What is sexual attraction in its relation to defining asexuality?

[Vampyremage]

I'd like to point out that, during the election, I did suggest a thread such as this be pinned. So as to have one central 'what Asexual means' debate thread, instead of numerous ones every so often.

Aside from that: Because I experience arousal every now and then, I'm not actually Asexual? That I can only truly be Asexual if I'm 'broken'? As that's what I'm getting from some posts: That arousal=sexual attraction.

I don't believe experiencing arousal necessarily precludes one from being asexual, just as having a libido doesn't preclude one from being asexual. Physical stimulation will often result in arousal, whether or not one innately experiences sexual attraction or has an innate drive towards partnered sex. Arousal can also occur in the absense of physical stimulation or any apparent cause at all and in that case, I also do not believe this precludes one from being asexual.

Pinning threads to the top of a folder is generally reserved for more official admod communications and, as such, I'm not certain this thread would be entirely appropriate.

The Aromantic thread is pinned and that is for general communication on Aromanticism, not admod communication. Same with the PM a member you've never PMed before and the Asexual Parents thread. Etc etc.

I did use the word 'generally' for a reason.

Pinning threads to the top of a folder is generally reserved for more official admod communications and, as such, I'm not certain this thread would be entirely appropriate.

However, that doesn't stop anyone here from further discussing and refining a definition of sexual attraction that could be proposed for use in other parts of the site, such as the FAQ. (In fact, I rather encourage you to do so.)

Do you think we might be able to open some sort of semi-formal or formal discussion of such?

Could you clarify what you mean by 'formal' in this context?

You could certainly open a thread titled something like 'Defining sexual attraction' with the stated purpose of doing so.

Let me think on the whole idea for a bit. I'll see what other solutions are feasible.

Formal as in something the mod team would look at, as the discussion developed, and consider implementing in a more official context. Based upon, of course, whatever comes of the actual discussion.

Edited to merge posts.

Qutenkuddly, Asexuality Musings and Rantings Moderator

[Lady Girl]

I think it would be really good if some of the posts on this thread could be pulled out to help begin a new pinned thread. There are some really well thought out and intelligent responses.

[Sally]

Even if you do remove the baggage associated with frigidity, it's always used in a social context. At that point, to reclaim "frigid as the new asexuality" promotes asexuality as a social movement and not as a sexual orientation. I think therein lies the fatal flaw.

Yes -- and also, it's not analogous to "gay" starting to be used to mean homosexual. Gay was never a term of derision or accusation; frigid has been (I had it used on me and it wasn't pleasant). The Slutwalk business was decided upon as a social movement in an attempt to derail people's blaming attitude toward women. What would be the point of simply changing "asexual" to "frigid"? You'd have the work of changing people's attitudes toward a word, to no particular purpose.

There's already a growing knowledge of and recognition of asexuality as an orientation. Why confuse things midstream?

[Naosuu]

Just my 2 cents (or 5 cents now... poor pennies. Whatever did they do to Canada?!):

Arousal from manual stimulation: Bob touching his genitalia and and his body reacts to the physical stimulus. (in this case, his penis becomes erect)

Arousal from sexual attraction: Alice watches porn, two people passionately making out, whatever and, in this case (since we're talking about arousal), her vagina might secrete some lubricant or she feels tingly down there. She did not manually stimulate herself in any way to cause her body to react. (This is not to exclude sexual thoughts. This is my understanding thus far and relating it to arousal)

An official thread to talk about this would be quite helpful, I think. Maybe pull some of the intelligent comments that have been made to jump start it?

[Sally]

Just my 2 cents (or 5 cents now... poor pennies. Whatever did they do to Canada?!):

Arousal from manual stimulation: Bob touching his genitalia and and his body reacts to the physical stimulus. (in this case, his penis becomes erect)

Arousal from sexual attraction: Alice watches porn, two people passionately making out, whatever and, in this case (since we're talking about arousal), her vagina might secrete some lubricant or she feels tingly down there. She did not manually stimulate herself in any way to cause her body to react. (This is not to exclude sexual thoughts. This is my understanding thus far and relating it to arousal)

But Alice may not have been attracted to either of the people -- she was just aroused by watching something. Attraction to me means that you are attracted to someone, in the sense of magnetic attraction.

[Vampyremage]

Just my 2 cents (or 5 cents now... poor pennies. Whatever did they do to Canada?!):

Arousal from manual stimulation: Bob touching his genitalia and and his body reacts to the physical stimulus. (in this case, his penis becomes erect)

Arousal from sexual attraction: Alice watches porn, two people passionately making out, whatever and, in this case (since we're talking about arousal), her vagina might secrete some lubricant or she feels tingly down there. She did not manually stimulate herself in any way to cause her body to react. (This is not to exclude sexual thoughts. This is my understanding thus far and relating it to arousal)

But Alice may not have been attracted to either of the people -- she was just aroused by watching something. Attraction to me means that you are attracted to someone, in the sense of magnetic attraction.

If one is aroused by blatantly sexual acts, I would consider that some form of sexual attraction. What else could it possibly be considered? Now, there are some exceptions that I could think of. For example, a pure fetishist might literally be attracted to their fetish, regardless of whatever else is involved. But I would think, in the vast majority of cases, being aroused by porn is some manner of sexual attraction, whether or not there is a desire to act upon that in a real life situation.

Which again comes back to my earlier suggestion of involving an innate motivation towards partnered sex in the definition. By current definition, simply experiencing something that would be considered sexual attraction is enough to mean one is not asexual. However, I do not believe that really gets to the core of what it actually means to be asexual. Thus, including something regarding a desire towards partnered sex solves that problem. With that proposal, those who become aroused by watching porn and thus do experience some manner of sexual attraction, are still asexual given that they have no desire to act upon that attraction. In other words, they are still lacking in that innate drive towards partnered sex that all sexuals have.

[Guest]

Just my 2 cents (or 5 cents now... poor pennies. Whatever did they do to Canada?!):

Arousal from manual stimulation: Bob touching his genitalia and and his body reacts to the physical stimulus. (in this case, his penis becomes erect)

Arousal from sexual attraction: Alice watches porn, two people passionately making out, whatever and, in this case (since we're talking about arousal), her vagina might secrete some lubricant or she feels tingly down there. She did not manually stimulate herself in any way to cause her body to react. (This is not to exclude sexual thoughts. This is my understanding thus far and relating it to arousal)

But Alice may not have been attracted to either of the people -- she was just aroused by watching something. Attraction to me means that you are attracted to someone, in the sense of magnetic attraction.

She was attracted to something... whether it was the man, the woman, the situation, I don't know, but she was experiencing sexual attraction toward something. Absent manual stimulation, if you get aroused by something you see, it is your brain that is causing the arousal. If your brain is making you become sexually aroused by a particular stimuli, that's sexual attraction.

So we again get into the issue of what is and isn't relevant to asexuality. Is that particular sexual attraction relevant to the discussion of asexuality? No, I don't think so. If you don't want to engage sexually with anyone... if you watch porn, get aroused, but prefer to masturbate, then what relevance does that sexual attraction have to your asexuality? None, in my opinion. Rather, its the lack of drive to have partnered sex that seems to be the relevant aspect.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Vamp again. Sorry for what is now an unnecessary post!

[Lady Girl]

Just my 2 cents (or 5 cents now... poor pennies. Whatever did they do to Canada?!):

Arousal from manual stimulation: Bob touching his genitalia and and his body reacts to the physical stimulus. (in this case, his penis becomes erect)

Arousal from sexual attraction: Alice watches porn, two people passionately making out, whatever and, in this case (since we're talking about arousal), her vagina might secrete some lubricant or she feels tingly down there. She did not manually stimulate herself in any way to cause her body to react. (This is not to exclude sexual thoughts. This is my understanding thus far and relating it to arousal)

But Alice may not have been attracted to either of the people -- she was just aroused by watching something. Attraction to me means that you are attracted to someone, in the sense of magnetic attraction.

If one is aroused by blatantly sexual acts, I would consider that some form of sexual attraction. What else could it possibly be considered? Now, there are some exceptions that I could think of. For example, a pure fetishist might literally be attracted to their fetish, regardless of whatever else is involved. But I would think, in the vast majority of cases, being aroused by porn is some manner of sexual attraction, whether or not there is a desire to act upon that in a real life situation.

Which again comes back to my earlier suggestion of involving an innate motivation towards partnered sex in the definition. By current definition, simply experiencing something that would be considered sexual attraction is enough to mean one is not asexual. However, I do not believe that really gets to the core of what it actually means to be asexual. Thus, including something regarding a desire towards partnered sex solves that problem. With that proposal, those who become aroused by watching porn and thus do experience some manner of sexual attraction, are still asexual given that they have no desire to act upon that attraction. In other words, they are still lacking in that innate drive towards partnered sex that all sexuals have.

This makes very much sense...asexuals may experience some form of sexual attraction, it is only because of the current definition that one has to attempt to say something is not what it is.

Just my 2 cents (or 5 cents now... poor pennies. Whatever did they do to Canada?!):

Arousal from manual stimulation: Bob touching his genitalia and and his body reacts to the physical stimulus. (in this case, his penis becomes erect)

Arousal from sexual attraction: Alice watches porn, two people passionately making out, whatever and, in this case (since we're talking about arousal), her vagina might secrete some lubricant or she feels tingly down there. She did not manually stimulate herself in any way to cause her body to react. (This is not to exclude sexual thoughts. This is my understanding thus far and relating it to arousal)

But Alice may not have been attracted to either of the people -- she was just aroused by watching something. Attraction to me means that you are attracted to someone, in the sense of magnetic attraction.

She was attracted to something... whether it was the man, the woman, the situation, I don't know, but she was experiencing sexual attraction toward something. Absent manual stimulation, if you get aroused by something you see, it is your brain that is causing the arousal. If your brain is making you become sexually aroused by a particular stimuli, that's sexual attraction.

So we again get into the issue of what is and isn't relevant to asexuality. Is that particular sexual attraction relevant to the discussion of asexuality? No, I don't think so. If you don't want to engage sexually with anyone... if you watch porn, get aroused, but prefer to masturbate, then what relevance does that sexual attraction have to your asexuality? None, in my opinion. Rather, its the lack of drive to have partnered sex that seems to be the relevant aspect.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Vamp again. Sorry for what is now an unnecessary post!

Yeah, this too!

Edited to merge posts.

Qutenkuddly, Asexuality Musings and Rantings Moderator

[Qutenkuddly]

You all may wish to revisit the AVEN Overview page. I've never found much confusion in how I define myself as asexual and a large part of that clarity comes from how things are explained in the Overview page. If you want to pursue defining sexual attraction, you may wish to approach the topic from the perspective of how it can add further clarity to the page.

[Guest]

I don't think lady girl, vamp, and I have any interest in defining sexual attraction. I think we have an interest in getting people to stop trying to define and rather pick up a different litmus test for asexuality altogether. All the overview page does is continuously define asexuality as the lack of interest in partnered sex, and then apparently calls that "lack of sexual attraction". However, lack of interest in partnered sex ISN'T lack of sexual attraction. It's lack of interest in partnered sex. So, rather than continuing to use the wrong, misleading, and confusing language of sexual attraction, why not be honest? Why not just say: Asexuality is the lack of drive toward partnered sex.

For those that don't feel like clicking the link, here's some relevant parts:

Attraction

Many asexual people experience attraction, but we feel no need to act out that attraction sexually. Instead we feel a desire to get to know someone, to get close to them in whatever way works best for us. Asexual people who experience attraction will often be attracted to a particular gender, and will identify as lesbian, gay, bi, or straight.

Arousal

For some sexual arousal is a fairly regular occurrence, though it is not associated with a desire to find a sexual partner or partners. Some will occasionally masturbate, but feel no desire for partnered sexuality.

So, tell me, based on this, how exactly is sexual attraction the definition of asexuality? Oh yeah, that's right, some teenager with the inability to think beyond concrete terms decided that if asexuality were to become an orientation, it had to use the language of sexual attraction. So rather than being honest, AVEN started tossing the phrase "sexual attraction" into situations where it didn't belong just so it could join the club of sexual orientations. The smarter thing would have been to be honest, say asexuality is the lack of drive toward partnered sex (as obviously illustrated by AVEN's Overview), and just say "sexual attraction isn't the basis for all sexual orientations and we refuse to be put into the sexual attraction box."

I would love for someone to tell me why the continued insistence on "sexual attraction" when AVEN's own information page freely admits that asexuals experience attraction and arousal? Why not just drop the sexual attraction charade?

[Qutenkuddly]

I don't think lady girl, vamp, and I have any interest in defining sexual attraction. I think we have an interest in getting people to stop trying to define and rather pick up a different litmus test for asexuality altogether.

Okay, fair enough, but, just so I'm clear, what do you think needs to be changed on the Overview page, then?

[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"

:lol:

'Being frigid is cool'

Yeah.We're so cool,we should be Refrigiderated.

Hhmmmmmmmmmmm Not sure if that one works.Beachy gets it though don't you.

[Guest Invisible Pumpkin]

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

"Rigid.But stayin Frigid"

:lol:

'Being frigid is cool'

Yeah.We're so cool,we should be Refrigiderated.

Hhmmmmmmmmmmm Not sure if that one works.Beachy gets it though don't you.

:lol: :lol: :lol: but rightt

[Midnight Lady]

Bookworm, if you think sexual attraction must be based on physical appearance, you're wrong about that. Many people, me included, aren't particularly attracted to physicality. I'm attracted to people's personalities, brain power, way of expressing themselves... voices mean a lot to me. That doesn't make me asexual. That just means the things I'm attracted to aren't physical.

Just HI from a demi... And identifying as a demi only because once several years ago I felt all attractions I could possibly have just for one guy. So... asexual-sexual once-asexual=demisexual. :)

[Guest]

Bookworm, if you think sexual attraction must be based on physical appearance, you're wrong about that. Many people, me included, aren't particularly attracted to physicality. I'm attracted to people's personalities, brain power, way of expressing themselves... voices mean a lot to me. That doesn't make me asexual. That just means the things I'm attracted to aren't physical.

Just HI from a demi... And identifying as a demi only because once several years ago I felt all attractions I could possibly have just for one guy. So... asexual-sexual once-asexual=demisexual. :)

I dated a girl once who sounded just like Karen from Will & Grace. I loved it. Now whenever I watch the show it gives me good feelings.

[Midnight Lady]

Bookworm, if you think sexual attraction must be based on physical appearance, you're wrong about that. Many people, me included, aren't particularly attracted to physicality. I'm attracted to people's personalities, brain power, way of expressing themselves... voices mean a lot to me. That doesn't make me asexual. That just means the things I'm attracted to aren't physical.

Just HI from a demi... And identifying as a demi only because once several years ago I felt all attractions I could possibly have just for one guy. So... asexual-sexual once-asexual=demisexual. :)

I dated a girl once who sounded just like Karen from Will & Grace. I loved it. Now whenever I watch the show it gives me good feelings.

I can hear a guy, and if he has a voice which I love, I wish I just could close my eyes and listen, and listen, and listen... :) Is it "a vocal attraction" ??? :)

[Sally]

I can hear a guy, and if he has a voice which I love, I wish I just could close my eyes and listen, and listen, and listen... :) Is it "a vocal attraction" ??? :)

I had a vocal attraction to my ex-partner (as well as thinking he was gorgeous). His voice still is beautiful.

Looking back, I can imagine that when I would look at him and listen to him with a romantic expression on my face, he probably thought I was wanting to jump his bones. Unfortunately, no.

[Beachwalker]

I'd like to point out that, during the election, I did suggest a thread such as this be pinned. So as to have one central 'what Asexual means' debate thread, instead of numerous ones every so often.

Aside from that: Because I experience arousal every now and then, I'm not actually Asexual? That I can only truly be Asexual if I'm 'broken'? As that's what I'm getting from some posts: That arousal=sexual attraction.

Ah, interesting question! Arousal focused on a specific object is sexual attraction IMO. What else would it possibly be? I've gotten into trouble because sexual attraction can be much less than that... arousal need not occur. Thinking about someone all the time, wanting to be close to them, butterflies in the stomach... all these things are sexual attraction. They are also found in other forms of attraction as well. Arousal is one of the few things that you find in sexual attraction that you don't find elsewhere.

Does that make you not asexual? I don't know. My personal opinion on the subject is that, no, that shouldn't have any relevance to one's asexuality. So, in my opinion, is it sexual attraction? Yes (if it's brought on by a specific object rather than appearing out of thin air). Does the existence of that sexual attraction mean you're not asexual? In my opinion, no, because sexual attraction is the wrong test for asexuality.

Again, just my opinion.

I agree with it!

And I will repeat defining asexuality by a lack of sexual attraction is a farce.

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'

Yeah.We're so cool,we should be Refrigiderated.

Hhmmmmmmmmmmm Not sure if that one works.Beachy gets it though don't you.

:lol:

Even if you do remove the baggage associated with frigidity, it's always used in a social context. At that point, to reclaim "frigid as the new asexuality" promotes asexuality as a social movement and not as a sexual orientation. I think therein lies the fatal flaw.

Yes -- and also, it's not analogous to "gay" starting to be used to mean homosexual. Gay was never a term of derision or accusation; frigid has been (I had it used on me and it wasn't pleasant). The Slutwalk business was decided upon as a social movement in an attempt to derail people's blaming attitude toward women. What would be the point of simply changing "asexual" to "frigid"? You'd have the work of changing people's attitudes toward a word, to no particular purpose.

There's already a growing knowledge of and recognition of asexuality as an orientation. Why confuse things midstream?

I am not suggesting a name change from asexual to frigid. I do believe it was possibly a word that has been used against asexuals in the past/present. The only reason it has the potential to be hurtful is because our society considers it abnormal for someone not to want sex. Asexuals face the same struggle. If the stigma was removed from the word frigid it would help with asexual visibility because it would further normalize not being into sex as ok.

Edited to merge posts.

Qutenkuddly, Asexuality Musings and Rantings Moderator

[ithaca]

I don't think lady girl, vamp, and I have any interest in defining sexual attraction. I think we have an interest in getting people to stop trying to define and rather pick up a different litmus test for asexuality altogether. All the overview page does is continuously define asexuality as the lack of interest in partnered sex, and then apparently calls that "lack of sexual attraction". However, lack of interest in partnered sex ISN'T lack of sexual attraction. It's lack of interest in partnered sex. So, rather than continuing to use the wrong, misleading, and confusing language of sexual attraction, why not be honest? Why not just say: Asexuality is the lack of drive toward partnered sex.

For those that don't feel like clicking the link, here's some relevant parts:

Attraction

Many asexual people experience attraction, but we feel no need to act out that attraction sexually. Instead we feel a desire to get to know someone, to get close to them in whatever way works best for us. Asexual people who experience attraction will often be attracted to a particular gender, and will identify as lesbian, gay, bi, or straight.

Arousal

For some sexual arousal is a fairly regular occurrence, though it is not associated with a desire to find a sexual partner or partners. Some will occasionally masturbate, but feel no desire for partnered sexuality.

So, tell me, based on this, how exactly is sexual attraction the definition of asexuality? Oh yeah, that's right, some teenager with the inability to think beyond concrete terms decided that if asexuality were to become an orientation, it had to use the language of sexual attraction. So rather than being honest, AVEN started tossing the phrase "sexual attraction" into situations where it didn't belong just so it could join the club of sexual orientations. The smarter thing would have been to be honest, say asexuality is the lack of drive toward partnered sex (as obviously illustrated by AVEN's Overview), and just say "sexual attraction isn't the basis for all sexual orientations and we refuse to be put into the sexual attraction box."

I would love for someone to tell me why the continued insistence on "sexual attraction" when AVEN's own information page freely admits that asexuals experience attraction and arousal? Why not just drop the sexual attraction charade?

The Overview says that many asexuals experience attraction, but I think it speaks of "attraction" as a broad term, and maybe you are thinking of sexual attraction. It does say: "Many asexual people experience attraction, but we feel no need to act out that attraction sexually." which I read as "attraction, but not sexual". Page about Attraction. Personally, I'm okay saying "I'm asexual because I don't experience sexual attraction" because I actually never did. I could also add that I "feel no desire for partnered sexuality." One thing doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite.

I never experienced sexual attraction, as far as my friends and my readings have taught me about it, and I don't feel a desire to have sex with any gender. I think the explanation fits me, but I understand where you're coming from. "Attraction" is a broad term.

I'm wondering if anyone in this thread has a particular issue with the grey area, since I can imagine how listening to someone say "I'm asexual but I experience sexual attraction sometimes, (so i'm gray)" can be confusing.

[Beachwalker]

I would love for someone to tell me why the continued insistence on "sexual attraction" when AVEN's own information page freely admits that asexuals experience attraction and arousal? Why not just drop the sexual attraction charade?

Yes, I remember reading a post in another thread a while back, by a member called P is for Peter, who discussed the issue of experiencing sexual attraction but having no internal motivation to act on this attraction. I think his internal motivation or lack of would be a more meaningful descriptor of what asexuality is. In the stickied ' what is asexual attraction thread?', most of the explanations of what sexual attraction is, are mostly about this internal motivation.

Explaining being asexual as similar to being frigid is a way more accurate descriptor of what being asexual is, I am averse to sex. What does explaining asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction mean? Nothing?

[test account]

I don't think I understand what you're saying about orientation vs social movement. Didn't homosexuality have a social movement in reclaiming "queer"?

"Queer" was a derogatory term used to refer to homosexuals. "Frigid" is not used to refer to asexuals. Honestly the closest we have to an ace-specific insult is 'broken'.

Also, 'frigid' will always have connotations of cold because that's where it originated and is still a large portion of its use. By attempting to 'reclaim' that word we would intentionally be associating asexuality with coldness and distance (potentially even harshness) and I don't think we as a community want that.

I agree nobody to my knowledge has intentionally called an asexual person frigid. They assume sexuality and call the woman (almost exclusively) frigid, as if she's a broken sexual---a broken sexual.

Maybe people have used "frigid" for asexuals not knowing they were asexual?

And "queer" was never a nice word for homosexuals before it was reclaimed. It meant weird, wrong, strange. I don't think homosexuals wanted people to think that about them (I've never asked mind you). They just reused it and took the sting out of it. Now it just has the connotation different, at least to me.

But I don't mind either way, I'm just throwing it out there.

[ithaca]

Explaining being asexual as similar to being frigid is a way more accurate descriptor of what being asexual is, I am averse to sex. What does explaining asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction mean? Nothing?

Not all asexuals are averse to sex. And not experiencing sexual attraction means something to me, since it's part of me. I usually tend to draw an analogy with colour-blindness (bear with me if it's silly or inaccurate): asexuals can see just fine, but will hardly (if ever) understand certain colours, or the difference between them. At least once, a sexual person told me that trying to explain "sexual attraction" to an asexual is like trying to explain certain colours to a colour-blind person. And I liked this analogy.

So yeah, I don't experience sexual attraction, therefore I identify as asexual, but tomorrow I might decide to have sex because I wanna try it (not averse then).

[Beachwalker]

Explaining being asexual as similar to being frigid is a way more accurate descriptor of what being asexual is, I am averse to sex. What does explaining asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction mean? Nothing?

Not all asexuals are averse to sex. And not experiencing sexual attraction means something to me, since it's part of me. I usually tend to draw an analogy with colour-blindness (bear with me if it's silly or inaccurate): asexuals can see just fine, but will hardly (if ever) understand certain colours, or the difference between them. At least once, a sexual person told me that trying to explain "sexual attraction" to an asexual is like trying to explain certain colours to a colour-blind person. And I liked this analogy.

So yeah, I don't experience sexual attraction, therefore I identify as asexual, but tomorrow I might decide to have sex because I wanna try it (not averse then).

So my understanding of what you are saying is that because you don't experience sexual attraction you are asexual and that means you don't want to have sex today, but if you had an external motivation like you wanted to try it you might have sex tomorrow?

[The Great WTF]

Explaining being asexual as similar to being frigid is a way more accurate descriptor of what being asexual is, I am averse to sex. What does explaining asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction mean? Nothing?

Not all asexuals are averse to sex. And not experiencing sexual attraction means something to me, since it's part of me. I usually tend to draw an analogy with colour-blindness (bear with me if it's silly or inaccurate): asexuals can see just fine, but will hardly (if ever) understand certain colours, or the difference between them. At least once, a sexual person told me that trying to explain "sexual attraction" to an asexual is like trying to explain certain colours to a colour-blind person. And I liked this analogy.

So yeah, I don't experience sexual attraction, therefore I identify as asexual, but tomorrow I might decide to have sex because I wanna try it (not averse then).

So my understanding of what you are saying is that because you don't experience sexual attraction you are asexual and that means you don't want to have sex today, but if you had an external motivation like you wanted to try it you might have sex tomorrow?

Sounds about right. I know I'm asexual, but I chose to have sex because I was curious to see what it was like. I contiue having sex because it's important to my partner, but if I were to leave him I would most likely not have sex again unless I felt curious about what sex with a woman would be like (a very likely possibility because I find sex fascinating.)

Obviously, I have no aversion to sex, thus your definition of frigid certainly does not work for me. However, the mainstream definition I've heard from some of my generation, an emotionally cold, distant, or detatched person(read:woman) fits my aromanticism and general personality well. I'll still never use it or acknowledge it, though.

[Sally]

Explaining being asexual as similar to being frigid is a way more accurate descriptor of what being asexual is, I am averse to sex. What does explaining asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction mean? Nothing?

It means something to me and a lot of other asexuals: I don't experience any sexual attraction to other people. If you'd prefer this definition: I don't experience any desired for partnered sex, with anyone. What don't you understand about that?

Re frigid, haven't you read previous posts in this thread indicating what frigid has referred to for some time past? It's not at all complimentary and as an asexual woman, I certainly wouldn't want to call myself that. I can't see how any women over the age of, say, 35 who would. And there are a lot of female asexuals over the age of 35.

[Vampyremage]

Explaining being asexual as similar to being frigid is a way more accurate descriptor of what being asexual is, I am averse to sex. What does explaining asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction mean? Nothing?

It means something to me and a lot of other asexuals: I don't experience any sexual attraction to other people. If you'd prefer this definition: I don't experience any desired for partnered sex, with anyone. What don't you understand about that?

Re frigid, haven't you read previous posts in this thread indicating what frigid has referred to for some time past? It's not at all complimentary and as an asexual woman, I certainly wouldn't want to call myself that. I can't see how any women over the age of, say, 35 who would. And there are a lot of female asexuals over the age of 35.

I'm pretty sure a lot of us under the age of 35 would also not like to call ourselves frigid.

[Beachwalker]

Explaining being asexual as similar to being frigid is a way more accurate descriptor of what being asexual is, I am averse to sex. What does explaining asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction mean? Nothing?

If you'd prefer this definition: I don't experience any desired for partnered sex, with anyone. What don't you understand about that?

? What's not to understand about that?

That has meaning!

Re frigid, haven't you read previous posts in this thread indicating what frigid has referred to for some time past? It's not at all complimentary and as an asexual woman, I certainly wouldn't want to call myself that. I can't see how any women over the age of, say, 35 who would. And there are a lot of female asexuals over the age of 35.

Yes I am aware and have read the posts.

And as I have said the only reason I believe frigid can be offensive is because it implies there is something wrong with a person if they don't want sex. We know here at Aven that that is not the case. Visibility wise we are attempting to spread this knowledge and change societies attitudes towards people who aren't into sex. The myths and stigma associated with the word frigid are prevalent in the community. I would hazard a guess that more people are familiar with the word frigid than they are with the word asexual. And while the word frigid continues to prevail with negative connotations, the myth that there is something wrong with people who are not into sex will perpetuate.

I agree most people would currently not be comfortable labeling themselves frigid because of this stigma. I can only hope with time societies attitude towards sex will change and maybe one day it will be ok.

Edited to merge posts.

Qutenkuddly, Asexuality Musings and Rantings Moderator

[Guest]

Explaining being asexual as similar to being frigid is a way more accurate descriptor of what being asexual is, I am averse to sex. What does explaining asexuality as a lack of sexual attraction mean? Nothing?

If you'd prefer this definition: I don't experience any desired for partnered sex, with anyone. What don't you understand about that?

? What's not to understand about that?

That has meaning!

That's quite clear, yes.

It does say: "Many asexual people experience attraction, but we feel no need to act out that attraction sexually." which I read as "attraction, but not sexual".

And if "wanting to act on attraction" was what sexual attraction is, that'd be fine. Unfortunately, that's not what sexual attraction is. That's just called "wanting to have sex".

And you may ask me, Skullery, why does it matter? It matters because you guys want asexuality visibility, but you're using language that doesn't make any sense. That's not great for visibility or education (two of the words in AVEN, right?). Now, I'm 100% certain that over the next 20 years, this whole sexual attraction thing will eventually fade away because it's so senseless, but it would be nice if we could be proactive rather than letting language evolution slowly chip away at it.

(by the way, do you think straight people would say "we experience attraction to people of the same sex, we just don't want to act on it sexually"? My guess is they'd just say "we don't experience attraction to people of the same sex")

[Lady Girl]

That's another thing. If gay people want to have sex with people of their own sex and straight people want to have sex with people of the opposite sex, wouldn't the asexual be better off with having an orientation that implicitely says they don't want to have sex with anybody? It sounds more like an actual orientation like gay and straight do in that regard.

Better yet...Sexual wants to have sex with somebody. Asexual wants to have sex with nobody. And I know...this doesn't mean they won't or don't, it just means they don't want to. Right?

Hasn't sexual orientation always been about with whom you want to have sex?

[Sally]

Hell, many sexual people have occasions where they experience sexual attraction to other people but don't feel like acting on it. Thus, that to me is no definition of asexuality because sexuals experience it.

Really, the only definition that makes sense to me is not experiencing sexual attraction to others. The key, to me, is ATTRACTION. Both my husband and my partner expressed, in many different words including the following, that they were sexually attracted to me, and proved what they meant. To my dismay, but what did I know at the time why I didn't feel it.

Attraction: Noun.

1. The action or power of evoking interest, pleasure, or liking for someone or something.Eg: "the timeless attraction of a good tune".

2. A quality or feature of something or someone that evokes interest, liking, or desire.