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

[Vampyremage]

"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.

I think a significant part of this argument comes down to the fact that in saying someone is homosexual or heterosexual, there is an often unspoken part of that definition that implies a drive towards sex with the type of partner one is sexually attracted to. What is sexual attraction, after all, without that innate drive that comes with it? I would argue that sexual attraction cannot be separated from that drive and that one cannot exist without the other. Again, I specify that I am using the term drive intentionally as I do believe it to be different than desire.

[Nogitsune]

So... what is this new and improved definition of asexuality supposed to be?

I don't think "innate desire" works, because as we know, asexuals can desire sex for reasons other than sexual attraction, like because they really enjoy the intimacy and/or making their partner happy. Putting an "innate" before the word might take care of that, but explaining the difference between the two different "desires" would just be confusing as heck and probably not work without falling back on "sexual attraction". Also, I think this definition would be ignoring that we usually talk about sexual attraction towards other people, not the act of sex itself. People who experience sexual attraction may sleep with people they aren't sexually attracted to because they are interested in (or desire) the sex itself, so why shouldn't asexuals?

I think the definition of asexuality should be broad exactly because sexual attraction is such an elusive thing that feels differently for different people. Telling someone they're wrong about their own experiences is rarely a good thing, and making asexuality about not desiring sex would be turning it into something else, in my opinion.

As for the possibility that having sex would change things... I don't see how that is relevant to the definition of asexuality. Having said that, I think people should explore their sexuality as much as they want, but I'm pretty sure I'm never going to try out "vanilla sex" just for the heck of it. It's just not for me, and people aren't any more justified in doubting my sexual identity because of that.

[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.

I would argue that sexual attraction cannot be separated from that drive and that one cannot exist without the other. Again, I specify that I am using the term drive intentionally as I do believe it to be different than desire.

If that were the case, then the only reason people would have sex at all is because one's sexually attracted to the other person(s). However, that's certainly not the case as there are a variety of reasons why people have sex other than sexual attraction. And drive/desire, they're basically the same thing, IMO.

[Vampyremage]

"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.

I would argue that sexual attraction cannot be separated from that drive and that one cannot exist without the other. Again, I specify that I am using the term drive intentionally as I do believe it to be different than desire.

If that were the case, then the only reason people would have sex at all is because one's sexually attracted to the other person(s). However, that's certainly not the case as there are a variety of reasons why people have sex other than sexual attraction. And drive/desire, they're basically the same thing, IMO.

Not at all. There are a myriad of reasons to have sex with other people that have nothing to do with sexual attraction or innate sexual drive, although that drive can factor into things in many circumstances. To say that the drive towards sex and sexual attraction cannot be separated is not not to say that one cannot have sex for other reasons.

Let me put it another way. Sexual attraction and sexual drive, I believe, are connected on a macro level. That is to say, as a general rule, they cannot be separated. To experience sexual attraction is to also experience an innate drive towards sex. However, it is still possible to have sex with those people you are not sexually attracted to because, as has been stated many times previously, orientation and action are not the same thing. The existence of sexual attraction does not preclude the possibility of having sex for other reasons.

The differentiation I make towards drive and desire is one of intentionality. Drive is something innate and instinctual, it is broad and undirected. It is not directed towards a particular person but towards the act itself. Sexual desire is directed towards a particular person. It is, so to speak, the next step that can occur after sexual attraction. It is more conscious and has, at least partially, a more deliberate nature to it.

Edit: I just want to clarify something. I believe that sexual drive is dependent upon sexual attraction but sexual attraction is not necessarily dependent upon sexual drive. That is to say, I do not believe sexual drive can exist without at least some degree of sexual attraction, but I do believe sexual attraction can exist without a sexual drive to accompany it.

[Nogitsune]

The differentiation I make towards drive and desire is one of intentionality. Drive is something innate and instinctual, it is broad and undirected. It is not directed towards a particular person but towards the act itself. Sexual desire is directed towards a particular person. It is, so to speak, the next step that can occur after sexual attraction. It is more conscious and has, at least partially, a more deliberate nature to it.

I think I see what you mean, but while I think it's an interesting point you're making, I believe adding "sexual desire" to the AVEN definition would do more harm than good, because for many (if not most) people, it is the same as drive or arousal. I've never seen anyone else make this distinction, so while I think the concept can be very helpful in other contexts, I really don't think it belongs into the "official" definition of asexuality.

As for "sexual drive" existing without sexual attraction, I do remember reading posts from people for whom this seems to be the case, so hum. I also don't have much trouble seeing how it could work, like if sex just does much more for someone than masturbation due to the sensations involved.

[Guest]

So... what is this new and improved definition of asexuality supposed to be?

I don't think "innate desire" works, because as we know, asexuals can desire sex for reasons other than sexual attraction, like because they really enjoy the intimacy and/or making their partner happy. Putting an "innate" before the word might take care of that, but explaining the difference between the two different "desires" would just be confusing as heck and probably not work without falling back on "sexual attraction".

Ok, I see this brought up all the time on AVEN and I haven't said anything about it until now, but...

Wanting to have sex to please your partner isn't sexual desire. That's a misuse of the term, and I don't think a misuse of the term should be a reason to avoid making a sensible definition of asexuality.

If my partner said "I'm hungry, want to go out to dinner?" and I said "I'm not really hungry but I'll go along and find something to nom on", I don't think anyone in their right mind would overhear that conversation and say "she desires food". Nope. What I desire is pleasing my partner. See how that works? Being willing to have sex to please your partner isn't, in any way, shape, or form, desiring sex, and I really wish AVEN would stop saying it is.

Also, I think this definition would be ignoring that we usually talk about sexual attraction towards other people, not the act of sex itself. People who experience sexual attraction may sleep with people they aren't sexually attracted to because they are interested in (or desire) the sex itself, so why shouldn't asexuals?

Because asexuals don't desire sex, that's why!! We never talk about an innate desire for sex not targeted at specific people because we always used to think that EVERYONE had an innate desire for sex, so why bother mentioning it? Again I'll say that if asexual includes people who freakin' love sex and go out of their way to have sex, then the definition of asexual is too broad. Surely you can see that person A, who has a strong drive for partnered sex but is rather indifferent about the partner, has a completely different sexuality than someone who has a complete disconnect with sex. Calling them both asexual is, IMO, stupid, because they are obviously not the same.

I'll say this. I've wanted to have sex and had it with people I wasn't attracted to. I don't feel like I was acting "asexually" during those times. I was just as sexual as the times I had sex with someone I was attracted to, because in both cases it was the sex that I wanted. Whether or not I was attracted to the person is irrelevant.

I'll also say this. It pisses me off that we're supposed to accept our asexual partners' preference for no sex even though AVEN quite explicitly states that asexuals can and do desire sex. So how would it be wrong, according to the definitions, for me to be all "dear, according to asexuality, you should be able to desire sex even though you're not attracted to me, so you better get yer fine ass in that bed!"?

I think I got me one of those broken asexuals who doesn't like sex. Maybe we just need a term for nonsexual asexuals. One would think "asexual" should cover that, but apparently it doesn't.

[Faelights]

Because asexuals don't desire sex, that's why!! We never talk about an innate desire for sex not targeted at specific people because we always used to think that EVERYONE had an innate desire for sex, so why bother mentioning it? Again I'll say that if asexual includes people who freakin' love sex and go out of their way to have sex, then the definition of asexual is too broad. Surely you can see that person A, who has a strong drive for partnered sex but is rather indifferent about the partner, has a completely different sexuality than someone who has a complete disconnect with sex. Calling them both asexual is, IMO, stupid, because they are obviously not the same.

See, this is where we definitely completely diverge in opinions, SM. :P

Certainly, I would agree that person A and person B (the person who has a complete disconnect with sex) appear to have completely different sexualities.

However, that does not mean they have different sexual orientations.

Why am I saying this? Because human sexuality encompasses much more than sexual orientation.

Take comparing person C who goes out of their way to seek BDSM-based sexual activity with the opposite gender, to person D who similarly likes to engage in sexual activity with the opposite gender but insists on mutual masturbation instead of penetrative sex. Totally different sexualities, I would say. But not different sexual orientations.

As for the whole sexual desire thing... yeah, we need better definitions of terminology. The difficult thing about discussing these things on a forum is that not everyone that jumps into a discussion has the same conception of the terms being used, even if we've engaged in this discussion multiple times. New people are always showing up, and I confess, I always forget a little of the previous discussions. One of these days I think we just need to sit down and just hammer out these terms, post them somewhere, and constantly refer back to them every time we start a discussion. I'm so tired of feeling this perturbation that discussions are just going to devolve into semantic arguments every time we have one.

*hides*

EDIT: Is "nonsexual asexual" too much of a mouthful to use? I might add that about 9 months ago, I made a friend of mine stop calling herself asexual because she still experienced sexual attraction, but had no desire to act upon it. She then took to calling herself nonsexual. o.o I didn't really know how to react to it, because all I was really trying to do was to make her understand that if she uses the term "asexual", she has to understand that there is this whole movement (here??) that she doesn't know about and she had better understand the ramifications of using the term. I didn't actually tell her to stop using it. She just voluntarily said she would. Ergh... I'll leave to go study now.

[Vampyremage]

EDIT: Is "nonsexual asexual" too much of a mouthful to use? I might add that about 9 months ago, I made a friend of mine stop calling herself asexual because she still experienced sexual attraction, but had no desire to act upon it. She then took to calling herself nonsexual. o.o I didn't really know how to react to it, because all I was really trying to do was to make her understand that if she uses the term "asexual", she has to understand that there is this whole movement (here??) that she doesn't know about and she had better understand the ramifications of using the term. I didn't actually tell her to stop using it. She just voluntarily said she would. Ergh... I'll leave to go study now.

I think I might be open to the idea of nonsexual as a descriptor. While I worry about having to many adjectives to describe the vast variation that sexuality encompasses, I think in this case it might be a logical descriptor to implement. It is something that could be used to describe certain sorts of sexuals as well, such as your friend. On other sites, I have heard individuals describe themselves as asexual even though they experience sexual attraction, because they don't experience that innate sexual drive. By AVEN definition those people would probably fall under the grey category, but perhaps having the nonsexual descriptor might help resolve some of these issues. Something to consider, in any case, and I'm not yet settled on exactly what I think of it.

[Guest]

See, this is where we definitely completely diverge in opinions, SM. :P

Certainly, I would agree that person A and person B (the person who has a complete disconnect with sex) appear to have completely different sexualities.

However, that does not mean they have different sexual orientations.

Why am I saying this? Because human sexuality encompasses much more than sexual orientation.

I have no issue with your logic here. You're certainly not wrong that orientations don't have to be all encompassing re: sexual expression, but I still hold that such a broad definition of asexuality makes it meaningless. If we have to come up with a new term for people who exist outside the realm of sex because asexual has come to mean everything except nonsexual, then, IMO, there's a language problem.

And I still hold this out and would really like an answer... why are all of us sexuals who are dating asexuals supposed to be so kind and understanding about our partners' lack of sexual interest if having a lack of sexual interest has nothing to do with asexuality???

[Faelights]

And I still hold this out and would really like an answer... why are all of us sexuals who are dating asexuals supposed to be so kind and understanding about our partners' lack of sexual interest if having a lack of sexual interest has nothing to do with asexuality???

I can't give you a personal answer, because I certainly don't advocate that approach to dealing with sexual incompatibility in a relationship, regardless of the sexual orientations of the people involved in the relationship. I can, however, I suppose, offer some theories, filled with many random inferences and conjectures. I can't guarantee that they're of high quality. :P

One theory is that you're referring only to the attitude displayed in asexual "safe spaces", such as AVEN, where even though we attempt to balance everyone's interests, the fact of the matter is that many of the members come here in a confused or hurt state (note here that I have intentionally not used the word "abused", though that might be true of some members). As such, when they find a community where they feel like they belong, they need to go through a "purging" process, so to say. When AVEN was a much smaller community, this purging process likely happened at a much higher rate because small numbers normally mean more interconnection between all members of the board. On the other hand, AVEN is now much bigger, and as result, it becomes harder to connect on a deeper level with other members simply due to the sheer intimidation of it all. Hence, the purging process of each individual slows down, and due to greater numbers, it's also easier to find other people who share the same mindsets... slowing down the purging process even more. Soon, you find yourself with a huge backlog, especially since some people feel complacent after finding people with the same mindset, and then might end up not exposing themselves to more varied ideas. But it's not like they don't perpetuate the ideas that they do believe in, so that might be why you keep hearing this.

A second theory is based on the fact that asexuals are considered a minority. And when we think about minorities, one thing might come to mind: affirmative action. And... well. This attitude that you're referring to, SM, might be some strange form of affirmative action in disguise. Or something. o.o

Re: broad definition of asexuality -- I feel that most sexual orientations have equally broad definitions, so maybe that's why I don't feel there's much of a language problem with specific regards to the term "asexual". However, if you were to say that we have a language problem with regards to all sexual orientation terms, I might agree with you there, depending on the exact problem identified. =P

[Guest]

And I still hold this out and would really like an answer... why are all of us sexuals who are dating asexuals supposed to be so kind and understanding about our partners' lack of sexual interest if having a lack of sexual interest has nothing to do with asexuality???

I can't give you a personal answer, because I certainly don't advocate that approach to dealing with sexual incompatibility in a relationship, regardless of the sexual orientations of the people involved in the relationship.

What does this mean? I know you don't actually mean that you don't advocate being kind and understanding, but that's how I keep reading it. :lol:

[Faelights]

And I still hold this out and would really like an answer... why are all of us sexuals who are dating asexuals supposed to be so kind and understanding about our partners' lack of sexual interest if having a lack of sexual interest has nothing to do with asexuality???

I can't give you a personal answer, because I certainly don't advocate that approach to dealing with sexual incompatibility in a relationship, regardless of the sexual orientations of the people involved in the relationship.

What does this mean? I know you don't actually mean that you don't advocate being kind and understanding, but that's how I keep reading it. :lol:

LOL XD

The "approach" I was referring to was the idea that in a sexual-asexual relationship, the sympathy and understanding should automatically come from the sexual partner. I'm one of those people who would rather the people in the relationship talk it out and figure out what works for them. Sympathy and understanding should flow both ways, in other words, and there is no "set formula" for dealing with sexual incompatibility, though some might wish there were.

[Guest]

Oh, of course, I'm definitely on your page about that. It's the only way to make a relationship work. And my partner and I do mostly manage it well, and if I'm the more frustrated of the two it has more to do with our personalities than our sexualities. I'm just more likely to overthink and ruminate. There was a thread in the sexual partners section where people were debating which side had it harder, and I kept thinking, well it depends on the people in question!

I guess what I'm asking is... if we're all frustrated by the lack of sexual interest of our partners, but lack of sexual interest isn't a relevant factor to asexuality, then maybe this isn't where we should be?

[Faelights]

Oh, of course, I'm definitely on your page about that. It's the only way to make a relationship work. And my partner and I do mostly manage it well, and if I'm the more frustrated of the two it has more to do with our personalities than our sexualities. I'm just more likely to overthink and ruminate. There was a thread in the sexual partners section where people were debating which side had it harder, and I kept thinking, well it depends on the people in question!

I guess what I'm asking is... if we're all frustrated by the lack of sexual interest of our partners, but lack of sexual interest isn't a relevant factor to asexuality, then maybe this isn't where we should be?

Well, see, the thing is... I think what we're trying to say here isn't that lack of sexual interest isn't a relevant factor to asexuality, because it is... lack of sexual attraction to other individuals on some level leads to a further situation where there's a lack of sexual interest in engaging in sexual activity with specific individuals.

Furthermore, we're here because -- I daresay -- most people who currently identify as asexual probably have noticed they might not fit in the more well-known categories of sexual orientation only because they've noticed a lack of sexual interest. This might be a controversial idea, but I honestly think that there are people out there who don't experience sexual attraction, yet they're comfortable enough with sexual activity that it never occurs to them that they might be asexual.

Warning: Huge ramble with possible TMI

I confess, I think I would probably be one of those people, as I am rather sex indifferent. My awkwardness during sexual activity? Chalk it up to inexperience. The fact that it rarely crosses my mind to initiate anything sexual, and that the two times I initiated something sexual in three years, it's because either my libido was driving me nuts and I was over at my ex-bf's house where it would be horribly awkward to just masturbate, or because he had once brought up that he felt perverted for always being the one to initiate? Oh, that's normal, isn't it, especially for someone with so little experience? I hang out with people who almost never mention sex. Yet when I finally got out of the relationship and admitted to one of them that my ex-bf and I only ever had sex once, and that was in the last year of the relationship, she looked at me and said "really??? I thought you guys had done it within the first year...!" (Incidentally, I also found out that she and her bf at the time had also done it -- multiple times -- and fuuuuck I was surprised out of my mind. Just imagining any of my friends in sexual situations somehow blows my mind simply because we almost NEVER talk about sex. In fact, I think I talk about it the most, which is really not a lot at all. o.o)

And holy crap this just turned into a huge personal ramble. Let me spoiler that...

[5_♦♣]

Furthermore, we're here because -- I daresay -- most people who currently identify as asexual probably have noticed they might not fit in the more well-known categories of sexual orientation only because they've noticed a lack of sexual interest. This might be a controversial idea, but I honestly think that there are people out there who don't experience sexual attraction, yet they're comfortable enough with sexual activity that it never occurs to them that they might be asexual.

Yes! That is exactly the problem I had five years ago, when I first heard of Asexuality as it applies to humans-via a video of a segment on Asexuality on 20/20. As I briefly entertained the thought of being Asexual, but thought that I couldn't possibly be, due to thinking about sex a lot and masturbating just as frequently. If only I had known of this site back then.

[Vampyremage]

Warning: Huge ramble with possible TMI

I confess, I think I would probably be one of those people, as I am rather sex indifferent. My awkwardness during sexual activity? Chalk it up to inexperience. The fact that it rarely crosses my mind to initiate anything sexual, and that the two times I initiated something sexual in three years, it's because either my libido was driving me nuts and I was over at my ex-bf's house where it would be horribly awkward to just masturbate, or because he had once brought up that he felt perverted for always being the one to initiate? Oh, that's normal, isn't it, especially for someone with so little experience? I hang out with people who almost never mention sex. Yet when I finally got out of the relationship and admitted to one of them that my ex-bf and I only ever had sex once, and that was in the last year of the relationship, she looked at me and said "really??? I thought you guys had done it within the first year...!" (Incidentally, I also found out that she and her bf at the time had also done it -- multiple times -- and fuuuuck I was surprised out of my mind. Just imagining any of my friends in sexual situations somehow blows my mind simply because we almost NEVER talk about sex. In fact, I think I talk about it the most, which is really not a lot at all. o.o)

And holy crap this just turned into a huge personal ramble. Let me spoiler that...

There is a fairly significant difference between being sex indifferent and having an innate drive towards sex. I am largely sex indifferent and have never had much of an issue having it. I have also admitted that I have gotten some physical enjoyment out of it. In the right circumstances, if I thought it had a chance of making a relationship actually work, I wouldn't have much of an issue compromising on the sex issue. However, I have no innate drive towards sex or having sex nor do I prefer sex.

From what you have written above, and I am certainly not trying to put words in your mouth, it sounds like what you relate is not so different from my own experiences. Sex can be enjoyable and you have no repulsion towards it but the fact that it doesn't occur to you to initiate anything rarely, if ever, I would take as a sign that you do not possess an innate drive towards it. Again, this is just my interpretation of what you've written above, feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.

[Faelights]

Warning: Huge ramble with possible TMI

I confess, I think I would probably be one of those people, as I am rather sex indifferent. My awkwardness during sexual activity? Chalk it up to inexperience. The fact that it rarely crosses my mind to initiate anything sexual, and that the two times I initiated something sexual in three years, it's because either my libido was driving me nuts and I was over at my ex-bf's house where it would be horribly awkward to just masturbate, or because he had once brought up that he felt perverted for always being the one to initiate? Oh, that's normal, isn't it, especially for someone with so little experience? I hang out with people who almost never mention sex. Yet when I finally got out of the relationship and admitted to one of them that my ex-bf and I only ever had sex once, and that was in the last year of the relationship, she looked at me and said "really??? I thought you guys had done it within the first year...!" (Incidentally, I also found out that she and her bf at the time had also done it -- multiple times -- and fuuuuck I was surprised out of my mind. Just imagining any of my friends in sexual situations somehow blows my mind simply because we almost NEVER talk about sex. In fact, I think I talk about it the most, which is really not a lot at all. o.o)

And holy crap this just turned into a huge personal ramble. Let me spoiler that...

There is a fairly significant difference between being sex indifferent and having an innate drive towards sex. I am largely sex indifferent and have never had much of an issue having it. I have also admitted that I have gotten some physical enjoyment out of it. In the right circumstances, if I thought it had a chance of making a relationship actually work, I wouldn't have much of an issue compromising on the sex issue. However, I have no innate drive towards sex or having sex nor do I prefer sex.

From what you have written above, and I am certainly not trying to put words in your mouth, it sounds like what you relate is not so different from my own experiences. Sex can be enjoyable and you have no repulsion towards it but the fact that it doesn't occur to you to initiate anything rarely, if ever, I would take as a sign that you do not possess an innate drive towards it. Again, this is just my interpretation of what you've written above, feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.

Well, I agree for the most part with your interpretation. But then I have this horribly awkward thing where once every half a year or so I experience an intense desire to just make out -- as in heavy kissing and petting, nothing more than that -- and these desires are completely undirected; I simply crave the sensations of a good make-out session. And I just sorta sit there and do nothing about it, except maybe complain to someone about how annoying it is. I would add that this never occurred before my relationship.

I would like to just lump these make-out urges with my daily cuddle urges (which also didn't start until after my relationship -- I didn't get many cuddles before it), but considering the wide diversity of opinion with regards to what constitutes sexual activity... *sighs* I do find sexual activity involving genitals awfully boring though... or did I just have an inexperienced partner? :P Which means... could I develop an innate desire for sex if I had a better experience, just like I developed an innate desire for making out? *sighs again*

[Vampyremage]

Warning: Huge ramble with possible TMI

I confess, I think I would probably be one of those people, as I am rather sex indifferent. My awkwardness during sexual activity? Chalk it up to inexperience. The fact that it rarely crosses my mind to initiate anything sexual, and that the two times I initiated something sexual in three years, it's because either my libido was driving me nuts and I was over at my ex-bf's house where it would be horribly awkward to just masturbate, or because he had once brought up that he felt perverted for always being the one to initiate? Oh, that's normal, isn't it, especially for someone with so little experience? I hang out with people who almost never mention sex. Yet when I finally got out of the relationship and admitted to one of them that my ex-bf and I only ever had sex once, and that was in the last year of the relationship, she looked at me and said "really??? I thought you guys had done it within the first year...!" (Incidentally, I also found out that she and her bf at the time had also done it -- multiple times -- and fuuuuck I was surprised out of my mind. Just imagining any of my friends in sexual situations somehow blows my mind simply because we almost NEVER talk about sex. In fact, I think I talk about it the most, which is really not a lot at all. o.o)

And holy crap this just turned into a huge personal ramble. Let me spoiler that...

There is a fairly significant difference between being sex indifferent and having an innate drive towards sex. I am largely sex indifferent and have never had much of an issue having it. I have also admitted that I have gotten some physical enjoyment out of it. In the right circumstances, if I thought it had a chance of making a relationship actually work, I wouldn't have much of an issue compromising on the sex issue. However, I have no innate drive towards sex or having sex nor do I prefer sex.

From what you have written above, and I am certainly not trying to put words in your mouth, it sounds like what you relate is not so different from my own experiences. Sex can be enjoyable and you have no repulsion towards it but the fact that it doesn't occur to you to initiate anything rarely, if ever, I would take as a sign that you do not possess an innate drive towards it. Again, this is just my interpretation of what you've written above, feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.

Well, I agree for the most part with your interpretation. But then I have this horribly awkward thing where once every half a year or so I experience an intense desire to just make out -- as in heavy kissing and petting, nothing more than that -- and these desires are completely undirected; I simply crave the sensations of a good make-out session. And I just sorta sit there and do nothing about it, except maybe complain to someone about how annoying it is. I would add that this never occurred before my relationship.

I would like to just lump these make-out urges with my daily cuddle urges (which also didn't start until after my relationship -- I didn't get many cuddles before it), but considering the wide diversity of opinion with regards to what constitutes sexual activity... *sighs* I do find sexual activity involving genitals awfully boring though... or did I just have an inexperienced partner? :P Which means... could I develop an innate desire for sex if I had a better experience, just like I developed an innate desire for making out? *sighs again*

My personal divider between sexual and not sexual has always been the inclusion of the genitals, though that's certainly not a rule for everyone. Thus, I consider pretty much anything that includes the genitals of one of both partners to be sexual in nature and anything that doesn't include the genitals of one or both partners to be potentially not sexual in nature. Something like making out I would only consider strictly sexual if it lead to something more or if there was the desire for it to lead to something more.

I think I'm with you on the make-out sessions as well. Its not something I'd want all the time and its not really something I'd want for long periods of time, but it is one of the nice perks of having a partner, I have to admit.

As for that innate desire for sex, I think is is possible that you could develop it with a more experienced partner, but not guaranteed by any means. Perhaps that might mean an accompanying shift in sexuality, though I suppose that would be for yourself to decide when/if that eventuality ever occurs.

[Faelights]

Warning: Huge ramble with possible TMI

I confess, I think I would probably be one of those people, as I am rather sex indifferent. My awkwardness during sexual activity? Chalk it up to inexperience. The fact that it rarely crosses my mind to initiate anything sexual, and that the two times I initiated something sexual in three years, it's because either my libido was driving me nuts and I was over at my ex-bf's house where it would be horribly awkward to just masturbate, or because he had once brought up that he felt perverted for always being the one to initiate? Oh, that's normal, isn't it, especially for someone with so little experience? I hang out with people who almost never mention sex. Yet when I finally got out of the relationship and admitted to one of them that my ex-bf and I only ever had sex once, and that was in the last year of the relationship, she looked at me and said "really??? I thought you guys had done it within the first year...!" (Incidentally, I also found out that she and her bf at the time had also done it -- multiple times -- and fuuuuck I was surprised out of my mind. Just imagining any of my friends in sexual situations somehow blows my mind simply because we almost NEVER talk about sex. In fact, I think I talk about it the most, which is really not a lot at all. o.o)

And holy crap this just turned into a huge personal ramble. Let me spoiler that...

There is a fairly significant difference between being sex indifferent and having an innate drive towards sex. I am largely sex indifferent and have never had much of an issue having it. I have also admitted that I have gotten some physical enjoyment out of it. In the right circumstances, if I thought it had a chance of making a relationship actually work, I wouldn't have much of an issue compromising on the sex issue. However, I have no innate drive towards sex or having sex nor do I prefer sex.

From what you have written above, and I am certainly not trying to put words in your mouth, it sounds like what you relate is not so different from my own experiences. Sex can be enjoyable and you have no repulsion towards it but the fact that it doesn't occur to you to initiate anything rarely, if ever, I would take as a sign that you do not possess an innate drive towards it. Again, this is just my interpretation of what you've written above, feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.

Well, I agree for the most part with your interpretation. But then I have this horribly awkward thing where once every half a year or so I experience an intense desire to just make out -- as in heavy kissing and petting, nothing more than that -- and these desires are completely undirected; I simply crave the sensations of a good make-out session. And I just sorta sit there and do nothing about it, except maybe complain to someone about how annoying it is. I would add that this never occurred before my relationship.

I would like to just lump these make-out urges with my daily cuddle urges (which also didn't start until after my relationship -- I didn't get many cuddles before it), but considering the wide diversity of opinion with regards to what constitutes sexual activity... *sighs* I do find sexual activity involving genitals awfully boring though... or did I just have an inexperienced partner? :P Which means... could I develop an innate desire for sex if I had a better experience, just like I developed an innate desire for making out? *sighs again*

My personal divider between sexual and not sexual has always been the inclusion of the genitals, though that's certainly not a rule for everyone. Thus, I consider pretty much anything that includes the genitals of one of both partners to be sexual in nature and anything that doesn't include the genitals of one or both partners to be potentially not sexual in nature. Something like making out I would only consider strictly sexual if it lead to something more or if there was the desire for it to lead to something more.

I think I'm with you on the make-out sessions as well. Its not something I'd want all the time and its not really something I'd want for long periods of time, but it is one of the nice perks of having a partner, I have to admit.

As for that innate desire for sex, I think is is possible that you could develop it with a more experienced partner, but not guaranteed by any means. Perhaps that might mean an accompanying shift in sexuality, though I suppose that would be for yourself to decide when/if that eventuality ever occurs.

Yeah, that'e pretty much the approach I've decided on re: things possibly changing later... worry about it if/when it happens. :P I mean, I didn't have any problem adjusting from identifying as pansexual to asexual, though granted, nothing in my understanding of my sexuality had changed... I had just found a new term. (I'd adopted pansexual as an identity because I couldn't perceive attraction in any particular direction. o.o)

That being said, it's awfully hard to avoid introspection when discussions like this pop up. XD

[Rivan Vox]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I believe that sexual expression has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation, and that any and all sexual behaviors are a function of nurture and not nature.

A homosexual female could fuck every single male in the world wildly all at once every single day, never touching a woman, and still be completely, utterly homosexual in my opinion. You are what you are most comfortable identifying as, and that is it. No other requirements, because only you are privy to your mental processes; essentially, your orientation is in HOW you solve the sexual equation, not in the solution to it.

Additionally, there are other factors that have quite a strong effect on whom you have sex with. For example, I am romantically attracted to females; I enjoy physical contact with females much more than physical contact with males; and I find it much more exciting. However, I'm not really into vagina. I am most definitely romantically and kinesethically attracted to females, and the females I am attracted to are the ones I would be most comfortable sexing. In fact, I'm even quite curious as to what that sex would be like, and I want to have sex with someone that I feel safe with in the near future. Once that occurs, i will reconsider whether or not I am asexual; if I suddenly realize sex is great and I can't think of being totally happy being with someone without the sex-factor, then I guess I'd being demisexual/gray-a.

Ultimately, however, I would personally say I would willingly lie and change my behaviors in order to fit the 'new' asexual label, because I really, really, really like being asexual. It is pretty much one of my favorite things. I have my black ring, I have my ace scarf, it is a core part of identity. I feel uncomfortable regarding myself as heterosexual, because, well.. I just don't have the same relationship to sex that heterosexual people do.

I really like being physically intimate, and I enjoy being asexual, educating people about asexuality, how comfortable people are with me because they know I am asexual, and just.. the general nature of my physical actions not being sexual. My cuddles are asexual, as are my kisses, as is my love of breasts.

*shrug*

I am what I am, and I enjoy being what I am, whatever it is.

[kochouran]

Furthermore, we're here because -- I daresay -- most people who currently identify as asexual probably have noticed they might not fit in the more well-known categories of sexual orientation only because they've noticed a lack of sexual interest. This might be a controversial idea, but I honestly think that there are people out there who don't experience sexual attraction, yet they're comfortable enough with sexual activity that it never occurs to them that they might be asexual.

Yes! That is exactly the problem I had five years ago, when I first heard of Asexuality as it applies to humans-via a video of a segment on Asexuality on 20/20. As I briefly entertained the thought of being Asexual, but thought that I couldn't possibly be, due to thinking about sex a lot and masturbating just as frequently. If only I had known of this site back then.

I had a similar experience. I read an article about asexuality, and while I could relate to some aspects, I didn't think it applied because of my fantasies. It wasn't until I started having sex that I realized something inside of me was a little... out of the norm. I like having sex with my partner, and I want it (though I want it the same way I want to go out with him), but I can stop in the middle of the act and go about my daily business as if nothing had happened. That innate desire to have partnered sex doesn't seem to be as strong.

Despite this I still consider myself grey because I have unconsciously sought foreplay, which does suggest there is a tiny amount of instinct. It just never translates to a conscious awareness or a need.

The discussion here reminds me of the struggles I went through when I thought I could be bisexual. I refrained from identifying as such because my crushes on guys and girls were not equal, and yet I knew I liked girls too much to really be heterosexual (even now I refuse to identify as biromantic because I like girls and guys in different ways... it's complicated ). Anyway, both bisexuality and asexuality probably make more sense as spectra because people are rarely absolutes.

[test account]

I guess what I'm asking is... if we're all frustrated by the lack of sexual interest of our partners, but lack of sexual interest isn't a relevant factor to asexuality, then maybe this isn't where we should be?

this is a good question, and I have only a hazy perception that the key lies in approaching asexuality, not as a question of whether or not they want sex ever, but how an asexual's sexuality finds expression.

I suspect that in some people (and I don't know if they are asexual or not) it finds expression in observing oneself in sexual acts. Not exactly autoeroticism, because there's no turn-on when seeing one's body. It's like putting on a costume and acting a play, taking fascinated interest in the script and the spectacle, not as oneself, but as some other person. If a person desires sex for that reason, I have no idea what it's called, but I could understand why they might identify as asexual, because their inate sense of self is not the person having sex.

I don't know, but I remember somebody saying how his asexual wife was only comfortable in certain positions, and it made me think that maybe the challenge for sexual partners is to find the script that the identifying asexual feels comfortable performing, and be prepared for the possibility that may not be able to move beyond that script, nor ever be able to see themselves as directly involved with what's going on. This is slightly different to someone who identifies themselves as performing, because in that case, appetites increase and creativity kicks in. I have a feeling that this wouldn't happen for someone who enters an altered state of self-awareness.

But I'm really not sure of any of this......

[Naosuu]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I believe that sexual expression has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation, and that any and all sexual behaviors are a function of nurture and not nature.

A homosexual female could fuck every single male in the world wildly all at once every single day, never touching a woman, and still be completely, utterly homosexual in my opinion. You are what you are most comfortable identifying as, and that is it. No other requirements, because only you are privy to your mental processes; essentially, your orientation is in HOW you solve the sexual equation, not in the solution to it.

That's pretty interesting limb you've thrown out there... oh nature vs nurture.

I agree with you to a certain extent, but I personally think it's extreme to say that sexual behaviours are entirely nurtured and that sexual behaviours are entirely separate from orientation. Consider this: technically, if behaviour and orientation are entirely different, what's the point of differentiating orientations if they don't affect your behaviour? Although I do think your example is very realistic, is she really at peace with herself? If behaviour and orientation are different, they technically should not have any consequence. However, think about those stories about deeply closeted gay men getting married and having kids because they are in deep conflict with their orientation and their religion.

Let's bring this closer to home: even if an asexual can dance like a sexual and do all the things a sexual does, I think he would still feel something is off. Again, what's the point of identifying as asexual if he can pass of as a sexual and "fit" into mainstream society? Why bother with all these labels if everyone can appear to be heterosexual? Why bother looking at sexuality at all if there's no correlation?

I mean, I'm definitively sure there are people who are extremely inept at examining themselves, but I think, in general, people want some sense of authenticity between their inner and outer selves. The only reason why they don't follow these instincts "naturally" is because of an external force, such as family, friends, community, etc. While I do think sexual behaviour can happen independently from orientation, I think it's more common for orientation to inform the behaviour.

Ultimately, however, I would personally say I would willingly lie and change my behaviors in order to fit the 'new' asexual label, because I really, really, really like being asexual. It is pretty much one of my favorite things. I have my black ring, I have my ace scarf, it is a core part of identity. I feel uncomfortable regarding myself as heterosexual, because, well.. I just don't have the same relationship to sex that heterosexual people do.

I really like being physically intimate, and I enjoy being asexual, educating people about asexuality, how comfortable people are with me because they know I am asexual, and just.. the general nature of my physical actions not being sexual. My cuddles are asexual, as are my kisses, as is my love of breasts.

Sorry, I really don't mean to pick on you, but this is merely to emphasize Skullery's point about "asexuality as a social movement": let's say, hypothetically (and I really mean, hypothetically and I am in no way trying to invalidate your identity. If I do, I sincerely, sincerely apologise) you are heterosexual. Clearly, from your post, you have some reference of what a "normal" relationship with sex is. I'd merely like throw some food for thought: what is that "normal" relationship with sex you're thinking of? Is it what your friends are saying? What society says? Hollywood? Because in reality, everyone's expression of sex is not as high as the media portrays. (BTW I'm not inciting you to post your response to this particular question. I'm merely throwing some snacks for thought. Feel free to throw all of this away.)

Maybe, if your definition comes from the people around you, the people you've spoken with or you're with are merely people with very high sexual expression. It could very well be your's is merely on the lower end; but because you've interacted with people with higher sexual expression, you don't feel you connect with them on that level. I'm sure there are other people who have experienced this as well. Then comes asexuality...

Personally, when I first found AVEN, I was under the impression that all everyone thought about was sex. This was reinforced by my gay friend (whom apparently feels sexual attraction multiple times a day) and the girls from my high school going ga-ga over boys. Now that I've done a lot more reading, I realize this is not the case and my friend merely has a higher sexual expression. It's totally possible the girls were also more sexually expressive. The friends I hung out with at school probably had a much lower sexual expression, but I doubt all of them are asexual based off of statistics.

I may experience this thing called sexual attraction, but I definitively lack the drive for sexual contact that my gay friend experiences (hence why I think I think I'm in the gray area). The way I've approached this (and I know I sound like a parrot..) is remaining critical. While I think it's important to see where the other end is coming from, I think it's equally (if not, more) important to continually challenge your decisions and assumptions.

Regardless of what you turn out to be, who says you can't continue being a Sexy ally for Asexies everywhere? ;)

[Vampyremage]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I believe that sexual expression has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation, and that any and all sexual behaviors are a function of nurture and not nature.

A homosexual female could fuck every single male in the world wildly all at once every single day, never touching a woman, and still be completely, utterly homosexual in my opinion. You are what you are most comfortable identifying as, and that is it. No other requirements, because only you are privy to your mental processes; essentially, your orientation is in HOW you solve the sexual equation, not in the solution to it.

Additionally, there are other factors that have quite a strong effect on whom you have sex with. For example, I am romantically attracted to females; I enjoy physical contact with females much more than physical contact with males; and I find it much more exciting. However, I'm not really into vagina. I am most definitely romantically and kinesethically attracted to females, and the females I am attracted to are the ones I would be most comfortable sexing. In fact, I'm even quite curious as to what that sex would be like, and I want to have sex with someone that I feel safe with in the near future. Once that occurs, i will reconsider whether or not I am asexual; if I suddenly realize sex is great and I can't think of being totally happy being with someone without the sex-factor, then I guess I'd being demisexual/gray-a.

Ultimately, however, I would personally say I would willingly lie and change my behaviors in order to fit the 'new' asexual label, because I really, really, really like being asexual. It is pretty much one of my favorite things. I have my black ring, I have my ace scarf, it is a core part of identity. I feel uncomfortable regarding myself as heterosexual, because, well.. I just don't have the same relationship to sex that heterosexual people do.

I really like being physically intimate, and I enjoy being asexual, educating people about asexuality, how comfortable people are with me because they know I am asexual, and just.. the general nature of my physical actions not being sexual. My cuddles are asexual, as are my kisses, as is my love of breasts.

*shrug*

I am what I am, and I enjoy being what I am, whatever it is.

I don't think anyone has argued that sexual expression or behaviour in any way invalidate one's orientation, asexual or not. It seems to be fairly well established and agreed to by most, that behaviour does not equal orientation and that one can have sex with whomever and still be considered asexual. What is being discussed here is the innate drive that is associated with sexual attraction, not one's decion regarding whether or not to act upon that drive.

If one experiences sexual attraction and sexual drive, it is up to them what they decide to do with it. Thus, there are hererosexual and homosexual individuals who decide to be celibate. Does being celibate in any way change that individuals sexual orientation? No. Likewise, if an asexual decides to engage in sex, that doesn't make them any less asexual, it just means that they have decided to engage in sex.

However, unlike the celibacy example above, to some extent the motivation to engage in sex does matter because that motivation, and not the act itself, can change the underlying orientation itself. That is, if the motivation is the internal innate drive to engage in sex, that can change the orientation, as I see it at least, from asexual to not-asexual because I feel that innate drive modifies whether or not one can even be considered asexual. Again, however, the action doesn't matter in deciding orientation. One can posess that innate drive towards sex and decide not to engage in sex, but the presence of that innate drive is the determining factor in whether or not one is considered asexual, not ones decision to engage in sex or not engage in sex.

Consider as well, that sexual attraction does not necessarily mean being attracted, directly, to genitals. If you talk to enough sexuals, you will realize that there is a wide variation in whether or not they are attracted to the genitals themselves. They still possess sexual attraction, though what exactly that constitutes will differ from individual to individual, and they still possess innate sexual drive, but some do not possess attraction to genitals themselves. Simply because their attraction takes a slightly different form than might be expected doesn't make them any less sexual.

[bromance]

Due to lack of time, I'm not going to read every thought-provoking response that you guys have posted on here.

However, I'll say this: I want to have sex because I'm curious as to how it feels like, especially since I've started to become interested in some radical feminist discourses on the subject. I treat it like a psychological experiment. That doesn't invalidate my sexuality. It's not a sex drive; it's an intellectual drive, if you might call it.

I do agree that the definition of asexuality has to become more refined. It's like asexuality has become the new trendy thing (remember a few years ago when almost every teenager on MySpace declared themselves bisexual?) which doesn't do any justice to our visibility. How can the larger society take us seriously when so many on AVEN are calling themselves asexual just because they "hate having a uterus" or "sex freaks them out"?

[Guest]

Rivan. Come on, dude. Of COURSE orientation and behavior are linked!!! It's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Sexual orientation is absolutely NOT

what you are most comfortable identifying as, and that is it. No other requirements

Nope. Orientation is not whatever the hell you feel like calling yourself. There are, in fact, requirements. As Naosuu said quite eloquently, orientation tends to instruct behavior.

And, uh, yeah. I think you made my point for me so well that adding anything to it will just make me look like a bitch. Instead, I'll just echo Bro's comments:

I do agree that the definition of asexuality has to become more refined. It's like asexuality has become the new trendy thing (remember a few years ago when almost every teenager on MySpace declared themselves bisexual?) which doesn't do any justice to our visibility. How can the larger society take us seriously when so many on AVEN are calling themselves asexual just because they "hate having a uterus" or "sex freaks them out"?

[Jillianimal]

I do agree that the definition of asexuality has to become more refined. It's like asexuality has become the new trendy thing (remember a few years ago when almost every teenager on MySpace declared themselves bisexual?) which doesn't do any justice to our visibility. How can the larger society take us seriously when so many on AVEN are calling themselves asexual just because they "hate having a uterus" or "sex freaks them out"?

It sounds like it's because they don't know what it actually means though. They think it just means not wanting sex & the why has nothing to do with it. If that's the case, changing the defintion wouldn't make a difference since they didn't bother to look into how it's widely among self-identified aces in the first place.

[SFX]

One can posess that innate drive towards sex and decide not to engage in sex, but the presence of that innate drive is the determining factor in whether or not one is considered asexual, not ones decision to engage in sex or not engage in sex.

So, an alternative definition of asexual could be: a person who does not possess an innate drive to engage in sex?

[Naosuu]

Vamp actually suggested incorporating that into the current definition:

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.

.. which I think is a lot better than separating sexual attraction and the innate drive, since (again, as Vamp as pointed out) they would mean very little without the other.

[RandomDent]

I do agree that the definition of asexuality has to become more refined. It's like asexuality has become the new trendy thing (remember a few years ago when almost every teenager on MySpace declared themselves bisexual?) which doesn't do any justice to our visibility. How can the larger society take us seriously when so many on AVEN are calling themselves asexual just because they "hate having a uterus" or "sex freaks them out"?

Well, how many gay men are freaked out by vulvas? Or lesbians think penises are disgusting? Does it mean that their sexuality is no longer valid - that their sexuality is simply an aversion?