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

[cleuchtturm]

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.

Slightly irrelevant, but why do you use all caps all the time? It's a bit off putting.

[Guest member25959]

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.

I agree with and approve everything in this post, so much.

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

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

THE ONE'S WHO DISAGREE WITH ME ARE CONFUSED.

............

[Goldberry]

More often than not, I regard myself as asexual. Yet,

• I used to have a libido. Sometimes it was quite strong.
  
• I've had sexual fantasies. Sometimes from the point of view of the male, sometimes female. Whatever would get me excited.
  
• When I actually got to having sex, my brain would often have little reaction. No arousal, no interest.
  
• Sex has only been painful to me. Thus, not something to be sought.
  
• I want the accomplishment of healing myself of vagnismus, in order to feel healthy and normal that I can fit penis-sized objects into my vagina without the pain.
  
• I hardly ever masturbate lately. Usually not much comes of it.
  
• Occasionally I still get aroused at the thought of being a man.
  
• When I was 4, before I even knew what sex was, I got pleasure from humping blankets.
  
• That has been my preferred method of self-pleasure for years; vaginal masturbation is rarely interesting.
  
• Actually, I was once very aroused in a sexual situation, but only because it felt so taboo. Afterwards, I've been disinterested.
  
• I'd like to try sex for the sake of knowing I can do it without pain, but only once I heal my vaginismus.
  
• I don't think I'd want sex on a regular basis.
  
• I have no need to have sex with a partner in order to feel loved.
  
• Apparently I'm good at oral sex.
  
• The only time I feel aroused and have sexual feelings lately is in my sexual dreams. I've woken up with orgasms before. And yes, in my dreams I am often a man, sometimes a woman in an arousing situation.
  
• All of these things and more can exist in an asexual.
  

I still view myself as asexual because in real life situations I do not become sexually interested in other people. Hypothetical situations, maybe, if I'm in the mood for it. But the reality is, even that doesn't come around that often. Except for my lustful dreams...

Here you have it.

[Naosuu]

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?

I'll address the bolded parts last.

I do agree that fulfillment is a vague word in of itself. However, it's also clear that sexual attraction is also enigmatic in of itself. I like Vamp's suggestion that the asexual definition should be expanded to include both, such that they actually give meaning to each other (as weird as that sounds). By attaching both of these ideas together, there's an insinuation that the fulfillment comes from the drive for sexual contact caused by sexual attraction. Hey that's not long-winded at all, but it's a lot of complex ideas being shoved into a compact sentence.

It might be nit-picking, but from my understanding of conventional celibacy/abstinence, there is a conscious choice to resist the sexual temptation which most (if not all) asexuals lack. In that strictest sense of the word, no asexual can really be celibate or abstain. I can see where you're coming from though, although I think it might confuse some people. Again, most people go by the conventional understanding of celibacy/abstinence, so then they are presented with two very different ideas: if asexuality is defined as the lack of sexual attraction/drive for sexual contact, how can you choose to not want something that you apparently don't want to begin with? More confusing than what it's worth, in my humble opinion. This is my understanding of what someone might think.

As for the bolded parts, I honestly think it's ok for people to identify as asexual if they think it best describes their experience. There's no harm in that, and I understand the power of having a label and thereby being linked to a community that shares that experience. It is empowering and it can help people through their own journeys. There's nothing wrong with identifying as gay and later you realize you're really straight or bisexual. All the more power to them.

I do, however, have beef with how tempting and easy it is to slap the asexual label on yourself. What I mean by "lack of stigma" is how there's no threat to identifying as asexual unlike identifying as gay. Prior to the 1960s, if people found out someone was gay, there was a serious and likely possibility they would be lynched. Even today, there is still some stigma attached to identifying as gay/lesbian/bisexual in certain parts of countries and the world (such as the military in the US). If you identify as ace, that's cool: no one notices because everyone assumes you're just really quiet about what rustles your jimmies (or maybe you're into the weird, creepy stuff). It's not like they'll be able to pick someone out as an asexual precisely because it's such an internal experience, no one can "diagnose" it from appearances alone.

Since there's no apparent consequence with the label, that makes it pretty easy to use... even if they aren't really asexual, so to speak. The label begins to lose most of its meaning and that hurts asexuality's credibility as a real experience. I mean, there is something very real here. However with so many people slapping it on anything (I don't like sex... asexual! Sex and genitalia weird me out.. asexual! The list goes on), it makes it that much harder to talk about to the 99%. No one's going to take it seriously and asexuality will forever be treated like a phase.

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

For some reason I read this in Starfire's voice, from Teen Titans? Especially since Vamp hardy ever uses contractions and/or apostrophes... (Please go to :14 for a good idea of what I heard in my head...)

[cleuchtturm]

For some reason I read this in Starfire's voice, from Teen Titans? Especially since Vamp hardy ever uses contractions and/or apostrophes... (Please go to :14 for a good idea of what I heard in my head...)

She is my favorite character from that show! Aw, I miss that show so much. After that, CN went down hill.

This has been a test of the emergency derailment system. This was just a test. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Meph]

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.

I disagree with you, and I admit that I am confused... But not about this. :P

[Faelights]

... This thread has somehow exploded.

I want so much to respond, but there's no way I can respond properly right now, as I must go study for an exam that I am utterly unprepared for.

I'll be back on Friday. I hope I won't be utterly lost by then. Although I'm already pretty close to it now.

[Face]

Just my observation but it seems a lot of this discussion is arguments over two meanings of the word asexual:

1. Asexual the orientation, or the opposite of bisexual/poly.

2. Asexual the condition, or the opposite of sexual.

I was never totally satisfied with the lack of sexual attraction definition but it does cover both cases if you interpret it right.

You can be sexual by definition 2 but asexual by definition 1 like the OP.

You can also be heterosexual by definition 1 but asexual by definition 2 if you have no libido or desire to act on it.

Different people will interpret it according to their own feelings and I think we should continue to welcome all of them.

[Guest]

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.

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.

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.

I do, however, have beef with how tempting and easy it is to slap the asexual label on yourself. What I mean by "lack of stigma" is how there's no threat to identifying as asexual unlike identifying as gay. Prior to the 1960s, if people found out someone was gay, there was a serious and likely possibility they would be lynched. Even today, there is still some stigma attached to identifying as gay/lesbian/bisexual in certain parts of countries and the world (such as the military in the US). If you identify as ace, that's cool: no one notices because everyone assumes you're just really quiet about what rustles your jimmies (or maybe you're into the weird, creepy stuff). It's not like they'll be able to pick someone out as an asexual precisely because it's such an internal experience, no one can "diagnose" it from appearances alone.

Since there's no apparent consequence with the label, that makes it pretty easy to use... even if they aren't really asexual, so to speak. The label begins to lose most of its meaning and that hurts asexuality's credibility as a real experience. I mean, there is something very real here. However with so many people slapping it on anything (I don't like sex... asexual! Sex and genitalia weird me out.. asexual! The list goes on), it makes it that much harder to talk about to the 99%. No one's going to take it seriously and asexuality will forever be treated like a phase.

This stuff pretty much sums up my thoughts.

I keep seeing statements like "not all asexuals are the same just like not all gay people are the same!". Ok, true, not all gay people like the same movies and drive the same cars, but we do all have one thing in common... our sexuality. I see very little in common amongst various professed asexuals. It certainly looks, to me, that Riven and Vamp, for example, have two completely different sexualities, and it seems pretty silly to me to keep insisting they're the same.

Finally, I'd suggest that there's more than just a lack of stigma... I'd like to suggest that asexuality is a lot like the "straight-edge" movement of my day. I see very little on AVEN that suggests that asexuality is a sexuality rather than just a social movement. I do think asexuality is VERY REAL... I just don't think its being recognized and properly honored.

[Jillianimal]

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.

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.

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.

I do, however, have beef with how tempting and easy it is to slap the asexual label on yourself. What I mean by "lack of stigma" is how there's no threat to identifying as asexual unlike identifying as gay. Prior to the 1960s, if people found out someone was gay, there was a serious and likely possibility they would be lynched. Even today, there is still some stigma attached to identifying as gay/lesbian/bisexual in certain parts of countries and the world (such as the military in the US). If you identify as ace, that's cool: no one notices because everyone assumes you're just really quiet about what rustles your jimmies (or maybe you're into the weird, creepy stuff). It's not like they'll be able to pick someone out as an asexual precisely because it's such an internal experience, no one can "diagnose" it from appearances alone.

Since there's no apparent consequence with the label, that makes it pretty easy to use... even if they aren't really asexual, so to speak. The label begins to lose most of its meaning and that hurts asexuality's credibility as a real experience. I mean, there is something very real here. However with so many people slapping it on anything (I don't like sex... asexual! Sex and genitalia weird me out.. asexual! The list goes on), it makes it that much harder to talk about to the 99%. No one's going to take it seriously and asexuality will forever be treated like a phase.

This stuff pretty much sums up my thoughts.

I keep seeing statements like "not all asexuals are the same just like not all gay people are the same!". Ok, true, not all gay people like the same movies and drive the same cars, but we do all have one thing in common... our sexuality. I see very little in common amongst various professed asexuals. It certainly looks, to me, that Riven and Vamp, for example, have two completely different sexualities, and it seems pretty silly to me to keep insisting they're the same.

Finally, I'd suggest that there's more than just a lack of stigma... I'd like to suggest that asexuality is a lot like the "straight-edge" movement of my day. I see very little on AVEN that suggests that asexuality is a sexuality rather than just a social movement. I do think asexuality is VERY REAL... I just don't think its being recognized and properly honored.

Sorry, I just need to derail for a second...

YAYY SKULL PULLED A BIRDIE!! I was hoping you wouldn't ditch us for good.

[cleuchtturm]

Sorry, I just need to derail for a second...

YAYY SKULL PULLED A BIRDIE!! I was hoping you wouldn't ditch us for good.

I was going through my inbox and saw 'SkulleryMaid has replied...' and I literally did the silly happy clap. :redface:

[Guest]

Aw shucks, thanks guys! I needed to cool down. Cool down completed.

Lets all remember that I just got married, and that's been known to cause crazy in people stronger than me. :)

[Faelights]

Aw shucks, thanks guys! I needed to cool down. Cool down completed.

Lets all remember that I just got married, and that's been known to cause crazy in people stronger than me. :)

I was thinking of you when this thread started really going. ^_^

[Vampyremage]

Finally, I'd suggest that there's more than just a lack of stigma... I'd like to suggest that asexuality is a lot like the "straight-edge" movement of my day. I see very little on AVEN that suggests that asexuality is a sexuality rather than just a social movement. I do think asexuality is VERY REAL... I just don't think its being recognized and properly honored.

First, yay you're back!

Second, I'm not quite sure I get the comparison with the straight edge movement? Do you think you might be able to clarify? I identified as straight edge for years and even though I'm not anymore, I still have a fond place in my thoughts for straight edge.

[Guest]

Finally, I'd suggest that there's more than just a lack of stigma... I'd like to suggest that asexuality is a lot like the "straight-edge" movement of my day. I see very little on AVEN that suggests that asexuality is a sexuality rather than just a social movement. I do think asexuality is VERY REAL... I just don't think its being recognized and properly honored.

First, yay you're back!

Second, I'm not quite sure I get the comparison with the straight edge movement? Do you think you might be able to clarify? I identified as straight edge for years and even though I'm not anymore, I still have a fond place in my thoughts for straight edge.

Oh, my only point is that straight edge is a movement, not an orientation. I think asexuality is an actual sexuality, but I also think that its treated more as a social movement at times.

[Vampyremage]

Finally, I'd suggest that there's more than just a lack of stigma... I'd like to suggest that asexuality is a lot like the "straight-edge" movement of my day. I see very little on AVEN that suggests that asexuality is a sexuality rather than just a social movement. I do think asexuality is VERY REAL... I just don't think its being recognized and properly honored.

First, yay you're back!

Second, I'm not quite sure I get the comparison with the straight edge movement? Do you think you might be able to clarify? I identified as straight edge for years and even though I'm not anymore, I still have a fond place in my thoughts for straight edge.

Oh, my only point is that straight edge is a movement, not an orientation. I think asexuality is an actual sexuality, but I also think that its treated more as a social movement at times.

Thanks for the clarification it makes a lot more sense now. I think in some ways you may be correct about that assessment.

[Faelights]

I confess that I'm confused. If asexuality is currently more of a social movement... what exactly are the principles of this movement?

[Guest]

I confess that I'm confused. If asexuality is currently more of a social movement... what exactly are the principles of this movement?

Challenging the prevailing social sexual culture.

[Faelights]

I confess that I'm confused. If asexuality is currently more of a social movement... what exactly are the principles of this movement?

Challenging the prevailing social sexual culture.

Huh, I... if there is a movement like this, I don't think I'm a part of it, then. The only thing I'm interested in is letting people know that asexuality -- the sexual orientation -- exists and shouldn't be invalidated or whatever. I don't really care what happens with sexual culture. Or does wanting to spread the word about asexuality counts as trying to challenge it???

Oh, wait. Does waiting people to realize that relationships can survive without sex count as part of such a movement? I always just thought of it as, for lack of a better analogy, carving out a spot for recognition of one more shade in the diversity of human sexuality.

[Jillianimal]

I confess that I'm confused. If asexuality is currently more of a social movement... what exactly are the principles of this movement?

Challenging the prevailing social sexual culture.

Huh, I... if there is a movement like this, I don't think I'm a part of it, then. The only thing I'm interested in is letting people know that asexuality -- the sexual orientation -- exists and shouldn't be invalidated or whatever. I don't really care what happens with sexual culture. Or does wanting to spread the word about asexuality counts as trying to challenge it???

Oh, wait. Does waiting people to realize that relationships can survive without sex count as part of such a movement? I always just thought of it as, for lack of a better analogy, carving out a spot for recognition of one more shade in the diversity of human sexuality.

I think widely spreading the word of asexuality will inevitably lead to a change in how people view & handle relationships. I'm sure a lot of people will stick to whatever they were doing before anyway, which is cool & understandable, but society will gain a whole new perspective on it that can't be ignored. Intentionally done or not, asexual visibility will challenge socisexual norms.

[Guest]

I confess that I'm confused. If asexuality is currently more of a social movement... what exactly are the principles of this movement?

Challenging the prevailing social sexual culture.

Huh, I... if there is a movement like this, I don't think I'm a part of it, then. The only thing I'm interested in is letting people know that asexuality -- the sexual orientation -- exists and shouldn't be invalidated or whatever. I don't really care what happens with sexual culture. Or does wanting to spread the word about asexuality counts as trying to challenge it???

Oh, wait. Does waiting people to realize that relationships can survive without sex count as part of such a movement? I always just thought of it as, for lack of a better analogy, carving out a spot for recognition of one more shade in the diversity of human sexuality.

To answer your specific question, surely trying to spread information that relationships can exist without sex is a social endeavor, not an orientation thing. Like how you can be gay, and you can be part of the gay rights movement, or both, or neither. It seems to me that some people adopt the asexual label because they have an issue with social representations of sexuality, or they feel alienated from or by sex, or they dislike/disapprove of the gendered aspects of sexuality... and those people I think aren't as much asexual as they are part of an asexual movement. Am I making sense?

[Naosuu]

If I may, I think it's sort of comparable to the views on marriage (I feel this is sort of inappropriate though, considering the news!! :redface: I'm sorry, this is the only example I understand the best). Some of my sister's friends have been in serious relationships for a long time, but have chosen not to get married. My sister has expressed some... er, disdain that a serious relationship can only be socially recognized if a greater institution recognizes it under the form of marriage or a civil union.

This, much like "asexuality as a social movement", is trying to challenge society's rules and perspectives on the meaning of a serious relationship. People whom identify what asexuality challenges (i.e. relationships are more than just sex) may feel that they are asexual too. I mean, this is totally cool...

... Until you realize that asexuality is more than just "relationships are more than sex" and feeling weirded out/alienated by sex. It's totally possible that these people experience sexual attraction and hell, still have a drive for partnered sex. Are they asexual? No. There are plenty of reasons why people feel uncomfortable with sex: environments, bad/traumatic experiences, lack of experience, an insensitive partner, just not ready for it, did it too early... the list goes on.

Asexuality isn't really about one's relationship with sex (although it is where the orientation begins to show its true colours), it's really about the severe/complete disconnect between romantic love, sexual attraction and sexual drive. I think by advocating it as an orientation, people will be much more critical about how they feel, relate and experience sex and the package that goes with it (much like it is a big step for anyone to consider the bisexual or homosexual label). However, it isn't getting the right kind of promotion because a social movement still implies that it is a choice. Orientation is not.

[Faelights]

For the sake of argument, yes, it is very much a social movement right now. However, is there any way to actively educate the general populace about something that challenges the norm without inadvertently forming a movement?

It just seems to me that the understanding of asexuality by the general populace is still very much in its infancy. I understand the qualms of confusing the sexual orientation with the social movement, but as I see it, there is no way to separate the two right now because most of the people engaging in discourse are this small group of people in this little corner of the internet. I feel like we should be engaging others with interest in this matter and bringing them into the discourse as well.

I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself clearly. Basically, I mean that I think the social movement is a step along the way to getting asexuality recognized, and not the ultimate destination. The ultimate destination for me, strangely enough, is one in which asexuality is part of people's understanding of the norms, and would be no more or no less visible than other sexual orientations. Or, to put it another way, this is a balancing act -- right now asexuality is much less visible than other sexual orientations. We engage in a lot of visibility efforts to compensate for this, and perhaps it means we might overcompensate for a while, but eventually the movement will die down and everything will balance out.

Right now, I think we're only picking up momentum for the visibility efforts. That's why, even though I think it's a fun exercise to ponder on the definition of asexuality, I feel that it's all academic right now, because we're not engaging about 90% of the population in this discussion. We're currently presenting a very basic definition of asexuality, in order to spark interest and spark discourse. I feel that if we make it more narrow on our own, it simply wouldn't help.

Of course, people are free to advance their own opinions on how asexuality should be defined. But to ask for such opinions to be incorporated into a preliminary definition that is only really meant to spark discussion? I think that it's not the best move right now.

Also, I still don't really understand why there was a specific comparison with the straight edge movement. There are many things that we take for granted nowadays that started out as a "movement". Voting rights for women and minorities, for instance.

EDIT: And yes, SM, you make sense. I just don't understand the specific reference, that's all. XD

[Rivan Vox]

Eh Heh. Let me reply to a few things;

@LOL NONSEXUALITY AND ASEXUALITY ARE THE SAME

Frankly, no they are not. You can unicorn elsewhere. Unless you are telling me that a standard heterosexual man would suddenly want boys if they underwent sex reassignment surgery. The names of orientations are etymologically incorrect, get over it.

(Hey, how about this - since you are saying I'm not asexual, I'm going to say you are antisexual, not asexual, because you are totally yucking my yum here. Oh, wait, or I could realize that I would be making you uncomfortable because I'd be invalidating your identity, which is something that is precious to you, and is something that you use to help define yourself and how you to the world. That would be cruel of me.)

Second, If I die a virgin, that is perfectly acceptable. If I go without sex for any period of time, I am not going to be blue-balled. I do not need to get laid. In fact, while with my partners, I have never voluntarily gone below the belt, simply because I wasn't quite interested.

Now, but see, I'm classifying myself as a hetero-curious Ace. I am interested in what hetero sex is like, and am actively pursuing such an encounter, especially hence some recent experiences of mine suggest it would be very warm and quite enjoyable. Hence, I want sex, but am asexual. Capiche? I'm not completely sure I can even be aroused by another person; nobody else has ever managed to get me off, and whenever someone has blown me I've frankly needed a book. I have never paired romantic attraction with sexual activity, so maybe I'm a demisexual. But I cannot know this until I get a chance for the conditions under which I could conceivably experience sexual attraction manifest themselves.

VALID ASEXUAL STATEMENT, for me: "I want sex." <- Libido. If you disagree with this, then you are a non-libidoist, and hence can bugger off my asexuality, you unicorn.

INVALID ASEXUAL STATEMENT, for me: "I want sex with YOU." (for any given value of YOU.) <- Sexual Attraction.

Oh, and of course there are plenty of people with no libidos. But they are something else, in addition to their asexuality.

@ASEXUALITY COULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED A SOCIAL MOVEMENT

A: Hey, I am asexual!

B: What's that!?

A: I don't want to have sex with anyone in particular! I do not experience sexual attraction!

B: Oh, hey, I'm asexual as well, by that definition!

A+B: HEY C GUESS WHAT WE ARE ASEXUAL

C: What in all the hells does that mean!?

A+B: We don't want to have sex with anyone in particular! We do not experience sexual attraction!

C: Oh wow, that's different, I've never heard of that before! Not even in health class, or.. or ever! Are you sure!? This could have a great many implications for sexuality in general, because historically there has always been the assumption that everyone wants sex, not to mention this could involve decoupling attraction from desire!

A+B: Hey, yeah, you're right! C'mon C, be our sexual ally and help us educate others about asexuality and increase visibility!

C: Alright!

A+B+C: AND SO A MOVEMENT IS BORN.

[Vampyremage]

Eh Heh. Let me reply to a few things;

@LOL NONSEXUALITY AND ASEXUALITY ARE THE SAME

Frankly, no they are not. You can unicorn elsewhere. Unless you are telling me that a standard heterosexual man would suddenly want boys if they underwent sex reassignment surgery. The names of orientations are etymologically incorrect, get over it.

(Hey, how about this - since you are saying I'm not asexual, I'm going to say you are antisexual, not asexual, because you are totally yucking my yum here. Oh, wait, or I could realize that I would be making you uncomfortable because I'd be invalidating your identity, which is something that is precious to you, and is something that you use to help define yourself and how you to the world. That would be cruel of me.)

Second, If I die a virgin, that is perfectly acceptable. If I go without sex for any period of time, I am not going to be blue-balled. I do not need to get laid. In fact, while with my partners, I have never voluntarily gone below the belt, simply because I wasn't quite interested.

Now, but see, I'm classifying myself as a hetero-curious Ace. I am interested in what hetero sex is like, and am actively pursuing such an encounter, especially hence some recent experiences of mine suggest it would be very warm and quite enjoyable. Hence, I want sex, but am asexual. Capiche? I'm not completely sure I can even be aroused by another person; nobody else has ever managed to get me off, and whenever someone has blown me I've frankly needed a book. I have never paired romantic attraction with sexual activity, so maybe I'm a demisexual. But I cannot know this until I get a chance for the conditions under which I could conceivably experience sexual attraction manifest themselves.

VALID ASEXUAL STATEMENT, for me: "I want sex." <- Libido. If you disagree with this, then you are a non-libidoist, and hence can bugger off my asexuality, you unicorn.

INVALID ASEXUAL STATEMENT, for me: "I want sex with YOU." (for any given value of YOU.) <- Sexual Attraction.

Oh, and of course there are plenty of people with no libidos. But they are something else, in addition to their asexuality.

@ASEXUALITY COULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED A SOCIAL MOVEMENT

A: Hey, I am asexual!

B: What's that!?

A: I don't want to have sex with anyone in particular! I do not experience sexual attraction!

B: Oh, hey, I'm asexual as well, by that definition!

A+B: HEY C GUESS WHAT WE ARE ASEXUAL

C: What in all the hells does that mean!?

A+B: We don't want to have sex with anyone in particular! We do not experience sexual attraction!

C: Oh wow, that's different, I've never heard of that before! Not even in health class, or.. or ever! Are you sure!? This could have a great many implications for sexuality in general, because historically there has always been the assumption that everyone wants sex, not to mention this could involve decoupling attraction from desire!

A+B: Hey, yeah, you're right! C'mon C, be our sexual ally and help us educate others about asexuality and increase visibility!

C: Alright!

A+B+C: AND SO A MOVEMENT IS BORN.

I want to clarify, at least from my point of view, that a curiosity towards sex and therefore wanting to experience it for the first time due to that curiosity, is not what I am referring to when I speak of an innate drive towards sex. I have been fairly vocal on here that I think having sex is a fairly important thing to do for many people. Some, and I do emphasis that word, do not truly awaken to their sexuality before they start having sex.

It is unpopular around here to suggest that there are some people that don't experience sexual attraction before they start having sex. I think in some cases, however, their sexuality may be hidden or go unrecognized before sex actually occurs. Again, I must emphasize the words some here because I am well aware that there are some asexuals who know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are asexual and have no interest at all in actually having sex. I am not attempting to invalidate those individuals at all or challenge their asexual identities.

Whether asexual or sexual, I think a curiosity towards sex is quite natural. There are, after all, plenty of stories about (mostly females) who experiment with homosexual relations before settling upon actually being heterosexual. I see asexuals experimenting with sexuality in general as being much the same thing. Of course there is the possibility of that shifting but one can't predict when or even if such a shift will take place.

I doubt I could have discovered my own asexuality if I had never had sex because for me, what it means to be asexual is deeply wrapped up in my relation with sexual activity. To this day I have a curiosity about having sex with another female but its more of an abstract thought than an actual drive towards doing it. Perhaps the best differentiation I can make is to call it an intellectual curiosity rather than a bodily or emotional drive. My brain tells me it might be a different experience and I might get something different out of it but there isn't much beyond those natterings inside my own head.

As for invalidating the identities of others, I am not here to make everyone happy. I am debating what it means to be asexual, what the term asexual presently means, what it means to me and what I think it should mean. I haven't gone out and told anyone they couldn't say they were asexual. I believe the definition of what it means to be asexual needs to be reassessed, added to and streamlined. In doing so, it is inevitable that some people who had been calling themselves asexual would no longer fall under the new definition because streamlining would make the new definition narrower. Likely they would still fall under the grey-a definition. Streamlining isn't done to invalidate the identities of others but rather to a) clarify what being asexual means and b) assist in educational purposes in clarifying for the world at large what being asexual means. Having a definition that is so bread that it begins to lose meaning really isn't helping anyone, which is exactly why I believe it should be streamlined and partially reassessed. This is, of course, only my opinion but I'm not about to be apologetic about it simply because it might hurt some people's feelings.

[Guest]

I agree with (big surprise!) Vamp and Naosuu. Curiosity about sex is a completely different thing than desiring sex. And I am going to continue to state that asexuality is more about some innate desire than it is about sexual attraction, and I say that because sexual attraction is nearly impossible to define or understand, and it is incredibly easy to... for lack of a better term, lie to yourself about. I've seen a lot of stuff on AVEN that is pretty obviously sexual attraction and/or an expression of innate desire, but people find ways to avoid the "sexual attraction" label so they can remain asexual. Its confusing, and unnecessarily confusing. Not to mention that it's my personal opinion that most people's sexuality doesn't start with sexual attraction, but rather an innate drive toward sex. Attraction is almost like a honed skill... you learn to see it, feel it, recognize it, control it. Its not something that is automatically and naturally understood.

Rivan, you say you feel no attraction and I'm not going to contradict you, but your statement that the "who" doesn't matter is obviously false. You yourself stated a preference for women, and a preference for some women over other women. The "who" does matter to you.

Most people are attracted to things that aren't sexual. Someone's smell, someone's smile, someone's voice... personally, i am mostly attracted to people's intellect and communication style. If you saw pictures of everyone I've been with, you will find no unifying factor. None. Big, small, butch, femme, male, female, trans, nerdy, cool, mainstream gorgeous, mainstream unattractive. Why? Because my preferences have little to do with the physical. That doesn't mean I'm asexual.

@Fae: I used the straight edge example specifically because its something that outsiders tend to gravitate toward, which seems to me to be similar to asexuality. If I can combine Naosuu's thoughts with my thoughts...

... Until you realize that asexuality is more than just "relationships are more than sex" and feeling weirded out/alienated by sex. It's totally possible that these people experience sexual attraction and hell, still have a drive for partnered sex. Are they asexual? No. There are plenty of reasons why people feel uncomfortable with sex: environments, bad/traumatic experiences, lack of experience, an insensitive partner, just not ready for it, did it too early... the list goes on.

These people ^^ no doubt feel alienated by society's representations of sexuality. I feel like its particularly salient amongst people who also feel alienated by mainstream gender representations. Although not actually asexual, they feel alienated, ostracised, etc, and really would personally benefit from some of the side effects of the asexual movement, so they call themselves asexual. Much in the same way that straight edgers feel alienated from mainstream society and find a place where they fit in.

[Faelights]

@Fae: I used the straight edge example specifically because its something that outsiders tend to gravitate toward, which seems to me to be similar to asexuality. If I can combine Naosuu's thoughts with my thoughts...

... Until you realize that asexuality is more than just "relationships are more than sex" and feeling weirded out/alienated by sex. It's totally possible that these people experience sexual attraction and hell, still have a drive for partnered sex. Are they asexual? No. There are plenty of reasons why people feel uncomfortable with sex: environments, bad/traumatic experiences, lack of experience, an insensitive partner, just not ready for it, did it too early... the list goes on.

These people ^^ no doubt feel alienated by society's representations of sexuality. I feel like its particularly salient amongst people who also feel alienated by mainstream gender representations. Although not actually asexual, they feel alienated, ostracised, etc, and really would personally benefit from some of the side effects of the asexual movement, so they call themselves asexual. Much in the same way that straight edgers feel alienated from mainstream society and find a place where they fit in.

Alright, I didn't really understand the correlation simply because from the description of straight edge, it seemed like all of them were identifying as part of the movement precisely because they felt alienated, ostracised, etc, whereas in this supposed asexual movement, there are plenty of people who do not feel that way. I would agree that there are probably some people out there that identify with a movement for these reasons; however, I would also express the opinion that this occurs it all movements, and that it's not a phenomenon unique to asexuality. Perhaps this is part of the reason why I am much less concerned by people who identify as asexual who may be confusing certain experiences as indicators of asexuality when they are not. The other part is simply that we don't know what appropriate qualifiers should be added at this point in time. Which brings me back to my earlier point, that I think it's fine to ponder and debate, as long as it's with the understanding that it's likely not something that will be implemented right away, especially if such a movement exists, as you're proposing.

[Naosuu]

For the sake of argument, yes, it is very much a social movement right now. However, is there any way to actively educate the general populace about something that challenges the norm without inadvertently forming a movement?

It just seems to me that the understanding of asexuality by the general populace is still very much in its infancy. I understand the qualms of confusing the sexual orientation with the social movement, but as I see it, there is no way to separate the two right now because most of the people engaging in discourse are this small group of people in this little corner of the internet. I feel like we should be engaging others with interest in this matter and bringing them into the discourse as well.

Right now, I think we're only picking up momentum for the visibility efforts. That's why, even though I think it's a fun exercise to ponder on the definition of asexuality, I feel that it's all academic right now, because we're not engaging about 90% of the population in this discussion. We're currently presenting a very basic definition of asexuality, in order to spark interest and spark discourse. I feel that if we make it more narrow on our own, it simply wouldn't help.

Of course, people are free to advance their own opinions on how asexuality should be defined. But to ask for such opinions to be incorporated into a preliminary definition that is only really meant to spark discussion? I think that it's not the best move right now.

Yes, I completely agree that asexuality is still very much in its infancy. It's a fact that AVEN has only been established for a little over a decade, and only has gained any real momentum recently. Due to its shallow roots, it still remains a big mystery to the 99% and to people who come here. The reality is, people who want to know more asexuality will go straight to the source... namely asexuals and to the asexual community. Why? Well, asexuals experience this thing called asexuality... so it's only logical to get it straight from the horse's mouth.

I'm not saying that we should find a new definition and implement it ASAP. Arguably, yes, it is much too early to officially narrow the definition... but I think it would be beneficial to debate and talk about streamlining it. By fleshing it out, I think we can offer something much more well-thought out and substancial for the other end to consider.

I want to clarify, at least from my point of view, that a curiosity towards sex and therefore wanting to experience it for the first time due to that curiosity, is not what I am referring to when I speak of an innate drive towards sex. I have been fairly vocal on here that I think having sex is a fairly important thing to do for many people. Some, and I do emphasis that word, do not truly awaken to their sexuality before they start having sex.

It is unpopular around here to suggest that there are some people that don't experience sexual attraction before they start having sex. I think in some cases, however, their sexuality may be hidden or go unrecognized before sex actually occurs. Again, I must emphasize the words some here because I am well aware that there are some asexuals who know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are asexual and have no interest at all in actually having sex. I am not attempting to invalidate those individuals at all or challenge their asexual identities.

As for invalidating the identities of others, I am not here to make everyone happy. I am debating what it means to be asexual, what the term asexual presently means, what it means to me and what I think it should mean. I haven't gone out and told anyone they couldn't say they were asexual. I believe the definition of what it means to be asexual needs to be reassessed, added to and streamlined. In doing so, it is inevitable that some people who had been calling themselves asexual would no longer fall under the new definition because streamlining would make the new definition narrower. Likely they would still fall under the grey-a definition. Streamlining isn't done to invalidate the identities of others but rather to a) clarify what being asexual means and b) assist in educational purposes in clarifying for the world at large what being asexual means. Having a definition that is so bread that it begins to lose meaning really isn't helping anyone, which is exactly why I believe it should be streamlined and partially reassessed. This is, of course, only my opinion but I'm not about to be apologetic about it simply because it might hurt some people's feelings.

These excerpts. Very much. The bolded parts especially. I'm sure there were sexuals who were mostly curious about sex at first. I'm also sure that after having sex it "ignited" their drive for that sexual contact.

While I identify as asexual (probably in the gray area), I am open to the possibility that having sex might change that. This isn't to say that this is bad, but by virtue of identifying as asexual I try to remain critical of what that really means. I know that this is a bit of a pet-peeve for some, but how can one really know unless one tries? I don't like that question either because the implication is that you have to try everything under the sun before you can say you don't like sex. Not only will this cause problems for asexuals, but it has also gravely hurt and slashed the self-esteem of sexuals in mixed relationships.

In my humble opinion, I think that at least experiencing vanilla sex can serve as a good experience (as long as it isn't traumatic) in of itself. That being said, how many times before one gives up is totally individual and should not be subject to outsider scrutiny (oh, you just didn't try hard enough). The experience, however can also finally confirm the question mark and one can form more definitive answers. Again, I don't think this is a bad thing either; it's just part of exploring sexuality.

@ASEXUALITY COULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED A SOCIAL MOVEMENT

A: Hey, I am asexual!

B: What's that!?

A: I don't want to have sex with anyone in particular! I do not experience sexual attraction!

B: Oh, hey, I'm asexual as well, by that definition!

A+B: HEY C GUESS WHAT WE ARE ASEXUAL

C: What in all the hells does that mean!?

A+B: We don't want to have sex with anyone in particular! We do not experience sexual attraction!

C: Oh wow, that's different, I've never heard of that before! Not even in health class, or.. or ever! Are you sure!? This could have a great many implications for sexuality in general, because historically there has always been the assumption that everyone wants sex, not to mention this could involve decoupling attraction from desire!

A+B: Hey, yeah, you're right! C'mon C, be our sexual ally and help us educate others about asexuality and increase visibility!

C: Alright!

A+B+C: AND SO A MOVEMENT IS BORN.

I read this with really goofy voices. It made me giggle.

[Guest]

@Fae: I used the straight edge example specifically because its something that outsiders tend to gravitate toward, which seems to me to be similar to asexuality. If I can combine Naosuu's thoughts with my thoughts...

... Until you realize that asexuality is more than just "relationships are more than sex" and feeling weirded out/alienated by sex. It's totally possible that these people experience sexual attraction and hell, still have a drive for partnered sex. Are they asexual? No. There are plenty of reasons why people feel uncomfortable with sex: environments, bad/traumatic experiences, lack of experience, an insensitive partner, just not ready for it, did it too early... the list goes on.

These people ^^ no doubt feel alienated by society's representations of sexuality. I feel like its particularly salient amongst people who also feel alienated by mainstream gender representations. Although not actually asexual, they feel alienated, ostracised, etc, and really would personally benefit from some of the side effects of the asexual movement, so they call themselves asexual. Much in the same way that straight edgers feel alienated from mainstream society and find a place where they fit in.

Alright, I didn't really understand the correlation simply because from the description of straight edge, it seemed like all of them were identifying as part of the movement precisely because they felt alienated, ostracised, etc, whereas in this supposed asexual movement, there are plenty of people who do not feel that way. I would agree that there are probably some people out there that identify with a movement for these reasons; however, I would also express the opinion that this occurs it all movements, and that it's not a phenomenon unique to asexuality. Perhaps this is part of the reason why I am much less concerned by people who identify as asexual who may be confusing certain experiences as indicators of asexuality when they are not. The other part is simply that we don't know what appropriate qualifiers should be added at this point in time. Which brings me back to my earlier point, that I think it's fine to ponder and debate, as long as it's with the understanding that it's likely not something that will be implemented right away, especially if such a movement exists, as you're proposing.

I agree with all of this except one part... I actually don't think that straight people identify as gay because of an emotional/mental connection to the movement. BUT, now that "queer" is trendy, I DO see lots of queer identifiers who, in all practical terms, are heterosexual. The "queer" discussions about definitions are very similar to these 'asexual" discussions about definitions, and for the same reasons. If something is both trendy and has a broad, nearly all-inclusive definition, its going to attract people who want a place to belong.

[5_♦♣]

"Having a definition that is so bread".

Who has ever said that Asexuality can be defined as food? Seriously though, homosexuality is defined as sexual attraction to the same sex, not as desire for sex with the same sex or as a lack of desire for sex with the opposite sex. Likewise for heterosexuality, so why should Asexuality be any different in how it's defined? After all, wanting sex is *not* the same thing as wanting sex with a particular person or persons.