I am asexual. I want sex. These are not mutually exclusive in the least.

[confu2213d]

I'm really pleased about seeing this thread here, so have another thank you for putting it up.

Some asexual people do masturbate, so obviously having a libido/sex drive/notsureaboutterminology does not mean you will automatically feel drawn to people sexually. So it is, kind-of-by-extension, possible to want sex without wanting sex with a specific someone.

Personally, I sort of want to have sex at some point because I think it'll feel good. I mean, masturbation feels good, doesn't it? So maybe sex should too. Buuut despite this, I'm still going to call myself asexual, because I've never met or seen or known anyone who I've looked at, and thought anything even remotely close to "I would definitely have sex with you if I could." Even seeking out a significant other for sex is a weird thing to me. And despite wanting to have sex, I'd still be completely clueless if someone asked me "But who would you have sex with?". There wouldn't be a single person on my list because I don't know what it's like to want to have sex with a specific person, or even feel any sort of general sexual attraction. And the desire for sex is a very vague thing, like "Oh, maybe one day, it would be nice..."

So, I suppose, in a way I'm one of vampyremage's "very few asexuals who would claim to have sexual desire for sex's sake". (Although I'm not sure about the definition of sexual desire here)

To try to explain it again, I guess it's like... the idea of sex and then sex with people/a specific person are separate. But then, at least for me, this presents a (slightly weird) problem.

1. You want to have sex, purely because it's supposed to feel nice.

2. You don't feel sexual attraction.

3. So, who should you have sex with? How do you even start looking for someone? Should you be going straight for your SO?

I'm aware that this turned into more of a personal rant than any expansion on the original topic, but hopefully it'll offer some insight into what this weird not-quite-dissonance is like.

Edit: The food analogy is pretty much spot-on, actually.

[Vampyremage]

Fast forward a year or so, with a lot more reading (paying more attention to self-identified "sexuals") and I've come to realize that, in reality, most people don't desire random, hot, kinky sex with that random, hot, kinky person. Most people want that emotional connection before doing the deed. I'm sure there are people who would agree that sex with that special someone cannot compare to random, hot, kinky sex. Not that having random, hot, kinky sex is bad... to each their own. I think it's actually a lot more common for people to find others sexually attractive and comment on that attractiveness.

Also, the more I read on AVEN, the more I realize that there is something much too simple and broad about asexual being described as "a lack of sexual attraction". It's a cold hard fact that many people actually lump sexual attraction with desire together, and at the same time there's a lot more to sexual attraction and desire than what we realize. Although, supposedly if something/someone/part of someone turns you on, that's it... but arguably, when someone is turned on doesn't desire/arousal also happen simultaneously? I mean, at that point there's a chicken and egg question... do you feel desire because someone is attractive or do you feel attraction because you find them desirable? Either way, you normally get some level of physical arousal as a result. I'm totally running around in circles on this one and totally spluttering out my brain's gray matter thoughts, but I still do not get it at all.

I would put forward that asexuality (provided we aren't talking about the sexually repulsed) is more about the lack of the fulfillment from/desire for partnered sex. I say fulfillment because, from my understanding, it's generally accepted from the 99% that masturbating and partnered sex is like eating hors d'oeuvres vs. having a full course meal (respectively, plus desire is a bit of a hefty word). From what I've read, most aces (libido or there lack of) can more-or-less take it or leave it because there's no ingrained connection between love and sex as a channel for love. Sex does provide some other aspects, and there are other reasons why aces might want to have sex, but it is not important to the overall picture of the relationship. Again, from my understanding, other forms of non-sexual intimacy are preferred.

All of this is well worded and very much the sort of message I was trying to get across. I really like that descriptor you came up with "lack of fulfillment from/desire for partnered sex." That is exactly what I was trying to say in my own long winded posts, I just couldn't quite come up with such a succinct way of putting it.

[Faelights]

Fast forward a year or so, with a lot more reading (paying more attention to self-identified "sexuals") and I've come to realize that, in reality, most people don't desire random, hot, kinky sex with that random, hot, kinky person. Most people want that emotional connection before doing the deed. I'm sure there are people who would agree that sex with that special someone cannot compare to random, hot, kinky sex. Not that having random, hot, kinky sex is bad... to each their own. I think it's actually a lot more common for people to find others sexually attractive and comment on that attractiveness.

Also, the more I read on AVEN, the more I realize that there is something much too simple and broad about asexual being described as "a lack of sexual attraction". It's a cold hard fact that many people actually lump sexual attraction with desire together, and at the same time there's a lot more to sexual attraction and desire than what we realize. Although, supposedly if something/someone/part of someone turns you on, that's it... but arguably, when someone is turned on doesn't desire/arousal also happen simultaneously? I mean, at that point there's a chicken and egg question... do you feel desire because someone is attractive or do you feel attraction because you find them desirable? Either way, you normally get some level of physical arousal as a result. I'm totally running around in circles on this one and totally spluttering out my brain's gray matter thoughts, but I still do not get it at all.

I would put forward that asexuality (provided we aren't talking about the sexually repulsed) is more about the lack of the fulfillment from/desire for partnered sex. I say fulfillment because, from my understanding, it's generally accepted from the 99% that masturbating and partnered sex is like eating hors d'oeuvres vs. having a full course meal (respectively, plus desire is a bit of a hefty word). From what I've read, most aces (libido or there lack of) can more-or-less take it or leave it because there's no ingrained connection between love and sex as a channel for love. Sex does provide some other aspects, and there are other reasons why aces might want to have sex, but it is not important to the overall picture of the relationship. Again, from my understanding, other forms of non-sexual intimacy are preferred.

All of this is well worded and very much the sort of message I was trying to get across. I really like that descriptor you came up with "lack of fulfillment from/desire for partnered sex." That is exactly what I was trying to say in my own long winded posts, I just couldn't quite come up with such a succinct way of putting it.

This is pretty much how I feel about the matter -- that is, if I had to compare masturbation with sexual intercourse with another person, they're about equal for me. In the former, I personally get much more physically satisfied... but in the latter, though I don't get as much physical satisfaction, I might engage in it because of the interaction. It's a toss-up, really.

Of course, I can't say I'm the most experienced person when it comes to sex, so I don't know if that's part of the reason they're pretty much equal right now. I mean, what if I got proficient enough at sex and was having sex with someone who's at least equally as proficient or even better, and I was able to achieve at least the same level of physical satisfaction that I achieve on my own? Would I then prefer partnered sex more???

*ponders until her brain circuits threaten mutiny*

EDIT: I forgot to say though -- the definition of asexuality that we use here at AVEN (i.e. not experiencing sexual attraction to other people) may seem a bit broad. However, as I'm apparently pondering above... maybe asexuals don't normally prefer partnered sex over anything else. However, I do believe there are situations in which they will end up having that preference, for a combination of reasons of which sexual attraction is not one of them. So I'm loath to narrow the definition.

[Meph]

when someone is turned on doesn't desire/arousal also happen simultaneously? I mean, at that point there's a chicken and egg question... do you feel desire because someone is attractive or do you feel attraction because you find them desirable? Either way, you normally get some level of physical arousal as a result.

You get aroused because your body has hormones that are often released against your will. Arousal does cause sexual desire, but sexual desire does not specifically mean sexual desire towards someone else. Attraction is what our brains use to determine the best potential mates according to their physical appearance, because evolution DOES have preferences and it is encoded into our DNA, arousal is simply the kick our body gives us to make it more likely that we reproduce. Asexuals, for some reason, do NOT have this preference that evolution was meant to give to us, maybe because it's starting to not matter, BUT we still feel arousal because reproduction is still a part of survival, though most of us prefer to satisfy it by masturbation. This is how I see it, now, at least.

[Naosuu]

@vampyremage: Oo, thanks! I feel kinda fuzzy, haha. I've always liked your posts, very articulate and you have a tendency to hit things dead on.

@Meph: I understand what you're saying, but I think your definition of attraction is somewhat flawed... consider that there are people whom are sexually attracted to people they would otherwise not date (i.e. preference for blonds but still attracted to a few brunettes). I don't think sexual attraction is purely based off of one's appearance (although it seems like it makes up about 80% of it)... hence its complexity.

EDIT: I forgot to say though -- the definition of asexuality that we use here at AVEN (i.e. not experiencing sexual attraction to other people) may seem a bit broad. However, as I'm apparently pondering above... maybe asexuals don't normally prefer partnered sex over anything else. However, I do believe there are situations in which they will end up having that preference, for a combination of reasons of which sexual attraction is not one of them. So I'm loath to narrow the definition.

With the lack of fulfillment from/desire for partnered sex I wanted to imply that there's no instinctual drive to want it. This isn't to say there is a complete lack (although for some there really is nothing), but it definitively has much less importance/value than a sexual (again, hors d'oeuvres/masturbating versus having a full course meal/partnered sex). I also think that the definition should be streamlined and the consequence will be "cutting" other people out.

This isn't a bad thing though. The definition itself is pretty weak (as you have pointed out, there are many "am I asexual?" questions than most of us can count). There is a certain beauty about a broad definition, and perhaps good when AVEN first started out, but this is not useful for visibility. I think something more concrete needs to be put forward. Arguably, sexual attraction isn't a good measuring stick if its instigation and its experience are so individual; it's seriously like trying to define what love is. It's universally understood but so damn hard to define.

EDIT: Ohhh har har sorry if this kind of veered off-topic... yeah.... ahem.... back to your usual program now...

[Data]

when someone is turned on doesn't desire/arousal also happen simultaneously? I mean, at that point there's a chicken and egg question... do you feel desire because someone is attractive or do you feel attraction because you find them desirable? Either way, you normally get some level of physical arousal as a result.

You get aroused because your body has hormones that are often released against your will. Arousal does cause sexual desire, but sexual desire does not specifically mean sexual desire towards someone else. Attraction is what our brains use to determine the best potential mates according to their physical appearance, because evolution DOES have preferences and it is encoded into our DNA, arousal is simply the kick our body gives us to make it more likely that we reproduce. Asexuals, for some reason, do NOT have this preference that evolution was meant to give to us, maybe because it's starting to not matter, BUT we still feel arousal because reproduction is still a part of survival, though most of us prefer to satisfy it by masturbation. This is how I see it, now, at least.

Evolution can also make people attracted to behavior, abilities, and wealth not only to how somebody looks like.

There are many other examples in other species, spiders where female choose spider solely based on home that he had made.

[*]It feels good and is a way to pass the time.

The problem is that there must be some reason why it is preferable to masturbation so it can't be separated from everything else.

[Faelights]

when someone is turned on doesn't desire/arousal also happen simultaneously? I mean, at that point there's a chicken and egg question... do you feel desire because someone is attractive or do you feel attraction because you find them desirable? Either way, you normally get some level of physical arousal as a result.

You get aroused because your body has hormones that are often released against your will. Arousal does cause sexual desire, but sexual desire does not specifically mean sexual desire towards someone else. Attraction is what our brains use to determine the best potential mates according to their physical appearance, because evolution DOES have preferences and it is encoded into our DNA, arousal is simply the kick our body gives us to make it more likely that we reproduce. Asexuals, for some reason, do NOT have this preference that evolution was meant to give to us, maybe because it's starting to not matter, BUT we still feel arousal because reproduction is still a part of survival, though most of us prefer to satisfy it by masturbation. This is how I see it, now, at least.

Evolution can also make people attracted to behavior, abilities, and wealth not only to how somebody looks like.

There are many other examples in other species, spiders where female choose spider solely based on home that he had made.

[*]It feels good and is a way to pass the time.

The problem is that there must be some reason why it is preferable to masturbation so it can't be separated from everything else.

What if the sole reason you found partnered sex preferable to masturbation is the element of surprise in the former? That is, if you're masturbating, you know exactly what's going to come next... but that is not the case in partnered sex. What if you prefer partnered sex because it "shakes things up", so to say? It's more of an adventure than masturbating?

Or what if you preferred partnered sex to masturbation, because you're just effing lazy? You like to just sit back and enjoy the sensations, which isn't something you can fully do when you masturbate, but IS something you can do in partnered sex, with the right partner? (To give a non-sexual comparison, oh man, is it difficult and sometimes even dangerous to engage in self-bondage.)

Do those also count as attraction towards the other individual you might be engaging in sex with? Or is that something inherent in your own personality, nothing to do with attraction? Yet they would be reasons why partnered sex might be preferable to masturbation, even in the absence of other things, like attraction.

EDIT: To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what your point was with quoting that specific point in my list, because that list was an example of factors that when in combination with other factors might lead to a decision to engage in partnered sex over masturbation. Each point by itself was never intended to be the only factor in a decision, though I can see any of them being the prominent factor in someone's list.

[whitelime]

Maybe i'm gonna be flamed but IMO OP is not asexual and experiences sexual attraction.

IMHO the asexual definition of lack of sexual attraction is a bit lame to make asexuality understood by the mainstream.

People saying "i'm asexual but i want sex with those people even though i don't experience sexual attraction" is like a guy declaring he is not gay and saying "yeah i want sex with men but i don't really experience sexual attraction to them"

IMHO these people experience sexual attraction (i don't know if we can say there is a primary and secondary sexual attraction but they experience sexual attraction since they want sex with some people)

It's kind of a trendy thing to be bisexual (not saying that bi are following a trend but more and more people (especially women) have bisexual behaviour (15yo teens that find it fun to kiss their best female friends, etc)) and for me women who imagine and consider trying (at least) sexual things with another woman are bisexual (because they experience some sexual attraction imo)

Because i can't really understand (but maybe i'm dumb) wanting to have sex with a gender and not experiencing sexual attraction to that gender (that does not mean you're attracted to every people of this gender obv)

EDIT : OP, i'm sorry if you took it bad, i didn't want to do that (i don't want to look like an elitist or so, and yeah it's up to one to declare one's asexual ...)

[Jillianimal]

Maybe i'm gonna be flamed but IMO OP is not asexual and experiences sexual attraction.

IMHO the asexual definition of lack of sexual attraction is a bit lame to make asexuality understood by the mainstream.

People saying "i'm asexual but i want sex with those people even though i don't experience sexual attraction" is like a guy declaring he is not gay and saying "yeah i want sex with men but i don't really experience sexual attraction to them"

IMHO these people experience sexual attraction (i don't know if we can say there is a primary and secondary sexual attraction but they experience sexual attraction since they want sex with some people)

It's kind of a trendy thing to be bisexual (not saying that bi are following a trend but more and more people (especially women) have bisexual behaviour (15yo teens that find it fun to kiss their best female friends, etc)) and for me women who imagine and consider trying (at least) sexual things with another woman are bisexual (because they experience some sexual attraction imo)

Because i can't really understand (but maybe i'm dumb) wanting to have sex with a gender and not experiencing sexual attraction to that gender (that does not mean you're attracted to every people of this gender obv)

It could be out of curiousity.

[whitelime]

To answer a few questions:

As a hyperthymic (look it up; hyperthymic temperament) I have an extremely high libido. it's just part and parcel with what I am. Now, I enjoy masturabation; I do it several times per day, in fact. Now, add in that I am very extroverted; I enjoy interaction with others. Now, I can get off by myself, and that is perfectly grand. Or I can have sex with someone, which means that one, I get off, and two, I get social interaction.

I don't experience sexual attraction because attraction doesn't figure in. It could be literally anyone with working genitals. Attraction is a sorting algorithm; it is drawing a distinction and saying THIS person is attractive, this person is less attractive, etc. however, my sex drive does not make those distinctions; it just wants to be satisfied in whatever way I can manage, and is not at all particular about whom it is with, or even if it is with someone.

However, since having sex with someone does double duty as both a means to satisfy my libido and a way to connect with another person, it is more desirable than masturbation. More of a work out, too, and it can be a way of affirming a bond (in the context of a romantic relationship.)

Thanks for the good responses.

How do you separate sexual attraction from social attraction that makes you interested in sex with somebody? Sexual attraction =/= being attracted only based on physical beauty. To me it seems that there always has to be attraction to something to desire sex, and I had not seen a good criteria to separate different kinds of attraction. For somebody physical attractiveness will be the most important, for somebody else it will mostly be the personality that is attractive, but it is still attraction that makes you interested in having sex with somebody so those distinctions sound a bit arbitrary to me.

Now if somebody have sex due to social pressure or because the partner wants it, then that is different then wanting sex.

This, agree with this :)

[Meph]

is like a guy declaring he is not gay and saying "yeah i want sex with men but i don't really experience sexual attraction to them"

Have you ever been inside a prison?

[Nogitsune]

Someone just had to jump in and start policing other people's sexual identity because omg, the poor mainstream culture will be so confused.

I'm a repulsed asexual myself, but it's really not that hard to see how other asexual people may enjoy sex for various reasons. How about trusting them and their experiences and letting them decide which label fits them for themselves?

It is quite frustrating to be reading aven and for so many asexuals to discuss asexuality as if it meant asexuals did not want sex. They have sex drives, just like anyone else.

I think you mean "asexual people are about as likely to have sex drives as anyone else", because no, not everyone has a sex drive, just like there are asexuals for whom not wanting sex is connected to their asexuality.

Yay for the rest of your post and this thread, though.

[Faelights]

Someone just had to jump in and start policing other people's sexual identity because omg, the poor mainstream culture will be so confused.

I'm a repulsed asexual myself, but it's really not that hard to see how other asexual people may enjoy sex for various reasons. How about trusting them and their experiences and letting them decide which label fits them for themselves?

It is quite frustrating to be reading aven and for so many asexuals to discuss asexuality as if it meant asexuals did not want sex. They have sex drives, just like anyone else.

I think you mean "asexual people are about as likely to have sex drives as anyone else", because no, not everyone has a sex drive, just like there are asexuals for whom not wanting sex is connected to their asexuality.

Yay for the rest of your post and this thread, though.

Yes, I would agree with your "just as likely" assessment.

To throw something else in here for consideration (because apparently like I like complicating matters), especially for those who think we should be possibly narrowing the definition to specify that partnered sex shouldn't be preferred over masturbation... what of people who do experience sexual attraction, but "for reasons" (e.g. sex-repulsed, sex-aversive, they just don't get along with other people, etc), they also prefer masturbation over partnered sex?

o.o?

EDIT: Oh just ignore me. They're celibates or people who abstain who happen to also experience sexual attraction, of course. o.o *facepaws* I don't know where my head is this morning... There are asexual celibates/people who abstain, too, right? lol

I think maybe it's time I stepped back from this thread for a few days.

[Vampyremage]

Maybe i'm gonna be flamed but IMO OP is not asexual and experiences sexual attraction.

IMHO the asexual definition of lack of sexual attraction is a bit lame to make asexuality understood by the mainstream.

People saying "i'm asexual but i want sex with those people even though i don't experience sexual attraction" is like a guy declaring he is not gay and saying "yeah i want sex with men but i don't really experience sexual attraction to them"

IMHO these people experience sexual attraction (i don't know if we can say there is a primary and secondary sexual attraction but they experience sexual attraction since they want sex with some people)

It's kind of a trendy thing to be bisexual (not saying that bi are following a trend but more and more people (especially women) have bisexual behaviour (15yo teens that find it fun to kiss their best female friends, etc)) and for me women who imagine and consider trying (at least) sexual things with another woman are bisexual (because they experience some sexual attraction imo)

Because i can't really understand (but maybe i'm dumb) wanting to have sex with a gender and not experiencing sexual attraction to that gender (that does not mean you're attracted to every people of this gender obv)

EDIT : OP, i'm sorry if you took it bad, i didn't want to do that (i don't want to look like an elitist or so, and yeah it's up to one to declare one's asexual ...)

I do not believe in policing other people's sexual identity although I do believe the definition of asexuality needs to be somewhat streamlined. As mentioned before, there are many reasons that one might have sex and even desire sex that have nothing to do with sexual attraction. To take from Naosuu, I think the definition of asexuality should be expanded to include something to the effect of a lack of fulfillment from/desire for partnered sex I wanted to imply that there's no instinctual drive to want it.

I personally think the current definition os too broad and because it is so broad, it loses some of its meaning. Including the above would serve not only to streamline what asexuality is but I believe it would also cut down on the number of questions people ask about it. Reducing the confusion of those who suspect they might be asexual while making the definition more clear for purposes of education and visibility I think are both posative aspects. Including such a streamline would give a more immediate idea regarding what it meant to be asexual beyond simply not experiencing this enigmatic thing called sexual attraction.

With that said, of course there are still many reasons to have sex and to be interested in having sex, some of which have all ready been listed above. I think the above addition to the definition of asexuality would not have the effect of unduly cutting out those individuals who choose to engage in sex for a variety of different reasons that have nothing to do with having that innate drive towards partnered sex. When it comes to what it means to be asexual, I think a lack of sexual attraction is just as important in establishing meaning as a lack of innate drive towards and fulfillment from partnered sex. Without the addition of the latter, what does it really mean to be asexual if one experiences that drive and that fulfillmentjust like a sexual would? To me, there is very little, if any, meaning at all.

[Faelights]

My qualms about narrowing the definition stem from the fact that I feel that we would essentially be creating a prescriptive label rather than a descriptive label: that is, instead of the term "asexual" enabling people to better describe themselves to others, we create a "prescription" or a list of characteristics that must be fulfilled.

Not to pull the "let's compare asexuality to other sexual orientations" card here, but how exactly is homosexuality defined? How is heterosexuality defined? If we add this "lack of innate drive towards and fulfillment from partnered sex" to the definition of asexuality, does it also mean a parallel addition of "experiences an innate drive towards and fulfillment from partnered sex" to the definitions of homosexuality, heterosexuality, etc?

What I was trying to say, but didn't manage to say, in my last post was: we already have terms to use for people who do not find fulfillment from partnered sex (whether or not they would be able to is a different matter), such as celibacy and abstinence.

I think that "asexual" should stay descriptive. Not prescriptive. =P

[5_♦♣]

My qualms about narrowing the definition stem from the fact that I feel that we would essentially be creating a prescriptive label rather than a descriptive label: that is, instead of the term "asexual" enabling people to better describe themselves to others, we create a "prescription" or a list of characteristics that must be fulfilled.

Not to pull the "let's compare asexuality to other sexual orientations" card here, but how exactly is homosexuality defined? How is heterosexuality defined? If we add this "lack of innate drive towards and fulfillment from partnered sex" to the definition of asexuality, does it also mean a parallel addition of "experiences an innate drive towards and fulfillment from partnered sex" to the definitions of homosexuality, heterosexuality, etc?

What I was trying to say, but didn't manage to say, in my last post was: we already have terms to use for people who do not find fulfillment from partnered sex (whether or not they would be able to is a different matter), such as celibacy and abstinence.

I think that "asexual" should stay descriptive. Not prescriptive. =P

This. All this.

Plus, by narrowing the definition of Asexuality, we're getting into the unassailable Asexual territory.

[Jillianimal]

I feel like expanding the definition can more it more confusing in a way. There would need to be a whole new category of labels for people who overlap or don't totally fit it not just for asexuals but all other sexual orientations. Sexuality is complicated enough, why not let it be?

[Naosuu]

Not to pull the "let's compare asexuality to other sexual orientations" card here, but how exactly is homosexuality defined? How is heterosexuality defined? If we add this "lack of innate drive towards and fulfillment from partnered sex" to the definition of asexuality, does it also mean a parallel addition of "experiences an innate drive towards and fulfillment from partnered sex" to the definitions of homosexuality, heterosexuality, etc?

Note: For the examples, I'll be using Bob and Alice to keep it simple.

I would argue that under the current understanding of hetero/homo/bisexuality, they all imply that there is some drive for sexual contact with the other that happens at some point. The mainstream understanding is that as Bob and Alice get to know each other, one or both will eventually start to develop romantic feelings for the other. At some point, one or both will want sexual contact as a way to open deep, connection for love. Arguably, one-night stands kind of jumps the deep, emotional connection and focus more on the benefits of physical partnered sex and fulfilling that need for sexual contact... but anyway.

Again, from my understanding and reading, this want for sexual contact with the other does not happen with asexuals. Even when sex enters the relationship, most aces don't feel anything that is "ignited" to sexually desire their partner. With the stories of mixed relationships, this seems to be almost a cliché. They may enjoy sex for various reasons, but it is by no means somehow intrinsic in how they express love. Again, I think this is because there is no connection between love and sex as a channel to express that. A possible reason why this idea of fulfillment never came to the table is because this was taken for granted. Thankfully, asexuality forces everyone to take a more critical look at sexuality.

What I was trying to say, but didn't manage to say, in my last post was: we already have terms to use for people who do not find fulfillment from partnered sex (whether or not they would be able to is a different matter), such as celibacy and abstinence.

I think that "asexual" should stay descriptive. Not prescriptive. =P

I'm going to assume that you mean if Bob (saving himself for marriage, therefore abstaining/is celibate) finally gets married to Alice and has sex, would he find sex fulfilling? I definitively think YMMV, but it could also chalk up to being inexperienced? There are plenty of reasons why the "first time" will suck balls. In fact, when I do eventually have sex (since I would like to be in a romantic relationship), I don't expect my first time to be mind blowing. Bodies are complicated things and it will take time for both partners to learn what makes the other tick. However, with time, patience and a want to understand the other's body, I would assume that the sex eventually gets better. While the pleasures from sex would be meh, would the desire for sexual contact as a way to express love be satisfied? I would say yes.

(BTW, if I totally misunderstood, please don't be afraid to clarify.)

However, that being said, my understanding of celibacy and abstinence is that, despite choosing not to have sex, these people still experience sexual attraction and still want sexual contact with another person. I'm sure there are plenty of people who, like Bob, have a hell of a time abstaining before the wedding. Asexuals cannot abstain or be celibate since there is no temptation to resist, so to speak.

I would also put forward that hetero/homo/bisexuality are, in fact, prescriptive. They all assume that they feel sexual attraction and sexual desire; there is also an assumption that they only experience it towards (a) specific sex(es). If a man doesn't get his jimmies rustled by men and only with women, he concludes that he's heterosexual. The same idea applies to homosexuals and bisexuals. If you look at bisexuality, it actually gets a lot of flack from gays/lesbians and straight crowds because they don't fit the prescribed to being "attracted to male OR females". This does assume that their sexual and romantic orientations line up though.

Just to be clear, I'm not looking for asexuality to be defined as an orientation. That is rather political and that also carries its own baggage. I'm more concerned with its broad definition which, quite frankly, is severely lacking and needs to be refined. With its current definition and lack of stigma, it's easy for anyone to slap the label on themselves and later "transition" to another sexuality. Not that I'm punching anyone who needs such a label for their journey, but it definitively hurts visibility: how can anyone take asexuality seriously if we don't really understand what's going on? Can we really imagine the day when saying, "I'm asexual" or "I'm dating an asexual" won't provoke incredulous remarks and skepticism if we don't do this digging? Asexuals interested in visibility work (such as I, although I would do visibility work even if I found out I was sexual) have to be our best lawyers and best advocates. No one is going to do it for us, so we better know what the hell we're talking about and what's going on.

[Vampyremage]

Not to pull the "let's compare asexuality to other sexual orientations" card here, but how exactly is homosexuality defined? How is heterosexuality defined? If we add this "lack of innate drive towards and fulfillment from partnered sex" to the definition of asexuality, does it also mean a parallel addition of "experiences an innate drive towards and fulfillment from partnered sex" to the definitions of homosexuality, heterosexuality, etc?

Note: For the examples, I'll be using Bob and Alice to keep it simple.

I would argue that under the current understanding of hetero/homo/bisexuality, they all imply that there is some drive for sexual contact with the other that happens at some point. The mainstream understanding is that as Bob and Alice get to know each other, one or both will eventually start to develop romantic feelings for the other. At some point, one or both will want sexual contact as a way to open deep, connection for love. Arguably, one-night stands kind of jumps the deep, emotional connection and focus more on the benefits of physical partnered sex and fulfilling that need for sexual contact... but anyway.

Again, from my understanding and reading, this want for sexual contact with the other does not happen with asexuals. Even when sex enters the relationship, most aces don't feel anything that is "ignited" to sexually desire their partner. With the stories of mixed relationships, this seems to be almost a cliché. They may enjoy sex for various reasons, but it is by no means somehow intrinsic in how they express love. Again, I think this is because there is no connection between love and sex as a channel to express that. A possible reason why this idea of fulfillment never came to the table is because this was taken for granted. Thankfully, asexuality forces everyone to take a more critical look at sexuality.

What I was trying to say, but didn't manage to say, in my last post was: we already have terms to use for people who do not find fulfillment from partnered sex (whether or not they would be able to is a different matter), such as celibacy and abstinence.

I think that "asexual" should stay descriptive. Not prescriptive. =P

I'm going to assume that you mean if Bob (saving himself for marriage, therefore abstaining/is celibate) finally gets married to Alice and has sex, would he find sex fulfilling? I definitively think YMMV, but it could also chalk up to being inexperienced? There are plenty of reasons why the "first time" will suck balls. In fact, when I do eventually have sex (since I would like to be in a romantic relationship), I don't expect my first time to be mind blowing. Bodies are complicated things and it will take time for both partners to learn what makes the other tick. However, with time, patience and a want to understand the other's body, I would assume that the sex eventually gets better. While the pleasures from sex would be meh, would the desire for sexual contact as a way to express love be satisfied? I would say yes.

(BTW, if I totally misunderstood, please don't be afraid to clarify.)

However, that being said, my understanding of celibacy and abstinence is that, despite choosing not to have sex, these people still experience sexual attraction and still want sexual contact with another person. I'm sure there are plenty of people who, like Bob, have a hell of a time abstaining before the wedding. Asexuals cannot abstain or be celibate since there is no temptation to resist, so to speak.

I would also put forward that hetero/homo/bisexuality are, in fact, prescriptive. They all assume that they feel sexual attraction and sexual desire; there is also an assumption that they only experience it towards (a) specific sex(es). If a man doesn't get his jimmies rustled by men and only with women, he concludes that he's heterosexual. The same idea applies to homosexuals and bisexuals. If you look at bisexuality, it actually gets a lot of flack from gays/lesbians and straight crowds because they don't fit the prescribed to being "attracted to male OR females". This does assume that their sexual and romantic orientations line up though.

Just to be clear, I'm not looking for asexuality to be defined as an orientation. That is rather political and that also carries its own baggage. I'm more concerned with its broad definition which, quite frankly, is severely lacking and needs to be refined. With its current definition and lack of stigma, it's easy for anyone to slap the label on themselves and later "transition" to another sexuality. Not that I'm punching anyone who needs such a label for their journey, but it definitively hurts visibility: how can anyone take asexuality seriously if we don't really understand what's going on? Can we really imagine the day when saying, "I'm asexual" or "I'm dating an asexual" won't provoke incredulous remarks and skepticism if we don't do this digging? Asexuals interested in visibility work (such as I, although I would do visibility work even if I found out I was sexual) have to be our best lawyers and best advocates. No one is going to do it for us, so we better know what the hell we're talking about and what's going on.

Once again, this very much encompasses my own thoughts on the matter from top to bottom. Now I will add a couple thoughts of my own.

In my own view of what asexuality is, I have made clear that I think is encompasses BOTH the lack of sexual attraction AND the lack of innate sexual drive towards and fulfillment from partnered sex. I believe that encorporating both of these traits in the description of what asexuality is and means eliminates the possibility of including sexuals who simply choose to obstain from sex. Neither of these traits have much to do with conscious will, they are simply traits that an indivudal either does or does not possess. If an individual has one of these traits and not the other then I would feel comfortable putting them in the Grey-A category, which is all ready there as the middle ground between asexual and full sexual.

Second, as pertains to other sexual orientations, I would argue that it is implied that sexual drive is part of the package of sexual desire. In saying one is gay, what one is saying is that not only are they attracted to memebers of the same sex but also that one has a drive towards having sex with members of the same sex and gains fulfillment from having sex with members of the same sex.

Consider orientatations such as heteroflexible as well. Often the implication in such an orientation is, I think, that one experiences sexual attraction and drive towards members of the opposite sex but towards members of the same sex it might be considered more in the Grey-A category. In talking to individuals who have such an orientation, it seems that for many, they might say that they experience that initial spark of sexual attraction towards members of the same sex but have much lower actual drive towards or satisfaction from sex with members of the same sex. This will not, of course, be true for everyone who identifies as such an orientation.

Here on AVEN, we try to dissect the individual parts of sexuality and pull them apart so we can decide which ones apply and which ones don't apply when stating that one is asexual. In some ways I think this is beneficial, but I also think we sometimes try to take it too far. I don't think its entirely possible, for example, to seperate out sexual attraction from the drive towards sexual activity. Note that I am using the term drive and not the term desire and that is intentional. Desire has at least some conscious aspect, drive I think does not. I use drive in the context of being more instincual.

[Nogitsune]

I... really don't see the problem with the definition based on sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction may be hard to explain, but "fulfilment" is an even more vague and broad term. You can find something fulfilling without feeling a need to actively seek it out, for example. An asexual person could also find sex fulfilling because it feels intimate, not because of any sexual attraction. Making mainstream culture understand is important, but if we have to cut off parts of the asexual community to achieve that, then no, I'm not willing to pay that price.

People may identify as asexual now and as something else in the future. What about it? This will happen regardless of how you define asexuality, because as has been said, sexuality is complicated, and to pretend otherwise is pointless at best and harmful at worst.

The definition of "celibate" as actively resisting something is not universal, either, and an asexual can identify as celibate. At least some do. For an asexual, not having sex is still a choice, and not all asexuals are going to make this choice, so saying "I'm a celibate asexual" can get a certain point across.

Uh, also... how is a "lack of stigma" supposed to be a bad thing?

[bluebanana2014]

It is quite frustrating to be reading aven and for so many asexuals to discuss asexuality as if it meant asexuals did not want sex. They have sex drives, just like anyone else. It just so happens that unlike most people their sex drive doesn't drive them towards any particular sex.

It is bad enough when other people misunderstand asexuality, but when asexuals on this board misunderstand as well, I find it quite alarming.

Wanting sex because it is pleasurable is entirely separate from not experiencing sexual attraction. I am not attracted to people, but they happen to be quite nice and have useful physiological features.

On the flipside, you can experience sexual attraction and not have the slightest interest in sex.

Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction, nothing more and nothing less.

YOU'RE NOT ASEXUAL CAUSE YOU WANT SEX.

[Jillianimal]

I... really don't see the problem with the definition based on sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction may be hard to explain, but "fulfilment" is an even more vague and broad term. You can find something fulfilling without feeling a need to actively seek it out, for example. An asexual person could also find sex fulfilling because it feels intimate, not because of any sexual attraction. Making mainstream culture understand is important, but if we have to cut off parts of the asexual community to achieve that, then no, I'm not willing to pay that price.

People may identify as asexual now and as something else in the future. What about it? This will happen regardless of how you define asexuality, because as has been said, sexuality is complicated, and to pretend otherwise is pointless at best and harmful at worst.

This. All of this.

I think it's a good idea for people to realize how complicated sexuality is. A lot of people think all there is to is "well, I'm liking this, so I must be X". There are so many different aspects of sexuality & I think it's simplest to stick with just sexual attraction when it comes to orientation. How you feel about sex or with who is somewhat easily prone to change by will power anyway whereas actually finding someone sexually attractive or not is innate.

[The Great WTF]

It is quite frustrating to be reading aven and for so many asexuals to discuss asexuality as if it meant asexuals did not want sex. They have sex drives, just like anyone else. It just so happens that unlike most people their sex drive doesn't drive them towards any particular sex.

It is bad enough when other people misunderstand asexuality, but when asexuals on this board misunderstand as well, I find it quite alarming.

Wanting sex because it is pleasurable is entirely separate from not experiencing sexual attraction. I am not attracted to people, but they happen to be quite nice and have useful physiological features.

On the flipside, you can experience sexual attraction and not have the slightest interest in sex.

Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction, nothing more and nothing less.

YOU'RE NOT ASEXUAL CAUSE YOU WANT SEX.

Judging by the overall positive responses to this thread, there are many of us who disagree with you. Having a libido/sex drive and wanting to address it through means other than masturbation is a vastly different concept than sexual attraction (the lack of which is the base definition for asexuality as far as many AVENites are concerned.)

[Jillianimal]

It is quite frustrating to be reading aven and for so many asexuals to discuss asexuality as if it meant asexuals did not want sex. They have sex drives, just like anyone else. It just so happens that unlike most people their sex drive doesn't drive them towards any particular sex.

It is bad enough when other people misunderstand asexuality, but when asexuals on this board misunderstand as well, I find it quite alarming.

Wanting sex because it is pleasurable is entirely separate from not experiencing sexual attraction. I am not attracted to people, but they happen to be quite nice and have useful physiological features.

On the flipside, you can experience sexual attraction and not have the slightest interest in sex.

Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction, nothing more and nothing less.

YOU'RE NOT ASEXUAL CAUSE YOU WANT SEX.

WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS FUCKING SCREAMING?!

[Vampyremage]

It is quite frustrating to be reading aven and for so many asexuals to discuss asexuality as if it meant asexuals did not want sex. They have sex drives, just like anyone else. It just so happens that unlike most people their sex drive doesn't drive them towards any particular sex.

It is bad enough when other people misunderstand asexuality, but when asexuals on this board misunderstand as well, I find it quite alarming.

Wanting sex because it is pleasurable is entirely separate from not experiencing sexual attraction. I am not attracted to people, but they happen to be quite nice and have useful physiological features.

On the flipside, you can experience sexual attraction and not have the slightest interest in sex.

Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction, nothing more and nothing less.

YOU'RE NOT ASEXUAL CAUSE YOU WANT SEX.

WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS FUCKING SCREAMING?!

for you for that most excellent of questions. Or should I say FOR YOU FOR THAT MOST EXCELENT OF QUESTIONS!!!

[cleuchtturm]

YOU'RE NOT ASEXUAL CAUSE YOU WANT SEX.

WHY ARE YOU ALWAYS FUCKING SCREAMING?!

I almost spit out my sandwich. <3

[bethechange]

Note: For the examples, I'll be using Bob and Alice to keep it simple.

I would argue that under the current understanding of hetero/homo/bisexuality, they all imply that there is some drive for sexual contact with the other that happens at some point. The mainstream understanding is that as Bob and Alice get to know each other, one or both will eventually start to develop romantic feelings for the other. At some point, one or both will want sexual contact as a way to open deep, connection for love. Arguably, one-night stands kind of jumps the deep, emotional connection and focus more on the benefits of physical partnered sex and fulfilling that need for sexual contact... but anyway.

Again, from my understanding and reading, this want for sexual contact with the other does not happen with asexuals. Even when sex enters the relationship, most aces don't feel anything that is "ignited" to sexually desire their partner. With the stories of mixed relationships, this seems to be almost a cliché. They may enjoy sex for various reasons, but it is by no means somehow intrinsic in how they express love. Again, I think this is because there is no connection between love and sex as a channel to express that. A possible reason why this idea of fulfillment never came to the table is because this was taken for granted. Thankfully, asexuality forces everyone to take a more critical look at sexuality.

What I was trying to say, but didn't manage to say, in my last post was: we already have terms to use for people who do not find fulfillment from partnered sex (whether or not they would be able to is a different matter), such as celibacy and abstinence.

I think that "asexual" should stay descriptive. Not prescriptive. =P

I'm going to assume that you mean if Bob (saving himself for marriage, therefore abstaining/is celibate) finally gets married to Alice and has sex, would he find sex fulfilling? I definitively think YMMV, but it could also chalk up to being inexperienced? There are plenty of reasons why the "first time" will suck balls. In fact, when I do eventually have sex (since I would like to be in a romantic relationship), I don't expect my first time to be mind blowing. Bodies are complicated things and it will take time for both partners to learn what makes the other tick. However, with time, patience and a want to understand the other's body, I would assume that the sex eventually gets better. While the pleasures from sex would be meh, would the desire for sexual contact as a way to express love be satisfied? I would say yes.

(BTW, if I totally misunderstood, please don't be afraid to clarify.)

However, that being said, my understanding of celibacy and abstinence is that, despite choosing not to have sex, these people still experience sexual attraction and still want sexual contact with another person. I'm sure there are plenty of people who, like Bob, have a hell of a time abstaining before the wedding. Asexuals cannot abstain or be celibate since there is no temptation to resist, so to speak.

This is a great description of my feelings on the topic. I was a virgin when I got married. I never struggled with the temptation to have sex before we got married (although my sexual dh did). Once married and having sex, I never understood that desire and I never felt that deep connection. Over the years, I have come to the point where partnered sex is really great, better than masturbation, for the same reasons someone listed earlier in the thread. But I don't feel sexual desire or sexual attraction. The partnered sex simply takes care of the "itch" that is my sex drive.

[bluebanana2014]

Asexuality is Non-Sexuality. No sexual desire/attraction.

I'm telling the truth. You don't have to be confused.

[Vampyremage]

Asexuality is Non-Sexuality. No sexual desire/attraction.

I'm telling the truth. You don't have to be confused.

Maybe its the truth in your own mind but you actually have to have people that agree with you and, at that, a majority of people that agree with you in order to have any universal statement of truth. Its pretty clear that the majority of people happen to disagree with you and thus your truth is only truth in your own head.

[bluebanana2014]

Asexuality is Non-Sexuality. No sexual desire/attraction.

I'm telling the truth. You don't have to be confused.

Maybe its the truth in your own mind but you actually have to have people that agree with you and, at that, a majority of people that agree with you in order to have any universal statement of truth. Its pretty clear that the majority of people happen to disagree with you and thus your truth is only truth in your own head.

THE ONE'S WHO DISAGREE WITH ME ARE CONFUSED.