinking about this comment, I'm persuaded to invite a conversation about this topic because 1.) I suppose if we define ourselves as being a-sexual (a suggesting not) we should know what we define ourselves as not and 2.) I'm interested in thinking about our philosophy of asexuality.

Please, converse!

Some of my thoughts:

Sexuality:

Expression of sexual sensation?

Expression of intimacy?

So if it's sexual sensation then I'd argue that people who express sexual sensations alone or with partners/groups are sexual. (I don't neccessarily agree with this).

If it's intimacy then perhaps many of us are sexual because we are intimate though not neccessarily performing sex acts to carry out our expression of intimacy.

And by calling ourselves asexuals, we almost have to be not sexuals. Do we want to define ourselves as not something. For example, there are some movements within disability groups to not be defined by an inability. Or in marginalized groups not to be called non-white. How do we fit in here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or let me add this third thought... Is sexuality the condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex? In this case because we define ourselves as not having sex then perhaps we are not sexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do love deep thinking.

I am going to ramble a bit and then someone else can take it and run with it. :D :D :D

I don't think you are going to get a definative answer here or anywhere else. Just like there are many types of sexuals, there are many types of asexuals. And most importantly, sometimes the boundries between the two blend or blur together.

As for me, before I came to AVEN I classified myself as monosexual. Defined as me being a person with a sex drive, but with no desire to fulfill that desire with anyone else, except myself and then only as needed to keep from going crazy from biological sexual frustrations.

Some asexuals don't have any sex drive at all, from what I have read here on AVEN.

In my opinion, the difference between a sexual and an asexual is "desire to have sex." I'm a virgin, I have never had any desire to have a sexual relationship.

Sexuals in my opinion, desire to have sex at some point in their lives. They may or may not ever do it, for verying reasons, but if the right opportunity presented itself they would have sex. (example, Religious persons who take a vow of abstinence. They have the desire but don't act on it.)

Asexuals in my opinion, do not desire to have sex under any circumstance, even if they do have sex with someone for whatever reason. (example, an asexual married to a sexual may have sex for the sake of the marriage. They don't have the desire yet act anyway.)

Then there are those, whom I have read their posts here on AVEN, who when younger were sexual and had the desire, yet as they got older, lost the desire for sex and now live an asexual lifestyle. I personally classify those people as sexuals living an asexual life.

But for your discussion, the simplest I can explain it is "desire". Sexuals have the desire and asexuals don't have the desire, irregardless of whether they have sex or not.

Okay, now its time for someone else to take it from here, because there are so many different types of us, that I know there are other definitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Ziffler said, there are many versions of this conversation (and I already drafted one on the assumption that you were new to AVEN only to discover you've been around for three years compared to my six months, sorry!). And being on the "Older" forum doesn't necessarily mean we've been working on the theory for thirty years! Some of the debate from younger people here seems to be very mature, probably because just being here, accepting the unusual about yourself, already takes people out of the unthinking "fashion" mindset.

I would start from the current AVEN, front page definition, "A person who doesn't experience sexual attraction." Even if you work on your own variations of that, you will be talking about who people are, not what they do, and will be better placed to make comparisons with sexual people. Sexuality is more than sex, I think your teacher's right. Whereas most sexual people have never felt the need to declare themselves as such (believing they are simply "the norm"), many of us who declare a specific sexual or "romantic" orientation (I'm an asexual lesbian) are constantly asserting that we are talking about our identity, "not just what we do in bed". As I said, go from who people declare they are in this context, not what they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the front page. I've read the front page hundreds of times but what I don't understand is *sexual* attraction. Clearly, I label myself an asexual, meaning I don't have an urge to engage in sex nor do I think about sex when I find someone attractive. But more broadly, being an asexual puts us either in opposition (though I mean that not as strongly as it comes out) to sex or our own (or lack thereof) sexuality when we examine the roots of the word a-sexual. If I am not sexual then what I am I not? What does it mean to be sexual if it is more than what goes on in the bed? How do we define sexual?

I am perhaps suggesting that this notion of being asexual is problematic if we cannot address or are unable to define what we are not. By defining what we are not, we'd be able to create our definition of asexuality before someone elsewhere draws up a definition for us.

So my question becomes what is your definition of sexuality? I know what our definition is of asexuality but I want to know what we are defined in contrast to...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to give offense, but to me the above is overthinking a fairly simple issue.

I define "sexuality" as the desire for physical intimacy with another person; or the desire for sexual gratification from another person or object. Asexuality is the absence of that drive.

An asexual person may desire emotional intimacy, or physical intimacy that does not ultimately result in sexual behavior. Sexual people seem to have great difficulty refraining from extending emotional or physical intimacy into the realm of physical sex.

Maybe I'm missing the point of the question....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so if sexuality is the desire for physical intimacy, how is that more than what happens in the bed, as others have suggested. I suppose that theoretically I'm confused about why I define myself as asexual. I know I'm asexual, which means I know I am not sexual. But what does it mean to be sexual? How do I know I'm not sexual if we have no definition beyond physical intimacy. I suppose I'm being essentialist here but I'm trying to wrap my head around sexuality. Do we have a hard time defining it because we are mostly all asexual?

Dr. Ruth, Dan Savage, famous sex therapists, where are you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I could say sexuality to me is more than just wanting to have sex with people, but I'm not sure that's the same thing as saying that me being "sexual" is more than just wanting to have sex with people.

My sexuality informs a lot of things about me. It informs how I react to other people's gender and appearance. It affects my behavior towards different people. It affects my perceptions of the world around me, or at least specific parts of the world. I can smell certain (perfectly innocent) scents and link them to sex, because I was burning scented candles one particularly romantic night. I'm quite sure it affects the way I dance - both what dancing means to me and what I try to communicate to others through dancing. It is so important to who I am and and what I do, but not because I obsess over it, just because it is there and it's part of me.

But I can't explain to you what it is exactly that asexuals aren't and I am. The way I experience my sexuality isn't the way every sexual experiences theirs, and I'm sure there are some asexuals out there that are generally more like me in reactions and attitudes than some sexuals. The only really key and binding difference is that I look at (some) men and feel sexual attraction, even lust, and asexuals don't.

I hope that was helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . it's funny:

It seems like the asexuals AND sexuals that have posted agree that something's different between the two groups, but putting a finger on it's apparently a bit more difficult.

Part of the trouble, for me anyway, is that I don't have a frame of reference with what it *means* to be sexual, just like other people have said.

And of course, if I did, then I might not consider myself to be asexual.

We don't make things easy on ourselves by identifying ourselves as "not". Just like trying to define light versus dark--you have to come up with a meaning of one, and then the other's defined as "the absence of. . ."

But as BunnyK said, being sexual is more than just sex--it seems like a whole component of life.

Thus, lacking the desire to have sex (or however you define it) goes further, affecting conversation topics, behaviors, the way you look at things. . .all sorts of stuff. (at least in my case, and relative to some of the posts of sexual people that I've seen)

Maybe. . .like being color-blind or something. (although this may give a deficiency-oriented spin that I don't intend, really) If I were color-blind, I wouldn't know it--at least, that I was different from others--until someone was able to distinguish between things that I couldn't. Until then, I wouldn't know what I was lacking. But, once I did know, how would I be able to explain it, not knowing what I was "missing"? How can you define a not-ness?

I thought this topic was interesting and threw in my 2 cents of confusion, even though I'm not an "older asexual" yet. I'm going to wander off and be confused some more, now. . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. These were the ideas I was trying to get it. Though we clearly haven't managed to really discern what we mean (though I think this is an ongoing and fluid process).

By sticking it in the older category, btw, I was attempting to get people who had thought about it and who may not be so easily swayed by the media (which I find is generally representative of my generation and younger, though may have a thread throughout all generations) to define sexuality as that which they see in music videos, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been intrigued by this topic since you first posted it, but it is SOO complex and confusing that I haven't been able to come up with an answer.

In case of doubt, as always, I fall back onto observations of other species and then try to figure out where humans fit into the overall scheme of animal behavior.

Sexuality encompasses gender identity as well as gender-based and sexually-based behavior. The inner gender identity and eventual sexuality is (I believe, at least for now) either entirely or mostly determined before birth. Sexual behavior is largely determined by the culture a person lives in. In other words, since courtship behavior involves a lot of social rituals it can be either right or wrong, depending on the cultural environment. Sex itself can be right or wrong depending on what society says about it.

So, a person's sexuality (as seen from the outside) would be primarily their behavior as it relates to their search for a sexual partner. Their gender, sexual identity and libido will have a stong influence on their behavior as well. That behavior would include everything; dress, hygiene, mannerisms, speech ... you name it, as well as their mental behavior as it relates to identifying the type of person they desire for a sexual partner.

To contrast that with asexuality ... hmmm.

Well, the outside behavior MIGHT be different, but a lot of asexuals learn to play "the game" in order to be accepted by others. It is in the mental aspect of sexuality that we differ. Choosing the type of person desired for sexual relationships IS an aspect of sexuality, and asexuals DO make a choice. It just happens to be NOBODY.

Clear as mud, eh? :lol:

I hope this helps.

-GB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the mud's thickening for me as well - my tendency to say sexuality is more than "what people do in bed" comes from my own peculiar history of having identified as a lesbian, and also a feminist so I've been around some of these ideas, for far, far longer than I've consciously identified as asexual (35 years as opposed to 6 months in case you haven't read my other posts). Having thought about it, I find I still believe the broadest definitions, including GBRD's:

"Sexuality encompasses gender identity as well as gender-based and sexually-based behavior...Sexual behavior is largely determined by the culture a person lives in. In other words, since courtship behavior involves a lot of social rituals it can be either right or wrong, depending on the cultural environment."

And, from your own first post Yam:

"If it's intimacy then perhaps many of us are sexual because we are intimate though not necessarily performing sex acts to carry out our expression of intimacy."

I find myself going back to look at the view, often expressed in books and articles, that sexuality is part of human experience for everyone, and wondering if asexuality is a thread within sexuality, not its opposite at all. Which is probably far from the view of most Avenites, and I'm still working it out, so can't be more articulate about it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks.

so while we chose to call ourselves asexuals, if we define ouselves within sexuality, what would be a more appropriate word to describe our position within sexuality. i think the asexual label is fine because it helps, at first glance, easily categorize the idea that we loosely organize around, but that we may for sake of research, theory, or other purpose, need a word that more deliberately explains our place at the sexual table...

but perhaps this also takes some re-defining of sexuality to include the multiple seats at our 'big ole' sexual table. if we redefine sexuality, it may be come more welcoming, not only for us, but those marginalized sexualities. homo-, bi- sexuals are still sexuals, just as a- sexuals are sexuals but with a different way of carrying out our intimate relationships other than engaging in sex (though I think I'd like a different word for sex, f*cking seems too vulgar for what I am told is a very nice act and making love should be allowed to be done between anyone who loves each other, so we need something else). think about the potential too for redefining sexuality! schools could teach it even in bible belt areas because it is about forming intimate relationships and how to form healthy intimate relationships (my students often did not have exposure to this idea and saw very rarely healthy sexual relationships). perhaps?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Me being a simple soul (at times) thinks maybe we think too much at times. SAometimes you need to accept things just for being as they are (especially when thinking too much gives me a headache!).

Of course, I realise that this sort of answer would not be acceptable as part of a study... :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

thinking excites me. i also think the idea of asexuality is a uncharted territory and so while my doctoral field is education i may take a foray into sex studies to cover my 20% out of the department requirement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can grasp the idea that red and green (pigments) are opposite colors.

I can grasp the idea of describing them as different wavelengths.

However, trying to define red in terms of green really confuses me ... :?

Isn't that sort of like trying to define asexuality in terms of sexuality?

*scratches head*

-GB

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

I've been thinking on this for days trying to come up with a comprehensive definition. I came across this today in Asexual Relationships Posted by:

Bard of Aven

Of or pertaining to the senses or physical sensation; sensory. Of appetites and pleasures: Connected with the gratification of the senses. Of persons, their dispositions, conduct, etc. a. Absorbed in the life of the senses; indifferent to intellectual and moral interests. In religious use: Destitute of spiritual life, worldly, irreligious. Excessively inclined to the gratification of the senses, voluptuous; often spec. with reference to sexual passion, lewd, unchaste. Of physiognomy or features: Indicative of a sensual disposition.

Of or pertaining to sex or the attribute of being either male or female; existing or predicated with regard to sex. Pertaining to sex as concerned in generation or in the processes connected with this. Of or pertaining to the organs of sex. Of animals and plants: Having sex; sexed; separated into two sexes; having sexual organs; producing offspring by means of sexual congress. (Opposed to asexual.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

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