What asexuality is not.

[Guest]

Just for the record, there is significant evidence that morning erections are unrelated to arousal. It seems that a full bladder can cause a reflex erection which helps prohibit urination while sleeping.

Don't forget REM sleep, either. Any male who is, uh, "hydraulically functional" has regular nightly erections during REM sleep (regardless of the content of dreams)... and the likelihood of waking up right out of a REM phase after a full night's sleep is pretty high.

[LaFemme]

Just for the record, there is significant evidence that morning erections are unrelated to arousal. It seems that a full bladder can cause a reflex erection which helps prohibit urination while sleeping.

Lol that's really interesting :lol:.

[Geo]

However, physical arousal is an undeniable facet of sexual attraction.

Umm. No it isn't. Where did you get that?

[Arctic Fox]

I think it's well established that physical arousal =/= sexual attraction, especially in cases of sexual assault. However, physical arousal is an undeniable facet of sexual attraction, especially when someone becomes aroused in the absence of physical touch.

Umm. No it isn't. Where did you get that?

Although people can be physically aroused without experiencing sexual attraction and vice versa, there is a correlation between the two. People often get physically aroused when they're sexually attracted to someone.

[Geo]

there is a correlation between the two.

Perhaps through intermediate factors, but not directly.

[anon_anonymous]

but as you said they dont care and because they sustain each-other I can well imagine that they dont reflect it.

i would imagine unreflectiveness is less to do with 'asexuality' and more lack of desire. if e.g. you "need" something, for whatever reason, you are less likely to go about asking any questions that put that in doubt,

rather that rehash old, and settled debates, i would like to see someone who defines asexuality as just lack of sexual attraction, admit that there is such a thing as low desire not due to ihibition.

[ithaca]

i would like to see someone who defines asexuality as just lack of sexual attraction, admit that there is such a thing as low desire not due to ihibition.

Dude I've already told you it's possible X_x

[Member4445]

i would like to see someone who defines asexuality as just lack of sexual attraction, admit that there is such a thing as low desire not due to ihibition.

Dude I've already told you it's possible X_x

I concur.

[anon_anonymous]

ok, great, nice to be right. i was just feeling a little trolled...

ok so we established that there is broad agreement that low sexual desire doesn't have to be due to a form of inhibition [either deliberate or not].

it can be chronic.

in which case, what???

well, what good are you doing by limiting the term 'asexual' to not experiencing attraction? there are obviously people out there that are asexual in the sense of not desiring sex - in as innate [and so in some sense definitional] a way as people lacking attraction.

do those for whom it defines their attracrtion, have a special claim to the concept, either due to the meaning of the term, or their needs?

well, IMHO, someone lacking in desire is no less "different" from the rest of the [sexual] population, than someone lacking in attraction. you could argue that one is more about sexuality as it is often seen... but why think that the layer of experience missing from those that don't want sex, is any less important than that of those that aren't attracted to anyone? i have already argued that they see the world differently [not just, that is, behave differently], by e.g. being more readily attuned to the differences between attraction and desire, just like [perhaps] those without attraction are libido and attraction. i am not saying that this subset of people are in need of the identity... but why any less than the alternative.

as to semantics, i can't see what argument there is for that, either.

perhaps a deadlock, an impasse... that people are getting on with anyway. personally, i don't even want to identify as asexual, so maybe i should generalize that. as i experience attraction, and value sexual love, i wouldn't want to jeopardize that especially by using a term that most people are confused about, anyway. and the community doesn't interest me... i only arrived to make sure i wasn't lying or a freak

a 'sexual' that is not engaged in or desiring sex, is in some sense inhibited - call it their fantasy life [in the sense of their self concept and wishes, not anything like imagination]. but that isn't true inhibition... i like ice-cream, i would eat it all day every day if i could. but that doesn't [at least necessarily] mean i have to stop myself doing so, at all, or that i actually want to. let alone that i should eat it all day. i would be sick!!

IMHO.

what [you believe?] you would ideally have, is in this instance fairly fixed. but don't try and impress on me some sense of inferiority for not acting out some idle whim of my own. just don't, it would be rotten.

[Beachwalker]

Reviews thread and reviews 'the list'. Why was the list needed? Were people getting confused with the definition? Does it matter that people were getting confused?

Does the definition need to be reviewed?

Isn't the most important thing that people know they are not alone in lacking desire for sex? Does including not interested in sex on this list only confuse people more?

It's so taken for granted that 'everyone' likes sex. I think even 'sexuals' feel pressure to live up to this expectation and perform.

[anon_anonymous]

Does including not interested in sex on this list only confuse people more?

well i dunno, it makes it clearer what sexual attraction is not, it is not interest in sex. that's ok.

the problem is simply misrepresenting what interest or disinterest in sex is... even though it is less self defining, it need be no more a pyschological problem, or rooted in one, than lack of attraction. you'd have to be insanely "sex positive" to disagree, really.

[anon_anonymous]

American Heritage

Medical Dictionary

asexual a·sex·u·al (ā-sěk'sh&oomacr;-əl)
adj.

1. Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless.

2. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.

3. Lacking interest in or desire for sex.

i tell you what i think "isn't cool" [they ought to know who i am talking to]... getting so obsessed with your fucking identity politics you begin to lose touch with the actual meaning of what you say. you ought to know better IMO.

[Member4445]

American HeritageMedical Dictionaryasexual a·sex·u·al (ā-sěk'sh&oomacr;-əl)

adj.

• Having no evident sex or sex organs; sexless.
• Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction that occurs without the union of male and female gametes, as in binary fission or budding.
• Lacking interest in or desire for sex.

i tell you what i think "isn't cool" [they ought to know who i am talking to]... getting so obsessed with your fucking identity politics you begin to lose touch with the actual meaning of what you say. you ought to know better IMO.

If you have something to say to me in public, make sure the entire forum knows who you're addressing. Cheers! xxx

[anon_anonymous]

err, ok. your behaviour on three of the threads i have posted on has been irresponsible, self obsessed, and ideologically driven, IMHO.

[Member4445]

As opposed to making, quite frankly, pathetic jibes at me in threads and within your signature? If you're going to snark me, at least put some effort into it. :D Be creative! Let yourself loose! Feel the rage burning inside you! I suggest comedic drawings, perhaps a parody of a Number One hit from the 80's. ;)

Then maybe...maaaaybe my response wouldn't be to find the above post absolutely hilarious. xD

[anon_anonymous]

and within your signature

my signature has nothing to do with you - i don't know where you get that impression?

opposed to making, quite frankly, pathetic jibes at me in threads

it's called debate FFS - which you obviously don't want to engage in. i have pointed out problems in what you say, in those three threads - you don't reply to them, ever, so why not cross post?

if i am enraged, then you just died in fear.

maaaaybe my response wouldn't be to find the above post absolutely hilarious. xD

i simply replied to your question xD !!

[ithaca]

I suggest we drop any personal spat now. Let's be civil and stay on topic.

ithaca, Admin

[anon_anonymous]

why is my sig hidden - it's not aimed at anyone at all!!!

[ithaca]

why is my sig hidden - it's not aimed at anyone at all!!!

I sent you a PM. It's too big.

[rh1985]

See, I am not 100% sure if I am "asexual" (defined as lack of sexual attraction) or just have a completely nonexistant sex drive - but if it turns out to be the second possibility, I still feel like I'd have more in common with the asexual community than the sexual community. Know what I mean? There is something innate in me that makes me have no need or want for sex. Is it really so important what that innate thing is - whether it's no attraction at all or very, very mild attraction with absolutely no drive to follow up on it sexually - that there is a need to exclude from the community people who will never fit in with the general sexual community?

[anon_anonymous]

See, I am not 100% sure if I am "asexual" (defined as lack of sexual attraction) or just have a completely nonexistant sex drive - but if it turns out to be the second possibility, I still feel like I'd have more in common with the asexual community than the sexual community. Know what I mean? There is something innate in me that makes me have no need or want for sex. Is it really so important what that innate thing is - whether it's no attraction at all or very, very mild attraction with absolutely no drive to follow up on it sexually - that there is a need to exclude from the community people who will never fit in with the general sexual community?

i'll make my point, and will make it again.

it's not just about inclusion, because communities can define themselves however they so choose. it's about not promoting phobia of this so defined "other", as well as media misrepresentation of them.

i would never want or need to identify as asexual. however, how am i to explain my lack of desire to have sex, to a world that would rather see me as inhibited or asexual?

[Member4445]

"I don't want sex"?

[anon_anonymous]

"I don't want sex"?

why not?

use your imagination... what if i were to start an incel splinter movement that claimed that everyone is sexually attracted to someone? or that the majority of asexuals are sadistic rapists or something? i am not saying the claim is explicit in your case, but it is there, is it not? else why are you behaving so oddly to me?

the moral is simply

not promoting phobia of this so defined "other"

[WhenSummersGone]

Haven't read the whole thread but I agree with most of those, except "Disinterest in sex". Which I've posted about in another thread.

Most of why I consider myself mostly asexual is because I just don't care that much about having sexual intercourse, and it's not because I fear it or hate it, I just don't find it that interesting. Disinterest, lack of desire, don't want/need it, whatever.

Also I believe that most asexuals don't find the actual act of sex that interesting, or at least something they want to do. I'm not saying it's not lack of sexual attraction, I'm just saying it is also lack of interest in sex. I feel they are both connected.

[ithaca]

See, I am not 100% sure if I am "asexual" (defined as lack of sexual attraction) or just have a completely nonexistant sex drive - but if it turns out to be the second possibility, I still feel like I'd have more in common with the asexual community than the sexual community. Know what I mean? There is something innate in me that makes me have no need or want for sex. Is it really so important what that innate thing is - whether it's no attraction at all or very, very mild attraction with absolutely no drive to follow up on it sexually - that there is a need to exclude from the community people who will never fit in with the general sexual community?

Those who are not asexual, for whatever reason, are and will always anyway be welcome to join our community, share their experiences, make friends, chit-chat or whatever they want :)

Haven't read the whole thread but I agree with most of those, except "Disinterest in sex". Which I've posted about in another thread.

Most of why I consider myself mostly asexual is because I just don't care that much about having sexual intercourse, and it's not because I fear it or hate it, I just don't find it that interesting. Disinterest, lack of desire, don't want/need it, whatever.

Also I believe that most asexuals don't find the actual act of sex that interesting, or at least something they want to do. I'm not saying it's not lack of sexual attraction, I'm just saying it is also lack of interest in sex. I feel they are both connected.

The OP does say that most asexual likely have ALSO disinterest in sex. What it says is that disinterest in sex on its own is not asexuality :)

[Lady Girl]

Haven't read the whole thread but I agree with most of those, except "Disinterest in sex". Which I've posted about in another thread.

Most of why I consider myself mostly asexual is because I just don't care that much about having sexual intercourse, and it's not because I fear it or hate it, I just don't find it that interesting. Disinterest, lack of desire, don't want/need it, whatever.

Also I believe that most asexuals don't find the actual act of sex that interesting, or at least something they want to do. I'm not saying it's not lack of sexual attraction, I'm just saying it is also lack of interest in sex. I feel they are both connected.

This makes sense to me...that the two are connected. Doesn't "lack of sexual attraction" mean you can be attracted to people, but lack a desire for sexual contact with that person?

Doesn't it stand to reason that sexual attraction means you are attracted to someone in a sexual way?

[shockkkk]

It's kind of weird. On one hand you have people who say that sexual attraction is a feeling that leads one to desire sexual contact with another person, yet there is extreme opposition to bypassing the mention of sexual attraction altogether and just say asexuals don't desire sexual contact with other people.

On the other hand, there's people who take a stricter definition of sexual attraction and say that getting sexually aroused by anyone is sexual attraction, but then say things like "I'm not attracted to the people in porn, but the situations", or "My arousal when kissing my boyfriend is only physical attraction" to explain what is thought of as asexual behaviors as not being sexual attraction. In reality, all we get is poorly defined list of feelings and experiences that are thought of as asexual of which there is no real consensus.

[SexNotHaver]

Just for the record, there is significant evidence that morning erections are unrelated to arousal. It seems that a full bladder can cause a reflex erection which helps prohibit urination while sleeping.

I understand that. But that crap thing about it is leaking during the night (and I don't mean urine - my wet dreams usually happen when I'm dying to pee).

[WhenSummersGone]

Haven't read the whole thread but I agree with most of those, except "Disinterest in sex". Which I've posted about in another thread.

Most of why I consider myself mostly asexual is because I just don't care that much about having sexual intercourse, and it's not because I fear it or hate it, I just don't find it that interesting. Disinterest, lack of desire, don't want/need it, whatever.

Also I believe that most asexuals don't find the actual act of sex that interesting, or at least something they want to do. I'm not saying it's not lack of sexual attraction, I'm just saying it is also lack of interest in sex. I feel they are both connected.

The OP does say that most asexual likely have ALSO disinterest in sex. What it says is that disinterest in sex on its own is not asexuality :)

I guess that makes more sense, maybe I'm not sexually attracted enough to most people to desire sex with them. Although I never really had an interest in having sex on it's own either.

[Arctic Fox]

Just for the record, there is significant evidence that morning erections are unrelated to arousal. It seems that a full bladder can cause a reflex erection which helps prohibit urination while sleeping.

I understand that. But that crap thing about it is leaking during the night (and I don't mean urine - my wet dreams usually happen when I'm dying to pee).

Thanks for sharing that. :P