A sexual's view of Asexuals

[Notako]

Before I start I should just mention that Paper Bullets thread on his ponderings on asexuality is wonderful, and has a lot of very valid points, so if you've enjoyed this that would be another awesome read. Shameless plug over, lets begin. I've been lurking on this forum for a while, as my friend is asexual and I wanted to research it before I rush to a conclusion about it (as so many sexual people seem to do) and, this being a public forum and all, would like to present my findings (if this is in the wrong section, sorry, I'm new XD).

It seems to me there is a lot of ignorance and prejudice to asexuals from other sexual people which is shockingly similar to the treatment of homosexuals during the 19th and 20th centuries by heterosexuals. The truth is, while the situation is roughly the same (people branding something as wrong because it does not conform to their view of human sexuality) there is one key difference here: A heterosexual person could view homosexuality as something they cannot fathom wanting, but would view asexuality as something they cannot fathom not wanting. If sexualities were colours, asexuality would be darkness, as it is the absence of all the others.

I should say straight away I do not view asexuality as wrong or as something I do not understand. I have a lack of desire to do many things, and can imagine if that extended to sex as well. The problem I wish to express here, and please do not take this as a troll or ideological prejudice, are the counterintuitive natures of many kinds of people I have noticed on this forum. This is not a prejudgement of any individual members, and as far as I can tell, this does not breach any of the forum rules. If I have misinterpreted those rules, feel free to reprimand me however you deem fit. However, before than ban hammer strikes, here we go:

1. "Asexuals" who have no experience of sex. Having an opinion of something without actually having first hand experience of it is something I try very hard to avoid, and is a quality I find immensely annoying in others. I am speaking as the person who read Twilight in its entirety purely so I can go around voicing my view of how godawful it is, safe in the knowledge that no one could say "ohhh but you haven't read it!" (read in an extremely nasal nerdy voice). Those who claim to be asexual despite never having been in a situation in which they could feel sexual desire strikes me as very hypocritical. Someone will bring up porn here, but that's not a true test of your desire: I know many sexual people who actively despise pornography and would not be aroused to watch it.

I have never had sex, but I know from the sexual experiences I have had that I would enjoy it, in the same way I know I will enjoy a Frank Herbert novel even if I haven't read it, based on the fact that I love the rest. Now I have no problem with people who have had sex, realised they have no desire to do so again, and stopped doing it from that point. It's those who are the real asexuals. I hold those people very highly in my opinion, and in some ways look up to them, to have such strength of their convictions.

2. "Asexuals" who find it easy to pleasure themselves. I'm talking about anyone who can masturbate easily, yet still do not find being pleasured by others a nice prospect. This one raises an interesting question: where does shyness end and asexuality begin? If the arousal is there in certain situations, but not in others, does that qualify one as asexual? Now I know you are all going to define libido for me right now, so I've taken the liberty of doing it myself so you guys don't have to: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libido as you can see, the ability to masturbate, as far as I can see, will come under that definition of libido. Even if it doesn't, when does sexuality automatically equal that and nothing else? Masturbation is sexual. No one can deny that. My view is that you cannot be fully asexual if you indulge in it.

3. "Asexuals" who have sex regularly. I was going to discuss this until I realised that this phenomenon was discussed at much more length in the hilariously redundantly titled thread "are sexual asexuals not asexual at all?" In one of the other forums.

Asexuality poses a very interesting comment on many human traits. It looks at human sexual interaction in the same way that people with asperges look at human social interaction: On a purely logical level without connecting emotionally, and I have enjoyed looking at everyones views, and writing this. I hope I have not offended anyone, as you all seem so nice and civil here. I'm just a viewer with an opinion ;)

Sorry for the long post and stupidly complex sentences :P

Thanks for reading :)

[asexual cake]

...seriously?

You've been lurking "for a while" and you haven't seen these same criticisms discussed a thousand different times? "Asexual," by AVEN's definition, is lack of sexual attraction, not lack of sexuality. Having a libido and having a libido oriented towards others are two entirely different things, and wanting something and enjoying it are similarly separate.

Asexuals are people who are not sexually attracted to others. This doesn't mean that they aren't "sexual" at all, nor does it mean that they cannot enjoy sex (or even that they can't have sex). It means that they have no independent desire to engage in coupled sexual activity due to attraction to potential partners. That's it.

[Sciatrix]

Oh, sweetie. Lurk moar. All your fine lovely contentions are very common ones which have been addressed by the asexual communities on multiple occasions. (Also, that bit about thinking asexuality isn't something you fail to understand? You're missing several important points about what asexuality is, so you need to re-evaluate your understanding sometime soon.)

To counter your first point, asexuality is a term describing attraction, not necessarily sexual desire. Attraction is not a situational thing; unless you were raised alone in the style of a feral child, you're going to be exposed to potential targets of sexual attraction. It's entirely possible to be sexually attracted to someone you don't actually want to have sex with. That's not asexuality, that's having standards of some sort. On the other hand, if you've never looked at a single person and said "damn, you're hot" or gotten the nice tingly feeling between your legs from seeing or interacting with someone, you might just be asexual. (Also, here on AVEN we make a point not to tell people whether they're "real asexuals" or not. Try reading the stickied post on Q&A on Asexual Elitism for an explanation of why.)

To address your second, I myself am not shy. I also am quite capable of experiencing physical pleasure from genital stimulation, although I rarely if ever feel much interest in doing so. The thing is, even if I was masturbating twice a day every day, that still would not invalidate my asexuality, because (there it is again!) asexuality is about who you are attracted to. The ability to experience physical pleasure from sex is not what we're discussing when we discuss asexuality. It's the ability to experience sexual attraction, which is a specific interest in having sex with a particular person for the purpose of having sex. Masturbation fails on several levels to indicate sexual attraction.

You're right, asexuals who are sexually active have been discussed at length. Sexual activity does not invalidate asexuality. If you've read that thread, I am going to assume you realize why that particular issue is not actually a reason to criticize someone's identification as asexuality.

I would also like to note that Paper Bullets' thread is a rather interesting one to praise, seeing as Paper Bullets never once came back into it to respond to any of the commentary it inspired.

[HMTQ - Madge]

1. "Asexuals" who have no experience of sex. Having an opinion of something without actually having first hand experience of it is something I try very hard to avoid, and is a quality I find immensely annoying in others. I am speaking as the person who read Twilight in its entirety purely so I can go around voicing my view of how godawful it is, safe in the knowledge that no one could say "ohhh but you haven't read it!" (read in an extremely nasal nerdy voice). Those who claim to be asexual despite never having been in a situation in which they could feel sexual desire strikes me as very hypocritical. Someone will bring up porn here, but that's not a true test of your desire: I know many sexual people who actively despise pornography and would not be aroused to watch it.

I have never had sex, but I know from the sexual experiences I have had that I would enjoy it, in the same way I know I will enjoy a Frank Herbert novel even if I haven't read it, based on the fact that I love the rest. Now I have no problem with people who have had sex, realised they have no desire to do so again, and stopped doing it from that point. It's those who are the real asexuals. I hold those people very highly in my opinion, and in some ways look up to them, to have such strength of their convictions.

I would count as one of these. :lol:

The thing is, a lot of asexuals (not all) have no desire to even try sex. You can call it hypocritical if you like, but most sexuals at least have some desire.

The whole 'don't knock it 'til you try it' thing has been brought up a lot to asexuals, often accompanied by 'you just haven't found the right person' argument. Being asexual doesn't have anything to do with libido or the desire to have sex though; It has to do with whether or not you feel sexual attraction. It's entirely possible as an asexual to still want sex but not be sexually attracted to the person they are having sex with.

2. "Asexuals" who find it easy to pleasure themselves. I'm talking about anyone who can masturbate easily, yet still do not find being pleasured by others a nice prospect. This one raises an interesting question: where does shyness end and asexuality begin? If the arousal is there in certain situations, but not in others, does that qualify one as asexual? Now I know you are all going to define libido for me right now, so I've taken the liberty of doing it myself so you guys don't have to: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libido as you can see, the ability to masturbate, as far as I can see, will come under that definition of libido. Even if it doesn't, when does sexuality automatically equal that and nothing else? Masturbation is sexual. No one can deny that. My view is that you cannot be fully asexual if you indulge in it.

Again, being asexual has nothing to do with libido. :) You can be aroused by things or situations without being sexually attracted to the person doing those things. It's like this; You can fantasize about a person, but if the situation actually came about, whether or not you actually want to act out your fantasies will define you as asexual or sexual in many a situation.

3. "Asexuals" who have sex regularly. I was going to discuss this until I realised that this phenomenon was discussed at much more length in the hilariously redundantly titled thread "are sexual asexuals not asexual at all?" In one of the other forums.

It would probably be redundant of me to repeat what was already said, then. XD

I hope I cleared up some confusion for you, Notako. :)

[Qutenkuddly]

Please allow me a rebuttal, if I may:

1. "Asexuals" who have no experience of sex. Very simply, why should someone have to try something they have NO interest in trying? Do I HAVE to try sky diving in order legitimize any claim I make that I am NOT interested in doing it?

2. "Asexuals" who find it easy to pleasure themselves. You'd best review the definition of asexuality adopted by AVEN; it is far more functional for the purposes of this discussion than that presented in Wiki (which, I might add, was rather unspecific). It boils down to this: does a person have the desire to seek sexual intercourse with another? If no, guess what: that person is asexual. It's not a matter of being shy, believe me. I've come from a number of failed relationships where I've TRIED to enjoy sex and it just didn't happen. Yeah, I occasionally relieve 'the itch' with the help of my trusty handmaiden, Lefty, but I have NO desire to seek out any romantic relationship that involves sex. So if that's not asexuality, what are you going to call it? 'Cause it needs a functional label by which to find others who are similarly disinterested in sex.

3. "Asexuals" who have sex regularly. Are you talking about those who engage in sexual purely to please their partners? Been there, did that, became a chore, became an onerous chore, lost the girl 'cause I just wasn't interested. What do we call that, then, if not asexuality?

[Paper Bullets]

I just read your post and wanted to chime in! While I do enjoy the ego stroking of your saying you’ve enjoyed reading my (few) rants, I’m thinking I do have some different views on your points. Lol

1. "Asexuals" who have no experience of sex.

I don’t think that it’s quite fair to judge someone as not counting if they’re asexual if they haven’t experienced it yet first. After all, the argument can be made that you don’t have to kill someone to know that’s not the action for you! :D Insomuch as I personally understand asexuality, this is just another orientation people can have like being hetero or homosexual. And like hetero or homosexuals, you just ~know~ what you are. Of course, since asexuality isn’t as common it’s probably harder for people to realize that there’s a name for what it is that they are! I know that when I found this forum and showed my girlfriend she almost cried as she realized that there wasn’t anything wrong with her (well, she keeps forgetting that but we’re working on it).

2. "Asexuals" who find it easy to pleasure themselves

I think it is possible for some people to just be inordinately shy and mistake that for being asexual especially when going through puberty but I don’t believe that most asexuals are like that. Masturbation has absolutely nothing to do with sex or with sex including someone else! It's just another method of releasing the hormones that can get built up. Rofl, this is why there are so many sexuals upset when they’re told that it’s the same thing! ;P Masturbation, and the ease someone has with that, is just a biological release. Oftentimes the mind doesn’t really have anything to do with it. There are some asexuals, of course, that don’t even need this release but that doesn’t make them any less of an asexual than someone who occasionally masturbates because their body is being so inconvenient as to have an urge their mind or heart have absolutely no interest in. And I've always understood asexuality to be an orientation. Like, I am a homosexual female and as such desire other females (well, one in particular!) but know that physically my body could be made to feel pleasure were I to have sex with a man. Me, as a person, would have nothing to do with it, only my body's evolutionarily condiditioned responses. I imagine asexuals can fall into that similar of a situation where it's possible to have a disconnect from the self vs the body.

3. "Asexuals" who have sex regularly.

Woot! Yet another thing I have an opinion on! Lol See, I personally feel that sexuality is a very fluid thing and people are so individualistic that it’s impossible to really peg them. I mean, the act of sex (assuming it’s not physically painful) is just that. An act. So theoretically someone can engage in it while still rather doing something else. After all, who hasn’t thought of the grocery list one time or another during a bout of “boring” sex! There are many reasons for people to have sex and those reasons really don’t change just because someone is asexual. People do it to make the other person happy, to feel connected, to feel good themselves. I imagine the only real difference would be if a person were to be given a choice would they rather have sex or, I dunno, watch a movie together. But I may be wrong in this!

Of course, almost all of my information on asexuals comes from either this forum or from my own girlfriend in her attempts to explain her point of view so what I’m parroting back may be more from her perspective as I know and understand it than it is from the asexual community at large.

[michaeld]

Hi and welcome.

1. "Asexuals" who have no experience of sex. Having an opinion of something without actually having first hand experience of it is something I try very hard to avoid, and is a quality I find immensely annoying in others. [...]

I have never had sex, but I know from the sexual experiences I have had that I would enjoy it,

Er.... haven't you just contradicted yourself?

2. "Asexuals" who find it easy to pleasure themselves. I'm talking about anyone who can masturbate easily, yet still do not find being pleasured by others a nice prospect. This one raises an interesting question: where does shyness end and asexuality begin?

Nowhere. They are on different axes.

As usual, the gay analogy is helpful here. Just because you have a sex drive does not mean you, as a heterosexual male, want to have sex with other men. Well we're exactly the same, except with respect to both men and women.

If the arousal is there in certain situations, but not in others, does that qualify one as asexual? Now I know you are all going to define libido for me right now, so I've taken the liberty of doing it myself so you guys don't have to: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libido as you can see, the ability to masturbate, as far as I can see, will come under that definition of libido.

Right. As is common knowledge on AVEN, low libido and asexuality are not the same thing.

[Paper Bullets]

@ Sciatrix

Well, real life (life away from my computer monitor) does have a nasty habit of intruding at times! I have no intention of not responding to the people who posted so considerately to a ranting post I made while upset - I appreciate all of them more than will probably ever be known. But that's better mentioned on that one instead of here. :lol:

[Pandoren]

1) Yes, I agree, no one should say that something is good or bad without having experienced it. That is why I do not say “I hate sex!” because I am a virgin. I say “I have no interest in sex” which is true. But as for “not putting yourself in a position to experience sexual desire”… dude, it’s called LIFE. I haven’t spent 22 years in a cupboard. I’ve interacted with men and women and for most people that is sufficient to spark their desires. I see no point in going further when there isn’t any inclination to do so.

2) Masturbation is indeed a sexual act. But it has nothing to do with asexuality as defined as an orientation. I am not sexually attracted to my hand. As for sexual attraction, people are people, they don’t inspire anything in me, I have no inclination towards them in that way. The technical term for someone who prefers self stimulation over intercourse is autosexual or autoerotic, but that isn’t exclusive to asexuality, I’ve heard of heterosexuals etc who prefer their own time (during research of said terms) and they are descriptive terms, not orientations in themselves.

3) As for three… you know the theory on that… behaviour =/= orientation, so I won’t drivel on about it

[Herr Joseph von Löthing]

[sigh]Steve, I told you all this in physics this morning.[/sigh]

[Ninny]

Hi Notako!

Well first off welcome to Aven!

Second off, well, I'll just dive straight in:

Those who claim to be asexual despite never having been in a situation in which they could feel sexual desire strikes me as very hypocritical.

That question does get asked alot. "How can you know you're Asexual when you haven't had sex?" And the answer tends to go that if you relate it to homosexuality sometimes (not always) the individual can instincivly know they are gay and don't feel the need to have straight sex to prove themselves otherwise. Same goes for the Asexuals, some know straight from the get go that they are not sexual attracted to either sex and don't feel the need to 'prove themselves'.

I personally have had sex, but I don't think that makes me Any more or an Asexual or my Asexuality any more valid than a virgin Asexual. At the time I simply assumed I was 'normal' and so did the 'normal thing' and had sex when I entered my first relationship. It was only then that I knew something was up. So for me having sex was a big factor in figuring out my Asexuality, but that doesn't mean this is the same for everyone. Like I said, some people instinctively know their A/sexuality from an early age, way before becoming sexually active. I know of many gay people (personally)who state they 'knew' they were gay from an early age. So why can't an Asexual know that they're Asexual? And I know straight people don't tend to come to the conclusion they're straight, but if they're not experiencing homosexual attraction then, well, they're not gay. Hhaa.

To me it's the Asexuals who know from the start how they are orientated who are the lucky ones, they're the people I admire. The Asexuals who can just say "No, I haven't had sex but I'm confident in my own Asexuality to not feel obliged to prove a point."

As for Asexuals, masturbation and shyness. I don't think it has anything to do with being shy. The thing is, if yo're Asexual and not sexually attracted to anyone, how is assisted masturbation going to give you more pleasure? If anything I think it would ruin it. I mean, would a Sexual enjoy being masturbated by someone they didn't find attractive? Sure, the physical feeling may feel all right but when you're not attracted to the person it kinda reduces the feeling

[Sally]

Again, welcome, Notako. Usual AVEN

That being said, It's a bit presumptious to present "findings" on asexuality to a bunch of asexuals, especially when you yourself are not asexual. But if you look around AVEN a bit more and read the comments on this thread, you'll probably learn quite a bit and many of your findings will change.

[Notako]

To counter your first point, asexuality is a term describing attraction, not necessarily sexual desire. Attraction is not a situational thing; unless you were raised alone in the style of a feral child, you're going to be exposed to potential targets of sexual attraction. It's entirely possible to be sexually attracted to someone you don't actually want to have sex with. That's not asexuality, that's having standards of some sort. On the other hand, if you've never looked at a single person and said "damn, you're hot" or gotten the nice tingly feeling between your legs from seeing or interacting with someone, you might just be asexual. (Also, here on AVEN we make a point not to tell people whether they're "real asexuals" or not. Try reading the stickied post on Q&A on Asexual Elitism for an explanation of why.)

I understand the difference between attraction and desire I just used the words interchangably so as not to make the post boring, and I guess that was a mistake as that obviously shouldnt be used like that. My problem is trying to use a rigid definition of asexuality like, say, every other sexuality. And seemingly basing things on the *wrong* definition at that

To address your second, I myself am not shy. I also am quite capable of experiencing physical pleasure from genital stimulation, although I rarely if ever feel much interest in doing so. The thing is, even if I was masturbating twice a day every day, that still would not invalidate my asexuality, because (there it is again!) asexuality is about who you are attracted to. The ability to experience physical pleasure from sex is not what we're discussing when we discuss asexuality. It's the ability to experience sexual attraction, which is a specific interest in having sex with a particular person for the purpose of having sex. Masturbation fails on several levels to indicate sexual attraction.\

This, again, reiterates the discrepancy between the difinitive, literal definition of asexuality I have been using: Any lack of desire for any sexual activity, and the ever changing one I am getting from different members, with new exceptions and discussions about areas which could and could not be constituted as such. And if I'm honest, its much more interesting!

Please allow me a rebuttal, if I may:

1. "Asexuals" who have no experience of sex. Very simply, why should someone have to try something they have NO interest in trying? Do I HAVE to try sky diving in order legitimize any claim I make that I am NOT interested in doing it?

Very simply, yes. I always use the analogy of food. How can one be sure of not wanting a dish/food if they have no desire to eat it in the first place?

2. "Asexuals" who find it easy to pleasure themselves. You'd best review the definition of asexuality adopted by AVEN; it is far more functional for the purposes of this discussion than that presented in Wiki (which, I might add, was rather unspecific). It boils down to this: does a person have the desire to seek sexual intercourse with another? If no, guess what: that person is asexual. It's not a matter of being shy, believe me. I've come from a number of failed relationships where I've TRIED to enjoy sex and it just didn't happen. Yeah, I occasionally relieve 'the itch' with the help of my trusty handmaiden, Lefty, but I have NO desire to seek out any romantic relationship that involves sex. So if that's not asexuality, what are you going to call it? 'Cause it needs a functional label by which to find others who are similarly disinterested in sex.

It's not really my place to say, but it depends on whether it comes under the most accepted definition of asexuality. I was using the 'a' in asexuality to mean a literal complete absence; none whatsoever. after all, thats what the root usually means. It is becoming apparent it is much more complex than that.

3. "Asexuals" who have sex regularly. Are you talking about those who engage in sexual purely to please their partners? Been there, did that, became a chore, became an onerous chore, lost the girl 'cause I just wasn't interested. What do we call that, then, if not asexuality?

No, that was not what I meant, but as was already pointed out by sciatrix that has been discussed very much, so is not of much importance any more.

Hi and welcome.

1. "Asexuals" who have no experience of sex. Having an opinion of something without actually having first hand experience of it is something I try very hard to avoid, and is a quality I find immensely annoying in others. [...]

I have never had sex, but I know from the sexual experiences I have had that I would enjoy it,

Er.... haven't you just contradicted yourself?

Not really, I said I find it counterintuitive those who claim no sexual desire despite the fact that they have not been in situations in which they would experience sexual desire. I have been in those situations, and have felt the desire. Therefore I can be sure I am heterosexual.

2. "Asexuals" who find it easy to pleasure themselves. I'm talking about anyone who can masturbate easily, yet still do not find being pleasured by others a nice prospect. This one raises an interesting question: where does shyness end and asexuality begin?

Nowhere. They are on different axes.

As usual, the gay analogy is helpful here. Just because you have a sex drive does not mean you, as a heterosexual male, want to have sex with other men. Well we're exactly the same, except with respect to both men and women.

Fantastic point, this is the kind of thing I joined to learn about, as I will freely admit my lack of knowledge with the many things the define asexuality here.

If the arousal is there in certain situations, but not in others, does that qualify one as asexual? Now I know you are all going to define libido for me right now, so I've taken the liberty of doing it myself so you guys don't have to: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/libido as you can see, the ability to masturbate, as far as I can see, will come under that definition of libido.

Right. As is common knowledge on AVEN, low libido and asexuality are not the same thing.

Rather than adressing every one of you individually, it appears that if you take into account I was using the wrong definition of asexuality upon writing this, that should answer most of what everyone has said up until this point. :)

[bristrek]

Y'know, my dad once made a comment how it seemed a bit daft that someone was calling themselves bisexual when they've only ever had sex with one gender.

That was damned stupid.

What you've said? Goes with what my dad said.

[michaeld]

Not really, I said I find it counterintuitive those who claim no sexual desire despite the fact that they have not been in situations in which they would experience sexual desire.

Well... what you actually said was you find it annoying when others have an opinion on something without having first hand experience of it. And yet you've said (1) you've never had sex, (2) you know you'll like it.

I have been in those situations, and have felt the desire. Therefore I can be sure I am heterosexual.

Nearly everyone else experiences primary sexual attraction, without being in any kind of sexual situation. We don't.

As usual, the gay analogy is helpful here. Just because you have a sex drive does not mean you, as a heterosexual male, want to have sex with other men. Well we're exactly the same, except with respect to both men and women.

Fantastic point, this is the kind of thing I joined to learn about, as I will freely admit my lack of knowledge with the many things the define asexuality here.

Cool; glad it helped.

Rather than adressing every one of you individually, it appears that if you take into account I was using the wrong definition of asexuality [low libido] upon writing this, that should answer most of what everyone has said up until this point. :)

OK fair enough, but it is rather an important distinction. AVEN is a site primarily devoted to the discussion and support of asexuality, not low-libido - although of course there's a lot of overlap. In fact there have been surveys on AVEN that suggest most here don't consider themselves to have low-libido.

On the flipside, I've heard of asexuals who say they have very *high* libido!

[trisarahtops]

Oh boy is this ever a hot topic!!!

I'm not going to restate what everyone else has, but maybe direct you to this link as well as the rest of the site.

[Sciatrix]

Using those terms interchangeably demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about, because they do not mean the same thing. Words mean things. Also, your definition of asexuality is hideously incorrect, as people have explained to you (and no doubt will further). It is also neither definitive or literate. Insofar as there is actually a definitive definition of asexuality, it is the one which is actually used by asexual people to describe themselves, which has been explained to you at length. As for the literate definition, in the context of sexual orientation, that would be "not attracted to anyone," since "asexual" follows the standard convention of "sexual," signifying this is an orientational word like "heterosexual" and "homosexual" and adds the prefix "a," meaning "no."

Again, before you claim to understand a topic, you need to actually sit down and make sure you're not missing something, or you're going to get a response which is less than pleased.

Look. It's really nice that you want to learn more about asexuals, but you have to actually sit down and read things for that to happen. You? Are walking into a community of people who are discussing asexuality, who are themselves asexuals, and telling them what asexuality is.

It's like walking into a convention of neuroscientists and announcing that you have identified all the purposes of the structures of the brain, and incidentally you can tell someone's personality from the bumps on their skull. It's arrogant and it's finely calculated to make people laugh at you or, in cases like sexuality and race where the topic of study is actually fairly marginalized, pissed at you. Sit down and learn something before you talk about absolutes. Ask questions all you want, but do not approach this community from authority if you have any intention of being polite or being received politely. (That advice right there, incidentally, is good advice to anyone interacting with a space for a minority group you are not part of. I use it when working in spaces for people of color and trans spaces, for example. When you do not have lived experience, you need to listen more before you speak to make sure you understand all the nuances.)

[Sciatrix]

@ Sciatrix

Well, real life (life away from my computer monitor) does have a nasty habit of intruding at times! I have no intention of not responding to the people who posted so considerately to a ranting post I made while upset - I appreciate all of them more than will probably ever be known. But that's better mentioned on that one instead of here. :lol:

Yeah, I get that. I was more thinking "well, when I say 'look, interesting argument' I want to see it backed up against criticism before I praise that specific argument," you know? I didn't necessarily mean you were a terrible person for not responding or anything.

[Rappy28]

I thought the definition of asexual was just "does not experience sexual attraction". It doesn't say ANYTHING about, well, everything else.

I am a virgin, do masturbate and have these wild kinky fetishes, but at the end of the day, I've never felt the need to engage in anything with anyone, even just romantically, so here I am. Until the definition changes, or I do, I'll call myself asexual.

[PsychedX]

Hello, it's nice to see a fellow curious sexual on this board.

I won't repeat what everyone said, as those points are clear enough.

However, what I do want to say is a possible explanation of why so many people such as the OP just don't understand nor comprehend asexuality. In short, it's just so much gray-area.

When one usually hears "asexuality," they either think "Oh, asexuality doesn't exist because then they wouldn't have genitals/"scientific" argument" (I'm not even going to address this argument); or "Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction."

And of course you have your completely baffled people who just can't grasp the notion of people not wanting sex at all.

What complicates a good understanding is that then you hear things like, "Asexuals can have sex" and "Asexuals do feel romantic/intellectual attraction to others" and "Asexuals just really don't care for having sex with those they are attracted to."

At this point, everybody's mind is blown.

So basically, it's the lack of a clearly understood simplified definition that we tend to like. See, with heterosexuality and homosexuality, you know "Okay, so heteros are attracted to their opposites... and homos are attracted to their sames."

Asexuality's definition includes many nuances that are completely alien to a lot of sexuals.

So, OP, I think just accepting their word for it is the best option for now. Think of their views as true, and then hopefully you'll eventually understand it after thinking through.

[silentdreamer]

1. "Asexuals" who have no experience of sex. Having an opinion of something without actually having first hand experience of it is something I try very hard to avoid, and is a quality I find immensely annoying in others.

Ugh! I hate when people say this almost as much as the infamous "You haven't met the right person yet" line. It's impossible for one person to experience everything in life. And you don't have to personally experience something to know you aren't interested in it or won't like it. People aren't stupid. They know what they want and what they don't want at some point in their lives.

If that's a valid argument, then I guess it's valid to ask a heterosexual "How do you know you're gay if you've never slept with someone of the same sex?" or ask someone "How do you know you're not a plushie unless you've had sex with a stuffed animal?" etc, etc. People will get so offended if you ask that, yet they fail to see how offended someone who's asexual would be from that very same line of questioning.

Even if you take the topic off sex. How do you know you don't want your hair on fire if you've never had your hair on fire? How do you know you don't want to lick the toilet if you've never licked the toilet? How do you know you don't want to dress in drag if you've never dressed in drag?

And sex isn't like reading a book; You can just toss the book in the garbage or in the back of your closet and forget about it. You can't just toss a sexual experience in the back of the closet and forget about it. Especially if it's your first. Asexuals shouldn't have to force themselves to have sex just to prove to non-believers they know what their own body does and doesn't want.

[sips]

Those who claim to be asexual despite never having been in a situation in which they could feel sexual desire strikes me as very hypocritical.

2. where does shyness end and asexuality begin? If the arousal is there in certain situations, but not in others, does that qualify one as asexual?

Thanks for reading :)

LOL

sorry ;)

the only thing that is needed to know if you're attracted to others sexually is actually to be with other people. Attraction comes before sex doesn't it? And asexuality is all about attraction; mystery solved :D

shyness? Well I'm not at all shy but I am very much asexual. When I was with my bf I had no problems walking around naked but I didn't want sex. Solved?

[sips]

Those who claim to be asexual despite never having been in a situation in which they could feel sexual desire strikes me as very hypocritical.

2. where does shyness end and asexuality begin? If the arousal is there in certain situations, but not in others, does that qualify one as asexual?

Thanks for reading :)

LOL

sorry ;)

the only thing that is needed to know if you're attracted to others sexually is actually to be with other people. Attraction comes before sex doesn't it? And asexuality is all about attraction; mystery solved :D

shyness? Well I'm not at all shy but I am very much asexual. When I was with my bf I had no problems walking around naked but I didn't want sex. Solved?

Sorry forgot to say I do masturbate. But I like to do that on my own.

[Dubravka]

Dear Notako,

Wandering into a space populated by a non-heterosexual minority that you know nothing about and then mansplaining to those people what their sexual orientation is, despite the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about, is UNBELIEVABLY rude and condescending. Please get over yourself.

Sincerely,

Dubravka

[Sally]

When one usually hears "asexuality," they either think "Oh, asexuality doesn't exist because then they wouldn't have genitals/"scientific" argument" (I'm not even going to address this argument); or "Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction."

And that last is, of course, how AVEN defines asexuality. So if you read the FAQs on AVEN, that would be clear.

What complicates a good understanding is that then you hear things like, "Asexuals can have sex" and "Asexuals do feel romantic/intellectual attraction to others" and "Asexuals just really don't care for having sex with those they are attracted to."

At this point, everybody's mind is blown.

None of that contradicts the definition of asexuality as not feeling sexual attraction.

So, OP, I think just accepting their word for it is the best option for now. Think of their views as true, and then hopefully you'll eventually understand it after thinking through.

And that's usually the best thing to do: to accept the views of the people who are actually living the life: in this case, asexuals.

[Pandoren]

~ Edited :)

[Sally]

Oh dear, we were doing so well...

There is a limit beyond which you don't want to be lectured about yourself.

[Pandoren]

What do you mean by that?

~ No, wait, I get it now. But still.

[PsychedX]

Sally, I perhaps grossly simplified the argument, myself.

What I was trying to say was that, yes, the definition seems simple, however it's just not something we sexuals can grasp totally at first nor relate to easily.

And yes, I did get that definition from the FAQs; and I know none of those examples contradict the definition of asexuality. It's just that it confuses so many people for some unknown reason.

Perhaps it's part of the culture - the stereotypical expectation is that "if you see something you like, you have to bang it."

So, if we are obligated by biology or whatever to have sex with what we're attracted to... what happens if you don't find something attractive? You just stay away from it. (Although that notion is a bit arguable in itself)

And why would you want to stay away from something you don't find attractive? It's because something's horribly wrong with you. This is the impression I'm getting from a lot of peoples' stories with asexual coming-out.

How I'm trying to relate this is that the general assumption by the mainstream is if you aren't attracted to anything, then how can you have sex or fall in love?

Yes, I know. Oversimplification, but that's pretty much the missing gap in the sexuals' arguments. It doesn't make sense not to be able to understand asexuality, I know. But it just happens - people can't wrap their minds around such an extreme notion, and then add all of these nuances.

It's like saying, "I like pepperoni pizza, and my friend doesn't like pizza at all. Therefore, my friend is lactose intolerant."

I hope I'm making myself clearer by this...

[Sciatrix]

Well, yeah. I can see how it might be a confusing concept to wrap your mind around. I myself find the notion of gaining sexual pleasure from hurting people or being hurt in turn quite confusing to wrap my head around. That doesn't mean that when my friend tells me she's kinky I get to go "no, no, by definition pain cannot cause pleasure" or "you must be some kind of sicko! SHUN" or "psh, kinky people don't exist, they're all evil/fooling themselves/rapists/etc." Instead, I should probably make a good-faith effort to understand if I don't already--which means stopping and asking very politely either the questions I have or whether there are any resources I can look at to answer my questions, depending on how invasive those questions are--or else say "Okay. That's interesting. I support you in whatever you want to do, by the way." You'll note that none of that involves setting myself up as an expert on BSDM or sitting there and explaining why the BDSM community is totally wrong on everything, incidentally.