Asexuality

[MyOwnPrivateSFC]

A bit late (I had some trouble getting into the Forum for a while), but:

I self-identify as autosexual, which I define as being a sub-category of asexual. It means I can be attracted to other people, but not the same way most sexual people are.

I do feel sexual arousal, but desire to deal with it on my own (and do so). I actively DO NOT want to have sex with anyone else at all.

I am turned on by sneezing. This is entirely different from the "Aww, poor baby!" feeling I sometimes also get (the latter depending on the specifics).

And, to (carefully) build on what Ouroboros said...I have engaged in, uh, "solo activities" since I was an infant. It had nothing to do with arousal then, and it only sometimes has to do with arousal now. It's often more about totally different neurological reactions; an entirely NON-sexual kind of pleasure.

I like this thread.

[Jorm]

And, to (carefully) build on what Ouroboros said...I have engaged in, uh, "solo activities" since I was an infant. It had nothing to do with arousal then, and it only sometimes has to do with arousal now. It's often more about totally different neurological reactions; an entirely NON-sexual kind of pleasure.

I like this thread.

I recently realized this about myself when an accidental med change resulted in a sudden massive increase in sex drive for me and I found I really didn't like it. Which made me realize that my reasons for solo activities is not, at least always, for sexual pleasure.

[doggo]

I don't necessarily think it's animilistic just to have sex for pleasure, but I do think it's animilistic when I see stuff on tv where people simply can't control themselves at start going at it in a public bathroom or closet or whatever. I have no idea if people ever do stuff like that in real life, but if they do, I honestly think it's rather pathetic that they have so little control over themselves.

In all honesty, I think there's two things to it:

1) those people enjoy the possibility of getting caught

and the even more attractive

2) the could control themselves but don't want to

Isn't it at least as pathetic when someone is so obsessed with controlling themselves that they can't let go and enjoy themselves?

[Shay]

Pig, just so you don't think I'm ignoring you, I'm going to reply by saying that I'm not actually going respond to your reply at this time. I've read what you said a few times, but this is one of those areas where my Asperger's is making my brain go "System Error". There are simply certain things about "human nature" that are completely incomprehensible to me and I honestly can't understand why anyone would act like that even for the reasons you've given.

Perhaps I'll respond again at a later time if I can actually think of anything coherent to say that isn't completely offensive.

[Mash]

Asexual, by its most basic definition is a lack of sexuality.

Meaning that by definition, nothing turns you on.

[Jorm]

Actually, by definition asexual means either an organism that lacks sexual organs or one that reproduces without the fusion of male and female gametes. By definition asexual has nothing to do with sex drive or orientation. We are clearly not talking about any sort of technical definition in this thread.

[Mash]

I think we could infer that an organism without sexual organs would have a distinct lack in sexuality.

[Jorm]

I think we could infer that an organism without sexual organs would have a distinct lack in sexuality.

Maybe, but that's not the definition and it's beside the point. The point being that as a term applied to human sexuality the technical definition isn't especially relevant and the term definitely does not mean a complete lack of sexual arousal or attraction when used in that context.

[MyOwnPrivateSFC]

Sorry, Mash, but I have to agree with Ouro here: while I'm usually first in line to argue that a word's meaning can be found in its roots, in this case, there is a definition specific to the topic at hand, and it's not the one you're giving.

While this thread is mostly about discussing the ins and outs and roundabouts inherent in any sexual category, even at its core, the word "asexual" as applied to human sexuality means "defined by a lack of sexual attraction." Thus, an asexual person does not feel sexual attraction, and an asexual relationship is one in which sexual attraction (between the partners) is not present. Asexuality = a lack of attraction. Period. it does not necessarily equal a lack of any sexuality at all; in fact, one could argue that that (along with investigating and defining other terms) has been the major thing that this thread has so far been about.

And, also? I'm going to give you the benefit if the doubt, because I realize that a LOT of the people here, myself included, have legitimate difficulty understanding social and conversational cues, and say that I think you didn't realize what you were doing, but, in general, coming into a conversation where multiple people are discussing issues and terms/language that they feel are very important to their self-identification, and telling those people that they're wrong about what those terms mean? Not cool. Very, very not cool.

[Mash]

Lack of sexual attraction is by definition a lack of sexuality.

How exactly would you go about having a sexuality of you weren't sexually attracted to anything?

I'm not telling you you're wrong. I'm telling you that the dictionary says something different about this particular term. And even if I was, civilized discourse should be encouraged in an online community. Perpetuating the same thing over and over while simultaneously dismissing any contradictory position is dismissive thinking, and should be looked down upon.

I said that the most basic definition of Asexuality is a distinct lack of sexuality on the whole. However, I would argue that human asexuality would in fact be a distinct lack of sexuality in general. I do apologize if I offended anyone. I just didn't expect everyone to be so... jumpy about it. It's just a word.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Mash

[Jorm]

I'm not telling you you're wrong. I'm telling you that the dictionary says something different about this particular term.

Right, but what's the point in saying that when that's clearly not what we're talking about here?

[Mash]

I'm not telling you you're wrong. I'm telling you that the dictionary says something different about this particular term.

Right, but what's the point in saying that when that's clearly not what we're talking about here?

Mmm, I dunno.

To get in on the conversation, I suppose. Again, I apologize. Carry on.

[MyOwnPrivateSFC]

Lack of sexual attraction is by definition a lack of sexuality.

How exactly would you go about having a sexuality of you weren't sexually attracted to anything?

Only you are talking about being completely un attracted to anything. What we're mostly talking about here is a lack of sexual attraction towards other people, which is the primary-science (as opposed to a sex-based specialty) way of defining sexual attraction: towards other people. "She's attracted to women." "He's attracted to redheads." It generally doesn't include other objects of attraction, no matter how common they may be: "She's attracted to foreign accents." "He's attracted to feet." Or, in our case, "they're attracted to people sneezing."

I'm not telling you you're wrong. I'm telling you that the dictionary says something different about this particular term. And even if I was, civilized discourse should be encouraged in an online community. Perpetuating the same thing over and over while simultaneously dismissing any contradictory position is dismissive thinking, and should be looked down upon.

Putting aside that I feel as though you're just being unnecessarily defensive and rude, the "dictionary" aspect of this may be part of the problem we're having communicating. Dictionaries are, by definition (no pun intended), very limited in scope. Have you tried looking asexuality up in a science text, especially one focusing on human sexuality? That might give you a better idea of where we're coming from in our discussion.

I said that the most basic definition of Asexuality is a distinct lack of sexuality on the whole. However, I would argue that human asexuality would in fact be a distinct lack of sexuality in general. I do apologize if I offended anyone. I just didn't expect everyone to be so... jumpy about it. It's just a word.

Two things here: first of all, no one is arguing with you about what the most basic definition of asexuality is. We're just saying that there are other definitions—scientific ones, not ones we made up—and that some of those are the focus of this topic. (Unless Ouroboros is really actually a plant of some type, and has been hiding it all along...the better to cause hay fever, my dear? )

Second of all... Maybe this goes back to what I said earlier about a lot of people here not being the greatest with social skills. I don't know. But I can tell you that expecting people having a frank discussion on a subject that many people don't believe exists (most, if not all, asexual a, have been told by doctors and/or loved ones that we "just haven't found the right person yet") to not "be jumpy" about someone coming in and arguing about their linguistic right to their own self-definition...all words are "just" words. But words have power. They define us, for better or worse. Some are more powerful than others. Some are inherently positive or negative; others more neutral. Some words have been "taken back" from those who sought to marginalized people with them. It took me a long time to find a word that described who I was, that didn't on its surface sound like "freak" or "broken". The word I found was "Asexual" and, while it may be "just" a word, you will NOT take it from me.

[Mash]

Only you are talking about being completely un attracted to anything. What we're mostly talking about here is a lack of sexual attraction towards other people, which is the primary-science (as opposed to a sex-based specialty) way of defining sexual attraction: towards other people. "She's attracted to women." "He's attracted to redheads." It generally doesn't include other objects of attraction, no matter how common they may be: "She's attracted to foreign accents." "He's attracted to feet." Or, in our case, "they're attracted to people sneezing."

And this is possibly where we caught our snag when I replied to your post. You said earlier, and I quote; "even at its core, the word "asexual" as applied to human sexuality means "defined by a lack of sexual attraction." Thus, an asexual person does not feel sexual attraction"

And like I said, a lack of sexual attraction is basically synonymous to a lack of sexuality. Even in the context of humans. You can't have sexuality if you aren't attracted to anything.

Of course, you amended this just now to 'you aren't attracted to anyone' rather than anything.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Mash

[MyOwnPrivateSFC]

My apologies. I was trying to start as basic as I could, because I didn't know how much you knew, or wanted to know, about the depths of psychobabble as pertains to the ridiculously complicated issue of human sexuality. Because not everyone is a psycholinguistics geek like me.

[Mash]

It's not your fault, anyways.

I'm unnecessarily difficult when it comes to most things, and too often do I find myself being argumentative simply for the sake of arguing. Were I less confrontational, I likely wouldn't have posted here to begin with.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Mash

[MyOwnPrivateSFC]

It's ok. I can be the same way. And, once I get my teeth in, I tend not to back down. So I know what it's like.

[OCC]

I am not sure what my sexuality is but I think it may be asexual, although it could be demi, or it could be that I fail to notice sexual attraction. I must say that the case for ace/demi is much stronger after reading this thread, because previously i couldn't reconcile the fact i had this fetish with my lack of a wish to have sex with anyone.

[doggo]

So if dictionary definitions don't count, why have people who nowadays identify as "asexuals" chosen that word to represent themselves? I must admit I find it a rather poor choice for a word, as the word itself sounds like it referred to not having a sexuality, and having a fetish (in the sense of the word that is non-religious/ritualistic) definitely means having a sexuality. It seems like a very misleading word for this use, so no wonder there's confusion among those who are not part of the group.

BTW, things like wether sneeze fetish is really a fetish has been a topic of discussion here before, more than once I think, and it has never seemed to cause a problem or hurt feelings, so in the context of this forum arguing about the use of a word describing a form of sexuality is nothing new.

(edited for poor use of English)

Edited February 9, 2013 by pig

[Jemmabean]

Fun fact: "Asexual," by the traditional definition, means "lacking sexual characteristics." For example, bacteria reproduce asexually (i.e. without sexual intercourse).

Fun fact #2: The term "asexual," has in more recent times been appropriated to mean something very different; rather than lacking in sexual characteristics, it now (as has been discussed) means something more akin to "lacking a sex drive," or perhaps, "possessing a diminished and/or atypical sex drive" (apologies if my definition is crude, I don't have a lot of experience/knowledge about this area of human sexuality)

Fun fact #3: The term, "fetish" traditionally refers specifically to sexual attraction centered around objects (shoes, undergarments, etc). There is another, related term - "Partialism" - which refers to sexual attraction to specific body parts (feet, hands, etc).

Fun fact #4: Under the traditionally defined parameters of fetish- and/or partialism, our own little kink doesn't really fit in anywhere.

Fun fact #5: Putting too much stock in dictionary definitions is pedantic, silly, and doesn't allow one to accurately capture the myriad complexity of the world around us.

EDIT: spelling. *facepalm*

Edited February 10, 2013 by MLIS

[Jorm]

So if dictionary definitions don't count, why have people who nowadays identify as "asexuals" chosen that word to represent themselves? I must admit I find it a rather poor choice for a word, as the word itself sounds like it referred to not having a sexuality, and having a fetish (in the sense of the word that is non-religious/ritualistic) definitely means having a sexuality. It seems like a very misleading word for this use, so no wonder there's confusion among those who are not part of the group.

BTW, things like wether sneeze fetish is really a fetish has been a topic of discussion here before, more than once I think, and it has never seemed to cause a problem or hurt feelings, so in the context of this forum arguing about the use of a word describing a form of sexuality is nothing new.

(edited for poor use of English)

I don't know why the term asexual was chosen, but it's way too late to try to change it now so the definition, as very often happens with the English language is just going to have to expand to include it. It's not that the dictionary definition doesn't count, it's that the dictionary hasn't caught up to current usage yet. The dictionary definition counts a lot when you're talking about biology, it's just behind on sexuality.

As for people getting upset, I think people tend to identify personally much more with things like being gay, lesbian, or asexual than with their kinks. It doesn't change much about a persons self perception or acceptance/validation in the world to argue that their feelings for sneezing aren't technically a fetish. But to argue that a persons sexuality doesn't exist is a much bigger thing.

[doggo]

I absolutely agree Ouro that dictionaries are up-to-date only with dead languages. But the confusion is something to be expected in this case. The case of "satanism" is quite the similar one - if you talk with a satanist, they're likely to be very frustrated if you confuse them with Satan worshippers; but the confusion is very understandable.

I think your "to argue that a persons sexuality doesn't exist" is a red herring here. I haven't seen anyone do that here. I think you have confused discussing a word and it's possible meanings and arguing that someone's experiences or feelings didn't exist. Only an utter fool would do the latter one; while getting overly agitated about the former one is quite limiting I think.

[Jorm]

I think your "to argue that a persons sexuality doesn't exist" is a red herring here. I haven't seen anyone do that here. I think you have confused discussing a word and it's possible meanings and arguing that someone's experiences or feelings didn't exist. Only an utter fool would do the latter one; while getting overly agitated about the former one is quite limiting I think.

I think it's a bit of a fine line, and I think it's understandable for people who are used to having this questioned to jump to that conclusion even when it isn't explicitly stated but is framed in a way that could imply it. But I did simplify the situation by phrasing that way, you're right.

[Not_Telling]

hmm no I'm not but its an interesting topic...

[Squadilah]

good point. I've had this fetish since birth. Maybe it's the fact that all around me, other 13/14 year olds are getting their sex drives, and even though I'm an early bloomer, I'm not.

And after reading the few replies after mine, I have this to say:

Ha. lle. lu. jah. Hallelujah.

I never realized that other people felt the EXACT SAME way that I do! I feel like I did when I first found this forum. It feels so awesome to see that having absolutely no thoughts and/or interest in sex whatsoever isn't just some weird thing that only I have. I can have romantic feelings (I like to cuddle, too. And I wouldn't mind kissing a dude), but it usually stops there. I love that I'm not the only one. Makes me feel a whole lot better about this

I'm straight and I don't want to belittle anyone for having any unusual sexual desires (if I did I would be a hypocrite for being on this fetish forum)

When I was that age, I remember girls acting like sex and porn were disgusting, but nowadays my female friends seem a lot more horny. Your female friends who claim to have a sex drive are exaggerating, and you can't expect a 13/14 year old girl to know whether she wants to have sex. Also nearly everyone who claims to have sex at that age is lying and they certainly fooled me at the time. Don't worry too much about what your sexuality is now, you won't truly know for the next couple of years.