What is sexual attraction in its relation to defining asexuality?

[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).

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?

Almost correct. I don't experience sexual attraction, therefore I'm asexual. Today I don't want to have sex, but "not wanting it TODAY" is not only related to my asexuality, so I'd take out the "and that means" and make it "I'm asexual because I don't experience sexual attraction. I don't want to have sex today, but I might want to try tomorrow or some day, so I'm not averse to sex".

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.

I see where you are coming from. But in my opinion, and for what I know, "frigid" has never had a positive meaning, without mentioning that it is only used for women, so it'd cut out the male ace population. Trying to take the social stigma out of a work that CAN be offensive when used sometimes (like it happened, mostly, with "queer" or "gay") would make sense to me. Trying to take the social stigma out of words that have always been used as derogatory/offensive makes no sense to me: an example, besides "frigid", might be "faggot".

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".

The line says: "Many asexual people experience attraction, but we feel no need to act out that attraction sexually." and to me it's not even trying to describe sexual attraction. It's describing how asexuals can experience other kinds of attractions (like for example aesthetic) but even though they think "that person is gorgeous in their appearance, they wouldn't want to act on THAT attraction sexually. It makes sense to me, for example, when I find people aesthetically pleasing but I don't want to do anything sexual because of that. This happens to all sexual people too, it doesn't mean that sexuals will want to jump on every nice-looking erson, so that sentence is just to explain, in my opinion, how even though aces don't experience sexual attraction, they can experience other kinds of attraction. These other kinds of attractions, anyway, don't lead to the wish for sexual acts. Which, sometimes, happens to sexual people. I have friends who explicitely tell me "That chick is cute but I wouldn't sleep with her because X-reason", and "That chick is cute, I'd sleep with her all week end if I could". I don't know if it makes sense, Skulls, I just woke up :P

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?

I don't think so, actually. It's not about who you WANT to have sex with, but about who you are attracted to. There are celibate people who don't want to have sex with anybody, but still are hetero/homo/whatever-sexual. If we'd go by "wanting", most sexual celibate would fit under the asexual label, right?

And also all those homosexual in denial, who want to have sex with the opposite gender, but feel no attraction, would they be hetero because of who they WANT to have sex with?I think sexual orientations have always been about whom people are attracted to, not what they want.

Also the "want partnered sex" would create the same problems with sexual celibate. They don't want partnered sex, but they are not asexual because of it. I think this post came out way too long, but I hope it gives a few ideas on why "Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction" makes more sense in my opinion.

[Lucinda]

Sex in and of itself doesn't attract me. The thought of sex doesn't attract me and usually just irritates me.

No internal motivation or desire.

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.

External motivation.

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.

I believe you. If I asked you if you thought your boyfriend was cute or handsome, your only response would be "I don't know".

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

Not really. The "sexual" in sexual orientation refers to gender-sex, not to "doing sex".

If we'd go by "wanting", most sexual celibate would fit under the asexual label, right?

All we know about celibates is that they "want" to abstain more than they "want" to do sex.

Heterosexuality (Greek έτερος [héteros] hetero meaning "different") is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary.

This would make me heterosexual as I am romantically attracted to a person of the opposite gender-sex. The term "sexual orientation" is a made-up term as a result of the backlash from the gay community. It is political in nature. It was a means of explaining or normalizing behavior because it was their behavior that was attacked. One's sexual orientation, according to the American Psychological Association, manifests itself in certain behaviors from hand holding all the way through full blown sex. Only on AVEN is asexuality considered a separate sexual orientation in which orientation does not equal behavior. Ironically, asexuality on AVEN was fashioned as a sexual orientation to take advantage of the momentum gained by the gay community. Tell a grass roots activist within the gay community; however, that their behavior does not have to be congruent with nor explained by their orientation/preference and observe their reaction. At best, they will tell you to go back to sleep.

I've never considered asexuality a sexual orientation pre-AVEN or even now. I don't think everyone needs a made-up sexual orientation or should fret spending time trying to figure out what it is. You are going to be attracted to whomever you are attracted to for whatever reasons you are attracted to them. Simple, yes? However that manifests itself is up to the people involved. There are no club rules.

Lucinda

[test account]

(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")

Hmmm, interesting question. In shorthand to other people, I would probably say I'm not attracted to people of the same sex----meaning, I'm not attracted to acting on the arousal I sometimes feel towards certain other women. It would just confuse people if I was explicit. Because the thing about effective communication is, its just as important what you leave out as what you put in. You're trying to leave an impression in the other person's mind, not reprogram them.

I wouldn't mind betting that this has something to do with how some asexuals think that sexuals are so simple and straightforward. Sexuals experience many shades of attraction and arousal too, they just don't go on about it. They filter out all the bits that aren't important and focus on the main orientation. So what's the main orientation for an asexual? To enjoy sexless relationships isn't it? They might do a whole bunch of other stuff, but who cares? That's not the main point. We have a negative definition for asexuals right now---"does not XYZ". How about a positive one? "Seeks fulfilment in sexless relationships"?

[Qutenkuddly]

I wouldn't mind betting that this has something to do with how some asexuals think that sexuals are so simple and straightforward. Sexuals experience many shades of attraction and arousal too, they just don't go on about it. They filter out all the bits that aren't important and focus on the main orientation. So what's the main orientation for an asexual? To enjoy sexless relationships isn't it? They might do a whole bunch of other stuff, but who cares? That's not the main point. We have a negative definition for asexuals right now---"does not XYZ". How about a positive one? "Seeks fulfilment in sexless relationships"?

That's pretty much what I do, too, for the most part, so conversations like this sometimes leave me a little bemused.

I like your "seeks fulfillment in sexless relationships," but it might work better as "prefers fufillment in sexless relationships" to help differentiate between asexuality and celibacy.

[test account]

I wouldn't mind betting that this has something to do with how some asexuals think that sexuals are so simple and straightforward. Sexuals experience many shades of attraction and arousal too, they just don't go on about it. They filter out all the bits that aren't important and focus on the main orientation. So what's the main orientation for an asexual? To enjoy sexless relationships isn't it? They might do a whole bunch of other stuff, but who cares? That's not the main point. We have a negative definition for asexuals right now---"does not XYZ". How about a positive one? "Seeks fulfilment in sexless relationships"?

That's pretty much what I do, too, for the most part, so conversations like this sometimes leave me a little bemused.

I like your "seeks fulfillment in sexless relationships," but it might work better as "prefers fufillment in sexless relationships" to help differentiate between asexuality and celibacy.

Ah yes, good point!

[Guest]

I wouldn't mind betting that this has something to do with how some asexuals think that sexuals are so simple and straightforward. Sexuals experience many shades of attraction and arousal too, they just don't go on about it. They filter out all the bits that aren't important and focus on the main orientation. So what's the main orientation for an asexual? To enjoy sexless relationships isn't it? They might do a whole bunch of other stuff, but who cares? That's not the main point. We have a negative definition for asexuals right now---"does not XYZ". How about a positive one? "Seeks fulfilment in sexless relationships"?

That's pretty much what I do, too, for the most part, so conversations like this sometimes leave me a little bemused.

I like your "seeks fulfillment in sexless relationships," but it might work better as "prefers fufillment in sexless relationships" to help differentiate between asexuality and celibacy.

I know, right, like it's imperative to mention that asexuals can still feel romantic and friendship attraction... as if anyone would have thought otherwise. As if telling a sexual "I'm asexual" makes them assume you have no capacity for emotion. The only major difference is that sexuals don't talk about other emotions in terms of attraction. I don't say "I'm love-attracted to you", I say "I love you". I don't say "I'm queerplatonically attracted to you", I say "you're my friend." I don't say "I'm aesthetically attracted to you", I say "you're purdy!". It's like asexuals are sad that they don't feel sexual attraction so they decided it'd be awesome to start talking about a bunch of other attractions... which really only serves to confuse everything.

Qute, your substitution also serves those asexuals who are in relationships with sexuals... perhaps they didn't seek out a sexless relationship, but they may prefer that their relationship was sexless.

[Vampyremage]

The line says: "Many asexual people experience attraction, but we feel no need to act out that attraction sexually." and to me it's not even trying to describe sexual attraction. It's describing how asexuals can experience other kinds of attractions (like for example aesthetic) but even though they think "that person is gorgeous in their appearance, they wouldn't want to act on THAT attraction sexually. It makes sense to me, for example, when I find people aesthetically pleasing but I don't want to do anything sexual because of that. This happens to all sexual people too, it doesn't mean that sexuals will want to jump on every nice-looking erson, so that sentence is just to explain, in my opinion, how even though aces don't experience sexual attraction, they can experience other kinds of attraction. These other kinds of attractions, anyway, don't lead to the wish for sexual acts. Which, sometimes, happens to sexual people. I have friends who explicitely tell me "That chick is cute but I wouldn't sleep with her because X-reason", and "That chick is cute, I'd sleep with her all week end if I could". I don't know if it makes sense, Skulls, I just woke up :P

Consider the following example. Person X sees person Y and thinks she's beautiful. Person X gets an erection as a sexual fantasy passes through his mind. Person X says he doesn't actually want to have sex with person Y and therefore he must not be experiencing sexual attraction. Now tell me, would anyone from the outside not think this statement is ridiculous? Not wanting to have sex with someone is not the same as not experiencing sexual attraction.

[ithaca]

Not wanting to have sex with someone is not the same as not experiencing sexual attraction.

That is my point, though, Vamp I tried to explain how "not wanting sex" and "not experiencing sexual attraction" are 2 very different things. Sorry if it didn't come out clear.

[Qutenkuddly]

That's pretty much what I do, too, for the most part, so conversations like this sometimes leave me a little bemused.

I like your "seeks fulfillment in sexless relationships," but it might work better as "prefers fufillment in sexless relationships" to help differentiate between asexuality and celibacy.

Qute, your substitution also serves those asexuals who are in relationships with sexuals... perhaps they didn't seek out a sexless relationship, but they may prefer that their relationship was sexless.

Good point! Shoulda thought of that myself, but, hey, I'm running more than just a little under-caffeinated today.

[Vampyremage]

Not wanting to have sex with someone is not the same as not experiencing sexual attraction.

That is my point, though, Vamp I tried to explain how "not wanting sex" and "not experiencing sexual attraction" are 2 very different things. Sorry if it didn't come out clear.

I get your point and I agree with it. What I am trying to bring up is that some people confuse not wanting sex with not experiencing sexual attraction, as per my previous example.

[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?

I don't think so, actually. It's not about who you WANT to have sex with, but about who you are attracted to. There are celibate people who don't want to have sex with anybody, but still are hetero/homo/whatever-sexual. If we'd go by "wanting", most sexual celibate would fit under the asexual label, right?

And also all those homosexual in denial, who want to have sex with the opposite gender, but feel no attraction, would they be hetero because of who they WANT to have sex with?I think sexual orientations have always been about whom people are attracted to, not what they want.

Also the "want partnered sex" would create the same problems with sexual celibate. They don't want partnered sex, but they are not asexual because of it. I think this post came out way too long, but I hope it gives a few ideas on why "Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction" makes more sense in my opinion.

I think your denying something you don't need to and like Skulls said, forcing yourself to call attraction x y and z attraction. I should have said prefer instead of want.

A celibate may prefer sex but doesn't have it. An asexual prefers not to have partnered sex...that is the bottom line on asexuality, not how they feel leading up to that point. What leads up to that point is very much the same as what sexuals experience in life.

[Sally]

A celibate may prefer sex but doesn't have it. An asexual prefers not to have partnered sex...that is the bottom line on asexuality, not how they feel leading up to that point. What leads up to that point is very much the same as what sexuals experience in life.

It's not a matter of preferring or not preferring. It's feeling that is missing: the feeling of being sexually attracted to someone. It has nothing to do with what sexuals experience, because sexuals feel attraction toward some people. They are not missing that feeling.

[Lady Girl]

A celibate may prefer sex but doesn't have it. An asexual prefers not to have partnered sex...that is the bottom line on asexuality, not how they feel leading up to that point. What leads up to that point is very much the same as what sexuals experience in life.

It's not a matter of preferring or not preferring. It's feeling that is missing: the feeling of being sexually attracted to someone. It has nothing to do with what sexuals experience, because sexuals feel attraction toward some people. They are not missing that feeling.

Actually, several of us have stated that we are missing that feeling most or even all of the time. More than one asexual has indicated to me that they experience what is considered sexual attraction to many people but they disconnect and feel awkward in the act. I just don't think all the sexual stuff that asexuals do and experience (and sometimes call having aesthetic attraction) comes even close to sounding like a lack of sexual attraction.

[Qutenkuddly]

A celibate may prefer sex but doesn't have it. An asexual prefers not to have partnered sex...that is the bottom line on asexuality, not how they feel leading up to that point. What leads up to that point is very much the same as what sexuals experience in life.

It's not a matter of preferring or not preferring. It's feeling that is missing: the feeling of being sexually attracted to someone. It has nothing to do with what sexuals experience, because sexuals feel attraction toward some people. They are not missing that feeling.

Actually, several of us have stated that we are missing that feeling most or even all of the time. More than one asexual has indicated to me that they experience what is considered sexual attraction to many people but they disconnect and feel awkward in the act. I just don't think all the sexual stuff that asexuals do and experience (and sometimes call having aesthetic attraction) comes even close to sounding like a lack of sexual attraction.

Ya know, having actually felt sexual attraction on rare occassion in my long ago youth, I can definitely say that, at least in my case, it's a lack of sexual attraction.

[5_♦♣]

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.

I'm the same way. (Except for the 'continuing to have sex with a partner', part, as I'm single).

[Guest]

Well, if thats how you are lookig at it the only people who arent frigid are pansexual.

Asexual is an orientation, frigid is a mindset and can be offensive to asexuals because there is a difference. Some asexuals have sex or would be open to it. Some sexuals do not have sex or are opposed to it.

Also, frigid ( I believe) has some sexism to it as you rarely hear of frigid men and appears to stem from men trying to get some girl to sleep with them or to justify "striking out"

[Vampyremage]

A celibate may prefer sex but doesn't have it. An asexual prefers not to have partnered sex...that is the bottom line on asexuality, not how they feel leading up to that point. What leads up to that point is very much the same as what sexuals experience in life.

It's not a matter of preferring or not preferring. It's feeling that is missing: the feeling of being sexually attracted to someone. It has nothing to do with what sexuals experience, because sexuals feel attraction toward some people. They are not missing that feeling.

Actually, several of us have stated that we are missing that feeling most or even all of the time. More than one asexual has indicated to me that they experience what is considered sexual attraction to many people but they disconnect and feel awkward in the act. I just don't think all the sexual stuff that asexuals do and experience (and sometimes call having aesthetic attraction) comes even close to sounding like a lack of sexual attraction.

Ya know, having actually felt sexual attraction on rare occassion in my long ago youth, I can definitely say that, at least in my case, it's a lack of sexual attraction.

I do not think this is in dispute for the majority of asexuals. I, also, do not believe I have experienced sexual attraction. However, at least based upon these boards, there are a segment of people calling themselves asexual and claiming not to experience sexual attraction when, based upon the very things they are writing, its clear that sexual attraction is very much what they're experiencing and what they are not experiencing is that innate drive or motivation towards partnered sex. I don't believe this makes them any less asexual, but it does lead to the question of why the orientation of asexuality is hinged so strongly upon this somewhat ambiguous concept that is sexual attraction.

[Sally]

Ya know, having actually felt sexual attraction on rare occassion in my long ago youth, I can definitely say that, at least in my case, it's a lack of sexual attraction.

Thank you, Qute. I think we should remember that we're the experts about ourselves. No one else can say we do or don't feel something. I've heard sexuals all my life be very explicit about what they've felt, and I have never felt that. And as a matter of fact, they have called it sexual attraction, so I'm perfectly happy to do so. Your mileage may vary. But for me, it's sexual attraction, and I don't feel it, and that's why I consider myself asexual.

[Lucinda]

Are you referring to a physical feeling?

Lucinda

[Lady Girl]

I'm sorry if I sounded like I was trying to be the expert on you Sally, or anyone else for that matter. It wasn't my intention. I do agree with what Vamp just said though too, the attraction bit isn't the deciding factor for maybe half of the asexuals on here...they are experiencing it and they are still asexual. Just like I really don't experience it and I'm sexual. If an asexual says to me I experience sexual attraction but I disconnect when it comes to having sex, this is what makes me asexual, I get it and I believe it. Same goes for you Sally, if you say you don't experience sexual attraction and that's what makes you asexual I believe you.

I like what Lucinda said...there's really no need to waste time fretting. I'm not saying anyone isn't asexual, I never did. I only said you can experience sexual attraction and still be asexual.

[Sally]

Are you referring to a physical feeling?

Lucinda

Of course. I do experience intellectual and emotional attraction to people. Not physical, specifically not involving stuff located in the genital region.

[test account]

So then, would "prefers to find fulfilment in sexless relationships" do for a new definition? Should we start a new thread on that? Take it to a poll?

You know it has implications for all this demi and gray stuff too, because they don't prefer sexless relationships. That would simplify everything even more as they'd be basically sexual in their own way.

[Qutenkuddly]

So then, would "prefers to find fulfilment in sexless relationships" do for a new definition? Should we start a new thread on that? Take it to a poll?

You know it has implications for all this demi and gray stuff too, because they don't prefer sexless relationships. That would simplify everything even more as they'd be basically sexual in their own way.

Well, it's all a sliding scale, innit, with those who prefer to have frequent sex with their partners at one end and those prefer none at all the other.

[Sally]

So then, would "prefers to find fulfilment in sexless relationships" do for a new definition? Should we start a new thread on that? Take it to a poll?

You know it has implications for all this demi and gray stuff too, because they don't prefer sexless relationships. That would simplify everything even more as they'd be basically sexual in their own way.

Well, it's all a sliding scale, innit, with those who prefer to have frequent sex with their partners at one end and those prefer none at all the other.

And there are those asexuals who don't need fulfillment in any relationship. Just as there are those sexuals who don't, either -- they just want physical sex.

We're getting a bit round-the-mulberry-bush here.

[Beachwalker]

So then, would "prefers to find fulfilment in sexless relationships" do for a new definition? Should we start a new thread on that? Take it to a poll?

You know it has implications for all this demi and gray stuff too, because they don't prefer sexless relationships. That would simplify everything even more as they'd be basically sexual in their own way.

Well, it's all a sliding scale, innit, with those who prefer to have frequent sex with their partners at one end and those prefer none at all the other.

And there are those asexuals who don't need fulfillment in any relationship. Just as there are those sexuals who don't, either -- they just want physical sex.

We're getting a bit round-the-mulberry-bush here.

Actually I quite liked your definition Sally 'does not desire partnered sex with anyone'. I like Sweetexs idea of defining it by what it is rather than what it isn't but I think that is a difficult task. When I was originally searching on the Internet to see if there was anyone else like me I originally typed celibate but quickly realized that was not the same, that was a choice people were making to suppress their desires. Then I searched 'not interested in sex' which eventually led me to Aven, I would never in a million years typed does 'not experience sexual attraction'.

[test account]

I found AVEN the same way. I think I googled "don't like sex" or "not interested in sex" something like that.

[Lady Girl]

When I searched, I was thinking what's a word for someone not interested in sex, maybe asexual?

I also remember when I was upset with him about this, one of the things I accused him of was not being attracted to me. He always said, I am attracted to you, that's not 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?

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

"Rigid.But stayin Frigid"

:lol:

'Being frigid is cool'

:lol: You beat me to it!

Oh! I think I just got Dex's one

I just thought of another one

'I'm hot and I'm frigid'

[5_♦♣]

I've long since forgotten what it was I typed that ultimately brought me here. Something gender related though, as a discussion in the gender forum was the first AVEN result I found. Anyway, any identity that starts with 'a' is a negative. As Agender=lack of gender, Aromantic=lack of romantic attraction, etc etc. Basically the 'a' prefix indicates a lack of something. So to turn Asexual into a positive, you'd need to get rid of the 'a'. But then, you'd just have the word sexual.

[Lucinda]

Are you referring to a physical feeling?

Lucinda

Of course. I do experience intellectual and emotional attraction to people. Not physical, specifically not involving stuff located in the genital region.

Thanks Sally. And Qute, is it the same for you? Do you not feel sexual attraction meaning not physically feeling stuff located in the genital region?

Lucinda