What is sexual attraction in its relation to defining asexuality?

[Nameless123]

Instead of basing being asexual upon sexual attraction, I think it should be based around the idea of experiencing an internal motivation to have sex with others. Thus, the desire to have sex is not externally based, such as wanting to please a partner, wanting to start a family, ect. but rather comes primarily from within the self.

This sounds rather interesting, but I'm afraid that the question of where the line is drawn exactly between internal and external motivation will cause another civil war on AVEN. Also I'm sure that not all sexuals base their sexual behaviour on this internal motivation all the time but also have sex for the external motivations you mentioned. Again, the line wouldn't be clear. Maybe a combination of no sexual attraction and no internal motivation might work, but it hurts my head to think about trying to explain this to someone outside of AVEN.

[Shortass Lady]

Instead of basing being asexual upon sexual attraction, I think it should be based around the idea of experiencing an internal motivation to have sex with others. Thus, the desire to have sex is not externally based, such as wanting to please a partner, wanting to start a family, ect. but rather comes primarily from within the self.

By 'externally' based and 'internally' based motivation to have sex, do you mean the same difference as on one hand, having sex because you genuinely want to in and for itself, and having sex because it's a means to an end e.g for conceiving a child / pleasing a partner?

That's the way I interpret your differentiation. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding. I think you can only qualify sexual attraction as such when it's having sex because you genuinely want to. The other one, wanting to as a means to an end, doesn't count in my book because you don't actually WANT to have sex, you just want the result it can create, and have to go through this process to get there, even if you'd prefer an alternative method for getting there.

[Vampyremage]

Instead of basing being asexual upon sexual attraction, I think it should be based around the idea of experiencing an internal motivation to have sex with others. Thus, the desire to have sex is not externally based, such as wanting to please a partner, wanting to start a family, ect. but rather comes primarily from within the self.

By 'externally' based and 'internally' based motivation to have sex, do you mean the same difference as on one hand, having sex because you genuinely want to in and for itself, and having sex because it's a means to an end e.g for conceiving a child / pleasing a partner?

That's the way I interpret your differentiation. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding. I think you can only qualify sexual attraction as such when it's having sex because you genuinely want to. The other one, wanting to as a means to an end, doesn't count in my book because you don't actually WANT to have sex, you just want the result it can create, and have to go through this process to get there, even if you'd prefer an alternative method for getting there.

This is pretty much exactly what I meant. Internal motivation is having sex because you genuinely want to have sex. External motivation has to do with outside reasons that are separate, though possibly related, to the act of sex itself. Thus, if one had sex because one enjoyed having sex, that would be an internal motivation while if one had sex because they wanted to conceive a child, that would be an external motivation.

I think any definition is going to be imperfect and will result in some confusion when it relates to a self identity. Furthermore, I acknowledge that one of the main confusions of the definition I propose is the fact that there is often more than one reason an individual might decide to engage in sex. What happens, for example, if someone wants a child and also genuinely enjoys sex? In that case, I think it comes down to the strength of the internal motivation. Is there a situation in which an individual would choose to have sex even if there was no external motivation to consider? If the answer is yes, they may not be asexual. If the answer is no, they probably are asexual.

[Guest]

Personally I think the definition of asexual as someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction is a farce. This is because what sexual attraction actually is is so ambiguous. At the end of the day it seems to boil down to whether or not you are interested in having sex with x.

So you just defined not experiencing sexual attraction the way everyone understands it - not being interested in having sex with someone. What is ambiguous about that? We asexuals often have trouble defining sexual attraction because we don't feel it - sexual people usually have no such problems. They know if they want to sleep with someone or not.

No, that's the definition of sexual desire, not attraction.

I didn't say sexual people know immediately or want to sleep with someone on first sight; I said they can identify the feeling when they experience it.

I don't think so, are you speaking of arousal, butterflies, what exactly? There are actually issues with the definition and this elusive "sexual attraction" for many sexuals and asexuals alike. It's not profoundly scientific either. It works for now though.

I'm speaking of wanting to have sex with someone for your own sexual gratification and that of the other person. Not butterflies - I think of them more as a romantic thing, and not arousal, which sexuals and asexuals alike might experience while watching porn, for example.

There it is again, the definition of desire. Personally, I think AVEN does use sexual desire as their definition, they just call it sexual attraction. Just because they're used interchangeably here doesn't mean they ARE interchangeable, however. If we use the definition "wants to have sex" to define sexual attraction, then no one can be repressed, no one can be in the closet, no one could ever be confused, because either they do or they do not want to do something, period. However, that's not the reality of sexuality. In reality, you can be attracted to something but have zero desire.

Not all asexuals are alike and you just can't say "Asexual is the new term for sexually frigid."

Yes they are. All asexuals share at least one trait in common. According to this AVEN, it is "does not feel sexual attraction." According to other AVENs, it is "does not feel sexual desire." Either way, if we started calling that trait "frigid", then you most certainly could say "asexual is the new term for frigid." In other words, it simply rests on what one's definition of "frigid" is. If frigid and "does not experience sexual attraction" have the same definition, then they ARE the same thing. Which was, I'm pretty sure, Beachy's point.

Instead of basing being asexual upon sexual attraction, I think it should be based around the idea of experiencing an internal motivation to have sex with others. Thus, the desire to have sex is not externally based, such as wanting to please a partner, wanting to start a family, ect. but rather comes primarily from within the self.

This sounds rather interesting, but I'm afraid that the question of where the line is drawn exactly between internal and external motivation will cause another civil war on AVEN. Also I'm sure that not all sexuals base their sexual behaviour on this internal motivation all the time but also have sex for the external motivations you mentioned. Again, the line wouldn't be clear. Maybe a combination of no sexual attraction and no internal motivation might work, but it hurts my head to think about trying to explain this to someone outside of AVEN.

Seems pretty simple to me. "Do you want to have sex because you want to have sex, or do you want to have sex for some other end result, whether that be pregnancy, making your partner happy, or curiosity?"

How hard is that?

[Lady Girl]

Thank you fifty million gagillion times Skulls and Vamp!!! It shouldn't be hard, it should be that simple because in the real world it is.

[The Great WTF]

Thank you fifty million gagillion times Skulls and Vamp!!! It shouldn't be hard, it should be that simple because in the real world it is.

Coming in a little late to the game but yes, what Lady Girl said. I've always agreed with Vamp's idea for redefining asexuality.

As a side note, I find the idea of asexuality being the new "frigid" repulsive, but then again the only time I've ever heard the word used was in a negative and childish way. Asexuality gets enough negative crap attached to it without adding that word to the list.

[Nameless123]

No, that's the definition of sexual desire, not attraction.

Please explain the difference. Both are directed at another person.

However, that's not the reality of sexuality. In reality, you can be attracted to something but have zero desire.

Which would make you not asexual.

Seems pretty simple to me. "Do you want to have sex because you want to have sex, or do you want to have sex for some other end result, whether that be pregnancy, making your partner happy, or curiosity?"

How hard is that?

As you just said, the reality of sexuality isn't that clear-cut.

[Guest]

No, that's the definition of sexual desire, not attraction.

Please explain the difference. Both are directed at another person.

No, YOU explain the difference. If you can't, then you actually agree with us. You're the one who keeps saying that sexuals know what sexual attraction is. We're saying "no way, sexual attraction isn't actually a thing, it's a phrase that's been concocted that has no meaning." You seem to think it has meaning, so its up to you to tell me what sexual attraction is.

However, that's not the reality of sexuality. In reality, you can be attracted to something but have zero desire.

Which would make you not asexual.

How would you know? What does sexual attraction without desire look like, feel like, etc? You tell me, because in my opinion, it's almost impossible to say. I've seen many a chat with asexuals who say they are attracted to and interested in women but don't actually want to have sex with them, and then say "therefore I am asexual." So, are they right or are they wrong?

Seems pretty simple to me. "Do you want to have sex because you want to have sex, or do you want to have sex for some other end result, whether that be pregnancy, making your partner happy, or curiosity?"

How hard is that?

As you just said, the reality of sexuality isn't that clear-cut.

No, sexuality isn't clear cut, but wanting vs. not wanting is clear-cut. That's our whole point. That AVEN stop using a nonsense definition that means nothing to anyone and start using something that makes sense. Just because the whole of sexuality isn't straightforward doesn't mean you can't isolate specific components that are straightforward. The question "when you have sex, is it because you want to have sex for the sake of having sex, or is it because you are doing it for some other end result" is very straightforward.

I'd implore everyone to take this challenge:

1) define sexual attraction without also defining desire

2) answer the question "when you have sex, are you doing it for the enjoyment of having sex or for some other reason, such as pleasing your partner?"

3) Tell me which question is easier to answer. I bet it's question # 2.

[Nameless123]

If I'd known you (and whoever the mysterious "we" you keep mentioninging refer to) were on a mission to redefine asexuality I'd have kept out of the discussion, because I've had that once too often and it never ended well. I wish you (and all the others) the best of luck, though.

[Guest]

If I'd known you (and whoever the mysterious "we" you keep mentioninging refer to) were on a mission to redefine asexuality I'd have kept out of the discussion, because I've had that once too often and it never ended well. I wish you (and all the others) the best of luck, though.

I never know what pronouns to use in these situations. In this case we meant, more or less, Lady Girl and Vamp and I, who are all making similar claims. I admit to having a confusing pronoun habit

I agree with you that it rarely ends well.

[5_♦♣]

Asexual=sexually frigid? Yeah, what a great idea for visibility.

*Not getting into the whole semantics debate of redefining Asexuality*.

[Nameless123]

I agree with you that it rarely ends well.

Fair enough. Let's stay on amiable terms, then.

[mindlife]

Personally I think the definition of asexual as someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction is a farce.

This is because what sexual attraction actually is so ambiguous. At the end of the day it seems to boil down to whether or not you are interested in having sex with x.

No. It doesn't boil down to what you are interested in.

It boils down to how you define intimacy in the first place.

"Sex with x" is an over simplification. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be sex with a, b, c, d, e, . . . and so on and so forth to the end and then double the letters for the next set of 26, treble them for the next and so on and so forth.

If the circumstance arose that this could actually eventuate what you would choose to do is irrelevant to my way of thinking, its more about whether or not the thought crossed your mind in the first place.

How nice.

The thought doesn't cross my mind. Period.

Anyways the point of this is, in my day people not interested in having sex were referred to as being frigid.

No.

Frigidity was the inability to reach orgasm and the inability to experience vaginal sensation. It was a word applied exclusively to women.

So I am wondering how and if this relates to being asexual, if at all.

It doesn't.

And as for the final point, your self identification is up to you.

[BookwormKaoru]

If I'd known you (and whoever the mysterious "we" you keep mentioninging refer to) were on a mission to redefine asexuality I'd have kept out of the discussion, because I've had that once too often and it never ended well. I wish you (and all the others) the best of luck, though.

Seconded. I would've never got into this if I knew. Time to take this off watch and go on my merry way.

I like the definition and feel I know the difference between desire and attraction so. Good luck guys. Bue

[Guest]

If I'd known you (and whoever the mysterious "we" you keep mentioninging refer to) were on a mission to redefine asexuality I'd have kept out of the discussion, because I've had that once too often and it never ended well. I wish you (and all the others) the best of luck, though.

Seconded. I would've never got into this if I knew. Time to take this off watch and go on my merry way.

I like the definition and feel I know the difference between desire and attraction so. Good luck guys. Bue

Really? What is it, then?

[Vampyremage]

If I'd known you (and whoever the mysterious "we" you keep mentioninging refer to) were on a mission to redefine asexuality I'd have kept out of the discussion, because I've had that once too often and it never ended well. I wish you (and all the others) the best of luck, though.

Seconded. I would've never got into this if I knew. Time to take this off watch and go on my merry way.

I like the definition and feel I know the difference between desire and attraction so. Good luck guys. Bue

The discussion led, in an organic way, to the pros and cons of the definition and the views of those of us who are not entirely satisfied with the definition as it stands now. I bear no one any ill will and certainly not those who happen to disagree with my views on the definition and whether or not it needs to change. However, where appropriate I will bring up my views on the matter and continue to discuss the matter because its something I feel is important to discuss. While some might believe the definition is good enough, clearly not all of us do and I think its important to get those alternative viewpoints out there.

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

I'm sorry, but the term "frigid" is one of my sore spots. It implies coldness and cruelty, that the only reason you're turning down sex is because you're a cold heartless bitch who has no feelings. I hate that word.

Being demisexual, I really know the difference between being sexually attracted to someone and liking someone a lot but not being attracted to them. Plus, I've found that fantasy and reality are different things completely - I can fantasise about someone out of curiosity and boredom, and then I can try and think about actually having sex with them and I get all weirded out. So yeah, it's not so clear cut that people can put clear definitions on these things.

[Naosuu]

Wow, that got really interesting really fast... the crazy stuff that happens when you're out!

While I agree that, on some level, one can equate asexuality with frigidity (especially if one cannot be uber passionate or... for a lack of better word, remain a "dead fish" during sex), I don't think it's necessarily a good idea to start enforcing the connection between the two words. I mean, I'm sure there are sexuals who are equally as "frigid" or just as much of a "dead fish" as asexuals. Just because one is asexual does not mean that one cannot be good in bed. I'm sure there are some whom get more gratification from satisfying their partner and getting a nice ego boost from being a good lover. I know I would! :lol:

I also wanted to say that I agree that the semantics of asexuality requires further refining. Although the current vocabulary for discussing this also needs some work.

[Beachwalker]

If you separate the negative connotations from the word frigid, is it not a word that is similar to asexual? And couldn't it possibly be used interchangeably with the word asexual in some circumstances? The only reason the word has negative connotations is because being averse to having sex is considered abnormal, and that if someone rejects sex there must be something wrong with them. Isn't asexual visibility about normalizing being disinterested in sex, and that asexuals are normal and ok just the way they are? Surely this visibility work would require removing the negative connotations from words such as frigid and virgin,and say hey being frigid is ok?

[The Great WTF]

If you separate the negative connotations from the word frigid, is it not a word that is similar to asexual? And couldn't it possibly be used interchangeably with the word asexual in some circumstances? The only reason the word has negative connotations is because being averse to having sex is considered abnormal, and that if someone rejects sex there must be something wrong with them. Isn't asexual visibility about normalizing being disinterested in sex, and that asexuals are normal and ok just the way they are? Surely this visibility work would require removing the negative connotations from words such as frigid and virgin,and say hey being frigid is ok?

I'm sorry, but there's far too much negative connotation attached to that word and it's meaning seems to vary so much from generation to generation. My boyfriend's first thought when I asked him was that a frigid person would be a girl who is cold, unfeeling, and emotionally distant or heartless. I hear frigid and I think of the guys in high school who'd call girls frigid bitches for not having sex with them. My mother hears frigid and thinks the same thing I do, a guy complaining about a woman who won't put out. Every time I hear frigid, it's in reference to a woman, too. I just don't like the idea of it being mixed with asexuality.

[zoidberger]

If you separate the negative connotations from the word frigid, is it not a word that is similar to asexual? And couldn't it possibly be used interchangeably with the word asexual in some circumstances? The only reason the word has negative connotations is because being averse to having sex is considered abnormal, and that if someone rejects sex there must be something wrong with them. Isn't asexual visibility about normalizing being disinterested in sex, and that asexuals are normal and ok just the way they are? Surely this visibility work would require removing the negative connotations from words such as frigid and virgin,and say hey being frigid is ok?

I'm sorry, but there's far too much negative connotation attached to that word and it's meaning seems to vary so much from generation to generation. My boyfriend's first thought when I asked him was that a frigid person would be a girl who is cold, unfeeling, and emotionally distant or heartless. I hear frigid and I think of the guys in high school who'd call girls frigid bitches for not having sex with them. My mother hears frigid and thinks the same thing I do, a guy complaining about a woman who won't put out. Every time I hear frigid, it's in reference to a woman, too. I just don't like the idea of it being mixed with asexuality.

I agree. I would say there might be a small number of asexuals that are 'frigid' people, but that term (putting aside the negativity) implies that the person just doesn't want to put out whether it be romantically or sexually. In my opinion that has nothing to do with being asexual. MAYBE aromantic asexuals could be slightly closer to the term 'frigid', but it really doesn't fit too well either. In my opinion it would be hurtful to the asexual community to equate anything with being 'frigid'.

[Ace McHeeb]

You're right, it doesn't work, because I'm tired of people saying that asexuals don't experience sexual attraction... except when they do. It renders the term "asexual" meaningless. Apart from the fact that everyone is welcome to call themselves whatever they like it makes no sense to call yourself something when the main part of the definition of what you call yourself doesn't fit your own experience. It's like saying I'm black even though I have white skin.

This. I have been a rather vocal advocate on these boards, for quite some time, on redefining what it means to be asexual. Sexual attraction is such an ambiguous term that its not very useful, on a practical level. Just look at all the myriad of posts asking what sexual attraction is and consider the myriad of other posts trying to describe what sexual attraction is in countless different ways. Consider as well, those who describe experiences seem to be clear indications of sexual attraction, but they claim are not for X, Y and Z reasons.

Instead of basing being asexual upon sexual attraction, I think it should be based around the idea of experiencing an internal motivation to have sex with others. Thus, the desire to have sex is not externally based, such as wanting to please a partner, wanting to start a family, ect. but rather comes primarily from within the self.

I think the main argument against changing such a definition would be that other orientations are described in terms of attraction which may be true on the surface, but is it true on a practical level? Is not the unstated understanding behind being heterosexual, for example, is that not only do individuals experience sexual attraction towards the opposite sex but the also have some desire to eventually act upon such attraction? It isn't stated officially in the definition because it was simply expected of all people. Perhaps even changing the definition of what it is to be asexual to include both the lack of sexual attraction and the lack of internal motivation to have sex with others because this is how other sexual orientations are perceived, even if such is rarely put into so many words.

I read on another thread a few days ago (I can't remember who said it) "Sex is a turn off for us." THAT sums it up in my book.

[5_♦♣]

FYI: Disinterested means neutral. Uninterested means not interested. So please, just keep that in mind from now on, okay?

[test account]

You're right, it doesn't work, because I'm tired of people saying that asexuals don't experience sexual attraction... except when they do. It renders the term "asexual" meaningless. Apart from the fact that everyone is welcome to call themselves whatever they like it makes no sense to call yourself something when the main part of the definition of what you call yourself doesn't fit your own experience. It's like saying I'm black even though I have white skin.

This. I have been a rather vocal advocate on these boards, for quite some time, on redefining what it means to be asexual. Sexual attraction is such an ambiguous term that its not very useful, on a practical level. Just look at all the myriad of posts asking what sexual attraction is and consider the myriad of other posts trying to describe what sexual attraction is in countless different ways. Consider as well, those who describe experiences seem to be clear indications of sexual attraction, but they claim are not for X, Y and Z reasons.

Instead of basing being asexual upon sexual attraction, I think it should be based around the idea of experiencing an internal motivation to have sex with others. Thus, the desire to have sex is not externally based, such as wanting to please a partner, wanting to start a family, ect. but rather comes primarily from within the self.

I think the main argument against changing such a definition would be that other orientations are described in terms of attraction which may be true on the surface, but is it true on a practical level? Is not the unstated understanding behind being heterosexual, for example, is that not only do individuals experience sexual attraction towards the opposite sex but the also have some desire to eventually act upon such attraction? It isn't stated officially in the definition because it was simply expected of all people. Perhaps even changing the definition of what it is to be asexual to include both the lack of sexual attraction and the lack of internal motivation to have sex with others because this is how other sexual orientations are perceived, even if such is rarely put into so many words.

I like your suggestion of "lack an internal motivation too have sex with others". I think there would still be confusion from people who experience external motivation, because they often internalise external factors. Like, I remember when I was 20 and pressured into getting baptised, I was asked if I was doing it to please other people, and I said No it was my own choice. But in hindsight, it was not my own choice. I just couldn't conceive of having a choice at that time as I was so programmed to obey.

So I think you'd maybe get people asking, how do I know if its internal motivation? If they're not able to separate themselves from their clan, that might be impossible for them to tell. But its still a good definition I think, much better than what we currently have.

[Vampyremage]

If you separate the negative connotations from the word frigid, is it not a word that is similar to asexual? And couldn't it possibly be used interchangeably with the word asexual in some circumstances? The only reason the word has negative connotations is because being averse to having sex is considered abnormal, and that if someone rejects sex there must be something wrong with them. Isn't asexual visibility about normalizing being disinterested in sex, and that asexuals are normal and ok just the way they are? Surely this visibility work would require removing the negative connotations from words such as frigid and virgin,and say hey being frigid is ok?

Words are bound up in the connotations surrounding them. In many cases, you cannot simply take the textbook definition of a word and say there, now you have a word to describe a thing. Even if, on the surface, asexual and frigid have similar meanings, you cannot separate either of those terms from the minutia of meaning surrounding them. Asexual is a relatively neutral term along similar lines to other orientations, while frigid has a whole lot of negative baggage that is attached to the meaning of the word. Often synonyms are not entirely synonymous and it is those intrinsic extra meanings attached to those words that makes one choose one word over another roughly synonymous word. For that reason I would not be comfortable using frigid as any sort of synonym to asexual.

[test account]

If you separate the negative connotations from the word frigid, is it not a word that is similar to asexual? And couldn't it possibly be used interchangeably with the word asexual in some circumstances? The only reason the word has negative connotations is because being averse to having sex is considered abnormal, and that if someone rejects sex there must be something wrong with them. Isn't asexual visibility about normalizing being disinterested in sex, and that asexuals are normal and ok just the way they are? Surely this visibility work would require removing the negative connotations from words such as frigid and virgin,and say hey being frigid is ok?

Wow, those are great questions Beachy! My impulse is to say yes but what a huge and almost impossible task. Mind you, the word gay used to hold very negative connotations, and now it doesn't so much, and hopefully will continue to lose any stigma associated with it. You'd have to get asexuality and frigidity mentioned a lot in the media, and asexuals would have to adopt that term, reinvent its meaning. Its what they call appropriation. At present I think many asexuals would reject that word but perhaps they really ought to embrace it and reinvent its meaning? I'm seeing T-shirts: "F*** you, I'm frigid", "Frigid guy coming through but not on you"..... please stop me now :D

[Ace McHeeb]

I'll just stick with ace thankyouverymuch. :)

[Sally]

Frigid was/is a term of accusation, used by guys who are upset when women aren't sexually interested in them. I'd hate to see it used for asexuality.

[seinneadair]

i think in some cases the terms could be synonyms, but not always. For example i don’t see people in a sexual way as most sexual describe sexual attraction to feel like, but i’m also not advised to sex and actually find the topic interesting on an academic level ^_^ . But i do understand some aces do feel that way but the term “frigid” has negative connotations but (as i understand it) repulsed has a similar meaning

Certainly being repulsed could be one reason to be averse to sex but what if you were averse to sex more due to a lack of interest in having sex yourself?

I don’t feel not being interested and being averse are that closely linked, for example im not interested i playing hockey but i’m also not averse to it my view of it is rather neutral tbh where as i am averse to sports like basketball because i’ve had some bad experiences in the past. What i’m trying to say is a lack of interest does not go hand in hand with aversion in fact i wouldn’t even say they are linked as i can think of people who are averse to the idea of religion but are still interested in it and conscientious objectors who are interested i the history of war, ok in both cases their reasoning is more to know more than those who disagree with them but the point still stands.

Yeah, I think aversion and lack of interest are different things - aversion implies some kind of negative reaction so you would see someone think "ooh, yuck! I really don't want to sleep with him, that would be gross!" not experiencing attraction probably means that the thought of sleeping with the person didn't occur to you.

[5_♦♣]

I'll just stick with ace thankyouverymuch. :)

Same here.