meep Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Recently, a new discussion about defining asexuality has come up on the rantings board (http://asexuality.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=8455). There's pros and cons to each, but I'm interested in knowing which definition we prefer. If you prefer a completely different definition or have made your own up to suit yourself, I'd appreciate if you still voted then brought it up in a reply. Link to post Share on other sites
-V- Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Tough one... Did anyone ever clearly define sexual attraction? Or find a way to more easily describe it (and thus its absence)? Link to post Share on other sites
Dargon Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 I voted the first one, the reason I said there, and shall now say again here, is that while I have no interest in having sex, sex and sexuality are quite interesting. Also, some might be interested in sex for the purpose of having children or pleasing someone else. While defining sexual attraction is difficult, and the new definition is simpler, I find it less accurate. Link to post Share on other sites
cityguy Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Though there are positives and negatives associated with each definition, I'm more inclined to go with the 'not interested in sex' explanation. If an 'outsider' were to query the asexual term, using the 'not interested' response would be short, sweet and to the point (SSP). Any other explanation could open up a pandora's box of long-winded eternal questioning and, even then, there is the possibility that the 'outsider' still would not understand and would either be :shock: or :? Let's not make it hard on ourselves. Remember SSP and be free (from long-winded explanations, of course). :) Link to post Share on other sites
Schala Zeal Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 I votes the first one, for sexual attraction. There can be no desire to have sex while being attracted to others in a sexual way. If you're going for a major at university you might consider anything that's not study-related off for the time being, that including sex. That doesn't make you asexual in my opinion. So I prefer the first one for that. Link to post Share on other sites
Cerhiunnhn Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 what about "A person who is not attracted to sex." ? Link to post Share on other sites
Hexpiral Posted May 16, 2005 Share Posted May 16, 2005 Right now, I wouldn't know. Link to post Share on other sites
TheSMMG Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 I prefer " A person who does not experience sexual attraction". It would be even better, IMHO, if "for other people" was added to the end. Link to post Share on other sites
Joyous56 Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 What about: "A person not interested in having sex" ? Link to post Share on other sites
mimi212 Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 "A person who does not experience sexual attraction" is the better definition because not experiencing sexual attraction is the CAUSE of asexuality. (umm...is that right?) Link to post Share on other sites
Dargon Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 What about:"A person not interested in having sex" ? While simple and mostly acurate, it still has a problem in my opinion. An asexual may be interested in having sex for the purpose of having children or pleasing a sexual partner. Link to post Share on other sites
Joyous56 Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 What about:"A person not interested in having sex" ? While simple and mostly acurate, it still has a problem in my opinion. An asexual may be interested in having sex for the purpose of having children or pleasing a sexual partner. Good point. I take my suggestion back. Link to post Share on other sites
Aeireono Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Sticking with what we've already got, though I guess anything I could say already has been said. I guess one of the problems I have with the new one is that it seems too much like some of the more narrow definitions people have come up with - say you're not an asexual if you've had sex, or if you're interested in discussing sex in a socialogical fashion, which let's face it happens a lot around here. I'd rather not see anything like that. Things are fine as they are. Link to post Share on other sites
brian_w Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 I too support the broader definition, not least because it's the one that fits me. Link to post Share on other sites
Live R Perfect Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 What about:"A person not interested in having sex" ? That's what I'd vote for if it was there. The 'not interested in sex' option has altogether different connotations to 'not interested in having sex' one. Edit: Sorry, I missed Dargon's reply: While simple and mostly acurate, it still has a problem in my opinion. An asexual may be interested in having sex for the purpose of having children or pleasing a sexual partner. OK, fair point. Maybe it should read 'A person not driven to have sex', though that doesn't really flow off the tongue, and brings me back to my sexual drive / sexual attraction differentiation problem.... Hmmm... Link to post Share on other sites
Dargon Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 While simple and mostly acurate, it still has a problem in my opinion. An asexual may be interested in having sex for the purpose of having children or pleasing a sexual partner. OK, fair point. Maybe it should read 'A person not driven to have sex', though that doesn't really flow off the tongue, and brings me back to my sexual drive / sexual attraction differentiation problem.... I too had a similar thought, sightly different definition. My thought was more along the lines of "Not interested in having sex for the sake of having sex." While I think it's a very good and simple definition, it is very long and, like you said, doesn't flow off the tounge very well. Link to post Share on other sites
girl_no_13 Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 While simple and mostly acurate, it still has a problem in my opinion. An asexual may be interested in having sex for the purpose of having children or pleasing a sexual partner. OK, fair point. Maybe it should read 'A person not driven to have sex', though that doesn't really flow off the tongue, and brings me back to my sexual drive / sexual attraction differentiation problem.... I too had a similar thought, sightly different definition. My thought was more along the lines of "Not interested in having sex for the sake of having sex." While I think it's a very good and simple definition, it is very long and, like you said, doesn't flow off the tounge very well. Its a bit complicated, but I like it, it works for me anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
LisaRochell Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I voted for 'sexual attraction', as it suits me, and it sounds more official to me, so it makes it more compatible as a definition. But after I've defined it to people, it's usually followed by a 'in plain English' explanation of "I'm not interested in having sex, not with other people anyway". Link to post Share on other sites
Astryda Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 First one, because even sexual person might be not interested in sex. Link to post Share on other sites
Næt. Posted April 20, 2009 Share Posted April 20, 2009 The first one, because that is the definition. Link to post Share on other sites
AkiraCoinTykiGotBetaMuffin Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 The first being the actual definition. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.