What is sexual attraction in its relation to defining asexuality?

[ithaca]

I'm confused by the internal/external cause thingy. So far, asexual = lack of sexual attraction towards either or any gender, and (for example) homosexual = sexual attraction towards the same sex.

It seems to me that the internal/external thing would shift more towards behaviour than towards attraction. So if you have sex you gotta look at why to say if you are asexual. SO REAL asexuals would be, 100% sure, only celibate aces?

Let me explain my confusion (what a contradiction).

Scenario: I say I'm a homosexual woman

• 1- I have sex with men for external causes: need to prove to my family/friends/partner that I'm not gay, because they wouldn't liek me otherwise: in this case, if I got it right, i'm still homosexual
  2- I have sex with men for internal causes: I can see as internal causes that I'm in denial, or I am deeply religious and I don't wanna be gay, or other 1000. How am I not homosexual only because I WANT to have sex with men? I still am not attracted to them. I DESIRE sex with men, but i'm not attracted.

Here's my confusion. Someone can help me?

[Beachwalker]

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.

Aversion is definitely different from neutral but it is not necessarily repulsed either. I have an aversion to washing dishes but when I do wash dishes I am not thinking its gross, I am more thinking I wish I didn't have to do them because it's such a god dam boring job. I would also say I have an aversion to sex for the same reason, it's boring for me. I am not neutral on the subject because it is something I would prefer not to do. And that's ok, being asexual is ok and being frigid is ok. Its ok to not be into sex. The word frigid is only derogatory or offensive if you let it be, it doesn't need to be though. I would like to see the word frigid reclaimed and used positively. Because while society continues to use words such as frigid negatively the myth that it is abnormal to not be into sex will perpetuate.

[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?

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

:lol:

Please dont stop, they are hilarious, I want the first one!

[Vampyremage]

I'm confused by the internal/external cause thingy. So far, asexual = lack of sexual attraction towards either or any gender, and (for example) homosexual = sexual attraction towards the same sex.

It seems to me that the internal/external thing would shift more towards behaviour than towards attraction. So if you have sex you gotta look at why to say if you are asexual. SO REAL asexuals would be, 100% sure, only celibate aces?

Let me explain my confusion (what a contradiction).

Scenario: I say I'm a homosexual woman

• 1- I have sex with men for external causes: need to prove to my family/friends/partner that I'm not gay, because they wouldn't liek me otherwise: in this case, if I got it right, i'm still homosexual
  2- I have sex with men for internal causes: I can see as internal causes that I'm in denial, or I am deeply religious and I don't wanna be gay, or other 1000. How am I not homosexual only because I WANT to have sex with men? I still am not attracted to them. I DESIRE sex with men, but i'm not attracted.

Here's my confusion. Someone can help me?

Oh, I definitely do see where you're getting that confusion from. Thank you for the feedback. I'm not entirely sure how I'd change the prospective definition yet, but let me think on it. In the meantime, let me try to clarify what I'm meaning here.

The reasons your stating are, primarily, justifications for desire rather than the basic desire itself. Being in denial or being religious doesn't really equate to wanting to have sex with men for internal reasons, it says more about not wanting to have sex with woman for internal reasons. While those might be internal justifications for having sex, are they really internal motivations? I think that motivation has to be related to desire and desire is different than justification.

Internal vs. external motivation does not have anything to do with behaviour. One can be internally motivated to have sex, for example, and still remain celibate because they have other motivations for not having sex. Similarly, they can be lacking in internal motivation to not have sex but still decide to engage in it for external reasons, such as the previously mentioned desire to please one's partner. Motivation does not say anything about behaviour directly and an asexual who decides not to engage in sex is no more or less asexual than an asexual who does decide to engage in sex for externally motivated reasons.

As for the internal cause of being in denial, the state of denial is certainly an internal state, but I wouldn't call denial a motivation. Similarly, being religious might be a good reason to deny same sex attraction and desire, but it isn't an innate motivation in and of itself, but more of a justification.

[ithaca]

Oh, I definitely do see where you're getting that confusion from. Thank you for the feedback. I'm not entirely sure how I'd change the prospective definition yet, but let me think on it. In the meantime, let me try to clarify what I'm meaning here.

The reasons your stating are, primarily, justifications for desire rather than the basic desire itself. Being in denial or being religious doesn't really equate to wanting to have sex with men for internal reasons, it says more about not wanting to have sex with woman for internal reasons. While those might be internal justifications for having sex, are they really internal motivations? I think that motivation has to be related to desire and desire is different than justification.

Internal vs. external motivation does not have anything to do with behaviour. One can be internally motivated to have sex, for example, and still remain celibate because they have other motivations for not having sex. Similarly, they can be lacking in internal motivation to not have sex but still decide to engage in it for external reasons, such as the previously mentioned desire to please one's partner. Motivation does not say anything about behaviour directly and an asexual who decides not to engage in sex is no more or less asexual than an asexual who does decide to engage in sex for externally motivated reasons.

As for the internal cause of being in denial, the state of denial is certainly an internal state, but I wouldn't call denial a motivation. Similarly, being religious might be a good reason to deny same sex attraction and desire, but it isn't an innate motivation in and of itself, but more of a justification.

I see what your intentions are, but my doubts are for those internal motivations like for example, as stated, religion and/or denial, which can be such strong and deep-rooted (I'm not sure it's the right word, hope it gives the meaning) that people sometimes can't really rationalize. It'd be hard for some (not all) of these people to understand the difference between "I want to have sex with men" and "I just don't want to have sex with women". All they'd focus is the desire to be with a man, I guess.

Then the question would become: is it really easier to explain internal motivation, compared to explaining attraction? i'm not saying that explaining attraction is easier either, I just see them equally complicated. Many people do their daily stuff in a "norma-routined" way, not like they really focus on "Am I cooking because I don't wanna do dishes, so my partner will do that?". it's more like "I cook because I usually cook and I don't mind cooking" Meh, I'm rambling, it's 6.14 am and i gotta go to bed.

Hope it makes even a little sense.

[Guest]

Oh, I definitely do see where you're getting that confusion from. Thank you for the feedback. I'm not entirely sure how I'd change the prospective definition yet, but let me think on it. In the meantime, let me try to clarify what I'm meaning here.

The reasons your stating are, primarily, justifications for desire rather than the basic desire itself. Being in denial or being religious doesn't really equate to wanting to have sex with men for internal reasons, it says more about not wanting to have sex with woman for internal reasons. While those might be internal justifications for having sex, are they really internal motivations? I think that motivation has to be related to desire and desire is different than justification.

Internal vs. external motivation does not have anything to do with behaviour. One can be internally motivated to have sex, for example, and still remain celibate because they have other motivations for not having sex. Similarly, they can be lacking in internal motivation to not have sex but still decide to engage in it for external reasons, such as the previously mentioned desire to please one's partner. Motivation does not say anything about behaviour directly and an asexual who decides not to engage in sex is no more or less asexual than an asexual who does decide to engage in sex for externally motivated reasons.

As for the internal cause of being in denial, the state of denial is certainly an internal state, but I wouldn't call denial a motivation. Similarly, being religious might be a good reason to deny same sex attraction and desire, but it isn't an innate motivation in and of itself, but more of a justification.

I see what your intentions are, but my doubts are for those internal motivations like for example, as stated, religion and/or denial, which can be such strong and deep-rooted (I'm not sure it's the right word, hope it gives the meaning) that people sometimes can't really rationalize. It'd be hard for some (not all) of these people to understand the difference between "I want to have sex with men" and "I just don't want to have sex with women". All they'd focus is the desire to be with a man, I guess.

I'm not sure that worrying about whether closeted people will wrongly identify is the best basis to make definitional decisions. Regardless of what definition you choose for "homosexual", if someone doesn't want to be gay, they're not going to call themselves gay. You're not going to trick them into it by finding the right definition. In reality, the closeted gay has both attraction to the same sex and non-sexual desire reasons for having sex with the opposite sex, but in practice, they will never admit to that, and that's not going to change regardless of how you define any of these terms.

In this case I'd agree with you that the terminology for internal/external is confusing. At the root of the internal/external division is the idea of having sex because you are driven to have sex vs. having sex for any other result. In the case of the closeted homo, they aren't having sex with opposite sexed folks because they are motivated by an internal desire for the sex itself, but because they are motivated by a need to prove their heterosexuality. Sex for the purpose of proving an orientation isn't the same thing as sex for the purpose of enjoying sex.

Or, in other words, for sexuals, the means and the end are the same thing: sex. For asexuals, the means and the end are different (the means will always be sex, but the end will always be something other than sex).

Then the question would become: is it really easier to explain internal motivation, compared to explaining attraction? i'm not saying that explaining attraction is easier either, I just see them equally complicated. Many people do their daily stuff in a "norma-routined" way, not like they really focus on "Am I cooking because I don't wanna do dishes, so my partner will do that?". it's more like "I cook because I usually cook and I don't mind cooking" Meh, I'm rambling, it's 6.14 am and i gotta go to bed.

Hope it makes even a little sense.

I don't think dishes are a good analogy here, but let's try it. According to my brand-spankin' new definition, the question would be: are you doing the dishes because you want to do the dishes, or are you doing the dishes for some other end? Maybe you were promised a back massage if you did the dishes, or maybe you do the dishes so you can avoid doing a different chore (I'm pretty sure this is the technique employed by my partner... we start cleaning and somehow I'm always scrubbing toilets because she's too busy with dishes!). But as you see, doing dishes isn't the best analogy because people don't generally do dishes just for the satisfaction of doing dishes.

Maybe eating is a better example? Most people eat because they enjoy eating but some people eat because they know they have to in order to stay alive, or because they will be bitched at by their parents, etc. So again the question becomes: are the means and the end the same? Do you eat because you desire (hunger for) food, or are you eating because of some other reason, such as not dying or pleasing your parents?

**I'm just testing out this new definition, so if there are examples that won't work with this equation, bring them up! This is how we learn. :)

[Sally]

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

Exactly. Men were never termed "frigid".

[Sally]

is it really easier to explain internal motivation, compared to explaining attraction?

It always seemed to me that sexual friends/family had no trouble stating they were attracted to someone, and by that they meant sexual attraction. They didn't go into a meta state about whether they were internally motivated or externally motivated. They were just attracted. I never was. So I have no trouble defining asexuality as no sexual attraction to anyone.

Since the age-old definition of being frigid is being inorgasmic, asexuals who masturbate certainly couldn't be called frigid.

[ithaca]

is it really easier to explain internal motivation, compared to explaining attraction?

It always seemed to me that sexual friends/family had no trouble stating they were attracted to someone, and by that they meant sexual attraction. They didn't go into a meta state about whether they were internally motivated or externally motivated. They were just attracted. I never was. So I have no trouble defining asexuality as no sexual attraction to anyone.

Since the age-old definition of being frigid is being inorgasmic, asexuals who masturbate certainly couldn't be called frigid.

Yeah, basically this. thank you for making it have sense, Sally.

Why sexuals don't need to prove their orientation (if I'd say i'm gay, noone would ask me if my reason is external or internal) and asexual would?

[Guest]

Why sexuals don't need to prove their orientation (if I'd say i'm gay, noone would ask me if my reason is external or internal) and asexual would?

No one has to prove anything and I have no idea what you mean by that. In what situation are you envisioning where gay people get to walk free but asexuals must pass a test???

ANo one is suggesting there be another level of "proof" for asexuals, and I know you know that. The reason this matters in the discussion of asexuality is because you guys are so freakin' intent on focusing on sexual attraction. No other orientation focuses on attraction... they all focus on sexual desire.

When someone is wondering if they're gay, this is not a conversation that never occurs:

"well, do you feel sexual attraction to people of the same sex?"

"What is sexual attraction?"

"Well, it's this thing that some people feel that may or may not lead to them actually wanting sexual interactions."

"Oh, well then, I don't know. All I know is I want to bang other dudes."

"Well then you may or may not be gay."

HOWEVER, here on AVEN that shit happens all the time. And THAT'S why I think the sexual attraction thing is bullshit. Ya'll claim that's what other orientations use, but it's just not. And Sally, I don't mean to be rude, but i'm sick of hearing the argument "the sexuals I know don't seem to have trouble..." well, the sexuals you know weren't involved in these intricate discussions of the difference between arousal, attraction, aesthetic attraction, sexual attraction, romantic, attraction, and desire. My guess is when they said "i'm totally attracted to you!" what they really meant was "I want to have sex with you". But "I want to have sex with you" actually isn't the same thing as sexual attraction. I suggest to those of you who say "everyone else has no trouble defining attraction", to approach those people, give them a piece of paper, and have them write down exactly how all these terms differ: sexual attraction, aesthetic attraction, arousal, fantasies, sexual desire. And then, please, compare those pieces of paper. I bet people have very different ideas of what those things are. For example, asexuals are fond of saying that sexual attraction isn't butterflies OR arousal, and yet most sexuals seem to think both of those things are sexual attraction. So, why the disagreement? IMO, because in order to be called asexual, you must say you don't experience sexual attraction, so asexuals who experience butterflies and arousal can't admit those things constitute sexual attraction. My point is... so freakin' what if they are sexual attraction? Does that really make someone not asexual? IMO, no, it doesn't. Yet those things are undeniably part of sexual attraction. Therefore, sexual attraction is the wrong litmus test for asexuality.

tl;dr

AVEN uses sexual desire as its definition of asexuality but cloaks it in the term sexual attraction, and that causes a ton of confusion all around. Personally, i'd prefer to just see the definition of asexuality changed to "does not experience sexual desire", and I think most of these problems would disappear.

[Vampyremage]

Oh, I definitely do see where you're getting that confusion from. Thank you for the feedback. I'm not entirely sure how I'd change the prospective definition yet, but let me think on it. In the meantime, let me try to clarify what I'm meaning here.

The reasons your stating are, primarily, justifications for desire rather than the basic desire itself. Being in denial or being religious doesn't really equate to wanting to have sex with men for internal reasons, it says more about not wanting to have sex with woman for internal reasons. While those might be internal justifications for having sex, are they really internal motivations? I think that motivation has to be related to desire and desire is different than justification.

Internal vs. external motivation does not have anything to do with behaviour. One can be internally motivated to have sex, for example, and still remain celibate because they have other motivations for not having sex. Similarly, they can be lacking in internal motivation to not have sex but still decide to engage in it for external reasons, such as the previously mentioned desire to please one's partner. Motivation does not say anything about behaviour directly and an asexual who decides not to engage in sex is no more or less asexual than an asexual who does decide to engage in sex for externally motivated reasons.

As for the internal cause of being in denial, the state of denial is certainly an internal state, but I wouldn't call denial a motivation. Similarly, being religious might be a good reason to deny same sex attraction and desire, but it isn't an innate motivation in and of itself, but more of a justification.

I see what your intentions are, but my doubts are for those internal motivations like for example, as stated, religion and/or denial, which can be such strong and deep-rooted (I'm not sure it's the right word, hope it gives the meaning) that people sometimes can't really rationalize. It'd be hard for some (not all) of these people to understand the difference between "I want to have sex with men" and "I just don't want to have sex with women". All they'd focus is the desire to be with a man, I guess.

I'm not sure that worrying about whether closeted people will wrongly identify is the best basis to make definitional decisions. Regardless of what definition you choose for "homosexual", if someone doesn't want to be gay, they're not going to call themselves gay. You're not going to trick them into it by finding the right definition. In reality, the closeted gay has both attraction to the same sex and non-sexual desire reasons for having sex with the opposite sex, but in practice, they will never admit to that, and that's not going to change regardless of how you define any of these terms.

In this case I'd agree with you that the terminology for internal/external is confusing. At the root of the internal/external division is the idea of having sex because you are driven to have sex vs. having sex for any other result. In the case of the closeted homo, they aren't having sex with opposite sexed folks because they are motivated by an internal desire for the sex itself, but because they are motivated by a need to prove their heterosexuality. Sex for the purpose of proving an orientation isn't the same thing as sex for the purpose of enjoying sex.

Or, in other words, for sexuals, the means and the end are the same thing: sex. For asexuals, the means and the end are different (the means will always be sex, but the end will always be something other than sex).

Thanks for this. I was struggling on how to really get across things (possibly because its late and I'm tired) but you've pretty much said it right here :)

[Sally]

AVEN uses sexual desire as its definition of asexuality but cloaks it in the term sexual attraction, and that causes a ton of confusion all around. Personally, i'd prefer to just see the definition of asexuality changed to "does not experience sexual desire", and I think most of these problems would disappear.

Some people define sexual desire as libido, which some asexual people feel, so it wouldn't make the problems disappear.

I don't experience any confusion with the term "sexual attraction" because it implies another person (ergo, attraction), which is what is missing in me.

[Vampyremage]

is it really easier to explain internal motivation, compared to explaining attraction?

It always seemed to me that sexual friends/family had no trouble stating they were attracted to someone, and by that they meant sexual attraction. They didn't go into a meta state about whether they were internally motivated or externally motivated. They were just attracted. I never was. So I have no trouble defining asexuality as no sexual attraction to anyone.

The thing about sexual desire is that its not considered polite or generally acceptable to say whether or not you'd want to have sex with any number of people you meet that you might feel sexual desire towards. It is a much more acceptable thing to say that you feel attracted to them or you think they're hot. There is a context behind those words, however, and that context is in the fact that being sexually attracted to someone has a backdrop of sexual desire to it. In stating I am attracted to X, one is also saying that I feel sexual desire towards X. Those words aren't necessarily all stated directly, but that is almost always the implicit meaning behind them. Only here on AVEN is there this weird disconnect between sexual attraction and sexual desire and that's what I seek to try to mitigate in suggesting the altered definition.

[Guest]

AVEN uses sexual desire as its definition of asexuality but cloaks it in the term sexual attraction, and that causes a ton of confusion all around. Personally, i'd prefer to just see the definition of asexuality changed to "does not experience sexual desire", and I think most of these problems would disappear.

Some people define sexual desire as libido, which some asexual people feel, so it wouldn't make the problems disappear.

I don't experience any confusion with the term "sexual attraction" because it implies another person (ergo, attraction), which is what is missing in me.

That's probably true... in any case, I don't think that the concept of asexuality is confusing, I just kinda wish the focus on sexual attraction would lessen, because there's obviously constant confusion about it (as evidenced by the new threads started daily on the topic). I know if I was coming to a place like this when I was first coming out, and people were making me pick apart what sexual attraction is, I'd have been confused as hell too. I had been having sexual relations with guys, and I liked it OK, and I certainly felt some basic sexual attraction to them, but it wasn't the same as what I felt for girls. I don't know. I feel lucky that the gay community doesn't put it's fledglings thru the ringer like the asexual community seems to do. People coming to terms with their sexuality have enough confusion already, I don't see the point in adding on top of that making them figure out what the hell sexual attraction actually IS (something no one here seems to agree on), and whether or not they feel it.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

is it really easier to explain internal motivation, compared to explaining attraction?

It always seemed to me that sexual friends/family had no trouble stating they were attracted to someone, and by that they meant sexual attraction. They didn't go into a meta state about whether they were internally motivated or externally motivated. They were just attracted. I never was. So I have no trouble defining asexuality as no sexual attraction to anyone.

The thing about sexual desire is that its not considered polite or generally acceptable to say whether or not you'd want to have sex with any number of people you meet that you might feel sexual desire towards. It is a much more acceptable thing to say that you feel attracted to them or you think they're hot. There is a context behind those words, however, and that context is in the fact that being sexually attracted to someone has a backdrop of sexual desire to it. In stating I am attracted to X, one is also saying that I feel sexual desire towards X. Those words aren't necessarily all stated directly, but that is almost always the implicit meaning behind them. Only here on AVEN is there this weird disconnect between sexual attraction and sexual desire and that's what I seek to try to mitigate in suggesting the altered definition.

Also, agreed. That's what I was trying so hard to say. :) The reason most people don't have trouble with the concept is because, outside of AVEN, no one thinks about it... the weird division between attraction and desire isn't salient in any other realm but, apparently, asexuality.

[Sally]

AVEN uses sexual desire as its definition of asexuality but cloaks it in the term sexual attraction, and that causes a ton of confusion all around. Personally, i'd prefer to just see the definition of asexuality changed to "does not experience sexual desire", and I think most of these problems would disappear.

Some people define sexual desire as libido, which some asexual people feel, so it wouldn't make the problems disappear.

I don't experience any confusion with the term "sexual attraction" because it implies another person (ergo, attraction), which is what is missing in me.

That's probably true... in any case, I don't think that the concept of asexuality is confusing, I just kinda wish the focus on sexual attraction would lessen, because there's obviously constant confusion about it (as evidenced by the new threads started daily on the topic). I know if I was coming to a place like this when I was first coming out, and people were making me pick apart what sexual attraction is, I'd have been confused as hell too. I had been having sexual relations with guys, and I liked it OK, and I certainly felt some basic sexual attraction to them, but it wasn't the same as what I felt for girls. I don't know. I feel lucky that the gay community doesn't put it's fledglings thru the ringer like the asexual community seems to do. People coming to terms with their sexuality have enough confusion already, I don't see the point in adding on top of that making them figure out what the hell sexual attraction actually IS (something no one here seems to agree on), and whether or not they feel it.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

is it really easier to explain internal motivation, compared to explaining attraction?

It always seemed to me that sexual friends/family had no trouble stating they were attracted to someone, and by that they meant sexual attraction. They didn't go into a meta state about whether they were internally motivated or externally motivated. They were just attracted. I never was. So I have no trouble defining asexuality as no sexual attraction to anyone.

The thing about sexual desire is that its not considered polite or generally acceptable to say whether or not you'd want to have sex with any number of people you meet that you might feel sexual desire towards. It is a much more acceptable thing to say that you feel attracted to them or you think they're hot. There is a context behind those words, however, and that context is in the fact that being sexually attracted to someone has a backdrop of sexual desire to it. In stating I am attracted to X, one is also saying that I feel sexual desire towards X. Those words aren't necessarily all stated directly, but that is almost always the implicit meaning behind them. Only here on AVEN is there this weird disconnect between sexual attraction and sexual desire and that's what I seek to try to mitigate in suggesting the altered definition.

Also, agreed. That's what I was trying so hard to say. :) The reason most people don't have trouble with the concept is because, outside of AVEN, no one thinks about it... the weird division between attraction and desire isn't salient in any other realm but, apparently, asexuality.

,

Well, I don't know. I associate the term "attraction" with magnetism. I may desire ice cream, but I'm not attracted to it. That to me is the difference, and that's why I don't want to give up the word "attraction". I felt romantically attracted to my partner; I didn't romantically desire him.

[test account]

Why sexuals don't need to prove their orientation (if I'd say i'm gay, noone would ask me if my reason is external or internal) and asexual would?

No one has to prove anything and I have no idea what you mean by that. In what situation are you envisioning where gay people get to walk free but asexuals must pass a test???

ANo one is suggesting there be another level of "proof" for asexuals, and I know you know that. The reason this matters in the discussion of asexuality is because you guys are so freakin' intent on focusing on sexual attraction. No other orientation focuses on attraction... they all focus on sexual desire.

When someone is wondering if they're gay, this is not a conversation that never occurs:

"well, do you feel sexual attraction to people of the same sex?"

"What is sexual attraction?"

"Well, it's this thing that some people feel that may or may not lead to them actually wanting sexual interactions."

"Oh, well then, I don't know. All I know is I want to bang other dudes."

"Well then you may or may not be gay."

HOWEVER, here on AVEN that shit happens all the time. And THAT'S why I think the sexual attraction thing is bullshit. Ya'll claim that's what other orientations use, but it's just not. And Sally, I don't mean to be rude, but i'm sick of hearing the argument "the sexuals I know don't seem to have trouble..." well, the sexuals you know weren't involved in these intricate discussions of the difference between arousal, attraction, aesthetic attraction, sexual attraction, romantic, attraction, and desire. My guess is when they said "i'm totally attracted to you!" what they really meant was "I want to have sex with you". But "I want to have sex with you" actually isn't the same thing as sexual attraction. I suggest to those of you who say "everyone else has no trouble defining attraction", to approach those people, give them a piece of paper, and have them write down exactly how all these terms differ: sexual attraction, aesthetic attraction, arousal, fantasies, sexual desire. And then, please, compare those pieces of paper. I bet people have very different ideas of what those things are. For example, asexuals are fond of saying that sexual attraction isn't butterflies OR arousal, and yet most sexuals seem to think both of those things are sexual attraction. So, why the disagreement? IMO, because in order to be called asexual, you must say you don't experience sexual attraction, so asexuals who experience butterflies and arousal can't admit those things constitute sexual attraction. My point is... so freakin' what if they are sexual attraction? Does that really make someone not asexual? IMO, no, it doesn't. Yet those things are undeniably part of sexual attraction. Therefore, sexual attraction is the wrong litmus test for asexuality.

tl;dr

AVEN uses sexual desire as its definition of asexuality but cloaks it in the term sexual attraction, and that causes a ton of confusion all around. Personally, i'd prefer to just see the definition of asexuality changed to "does not experience sexual desire", and I think most of these problems would disappear.

My dad mentioned asexuality a little while ago. His definition is "people who just don't care about sex". Maybe we could use that? :D

[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

:lol:

Please dont stop, they are hilarious, I want the first one!

Okay just for you :)

"Fantastically frigid"

"Make my next one frigid"

"Frigid to the max"

"For frigid's sake!"

"Frigid is the new sexy"

I'm sure we could do this with enough funding :lol:

[BookwormKaoru]

Well.... I guess sexual attraction and sexual desire seem clean cut to me because I understand them in my situation. Not everyone is the same so their situation is the same.

For me, sexual attraction is like the ability to be physically attracticed to someone. Like looking at a person and thinking "Oh he's cute/handsome/sexy/hot." I can't do that. My brain doesn't do that. So I can't look at someone and go "He's sexy... I'd probably do him if I could" or something like that.

And sexual desire would be the desire for sex. Like, if I go to my boyfriends house and get aroused. I didn't get aroused because he looks hot. I got aroused because me and him click (I'm demiromantic) in a certain way. He makes me feel good.

That attraction to him, the ability for me to just look at him and feel something/get aroused isn't there. And that's what sexual attraction is.

Maybe that sounds like a lot of BS to you. And maybe it's not like that for everyone, but that's why I like the current definition. Because it makes sense TO ME. All this internal/external stuff is too psychological for me and I'd stop identifying as asexual if it was changed to that. I'd stop using the label and tell people "I'm just not attracted to people." Which is exactly what it is.

--edit--

And going back up and reading. I know a lot of gay people who when asked we'll say the words "I'm attracted to guys." But I guess the people I know are more classy than the people other people know because if someone told me "I want to bang other dudes" I'd probably walk away and never talk to them again because I'm tired of sex crazed friends.

It's who you're attracted to. Heteros are attracted to the opposite gender, homosexuals to the same gender and so on and so forth. Take out the word "Sexual" in "Sexual attraction" and that's it. You're ATTRACTED. But it seems like everyone here is overanalyzing because the word sexual is there. Of course, if you overanalyze ANYTHING it'll suddenly not make sense.

And not I feel like, by your definition, everyone will tell my I'm demi and not a.

Well, I guess I'm done here.

[Lady Girl]

HOWEVER, here on AVEN that shit happens all the time. And THAT'S why I think the sexual attraction thing is bullshit. Ya'll claim that's what other orientations use, but it's just not. And Sally, I don't mean to be rude, but i'm sick of hearing the argument "the sexuals I know don't seem to have trouble..." well, the sexuals you know weren't involved in these intricate discussions of the difference between arousal, attraction, aesthetic attraction, sexual attraction, romantic, attraction, and desire. My guess is when they said "i'm totally attracted to you!" what they really meant was "I want to have sex with you". But "I want to have sex with you" actually isn't the same thing as sexual attraction. I suggest to those of you who say "everyone else has no trouble defining attraction", to approach those people, give them a piece of paper, and have them write down exactly how all these terms differ: sexual attraction, aesthetic attraction, arousal, fantasies, sexual desire. And then, please, compare those pieces of paper. I bet people have very different ideas of what those things are. For example, asexuals are fond of saying that sexual attraction isn't butterflies OR arousal, and yet most sexuals seem to think both of those things are sexual attraction. So, why the disagreement? IMO, because in order to be called asexual, you must say you don't experience sexual attraction, so asexuals who experience butterflies and arousal can't admit those things constitute sexual attraction. My point is... so freakin' what if they are sexual attraction? Does that really make someone not asexual? IMO, no, it doesn't. Yet those things are undeniably part of sexual attraction. Therefore, sexual attraction is the wrong litmus test for asexuality.

tl;dr

AVEN uses sexual desire as its definition of asexuality but cloaks it in the term sexual attraction, and that causes a ton of confusion all around. Personally, i'd prefer to just see the definition of asexuality changed to "does not experience sexual desire", and I think most of these problems would disappear.

This. ^^^

The thing about sexual desire is that its not considered polite or generally acceptable to say whether or not you'd want to have sex with any number of people you meet that you might feel sexual desire towards. It is a much more acceptable thing to say that you feel attracted to them or you think they're hot. There is a context behind those words, however, and that context is in the fact that being sexually attracted to someone has a backdrop of sexual desire to it. In stating I am attracted to X, one is also saying that I feel sexual desire towards X. Those words aren't necessarily all stated directly, but that is almost always the implicit meaning behind them. Only here on AVEN is there this weird disconnect between sexual attraction and sexual desire and that's what I seek to try to mitigate in suggesting the altered definition.

This too. ^^^

For me, sexual attraction is like the ability to be physically attracticed to someone. Like looking at a person and thinking "Oh he's cute/handsome/sexy/hot." I can't do that. My brain doesn't do that. So I can't look at someone and go "He's sexy... I'd probably do him if I could" or something like that.

And sexual desire would be the desire for sex. Like, if I go to my boyfriends house and get aroused. I didn't get aroused because he looks hot. I got aroused because me and him click (I'm demiromantic) in a certain way. He makes me feel good.

That attraction to him, the ability for me to just look at him and feel something/get aroused isn't there. And that's what sexual attraction is.

So somehow this makes you asexual? I basically AM and FEEL the EXACT SAME way as you and know without even a sliver of a doubt that I'm sexual. What does that mean? ^^^

[BookwormKaoru]

For me, sexual attraction is like the ability to be physically attracticed to someone. Like looking at a person and thinking "Oh he's cute/handsome/sexy/hot." I can't do that. My brain doesn't do that. So I can't look at someone and go "He's sexy... I'd probably do him if I could" or something like that.

And sexual desire would be the desire for sex. Like, if I go to my boyfriends house and get aroused. I didn't get aroused because he looks hot. I got aroused because me and him click (I'm demiromantic) in a certain way. He makes me feel good.

That attraction to him, the ability for me to just look at him and feel something/get aroused isn't there. And that's what sexual attraction is.

So somehow this makes you asexual? I basically AM and FEEL the EXACT SAME way as you and know without even a sliver of a doubt that I'm sexual. What does that mean? ^^^

Yes. It does make me asexual.

And now what YOU'RE.doing is being rude by implying that I'm ignorant about myself and saying that I'm wrong by comparing me to you.

If YOU know you're sexual, then YOU know you're sexual. HOWEVER. I know that I am NOT sexual because I have no attraction. Sex in and of itself doesn't attract me. The thought of sex doesn't attract me and usually just irritates me. I am an asexual who happens to have sex because I am in love and I want that person to be happy. And I'll do it if that's what makes him happy. If I were sexual I would KNOW that I'm

Sexual.

Saying "so this somehow makes you asexual?" is rude. You're aware that you're sexual. I'm aware that I'm asexual am nothing else matters.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Not all people are alike. Just because you want to group all the like people under one cute little category, doesn't mean it'll work. And it won't work because people think and feel too differently. No matter what happens. No matter HOW or WHAT you change the definition to there will ALWAYS be someone unhappy about it.

[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?

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

:lol:

Please dont stop, they are hilarious, I want the first one!

Okay just for you :)

"Fantastically frigid"

"Make my next one frigid"

"Frigid to the max"

"For frigid's sake!"

"Frigid is the new sexy"

I'm sure we could do this with enough funding :lol:

OMG they are bloody marvelous, I really think the concept of being frigid is cool could catch on, how many people would love it if the stigma was taken out of frigid?

[Lady Girl]

Hey, I'm really sorry! I didn't mean it that way at all. Not even a little bit. I'm sorry that I implied you don't know yourself. That honestly is not AT ALL what I meant, and again, I'm really really sorry it sounded that way.

I'll just try again...without using your definition (I really didn't mean you at all...just the words you used). I never LOOK at people and THINK I want to have sex with them. I don't experience this magical sexual attraction. I am attracted to different people yes, but I suspect IN THE SAME WAY that asexuals are. I DO experience a desire for sex based on factors internal (that is, FEELING I want sex now that this, this, and this has happened).

I suppose I'll be reported for the first time ever. Geesh. So sorry again for whatever it's worth.

By the way...I'm far from unhappy about it, I said in one of my very first posts...it works well enough, but it is flawed. If it's fixed, it won't make you any less asexual...really. I honestly never ever meant to imply you were ignorant, AT ALL, or that you're wrong. I'm sorry again for being rude.

[Beachwalker]

For me, sexual attraction is like the ability to be physically attracticed to someone. Like looking at a person and thinking "Oh he's cute/handsome/sexy/hot." I can't do that. My brain doesn't do that. So I can't look at someone and go "He's sexy... I'd probably do him if I could" or something like that.

And sexual desire would be the desire for sex. Like, if I go to my boyfriends house and get aroused. I didn't get aroused because he looks hot. I got aroused because me and him click (I'm demiromantic) in a certain way. He makes me feel good.

That attraction to him, the ability for me to just look at him and feel something/get aroused isn't there. And that's what sexual attraction is.

So somehow this makes you asexual? I basically AM and FEEL the EXACT SAME way as you and know without even a sliver of a doubt that I'm sexual. What does that mean? ^^^

Yes. It does make me asexual.

And now what YOU'RE.doing is being rude by implying that I'm ignorant about myself and saying that I'm wrong by comparing me to you.

If YOU know you're sexual, then YOU know you're sexual. HOWEVER. I know that I am NOT sexual because I have no attraction. Sex in and of itself doesn't attract me. The thought of sex doesn't attract me and usually just irritates me. I am an asexual who happens to have sex because I am in love and I want that person to be happy. And I'll do it if that's what makes him happy. If I were sexual I would KNOW that I'm

Sexual.

Saying "so this somehow makes you asexual?" is rude. You're aware that you're sexual. I'm aware that I'm asexual am nothing else matters.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Not all people are alike. Just because you want to group all the like people under one cute little category, doesn't mean it'll work. And it won't work because people think and feel too differently. No matter what happens. No matter HOW or WHAT you change the definition to there will ALWAYS be someone unhappy about it.

No actually I read it as LG pointing out the fallacy of the current definition of asexual. Asexuals cant agree on what sexual attraction is, 'sexuals' can't agree on what sexual attraction is, and then you have members who insist its not confusing which I find blatantly insulting for those many members who are struggling to unravel the mystery of this sexual attraction so that they can then work out if they have experienced it aand if they are/are not asexual.

[BookwormKaoru]

I'll just try again...without using your definition (I really didn't mean you at all...just the words you used). I never LOOK at people and THINK I want to have sex with them. I don't experience this magical sexual attraction. I am attracted to different people yes, but I suspect IN THE SAME WAY that asexuals are. I DO experience a desire for sex based on factors internal (that is, FEELING I want sex now that this, this, and this has happened).

No one looks at someone and thinks "hey I'd have sex with her/him" not even most sexuals (unless they are pigs.) that's not the point. The point is what you know about yourself and how you feel and how you are.

You can't tell people what they are and that's a big part of what happens when people come into chat. They describe to us what they feel, we walk them through what we know, and it's up to THEM to label themselves.

All the joking aside with what's going on above with the word frigid. You (or anyone) CAN'T just say (oh, you're all frigid) because there are too many different ways it can be taken. It's just like you can't look at a person and just say "Oh, by the way you act, you must be a closeted homosexual." if you do that. You insult people. And it insults some people (not all) when you say "Well, I'm just like you, but I'm sexual." in a way that will make the person infer that you are saying "So you must be sexual too. You're definition is just warped because you automatically think some 'flawed definition' you've read/heard is true." You just can't do that. And that's one thing I'm not liking about this thread.

It's grouping everyone together when things aren't black and white. The world is nt black and white. There are shades of grey. Since you all seem so caught up in some psychological mumbo jumbo, I'm going to assume you've actually taken psychology and have heard the story of Mr. Jones and the druggist. Which shows the world is grey. And just like the rest of the world is grey, so is orientation, and there aren't perfect rules because of the differences in people an there will be no perfect rule.

[BookwormKaoru]

Okay, I obviously need to walk away from this because I'm OBVIOUSLY interpretting everything the wrong way. The curse of a writer and English major, I assume. I read between the lines a little too much and see what isn't there. And if I stay any longer, I'll get in trouble with Ith up there.

Good luck in your endevours and I hope your life turns out wonderfully.

DFTBA

[DexM]

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

:lol:

Please dont stop, they are hilarious, I want the first one!

Okay just for you :)

"Fantastically frigid"

"Make my next one frigid"

"Frigid to the max"

"For frigid's sake!"

"Frigid is the new sexy"

I'm sure we could do this with enough funding :lol:

OMG they are bloody marvelous, I really think the concept of being frigid is cool could catch on, how many people would love it if the stigma was taken out of frigid?

*DexM pops his head above the parapet to deliver a new slogan and dissapears quickly*

"Rigid.But stayin Frigid"

[Beachwalker]

I'll just try again...without using your definition (I really didn't mean you at all...just the words you used). I never LOOK at people and THINK I want to have sex with them. I don't experience this magical sexual attraction. I am attracted to different people yes, but I suspect IN THE SAME WAY that asexuals are. I DO experience a desire for sex based on factors internal (that is, FEELING I want sex now that this, this, and this has happened).

No one looks at someone and thinks "hey I'd have sex with her/him" not even most sexuals (unless they are pigs.) that's not the point. The point is what you know about yourself and how you feel and how you are.

You can't tell people what they are and that's a big part of what happens when people come into chat. They describe to us what they feel, we walk them through what we know, and it's up to THEM to label themselves.

All the joking aside with what's going on above with the word frigid. You (or anyone) CAN'T just say (oh, you're all frigid) because there are too many different ways it can be taken. It's just like you can't look at a person and just say "Oh, by the way you act, you must be a closeted homosexual." if you do that. You insult people. And it insults some people (not all) when you say "Well, I'm just like you, but I'm sexual." in a way that will make the person infer that you are saying "So you must be sexual too. You're definition is just warped because you automatically think some 'flawed definition' you've read/heard is true." You just can't do that. And that's one thing I'm not liking about this thread.

It's grouping everyone together when things aren't black and white. The world is nt black and white. There are shades of grey. Since you all seem so caught up in some psychological mumbo jumbo, I'm going to assume you've actually taken psychology and have heard the story of Mr. Jones and the druggist. Which shows the world is grey. And just like the rest of the world is grey, so is orientation, and there aren't perfect rules because of the differences in people an there will be no perfect rule.

Wait what!

The world isn't black and white?

Interesting

[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?

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

:lol:

Please dont stop, they are hilarious, I want the first one!

Okay just for you :)

"Fantastically frigid"

"Make my next one frigid"

"Frigid to the max"

"For frigid's sake!"

"Frigid is the new sexy"

I'm sure we could do this with enough funding :lol:

OMG they are bloody marvelous, I really think the concept of being frigid is cool could catch on, how many people would love it if the stigma was taken out of frigid?

*DexM pops his head above the parapet to deliver a new slogan and dissapears quickly*

"Rigid.But stayin Frigid"

:lol:

'Being frigid is cool'

[Lady Girl]

For me, sexual attraction is like the ability to be physically attracticed to someone. Like looking at a person and thinking "Oh he's cute/handsome/sexy/hot." I can't do that. My brain doesn't do that. So I can't look at someone and go "He's sexy... I'd probably do him if I could" or something like that.

No one looks at someone and thinks "hey I'd have sex with her/him" not even most sexuals (unless they are pigs.) that's not the point. The point is what you know about yourself and how you feel and how you are.

Well now I'm really confused.

[BookwormKaoru]

For me, sexual attraction is like the ability to be physically attracticed to someone. Like looking at a person and thinking "Oh he's cute/handsome/sexy/hot." I can't do that. My brain doesn't do that. So I can't look at someone and go "He's sexy... I'd probably do him if I could" or something like that.

No one looks at someone and thinks "hey I'd have sex with her/him" not even most sexuals (unless they are pigs.) that's not the point. The point is what you know about yourself and how you feel and how you are.

Well now I'm really confused.

The first one points out I can't look at someone and think "Hey he's hot." which EVENTUALLY leads to "I'd do him because he's hot."

the second one points out no one looks at a person and automatically thinks "Hey, that's a nice price of ass, I'd tap that."

They weren't being contradicting.