I'll start this with..this is my perspective....I'll also add this is nothing more than me stating it as I see it, supported by years of observations within the asexual community and from various polls and census's etc.. but in a calm and laid out way

When someone comes into any asexual arena and asks...Am I asexual?....then using current observations and information..the answer proportionally would be...no

There is only one difference between us and sexuals, an important one but it is only just one..not 5 or 10 or 50...just one

The desire issue..often debated..since time in memorial.... desire is a want, I desire that car, that home, that woman etc..asexuality has never been about a want or not want...that is celibacy..see if I can explain it in a different way

Infront of me I have a can that is labelled sexual attraction soup......want, which is what desire is...dictates there will be soup of some kind in that tin..you then decide when that soup is opened if you want/desire it or not.....asexuality is opening the tin of sexual attraction and finding absolutely nothing is in there...nothing

So why is asexuality so confusing?..firstly..anything that involves humans , even more so today..will be f*cked up. people are so busy ignoring "we" because they concentrate more on "me"

that is why most sexual identifications are not about being correct but more about being what works for you

When it comes to the asexual spectrum or under the asexual umbrella..if you fit into these two..you are sexual..but in various stages as you fine tune it for yourself..you feel you have certain alignments with asexuality

I'll try and explain that in another way..I'm white..but if I suddenly start listening to Bob Marley, go to Jamacia for my holidays and grow dreads..that doesn't mean I am black..it means I am white and I align myself with some parts..I'm not suddenly demi black, grey black, litho black...you get the drift I'm sure

Explaining this in a calm way will I hope, help some see what is not being said is bugger off you do not belong..far from it

What is being said is this is what an asexual is...and this is what an asexual isn't......if you are not asexual then you are sexual but what and whoever you are..your welcome

This isn't asexuals vs sexuals...infact during my time in the other place..I was very "robust" ..let's use robust..when some tried and make aven asexual only and said they were uncomfortable with sexuals within that forum....tough titty...sexuals are equal to us in every way bar one small but important difference...that doesn't make asexuals more important....it is however important to know what that difference actually is.

as a community, the asexual community is quite a welcoming one and I can't see that changing (unless you start ring fencing your forums ..aven booo with your Donald Trump walls )

So before you ask am I asexual, accept most asking will not be ....but you will always be welcome

One of the biggest problems with the definition of asexuality, in fact it's probably the MAIN problem, is that it relies on the term "sexual attraction" in order to describe itself.

Sexual attraction is a general concept that is nearly impossible to define in a precise and specific way. Even some of the so-called experts can't seem to agree on precisely what is, or what is not, sexual attraction.

And then you have asexuality, which is finally acknowledged but is still poorly understood, and it nonetheless insists on trying to define itself by using a term that has no precise meaning.
Sure, most people THINK they know what sexual attraction is, but a quick look around the internet will show you that it's a very subjective idea and the exact details are still subjects for discussion - some of it very heated! - and it's those little details that are causing all of the confusion.

KAGU143 wrote: One of the biggest problems with the definition of asexuality, in fact it's probably the MAIN problem, is that it relies on the term "sexual attraction" in order to describe itself.

Sexual attraction is a general concept that is nearly impossible to define in a precise and specific way. Even some of the so-called experts can't seem to agree on precisely what is, or what is not, sexual attraction.

For me those denying they know what sexual attraction is, are politicians..to me it is incredibly easy to define.."I am sexually attracted too" would be sexual..."I lack sexual attraction" is also easy to understand...the confusion comes from those who know what it means but..are uncomfortable with that simplest of terms...a bit like trying to get a yes or no answer from a politician

KAGU143 wrote:And then you have asexuality, which is finally acknowledged but is still poorly understood, and it nonetheless insists on trying to define itself by using a term that has no precise meaning.

I do feel it is as precise as it can be given humans are involved....there is also the other side to this...if ever we did agree on a definitive yes or no description...we both know, as with all sexual identity fora's..you will still get some trying to create an additional 50 labels, as that definition would also be questioned trying to tailor make a generic definition..some would claim erasure, elitism blah blah ..you know the score

KAGU143 wrote:Sure, most people THINK they know what sexual attraction is, but a quick look around the internet will show you that it's a very subjective idea and the exact details are still subjects for discussion - some of it very heated! - and it's those little details that are causing all of the confusion.

For me aven is the perfect explanation of that...the definition at the top of the page is what we are...it is the closest I feel to explaining who and what we are and that seems to be more and more accepted outside of the asexual/sexual bubble which is a good thing

then you go inside and confusion reigns in the same way you mentioned about the multiple internet opinions.

I think however some define it..we are agreed? that what ever it is...it is only one difference between sexuals and Asexuals

what we need to be careful of..is that one small but important definition asexual difference..doesn't get lost in the sea of sexual labels that wrongly identifies them as asexual

as long as we can do that..I see our integrity raising..fail to do that and we might as well accept we will forever be seen as white queer females claiming to be asexual whilst at college.

Asexuality has a choice...but for now...if you feel any kind of sexual attraction at all then you are sexual...and until we find a better and more widely accepted term then it is the best we have...and the longer it is in place..the less chance it will be changed..and some need to understand that

Like... what is asexuality but a lack of desire for sex, brah? *passes blunt*

Sorry, I can't take you seriously because you sound like you've smoked too much weed before posting this. But I do have questions for you before I start to really discredit you.

I do not desire spinach, but I do still eat it. Therefore could someone who doesn't desire sex still have sex?

As for you, Kagu. Maybe, like, sexual attraction is so hard to explain because it's a feeling, brah? *passes blunt other way* Yes, I'm totally deep as shit. Deep as the fucking sea! But for serious, though. Everyone experiences joy differently. I know a few people that are happy in being hateful. Some people are happy through being unhappy and complaining about everything. I myself am happy in being a complete and utter smartass. Because I'm fucking better than everyone! Therefore, could someone really define sexual attraction?

I prefer to be blinded by science, so I have looked up more scientific interpretations of sexual attraction than I can even remember. My memory isn't that great, but it really was a bunch!
None of them were very conclusive, although the idea that it's a process involving several stages was interesting and seems perfectly plausible.
If there's any new data I haven't seen it, but I admit that I gave up looking for it several years ago after the initial results were so disappointing.

Here I am, living in a state where I could go out, drive for barely 2 minutes, and buy magic brownies if I wanted them (because I refuse to smoke anything) and yet I can't be bothered.
Partly because I got over it during the 70s, but also because it's so freakin' expensive! Why, back in the day *shakes cane* I never had to pay more than $10.00 for a lid! I still think that should be plenty.

Thom wrote:Like... what is asexuality but a lack of desire for sex, brah? *passes blunt*

Sorry, I can't take you seriously because you sound like you've smoked too much weed before posting this. But I do have questions for you before I start to really discredit you.

Dude, your the one who plays toy games online..but fire away...you see what I did there?

Thom wrote:I do not desire spinach, but I do still eat it. Therefore could someone who doesn't desire sex still have sex??

The desire thing is rubbish...attraction is really easy to explain and most people do get it but for some it's like ..."just one difference? is that it? I don't want just one difference I want to have loads, I want to be "special" so what follows and then the flocking of so many labels making what is essentially just one difference...then confusing

The having or not having sex has nothing to do with asexuality......that comes under the individuals choice or physical condition...the maybe into s&m, they maybe sexually repulsed, they may decide to become celibate, they may become man whores, they may have a non existent libido....asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction and NOT the lack of sexual ability...

Lacking sexual attraction is specific to asexuals....everything else can be asexual or sexual

and what's James Blunt got to do with it? [/quote]

Sexual attraction is a happy compromise. It's neither meaningless nor so precise that anyone can precisely define it or measure it (despite what piffy thinks). It relates asexuality to something people are already familiar with, but allows enough nuance to allow people to interpret it somewhat flexibly - while remaining meaningful. The definition is not perfect but imo better than all alternatives. I keep meaning to write a longer post on this subject - why I'm in favour of the sexual attaction definition and why I take asexuality to be a sexual orientation - for AVEN, but it'll have to wait. Also I don't like enflaming the definition debate, so I'll wait till it's already fully flamed up by itself first, then perhaps post.

HAHA! I like that approach, flergalwit. (It was already on fire when I laid down on it?)

Personally, I find the dividing line between attraction and desire to be so vague as to be almost meaningless. To be attracted to something is to want it on some level so, at best, I see the two things as progressive stages, with attraction gradually phasing in to desire.

To me, attraction is a kind of intense positive interest. Like - "Oh! I really like that and I wouldn't mind having it!"
Inferring from that, sexual attraction would be, "Oh! I really like that person and I wouldn't mind having sex with them!"

Desire would be the next stage after attraction, progressing from "I wouldn't mind having" to "I want, and intend to have."

Your mileage may vary.