Am I the only one who doesn't view their asexuality as purely "lack of attraction"

[VibeN]

I get it, it makes sense when trying to explain asexuality, to use the "lack of attraction", just like you would use attraction to describe other sexualities (such as bisexuality)

but when I first heard about asexuality (long before I heard of Aven and other sites talking about it) it was about not being interested in sex (with other people). At no point did it talk about a lack of attraction. 

Mind you I did notice early on that I didn't find people attractive the way other people do, such as girl friends asking "Which boy do you find cute?" etc. but I never connected it to being asexual until I found the asexuality tag on tumblr, and Aven. 

I've also noticed some people saying that "Asexuality is purely not being attracted to anyone, and not being interested in sex has nothing to do with it" And I'm confused, because at the same time, when I read other asexual people's stories, they too talk about not being intested in having sex with other people (Whether people choose to do it anyway is their own blessing)

 

So do you view your asexuality as a "lack of attraction" or a "not interested" or perhaps both?

[Guest]

This is gonna open a can of worms...

 

Some people view it as purely lack of attraction, some even desire and love sex but say they lack attraction thus asexual.

 

Some view it as lack of a desire for sex. Since that is the main thing that separates them from sexuals practically speaking. 

 

Some view it as either/or to be inclusive. 

 

 

[A User]

10 minutes ago, VibeN said:

So do you view your asexuality as a "lack of attraction" or a "not interested" or perhaps both?

perhaps both, but i'm not sure entriely

[Morays]

This debate has raged for as long as AVEN has existed, and probably won't end until the earth is engulfed in the sun.

 

For my two cents, I find the "attraction" definition frustrating and needlessly confusing, because attraction is such a complicated and nebulous phenomenon. "Lack of interest and/or innate desire for partnered sex" is a lot more straightforward, and it's easier to determine if one's experience fits it. But it seems pretty unlikely that the community will ever come to a unified consensus around this.

[Iliyasviel]

6 minutes ago, SocialMorays said:

This debate has raged for as long as AVEN has existed, and probably won't end until the earth is engulfed in the sun.

 

For my two cents, I find the "attraction" definition frustrating and needlessly confusing, because attraction is such a complicated and nebulous phenomenon. "Lack of interest and/or innate desire for partnered sex" is a lot more straightforward, and it's easier to determine if one's experience fits it. But it seems pretty unlikely that the community will ever come to a unified consensus around this.

I completely agree. 

[Janus the Fox]

I’ve defined Asexuality for myself a lack of a verity of sexual themes not just including sexual attraction.  Sexual Attraction, No Desires, No Libido, No relational desires and other sexual subjects.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

I don't see it at all as a lack of attraction. I am very attracted to certain machines, but despite that and being very romantically soppy and intimate with my car beau for many years, I've never had any inclination for sex; indeed, the idea of having any form of sexual interaction with him (or anyone) outright repulses me and would drain away any bonding feels we had through snuggles quicker than an F-22 flies. That is asexuality, because for sexuals, sex would enhance a relationship (minus trauma issues oc).

[Purple Red Panda]

28 minutes ago, SocialMorays said:

"Lack of interest and/or innate desire for partnered sex" is a lot more straightforward

Agreed. Attraction is complicated by the many different forms that it can take and which can overlap. I could spend forever hairsplitting about what form of attraction I feel for any given person but if I ask myself if I want to have sex with them then the answer is no.

[Jea]

On this topic (but only 60% on this topic) an.aroace.kat on instagram made a real/tiktok about wanting everyone to stop using the word "the lack of attraction" because it implies that we're missing something. Thought it might contribute to this discussion somehow.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CG8oSqUjEwV/

[Sarah-Sylvia]

It's both, since sexual attraction draws you to want to have sex.

I'm not saying there aren't different ways to look at it, but that seems to be how most on this site think of it.
Someone might have attraction, and 'would' want sex but choose not to, which makes them celibate, not asexual.

 

The complicated part is if someone feels no sex attraction but want sex. That usually gets messy to talk about. I don't see it that often tho.

[Someone Else]

1 hour ago, Serran said:

This is gonna open a can of worms...

 

Newbies have no idea what they've stepped into with such a (seemingly) simple question. 
It's sort of like walking in on World War I unexpectedly, half-way through. 

I see apparently aven has changed its old definition from "lack of sexual attraction" to "lack of interest in partnered sex" which I find, personally, ridiculous and almost as if it's designed to provoke more arguing.  The old definition had problems because of the potential vagueness of "attraction," but... 

Asexuals (usually) have erogenous zones, and can sometimes fall in love.  Those things alone sometimes lead an asexual to have an interest in partnered sex.  Romantic love, for some people, is enough to lead to a reason to have sex, to have an interest in it, even without specific sexual attraction.  Hell, many sexual people have sex with people they are ambivalent about in terms of physical attraction.

The definition war will rage on and on.  I've seen a million of these debates, and I've never seen any of them get anywhere near a consensus.  

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, Findus said:

On this topic (but only 60% on this topic) an.aroace.kat on instagram made a real/tiktok about wanting everyone to stop using the word "the lack of attraction" because it implies that we're missing something. Thought it might contribute to this discussion somehow.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CG8oSqUjEwV/

This makes no sense to me... we do lack sexual attraction/desire, saying it a different way doesn't change that. Doesn't make us any less "complete human beings" whatever that's supposed to mean. If I was the sort of person who looks for insult and prejudice everywhere I'd say she's being pretty ableist by implying that people who are missing things (a sense, a limb, an ability...) are not complete humans.

 

1 hour ago, SocialMorays said:

This debate has raged for as long as AVEN has existed, and probably won't end until the earth is engulfed in the sun.

 

For my two cents, I find the "attraction" definition frustrating and needlessly confusing, because attraction is such a complicated and nebulous phenomenon. "Lack of interest and/or innate desire for partnered sex" is a lot more straightforward, and it's easier to determine if one's experience fits it. But it seems pretty unlikely that the community will ever come to a unified consensus around this.

I basically came here to say this ^^^

[VibeN]

1 hour ago, Serran said:

This is gonna open a can of worms...

Well, it is getting colder so we better feed the birds 😄

 

Also I never meant my question as a "one is better than the other" I was simply curious 🙂

[Guest]

 

 

18 minutes ago, Someone Else said:

Asexuals (usually) have erogenous zones, and can sometimes fall in love.  Those things alone sometimes lead an asexual to have an interest in partnered sex.  Romantic love, for some people, is enough to lead to a reason to have sex, to have an interest in it, even without specific sexual attraction.  Hell, many sexual people have sex with people they are ambivalent about in terms of physical attraction.

 

But us sexuals still consider "I love and trust you, so I want to share sexual interactions with you" sexual attraction tbh. It is what many of us experience, rather than base lust from physical appearance. 

 

Hence the issue with attraction definitions... 

 

No one finds it weird I want sex with my wife because I love and trust her, rather than her looks make me fall over in a puddle. I fit in quite fine in sexual circles cause to them it is a normal experience. So, I dont see a reason I'd need to ID as asexual because my sexual desire stems from love. 

 

When I didn't desire sex at all, then I was an outlier and relationships prospects were limited etc. Then a label made sense to set me apart and I used one. Now... I just am your average married sexual woman, no one cares why I want sex with my wife, just that I do. 

 

Kinda like no one would care if I want sex with women cause I find their personalities great, vs their bodies amazing. They would just want to know if I want women or men or both, so they know my orientation. 

 

So, meh. Either aces are a huge section of the population (wants sex for "pure" reasons like love or trust), or the attraction definition is a bit... broad when applied that way. 

[everywhere and nowhere]

48 minutes ago, Someone Else said:

I see apparently aven has changed its old definition from "lack of sexual attraction" to "lack of interest in partnered sex" which I find, personally, ridiculous and almost as if it's designed to provoke more arguing.  The old definition had problems because of the potential vagueness of "attraction," but... 

What? Have they really changed the definition? I thought they were very stiff about not making any changes...

I too find such a wording not very fortunate. Some asexuals have a lot of theoretic interest in sexuality... "No desire for partnered sex" is much less ambiguous to me...

[Sarah-Sylvia]

The aven definitions haven't changed, it's still around sexual attraction.
Unless they changed it somewhere else.

 

"An asexual person does not experience sexual attraction – they are not drawn to people sexually and do not desire to act upon attraction to others in a sexual way."

[Rockblossom]

Um ... not to try to complicate things or anything, but I always thought that the difference was more semantics than it was an actual difference.  If I look at someone and feel no sexual attraction, them I also have no desire to have sex with that person.  If I don't want to have sex with someone, then I have no feeling of sexual attraction.  For me A=B.  If others see a difference, then they are interpreting the statements differently than I do.   That's not wrong or right, just not the same.

[fiji_water]

For me personally I consider it lack of sexual attraction. I guess I would say its also lack of desire/need for a sexual partner, but I consider myself more on the gray spectrum or simply sex positive (I don't know which to be honest). For me it's a bit more confusing but the definition of lack of attraction tends to fit me a little better because I don't find anyone sexually attractive but sex doesn't sound unappealing or something I would necessarily dislike. Not something I would go out of my way to seek out though.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Rockblossom said:

Um ... not to try to complicate things or anything, but I always thought that the difference was more semantics than it was an actual difference.  If I look at someone and feel no sexual attraction, them I also have no desire to have sex with that person.  If I don't want to have sex with someone, then I have no feeling of sexual attraction.  For me A=B.  If others see a difference, then they are interpreting the statements differently than I do.   That's not wrong or right, just not the same.

Yeah, some people see sexual attraction as that purely physical see someone hot and immediately wanna bang them thing from teen movies and such. Which, is a type of attraction that exists, but not the only one. 

[RobL2415]

For me, it's lack of sexual attraction, with a few specific exceptions.

Sensual attraction, wanting to touch and be touched, is something completely separate and something I very much want.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, VibeN said:

So do you view your asexuality as a "lack of attraction" or a "not interested" or perhaps both?

 

1 hour ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

"An asexual person does not experience sexual attraction – they are not drawn to people sexually and do not desire to act upon attraction to others in a sexual way."

Isn't this both (lack of sexual attraction, which is the lack of the desire for partnered sex with that person)? And doesn't it answer pretty clearly? Because the way I see it, if you are attracted to someone, but you don't desire to connect sexually with them at some point (and not on the spot!!!), if all the conditions were perfect, then your attraction couldn't be called sexual anymore. So what is wrong with this definition? (I am not sarcastic, I am genuinely trying to find out what's wrong with it...)

As a side note, I strongly believe that sexual attraction is not (just) aesthetic attraction... it's a mix + that pull that makes you desire a sexual connection with that person. For some aesthetics may matter more, for others it may not be that important. But I don't think I have ever felt it, so I am just theoretically speaking.

[Philip027]

Quote

Um ... not to try to complicate things or anything, but I always thought that the difference was more semantics than it was an actual difference.  If I look at someone and feel no sexual attraction, them I also have no desire to have sex with that person.  If I don't want to have sex with someone, then I have no feeling of sexual attraction.  For me A=B.  If others see a difference, then they are interpreting the statements differently than I do.   That's not wrong or right, just not the same.

I don't think that's complicating things at all.  Just the opposite, in fact.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

The complicated part is if someone feels no sex attraction but want sex. That usually gets messy to talk about. I don't see it that often tho.

This is indeed difficult to dissect... again, speaking just from a personal, but/and theoretical point of view, maybe it refers to the idea that they enjoy it physically/sensually, and not as a thing you do to connect on a sexual level with the other person? Like you do it for something external, in the same way as with the masturbation (or at least I don't feel super fulfilled with masturbation, is just something I could go without... but in the moment it may feel good - not extraordinary - from a sensual point of view... I mean, for me it really doesn't do much, but I keep on reading on the internet that for some is amazing)? The way I see sex for non-asexuals is a way of connecting with each other, enjoying it physically, but in the same time enjoying that all the people involved get a sense of satisfaction because the other(s) is/are enjoying it. And this kind of reciprocation is what makes them sexually attracted to one another... I think it is like speaking the same language or being on the same page, while with those people who say that they are asexuals, but enjoy sex is like speaking a foreign language with someone... you can understand each other, but it may not be the same natural way of expressing yourself like in your native language (I am not saying that all the non-native speakers of a certain language cannot ever come to that level of being capable to express themselves naturally in that language... but this process takes a lot of time and effort... however, I don't think that asexuals that enjoy sex from a physical point of view could attend that natural level of understanding their non-asexual partner feelings, unless their sexuality fluctuates and they no longer are asexuals). So to conclude, I think in this case the desire is not innate... it is more like going for a massage... you like it from a physical point of view, you may enjoy to see your partner(s) is/are happy too, but your pleasure is not the same as your partner(s). Your internal pleasure for yourself that comes from both feeling the same thing/speaking the same language is inexistent. Is like finding an approximation for an idiom in another language, but when you translate it, it loses it's essence if that makes sense. And I guess for this types of asexuals the answer to the question 'How would you feel about never having sex again?' would be something like 'Ok, sex is nice, but I can go without it'.

As a side note, everything I wrote is purely theoretical (I am a sex-averse asexual with no experience in sex) and is just a hypothesis. I don't know how those who claim to be asexuals, but want sex actually feel. I am also conscient and I do admit I may have just split the thread into 4, and there is actually no difference in what I have described for the both sides. I admit that I may have also overlooked some thing or mistaken something for something else. So I do admit that I may be entirely wrong and I don't feel strongly about this answer. And I hope this will not degenerate in a too overwhelming debate, if it is actually going to happen.  And I am sorry if what I wrote is not very clear and  full of mistakes or misundertandings.

Later added: I also don't disagree the fact that some people confuse sexual attraction for aesthetic attraction and say they don't feel the first one, when in fact it may be the other one, then just go out there and state that 'I desire sex, but I don't find people attractive', just because they don't find people aesthetically pleasing.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

@Georgi it is a bit confusing to me on some parts. Like, a lot of sexual people just have sex because they want to enjoy the sensations too. So then it does bring up that the difference isn't really about connecting sexually or wanting sex or not, if some asexuals enjoy the sensations and can want it, but that they lack the sexual attraction, but it's still weird to think and talk about around that.

I'm very sensual, but I don't really enjoy the sexual sensations all that much, maybe for a little bit, but I don't even really enjoy masturbation, so I'm not like asexuals who enjoy that.

 

Maybe it could be as simple as saying the desire isn't innate, I don't know. But then if someone acquires it and are essentially sexual, what then? And don't some sexuals only come to enjoy and desire it after they get used to it?

I do think how important it is to someone is a good marker tho, at least for people on the ace spectrum. I don't need sex and could go without it, but someone sexual would have trouble saying that.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

@Georgi it is a bit confusing to me on some parts. Like, a lot of sexual people just have sex because they want to enjoy the sensations too. So then it does bring up that the difference isn't really about connecting sexually or wanting sex or not, if some asexuals enjoy the sensations and can want it, but that they lack the sexual attraction, but it's still weird to think and talk about around that.

I'm very sensual, but I don't really enjoy the sexual sensations all that much, maybe for a little bit, but I don't even really enjoy masturbation, so I'm not like asexuals who enjoy that.

 

Maybe it could be as simple as saying the desire isn't innate, I don't know. But don't some sexuals only come to enjoy and desire it after they get used to it?

I do think how important it is to someone is a good marker tho, at least for people on the ace spectrum. I don't need sex and could go without it, but someone sexual would have trouble saying that.

Indeed, I kind of forgot about responsive desire and how this would be different from an asexual who does enjoy sex. But maybe yes, the marker of how important is sex for someone could be the key of differentiating between sex-favorable and responsive desire or I don't know... 

[VibeN]

I see people saying the two things are essentially the same, and I get that, being sexually attracted to someone, means you want to have sex with them. But for me personally when trying to explain to my peers, why I didn't have sex, it was not "Oh, I'm not attracted to anyone" but a "I have no interest in having sex" If asexual people can want to have sex, despite not feeling attraction, then there must exist a version, where you can simply not be interested in having sex, no matter if you find people "hot", and I am not talking about abstinence or celibacy, I am talking about not being interested in the act of sex with another person.

Like for example I find many languages beautiful, but I have really no interest in learning them (bad analogy, but I hope you get what I mean)

[Morays]

3 hours ago, fiji_water said:

Not something I would go out of my way to seek out though.

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't that count as a lack of interest? Indifference isn't the same as aversion, but to me they both fit neatly under the "lack of interest/desire" definition.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

50 minutes ago, VibeN said:

I see people saying the two things are essentially the same, and I get that, being sexually attracted to someone, means you want to have sex with them. But for me personally when trying to explain to my peers, why I didn't have sex, it was not "Oh, I'm not attracted to anyone" but a "I have no interest in having sex" If asexual people can want to have sex, despite not feeling attraction, then there must exist a version, where you can simply not be interested in having sex, no matter if you find people "hot", and I am not talking about abstinence or celibacy, I am talking about not being interested in the act of sex with another person.

Like for example I find many languages beautiful, but I have really no interest in learning them (bad analogy, but I hope you get what I mean)

I guess both could be valid ways someone can be asexual. And then it's fine to say you have sex-favorable aces, and the others (sex-infavororable ones?)

[fiji_water]

28 minutes ago, SocialMorays said:

Not to nitpick, but wouldn't that count as a lack of interest? Indifference isn't the same as aversion, but to me they both fit neatly under the "lack of interest/desire" definition.

Yeah it does fit that definition you're right. Thank you for bringing that up to me, I do see now that for me personally it's a lack of attraction and a lack of interest in having sex. This clarified some things in my head so I appreciate it.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

47 minutes ago, SocialMorays said:

Not to nitpick

That's not very AVEN of you.