Is sexual attraction always about sex? Possibly TMI

[Vampyremage]

You've been very clear Vamp, it's my brain that gets muddled...so drive/internal motivation to have partnered sex could exist without experiencing total sexual attraction. As could, say the romantic aspect of sexual attraction exist ON IT'S OWN. But a person could not say they have sexual attraction without a drive to have partnered sex...correct?

If you have sexual attraction (are sexual) you experience internal drive to have partnered sex and all the rest in varying degrees. If you do not have sexual attraction (are asexual) you may experience parts of sexual attraction, but not drive toward partnered sex, thus making it not sexual attraction.

This seems really important...why can't we go to David Jay with it? Who's in charge anyway? The mods, or admins?

I think I'm saying the opposite, in a way. It is possible to experience sexual attraction without that internal drive towards partnered sex but it is not possible to experience that internal partnered drive towards sex without sexual attraction because, in a way, that internal drive towards partnered sex IS an aspect of sexual attraction rather than something all together seperate. They are seperate concepts in that they can be discussed seperately, but in reality, the internal motivation to have partnered sex cannot exist exist without some underlying sexual attraction. Or, if it can be said to exist without sexual attration, then I think the very concept of sexual attraction loses all practical meaning.

To me, sexual attraction must have a sexual component. What is sexual attraction if not that internal draw towards sexual activity with other people? One cannot really say they experience no sexual attraction one one hand and then go on to say, but they actually like sex and they have sex mainly because they like sex. To me, what they are saying is that they do experience sexual attraction because one is directly dependent upon the other. That is to say, sexual attraction provides the foundation towards the internal drive towards partnered sex. Thus, sexual attraction must occur first and the internal drive only occurs afterwards. Because of this, it is possible to develop sexual attraction without the accompanying drive but it is not possible to develop the drive without first developing sexual attraction.

Ok, I'm sorry to be adding to the confusion...I obviously don't know much about my own sexual feelings. I knew you were saying one or the other...it makes sense to me till I try to say it. I guess I don't feel that sexual attraction in me is very strong, but I know I want partnered sex. So maybe I should stay on the sidelines...I'm a poor example anyway, lol. I'm sexual. And confused besides...but thank you Vamp for yet another explanation to me. :)

I can read along, and maybe say something once in awhile but I think asexuals should be the ones to define themselves in the end.

I like the idea of an official discussion, and I had the same thought about the timeline, maybe it's time.

Actually, you are an example of why I am arguing what I am arguing. Sexual attraction doesn't need to be very strong in order to be sexual attraction. The very fact that you desire partnered sex is the reason why you are sexual. There has to be some component of sexual attraction in there, even if that's only attraction to your chosen partner, in order to have that desire for partnered sex. I think its sometimes difficult to seperate one from the other because they are such closely interlinked concepts.

To clarify a little further, under the current defintion one could claim to be asexual because they don't experience sexual attraction but they do desire to have partnered sex for internal reasons. In that case, what is the difference between a sexual like yourself and that person who is claiming to be asexual? To me, I see no difference at all. Thus, with the defintion I am proposing, it makes that internal motivation to have sex with other people, or the lack there of, an intrinsic compotnent in whether an individual is asexual. To put it simply, if you have that motivation, you are some degree of sexual, whether the darkest form of grey or a full on sexual.

[Lady Girl]

Thanks again...I think that's part of the reason I did get in on this. I know I'm sexual, but have weak attraction. I probably am a good example. Lol, I forgot I was talking about that in the first place! The definition doesn't quite work because yes I could almost use it to describe me, but it's not me.

Vamp maybe you could come up with something to present to Strivna to either start official discussion AVENwide, or in the back room? I totally agree with what you have stated above and think it might be a good way to start the topic. What do you think?

[Guest]

You've been very clear Vamp, it's my brain that gets muddled...so drive/internal motivation to have partnered sex could exist without experiencing total sexual attraction. As could, say the romantic aspect of sexual attraction exist ON IT'S OWN. But a person could not say they have sexual attraction without a drive to have partnered sex...correct?

If you have sexual attraction (are sexual) you experience internal drive to have partnered sex and all the rest in varying degrees. If you do not have sexual attraction (are asexual) you may experience parts of sexual attraction, but not drive toward partnered sex, thus making it not sexual attraction.

This seems really important...why can't we go to David Jay with it? Who's in charge anyway? The mods, or admins?

I think I'm saying the opposite, in a way. It is possible to experience sexual attraction without that internal drive towards partnered sex but it is not possible to experience that internal partnered drive towards sex without sexual attraction because, in a way, that internal drive towards partnered sex IS an aspect of sexual attraction rather than something all together seperate. They are seperate concepts in that they can be discussed seperately, but in reality, the internal motivation to have partnered sex cannot exist exist without some underlying sexual attraction. Or, if it can be said to exist without sexual attration, then I think the very concept of sexual attraction loses all practical meaning.

To me, sexual attraction must have a sexual component. What is sexual attraction if not that internal draw towards sexual activity with other people? One cannot really say they experience no sexual attraction one one hand and then go on to say, but they actually like sex and they have sex mainly because they like sex. To me, what they are saying is that they do experience sexual attraction because one is directly dependent upon the other. That is to say, sexual attraction provides the foundation towards the internal drive towards partnered sex. Thus, sexual attraction must occur first and the internal drive only occurs afterwards. Because of this, it is possible to develop sexual attraction without the accompanying drive but it is not possible to develop the drive without first developing sexual attraction.

Ok, I'm sorry to be adding to the confusion...I obviously don't know much about my own sexual feelings. I knew you were saying one or the other...it makes sense to me till I try to say it. I guess I don't feel that sexual attraction in me is very strong, but I know I want partnered sex. So maybe I should stay on the sidelines...I'm a poor example anyway, lol. I'm sexual. And confused besides...but thank you Vamp for yet another explanation to me. :)

I can read along, and maybe say something once in awhile but I think asexuals should be the ones to define themselves in the end.

I like the idea of an official discussion, and I had the same thought about the timeline, maybe it's time.

Actually, you are an example of why I am arguing what I am arguing. Sexual attraction doesn't need to be very strong in order to be sexual attraction. The very fact that you desire partnered sex is the reason why you are sexual. There has to be some component of sexual attraction in there, even if that's only attraction to your chosen partner, in order to have that desire for partnered sex. I think its sometimes difficult to seperate one from the other because they are such closely interlinked concepts.

To clarify a little further, under the current defintion one could claim to be asexual because they don't experience sexual attraction but they do desire to have partnered sex for internal reasons. In that case, what is the difference between a sexual like yourself and that person who is claiming to be asexual? To me, I see no difference at all. Thus, with the defintion I am proposing, it makes that internal motivation to have sex with other people, or the lack there of, an intrinsic compotnent in whether an individual is asexual. To put it simply, if you have that motivation, you are some degree of sexual, whether the darkest form of grey or a full on sexual.

Agreed on all of this. I've said it before, but I couldn't identify as sexual based on the 'sexual attraction" standard. Lady Girl and I are both pretty sexual people, so we're not talking about the bottom 5% of sexuals here. And if you read the descriptions by sexuals of what sexual attraction is, everyone says pretty much the same thing... it's pretty weak most of the time, it's usually 100% mental, sometimes there's arousal, but there's just not that much to it and unless you're in the right frame of mind, you won't notice it at all.

I do, however, want partnered sex. That much I am completely sure of.

If you compare sexuals' descriptions of sexual attraction vs. asexual descriptions of sexual attraction, you'll see a huge divide. That can't be good. You've got sexuals saying "hey, I feel sexual attraction and it ain't no big thing!" and then asexuals saying "it's a really big thing!". If the two groups are defining it in completely different ways, then what's the point in using it as a definition at all? It seems clear that no one understands each other when the term 'sexual attraction" is thrown in, and if the point of language is to understand each other... ?

And thanks guys for continuing this discussion!

[Vampyremage]

If you compare sexuals' descriptions of sexual attraction vs. asexual descriptions of sexual attraction, you'll see a huge divide. That can't be good. You've got sexuals saying "hey, I feel sexual attraction and it ain't no big thing!" and then asexuals saying "it's a really big thing!". If the two groups are defining it in completely different ways, then what's the point in using it as a definition at all? It seems clear that no one understands each other when the term 'sexual attraction" is thrown in, and if the point of language is to understand each other... ?

And this gets to the route of the entire reason why I think the defintion of what sexual attraction actually is needs to be revisited. Somewhere along the line, the idea of being motivated towards partnered sex got taken out of the equation when discussion sexual attraction. What is sexual attraction, after all, if not a motivation towards partnered sex with whoever or whatever your chosen type of partner is?

[Lady Girl]

If you compare sexuals' descriptions of sexual attraction vs. asexual descriptions of sexual attraction, you'll see a huge divide. That can't be good. You've got sexuals saying "hey, I feel sexual attraction and it ain't no big thing!" and then asexuals saying "it's a really big thing!". If the two groups are defining it in completely different ways, then what's the point in using it as a definition at all? It seems clear that no one understands each other when the term 'sexual attraction" is thrown in, and if the point of language is to understand each other... ?

And this gets to the route of the entire reason why I think the defintion of what sexual attraction actually is needs to be revisited. Somewhere along the line, the idea of being motivated towards partnered sex got taken out of the equation when discussion sexual attraction. What is sexual attraction, after all, if not a motivation towards partnered sex with whoever or whatever your chosen type of partner is?

Yes, yes, and yes. That's why I said earlier it would normally be a natural assumption (Vamp's last sentence/question), but somehow it isn't.

Glad you're back Skulls!

[Vampyremage]

If you compare sexuals' descriptions of sexual attraction vs. asexual descriptions of sexual attraction, you'll see a huge divide. That can't be good. You've got sexuals saying "hey, I feel sexual attraction and it ain't no big thing!" and then asexuals saying "it's a really big thing!". If the two groups are defining it in completely different ways, then what's the point in using it as a definition at all? It seems clear that no one understands each other when the term 'sexual attraction" is thrown in, and if the point of language is to understand each other... ?

And this gets to the route of the entire reason why I think the defintion of what sexual attraction actually is needs to be revisited. Somewhere along the line, the idea of being motivated towards partnered sex got taken out of the equation when discussion sexual attraction. What is sexual attraction, after all, if not a motivation towards partnered sex with whoever or whatever your chosen type of partner is?

Yes, yes, and yes. That's why I said earlier it would normally be a natural assumption (Vamp's last sentence/question), but somehow it isn't.

Glad you're back Skulls!

If I were to hazard a guess at the reason why that's occurred, I would say it might have to do with the idea that action does not equal orientation. There are many asexuals that engage in sexual activity for reasons other than internal motivation and its important to maintaint the understanding that just because they engage in sexual activity doesn't necessarily mean they are sexual because there can be outside forces motivating them to do so. My guess is that the nuance, in some way, has been lost and with that nuance, the difference between internal and external motivation has also been lost. There is a big difference, after all, in engage in sex because you are with a partner that you love and want to make happy and engaging in sex because you happen to like sex.

[Sally]

I also pretty much always get aroused when kissing boyfriends, but it never leads to wanting sex, and half the time, I don't even notice it.

If you don't notice it, how do you know it happens?

[Guest]

If you compare sexuals' descriptions of sexual attraction vs. asexual descriptions of sexual attraction, you'll see a huge divide. That can't be good. You've got sexuals saying "hey, I feel sexual attraction and it ain't no big thing!" and then asexuals saying "it's a really big thing!". If the two groups are defining it in completely different ways, then what's the point in using it as a definition at all? It seems clear that no one understands each other when the term 'sexual attraction" is thrown in, and if the point of language is to understand each other... ?

And this gets to the route of the entire reason why I think the defintion of what sexual attraction actually is needs to be revisited. Somewhere along the line, the idea of being motivated towards partnered sex got taken out of the equation when discussion sexual attraction. What is sexual attraction, after all, if not a motivation towards partnered sex with whoever or whatever your chosen type of partner is?

Yes, yes, and yes. That's why I said earlier it would normally be a natural assumption (Vamp's last sentence/question), but somehow it isn't.

Glad you're back Skulls!

If I were to hazard a guess at the reason why that's occurred, I would say it might have to do with the idea that action does not equal orientation. There are many asexuals that engage in sexual activity for reasons other than internal motivation and its important to maintaint the understanding that just because they engage in sexual activity doesn't necessarily mean they are sexual because there can be outside forces motivating them to do so. My guess is that the nuance, in some way, has been lost and with that nuance, the difference between internal and external motivation has also been lost. There is a big difference, after all, in engage in sex because you are with a partner that you love and want to make happy and engaging in sex because you happen to like sex.

To be perfectly honest with you guys, I don't think sexual attraction is the same thing as motivation toward partnered sex. If I were to hazard a guess, my guess would be that asexuals think that there's some big feeling like "want sex now" that competes with "my brain says I don't want to"... but its really not like that. I can feel a spark of something, but 9 times out of 10 I have no interest in acknowledging it so that spark just disappears. It's not some big battle of wills and it's definitely nothing conscious. When I see asexuals say things like "I got aroused looking at her but I didn't want to do anything about it", it seems to me that there's the assumption that sexual people feel differently than that... but I don't think we do. I know i don't. Most sexual responses are managed and quelled quite efficiently subconsciously.

I think you can experience sexual attraction without having an internal motivation toward the object of the attraction, but I also find it unlikely that most people would even acknowledge it. I think lots of us are attracted to things that we have no internal motivation to pursue, so we just ignore it. It takes a high level of introspection to get to a point where you recognize an attraction to something that you have no will to pursue. For example, people are attracted to lots of stuff in porn that they'd never want to act on or see IRL... still, they are having a sexual response to something outside of themselves, which usually constitutes sexual attraction... but without that motivation, the attraction is pretty meaningless. That's why, IMO, there are asexuals who experience sexual attraction but nonetheless feel asexual, because that attraction is meaningless to them without the motivation to do anything with it.

[5_♦♣]

Definitely TMI.

I think you have all managed to over complicate this and destroyed my understanding of asexuality! So ima try and bring it back down to a simpler level. If you want someones penis inside you, or you want to put your penis inside someone....then you are sexually attracted to them, if you dont want someones penis inside you, or you dont want to put your penis inside someone, then you arent sexually attracted to them.

So lesbians aren't sexually attracted to other women? And Gay men aren't sexually attracted to other men?

[zoidberger]

I think, according to this thread, that although the original definition was meant to be non-exclusive, it has been taken to be such. I know personally that I find it a...not so much a struggle, but a difficulty claiming to be asexual when such a narrow/undefined definition exists. I find myself saying "I identify with asexuality" instead of "I am asexual". Not that it bothers me too much. I did get the whole "If you want to call yourself asexual no one here will mind" bit, but it's not anyone on AVEN that I'm thinking will mind. If I come out to someone and say the word asexual, they'll go, read the description, and make some automatic assumptions about me that might not be true. Yes, I can explain out how it all works for me as an individual, but it's easier to build on a vague definition than to tear down someone else prefabricated ideas. I know it's impossible to make a definition that fits everyone who identifies as asexual, but it shouldn't be too hard to slightly change the current one to make it....broader. Or slightly more inclusive.

When describing the domestic dog, you must have a point when you say, no, that's a wolf, but it doesn't mean you can only include Golden Retrievers and Labradors in the description.

EDIT: Unless of course the wolf really thinks it's a dog. Then where are we? My analogy is broken :(

My thoughts on this subject keep bouncing around... but I think you have put it quite well. With the new definition I would be more likely to say that I "identify with asexuality". At the end of the day that feels wrong to me. I know that I experience things very differently than sexuals like Lady Girl and SkulleryMaid and other sexuals on the board and grey-A doesn't even feel right; a new definition really would prevent me from saying "I am asexual" even though I relate strongly with that.

[Nogitsune]

Huh. I always took "sexual attraction" to mean, more or less, to feel "sexual desire" in relation to specific other people in the sense of desiring to sleep or make out of them (on some level), and this is - as far as I can tell - the definition the AVEN wiki uses. I don't buy this "only asexuals use the term like that!" stuff, because I never got that impression, and when checking the net for definitions of "sexual attraction", most of the results are from sites like AVEN; the only other thing I found was "attractiveness on the basis of sexual desire", which is pretty vague.

As I see it, most people don't bother to define the term because it just seems obvious to them what sexual attraction is. Still, I've never seen the word come up in relation to anything else than people. I don't think that going by the standard use of the word, you are expected to be sexually attracted to a sex toy or porn or bondage, and that it's indeed usually used in relation to people's sexual orientation. Anything else seems to get put in the broader "sexual desire" category. Of course, I might be missing something here, but I'm pretty sure claiming that (a whole lot of) asexuals just have no idea what they're talking about here while the rest of the world does doesn't work.

[Lady Girl]

Zoids, I understood Mordsith to be saying they don't like the current definition...that's what makes them feel they don't want to use the term asexual. They want some slight revision so they could use the term as a label.

And Nogitsune, I don't think anyone is claiming that asexuals have no idea what they're talking about while the rest of the world does.

The real point is that assuming sexual attraction means something it doesn't makes it lose it's effectiveness as a descriptor. You can't assume that sexual attraction means attraction to people, and I really don't see how being attracted to anything of a sexual nature would be anything less than sexual attraction. (ie. the guy who has sex with his car is somehow NOT sexually attracted to it?)

To want to include that sexual attraction means motivation to partnered sex just doesn't seem that horrifying to me...it seems clarifying.

EDIT: Just wondering if anyone remembers when Manic Depressive was replaced with Bipolar because it more ACCURATELY describes all the possible behaviors in this particular catagory of people. Or for that matter, what about the Indians?

[Nogitsune]

The real point is that assuming sexual attraction means something it doesn't makes it lose it's effectiveness as a descriptor. You can't assume that sexual attraction means attraction to people, and I really don't see how being attracted to anything of a sexual nature would be anything less than sexual attraction. (ie. the guy who has sex with his car is somehow NOT sexually attracted to it?)

Maybe there's a word for being sexually attracted to cars, but my point is that "sexual attraction" usually does get used only in relation to sexual orientation and people. I've never heard anyone talk about sexual attraction towards, say, porn, or a kink. So I think clearing up that "sexual attraction" is meant in the context of partnered sex is not a problem for me, though it does feel redundant.

[Lady Girl]

I realize this does sound redundant to you. I feel redundant saying I do not experience sexual attraction and I want partnered sex. I am sexual, but according to the definition, I guess I'm really an asexual. Maybe I'm in the closet and just don't want to face it.

[Nogitsune]

I realize this does sound redundant to you. I feel redundant saying I do not experience sexual attraction and I want partnered sex. I am sexual, but according to the definition, I guess I'm really an asexual. Maybe I'm in the closet and just don't want to face it.

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with the old vs. new definition (as proposed by you). As far as I'm aware, most people already take asexuality to mean not being sexually attracted in the sense of not "desiring" partnered sex (due to sexual attraction). What exactly that means and how they should identify is something only the individual can figure out.

I think since there are a lot of different *sexual and asexual people, including those who identify as asexual and desire partnered sex for reasons not related to sexual attraction, a definition will always come with problems.

[Lady Girl]

It means sexual people are asexual.

[Nogitsune]

It means sexual people are asexual.

I really don't think so.

[Lady Girl]

You may not think so, but the sexual people who look at this may. Especially upon reflection. If a person is attracted to a shoe, and then interacts with it in a sexual manner they have sexual attraction (to the shoe)...this is a fetish. There are people who are asexual with fetishes saying this is not sexual attraction, while you have sexual people with the same fetish who would say, "yes I do feel sexually attracted to the shoe and to people"...

So what does that mean?

[Nogitsune]

You may not think so, but the sexual people who look at this may. Especially upon reflection. If a person is attracted to a shoe, and then interacts with it in a sexual manner they have sexual attraction (to the shoe)...this is a fetish. There are people who are asexual with fetishes saying this is not sexual attraction, while you have sexual people with the same fetish who would say, "yes I do feel sexually attracted to the shoe and to people"...

So what does that mean?

I suppsose it means that "sexual attraction" is not easily defined, which is not surprising, but I'm still pretty sure that very few people would say that someone who enjoys porn for sexual reasons is automatically sexually attracted to that porn. I don't have a problem with adding "towards people" to the current definition, but I do have a problem with equating any sexual response to something to "sexual attraction", especially since it's pretty clear that the context here is that of a sexual orientation.

[Lady Girl]

You may not think so, but the sexual people who look at this may. Especially upon reflection. If a person is attracted to a shoe, and then interacts with it in a sexual manner they have sexual attraction (to the shoe)...this is a fetish. There are people who are asexual with fetishes saying this is not sexual attraction, while you have sexual people with the same fetish who would say, "yes I do feel sexually attracted to the shoe and to people"...

So what does that mean?

I suppsose it means that "sexual attraction" is not easily defined, which is not surprising, but I'm still pretty sure that very few people would say that someone who enjoys porn for sexual reasons is automatically sexually attracted to that porn. I don't have a problem with adding "towards people" to the current definition, but I do have a problem with equating any sexual response to something to "sexual attraction", especially since it's pretty clear that the context here is that of a sexual orientation.

I agree. I don't think random sexual arousal=sexual attraction. I also understand what you're saying about porn. But you know this isn't to make the definition narrower...it would actually help the sexual world understand more clearly what it is to be asexual. As it stands now, you have to explain why you would even be interested in anything sexual in nature...maybe not you, but I've heard asexuals talk about the stupid questions they get.

[GirlDreamer]

I agree. I don't think random sexual arousal=sexual attraction.

I agree on this as well. Just because your body is able to respond and become aroused, it doesn't mean that that's because of sexual attraction.

[Nogitsune]

I agree. I don't think random sexual arousal=sexual attraction. I also understand what you're saying about porn. But you know this isn't to make the definition narrower...it would actually help the sexual world understand more clearly what it is to be asexual. As it stands now, you have to explain why you would even be interested in anything sexual in nature...maybe not you, but I've heard asexuals talk about the stupid questions they get.

Hmm, I think that makes sense. Well, I believe many asexuals would still be asked to explain themselves, but I don't think adding that much to the definition could hurt, and it might indeed make things easier. Yay! (I also still like the idea about listing examples of "what it's like" to be asexual. Maybe in addition to the definition?)

[Lady Girl]

I agree. I don't think random sexual arousal=sexual attraction. I also understand what you're saying about porn. But you know this isn't to make the definition narrower...it would actually help the sexual world understand more clearly what it is to be asexual. As it stands now, you have to explain why you would even be interested in anything sexual in nature...maybe not you, but I've heard asexuals talk about the stupid questions they get.

Hmm, I think that makes sense. Well, I believe many asexuals would still be asked to explain themselves, but I don't think adding that much to the definition could hurt, and it might indeed make things easier. Yay! (I also still like the idea about listing examples of "what it's like" to be asexual. Maybe in addition to the definition?)

I agree again...yes, still some explaining, but clearer. :)

[P is for...]

well done, everyone, really. i've got the flu at the moment, so i'm having to drop out of the discussion; but i've already said all i have to say, more or less. i just wanted to commend you all for what is perhaps the most thought-provoking, productive, civil discussion i've ever seen on AVEN (and I'm including the previous discussion in Hot Box in my accolades as well, despite its rocky start).

to be quite honest, i don't even really mind what happens from here. i'm satisfied with the fact that we've talked it out and have understood one another and come to some sort of consensus. if this does go any further, though, i'd like to state for the record that i'm very much in favour of either having a new, multi-part definition that covers a variety of asexual experience (much like a dictionary definition that shows how a word can be used in different contexts), or else some sort of addendum to the current official definition that recognizes that plurality of experience in some way.

i'm just pleased that there's finally an acknowledgement of how complicated the problem of defining sexual attraction actually is, and that it can manifest itself differently in different people. i've always known that asexuality is far from monolithic, and it's truly refreshing to see an acceptance of the idea that it's possible to have a more nuanced definition that still speaks to asexuality as something distinct, however it might be experienced individually.

thanks for getting my day off to a decent start. my hat's off to you all.

[Lady Girl]

Thanks P! And I feel the same way. It was great being able to see it from your perspective too. I stay away from the heated conversations if I can...I get too nervous. I've been wondering about this for awhile, and I personally appreciate everyone's insightful contributions (with the exception of the penis post, but it did make me laugh). It was really interesting to hear what people have to say about it and it will be interesting to see if it goes anywhere.

[Vampyremage]

I realize this does sound redundant to you. I feel redundant saying I do not experience sexual attraction and I want partnered sex. I am sexual, but according to the definition, I guess I'm really an asexual. Maybe I'm in the closet and just don't want to face it.

I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with the old vs. new definition (as proposed by you). As far as I'm aware, most people already take asexuality to mean not being sexually attracted in the sense of not "desiring" partnered sex (due to sexual attraction). What exactly that means and how they should identify is something only the individual can figure out.

I think since there are a lot of different *sexual and asexual people, including those who identify as asexual and desire partnered sex for reasons not related to sexual attraction, a definition will always come with problems.

The problem is that some people do not take sexual attraction to mean that. There are some people who seem to believe that sexual attraction and sexual desire are two sufficiently different things that they can exist independently of one another. That is, they believe they can experience no sexual attraction and yet still have an internal motivation to pursue sexual activity. That is why some of us are looking to clarify the definition.

You may not think so, but the sexual people who look at this may. Especially upon reflection. If a person is attracted to a shoe, and then interacts with it in a sexual manner they have sexual attraction (to the shoe)...this is a fetish. There are people who are asexual with fetishes saying this is not sexual attraction, while you have sexual people with the same fetish who would say, "yes I do feel sexually attracted to the shoe and to people"...

So what does that mean?

I suppsose it means that "sexual attraction" is not easily defined, which is not surprising, but I'm still pretty sure that very few people would say that someone who enjoys porn for sexual reasons is automatically sexually attracted to that porn. I don't have a problem with adding "towards people" to the current definition, but I do have a problem with equating any sexual response to something to "sexual attraction", especially since it's pretty clear that the context here is that of a sexual orientation.

This is not what we are arguing at all. Arousal does not equal sexual attraction, it is a physiological response to stimulus. Nor does having sex for external motivations, such as wanting to please a loved partner, equal being sexual. What I, and obviously some others, believe DOES equal being sexual is desiring or being motivated to have sex for primarily internal reasons, such as enjoyment of sex.

As Lady has stated, there are many sexuals that are just like that, with little to no what is currently termed sexual attraction but with an internal motivation to pursue sex. If sexuals and asexuals are both the same, then the label asexual means basically nothing and that is the heart of why I believe the definition needs to be revisited.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Strivna
Merged posts

[5_♦♣]

"What I, and obviously some others, believe DOES equal being sexual is desiring or being motivated to have sex for primarily internal reasons, such as enjoyment of sex".

Which would then mean that any Asexual who has ever masturbated isn't actually Asexual. After all, isn't masturbation sex for the enjoyment of sex?

[Vampyremage]

"What I, and obviously some others, believe DOES equal being sexual is desiring or being motivated to have sex for primarily internal reasons, such as enjoyment of sex".

Which would then mean that any Asexual who has ever masturbated isn't actually Asexual. After all, isn't masturbation sex for the enjoyment of sex?

Oh sorry, I should have specified primarily motivated for internal reasons to have sex with other people for internal reasons. The with other people part is the most important part here, I just accidentally forgot to tag that on.

[Nogitsune]

This is not what we are arguing at all. Arousal does not equal sexual attraction, it is a physiological response to stimulus. Nor does having sex for external motivations, such as wanting to please a loved partner, equal being sexual. What I, and obviously some others, believe DOES equal being sexual is desiring or being motivated to have sex for primarily internal reasons, such as enjoyment of sex.

Actually, unless I got something really wrong, SkulleryMaid did argue that having a sexual response to porn constitutes as being sexually attracted to that porn. I shoud probably have quoted that part of her post before responding, though - sorry.

As for "internal motivation", I'd be interested in hearing what various asexuals and asexual activists (including those outside of AVEN) have to say about that sort of definition. I really don't think I can judge this very well, but I do think making changes to the definition is a really big deal that could end in a huge mess, and differentiating between internal and external motivations like that might or might not work for a lot of people.

[Vampyremage]

This is not what we are arguing at all. Arousal does not equal sexual attraction, it is a physiological response to stimulus. Nor does having sex for external motivations, such as wanting to please a loved partner, equal being sexual. What I, and obviously some others, believe DOES equal being sexual is desiring or being motivated to have sex for primarily internal reasons, such as enjoyment of sex.

Actually, unless I got something really wrong, SkulleryMaid did argue that having a sexual response to porn constitutes as being sexually attracted to that porn. I shoud probably have quoted that part of her post before responding, though - sorry.

As for "internal motivation", I'd be interested in hearing what various asexuals and asexual activists (including those outside of AVEN) have to say about that sort of definition. I really don't think I can judge this very well, but I do think making changes to the definition is a really big deal that could end in a huge mess, and differentiating between internal and external motivations like that might or might not work for a lot of people.

Initially I was in agreement with Skullery on that point. However, this very thread has resulted in a bit of shift of opinion on my part. When the discussion came to the idea of feeling a disconnect when it came to partnered sex, that really resonated with me. I think that has to be part of the core of what it is to be asexual is that very disconnect. Thus, I have come to a new understanding in how one can experience an arousal response when watching porn and still be considered asexual because when it comes to the prospect of the actual act or even the participation in that actual act, that disconnect still exists. There is a difference, in that case, between the fantasy and the reality of the situation. In that, I suppose Skullery and I have come to a slightly different opinion.