Any asexuals here?

[cheese]

Or anywhere along the asexual spectrum?

Just curious.

Useful links
http://www.asexuality.org/home/overview.html
http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gray-A

 

[Hawkeye]

Interesting. I thought I was broken but you appear to have stumbled upon something that I kinda fit in with.

 

[BigApplePi]

Or anywhere along the asexual spectrum?

Just curious.

Useful links
http://www.asexuality.org/home/overview.html
http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gray-A

Can't one go through periods of asexuality?

(1) When I first left a place of sexual interest and came to a strange city, I was so disappointed I could not continue what I had left behind, I was completely asexual for awhile.

(2) After I sat on a bicycle seat for 24 hours I noticed I was completely impotent. (I had a girl friend at the time.) Today bike saddles are made with a crease down the middle to avoid compressing the urethral nerve.

(3) What if one is under ten years old? I used to be under ten years old. How does one get back there?

 

[shadowdrums4]

I've pretty much always been asexual. Until I met my ex. When he died I became asexual again. Assuming one can go through periods of asexuality, than I believe this situation works.

People go through periods of bisexuality/homosexuality/heterosexuality so I don't see why not.

 

[walfin]

Always thought it was more common among the INTJs.

I soooo love stereotyping them.

 

[Irishpenguin]

This just makes too much sense, especially the "Attraction" bit.

 

[asmit127]

I guess I'm a gray as it's not that I don't look at girls and think it would be fun to take them to bed but I've never made any effort to do so and don't think it's important. Maybe like Shadowdrums I'm just waiting for someone special. But even then, is it sexual desire or a desire to make your partner happy?

 

[Fukyo]

The interesting thing about asexuality is that within the spectrum it introduces a distinction between sexual orientation and affectional orientation.

An article about a study that shows some empirical evidence for it.

 

[BigApplePi]

The interesting thing about asexuality is that within the spectrum it introduces a distinction between sexual orientation and affectional orientation.

An article about a study that shows some empirical evidence for it.

Tell me if you think this captures it or I am off base here. One can "fall in love" with any person, animal or thing. It's an emotional desire to be fully involved with that object. For example, you see a puppy in a pet shop. You fall in love with it meaning you wish to totally take care of it and its well-being. This may or may not be reciprocated if it's a live being. One could fall in love with a work of art. That means one wishes to be experience it in a special way. It won't be reciprocated except by its presence. One can fall in love with either sex and it not be sexual, as with a student and their mentor. Such a falling in love would a priori not be sexual as a sexual relationship would interfere with the nature of the kind of love in the first place.

 

[cheese]

Pi, it's argued among most romantic asexuals that there is a qualitative difference between romantic love and platonic love, and it isn't sex. If I've read you right, this is more or less where you're heading. Being fully emotionally involved with a puppy, or a child, or a sister, is different to being fully emotionally involved with a lover.

I think thinking about it in terms of "sexual energies" makes sense. In a romantic relationship - sexual or not, and regardless of gender - one will tend to have masculine and the other feminine energy (or needs, desires etc). I think this could be what marks the difference between romantic and platonic love - the complement of opposing energy.


Hawkeye:
I know what you mean.

 

[cheese]

Pi:
Missed your earlier questions, sorry.

Yes, it's generally held that sexuality is fluid. I believe that children are still sexual beings, so I don't think age really factors into it that much. The desire to engage in acts with another would probably not be present in most, but that's possibly more a result of ignorance. (Again, I'm just guessing this stuff.)

This is actually one of the reasons I posted this thread:

How legitimate do you think asexuality is as an orientation?

Keep in mind there are several subcategories - one being 'demisexual' (those who feel sexual attraction and desire only with someone they have a deep emotional connection with) - that suggest asexuals have environmental reasons for not desiring sex, rather than innate ones. (This sort of questioning is a major issue for them, and extremely unwelcome.)

Mods if you think it appropriate to split this into a new thread, please do so.

 

[Fukyo]

Always thought it was more common among the INTJs.

I soooo love stereotyping them.

That reminds me of this one very funny thread.

Tell me if you think this captures it or I am off base here. One can "fall in love" with any person, animal or thing. It's an emotional desire to be fully involved with that object. For example, you see a puppy in a pet shop. You fall in love with it meaning you wish to totally take care of it and its well-being. This may or may not be reciprocated if it's a live being. One could fall in love with a work of art. That means one wishes to be experience it in a special way. It won't be reciprocated except by its presence. One can fall in love with either sex and it not be sexual, as with a student and their mentor. Such a falling in love would a priori not be sexual as a sexual relationship would interfere with the nature of the kind of love in the first place.

It's a somewhat applicable analogy, but affectional orientation is primarily about romantic love (with hetero,homo,bi,pan orientations). Given that I don't think it's applicable to animals and objects, although some asexuals develop the same kind of aesthetic appreciation for another person, comparable to observing a pretty painting, others reject it because it seems dehumanizing.

 

[Anthile]

Calvinists think I'm prude.

 

[BigApplePi]

Pi:
Missed your earlier questions, sorry.

Yes, it's generally held that sexuality is fluid. I believe that children are still sexual beings, so I don't think age really factors into it that much. The desire to engage in acts with another would probably not be present in most, but that's possibly more a result of ignorance. (Again, I'm just guessing this stuff.)

This is actually one of the reasons I posted this thread:

How legitimate do you think asexuality is as an orientation?

Keep in mind there are several subcategories - one being 'demisexual' (those who feel sexual attraction and desire only with someone they have a deep emotional connection with) - that suggest asexuals have environmental reasons for not desiring sex, rather than innate ones. (This sort of questioning is a major issue for them, and extremely unwelcome.)

Mods if you think it appropriate to split this into a new thread, please do so.

cheese, I press to try and grasp this topic (or any topic) in a few words but after reading your post I couldn't possibly do that. Call in the experts. Sexuality is something that just about everyone has an opinion or feeling about, but it's part of the essence of a human being. It must be very difficult to do this topic justice.

 

[Fukyo]

cheese, I press to try and grasp this topic (or any topic) in a few words but after reading your post I couldn't possibly do that. Call in the experts. Sexuality is something that just about everyone has an opinion or feeling about, but it's part of the essence of a human being. It must be very difficult to do this topic justice.

In a few words?

So here is my definition of ‘asexual’: The word ‘asexual’ has two distinct but related meanings. The first is a sexual orientation: Asexuals are people who experience little or no sexual attraction. The second is an identity based on this: Asexuals are people who experience little or no sexual attraction who choose to call themselves asexual.

http://asexystuff.blogspot.com/2008/09/defining-asexuality.html

Experts?

 

[BigApplePi]

Here are some reactions in blue:

Pi:
Missed your earlier questions, sorry.

Yes, it's generally held that sexuality is fluid. I believe that children are still sexual beings,
In what way? You mean little boys like trucks and little girls like dolls?

so I don't think age really factors into it that much.
It doesn't? Ya got me.

The desire to engage in acts with another would probably not be present in most, but that's possibly more a result of ignorance. (Again, I'm just guessing this stuff.)
You mean trying to turn on a prepubescent boy is possible? I don't remember that. What does Freud say?

This is actually one of the reasons I posted this thread:

How legitimate do you think asexuality is as an orientation?
That is not a link on my screen.

Keep in mind there are several subcategories - one being 'demisexual' (those who feel sexual attraction and desire only with someone they have a deep emotional connection with)
Sure. Some people are only open to the physical side of sex while others require pre-conditions such as the possibility of continuance.

- that suggest asexuals
I would vote for distinguishing physical from hormonal from emotional asexuality. These are all different.

have environmental reasons for not desiring sex, rather than innate ones. (This sort of questioning is a major issue for them, and extremely unwelcome.)
You mean painful as opposed to natural? Being asexual surrounded by unsympathetic sexuals couldn't be pleasant without a goodly amount of maturity.


Mods if you think it appropriate to split this into a new thread, please do so.
Split sexuality? I've never heard that term

 

[Anthile]

I can't say I'm perfectly familiar with Freud's writings (though I'm working on it) but from what I understand, children have simply an extremely low libido that lies dormant until it awakens with puberty. It seems that this mechanism is a result of evolution so we can learn useful skills before we can go around and make babies. The rather slow growing of the human body seems deliberate in this light (other animals grow much faster) and not only is the mental image of children having sex utterly disturbing (Black Lagoon *shudder*) but the documented cases of young girls becoming pregnant end often fatal.

Now sexual orientation is an entirely different matter. Freud suggested that bisexuality is the 'normal' state and homosexuality and heterosexuality are simply variations as a result of nurture. Personally, I don't believe that to be true.
Jung said that heterosexuality is the 'normal' state and that homosexuality and bisexuality are a cause of an anima (or animus) 'anomaly'. Like he himself said: "When love is thrown out of the door, sexuality immediately jumps in through the window".

 

[BigApplePi]

I can't say I'm perfectly familiar with Freud's writings (though I'm working on it) but from what I understand, children have simply an extremely low libido that lies dormant until it awakens with puberty. It seems that this mechanism is a result of evolution so we can learn useful skills before we can go around and make babies. The rather slow growing of the human body seems deliberate in this light (other animals grow much faster) and not only is the mental image of children having sex utterly disturbing (Black Lagoon *shudder*) but the documented cases of young girls becoming pregnant end often fatal.

Now sexual orientation is an entirely different matter. Freud suggested that bisexuality is the 'normal' state and homosexuality and heterosexuality are simply variations as a result of nurture. Personally, I don't believe that to be true.
Jung said that heterosexuality is the 'normal' state and that homosexuality and bisexuality are a cause of an anima (or animus) 'anomaly'. Like he himself said: "When love is thrown out of the door, sexuality immediately jumps in through the window".

I'm familiar with Freud only from a distance not having read much of the original. I'm inclined not to think in terms of "normality" but rather of development from the original package. The original package is what we are born with. The development can go anywhere but with the family influence as a very strong role model. The family is a mold forming one's orientation together with masculine/ feminine temperaments -- whatever those are. That makes deviation out of the "normal" or "common."

 

[Anthile]

Since Freud became public domain this year, you can read it yourself: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Three_Contributions_to_the_Theory_of_Sex

However, the wikipedia article says the translation is 'imperfect'.

 

[BigApplePi]

That reminds me of this one very funny thread.



It's a somewhat applicable analogy, but affectional orientation is primarily about romantic love (with hetero,homo,bi,pan orientations). Given that I don't think it's applicable to animals and objects, although some asexuals develop the same kind of aesthetic appreciation for another person, comparable to observing a pretty painting, others reject it because it seems dehumanizing.

What is "romantic love"?

 

[Reverse Transcriptase]

1. Make an asexuals dating website.
2. ???
3. PROFIT

 

[Fukyo]

What is "romantic love"?

Relative.

 

[BigApplePi]

Fukyo. That blog keeps talking about "sexual attraction" as if attraction were something originating from within. It draws me to this thought experiment:

Take any living creature and raise them normally with love but raise them by another species. Isolate them so they never see their own species. Then when they reach past sexual maturity present their species to them. I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't know what to do. There would be NO attraction except by those who are fond of "out of the ordinaries."

 

[Melllvar]

Or anywhere along the asexual spectrum?

Just curious.

Well, certainly not asexual here, but I've often wished I was (I mean this literally). I envy anyone who is free from the constraints and impulses of sexual desire, and usually try to suppress such things when I find myself experiencing them. After reading the links though, I'm pretty sure this doesn't make me asexual, just greatly dissatisfied with society's silly little rules and protocols for interacting with those your attracted to. I'm not the type to prefer casual sex, its more that in RL I'm a pretty shy and reserved person (until I get to know people, then I tend to go nuts) and it takes me a long time to get to know someone well enough to feel comfortable around them, which is a state I would much rather reach before being "intimate" with someone. Unfortunately trying to meet a member of the opposite sex who a) you are genuinely attracted to, b) is genuinely attracted to you, and c) doesn't consider you an abnormal male specimen for not immediatly trying to f*** them is a very low probability, particularly for INTP types (or atleast for this INTP type) who aren't social butterflies.

Anyhow, my point would be that it's comforting to hear that there are genuine asexuals (or partial asexuals) out there. Non-standard sexual attraction and interaction FTW!

 

[cheese]

Pi:
I believe children are capable of experiencing and desiring sexual pleasure (from genital stimulation). I've read about it several times; I think they even have evidence to suggest babies can accidentally discover masturabtion and subsequently seek it out.

Sexual attraction, whose lack is often held to be the defining point in asexuality, is a bodily or mental response to a specific individual that includes the desire to engage in sexual acts with that person. I assume most children won't have this, but I think it could be because they're not aware of the possibilities or at least unable to consciously articulate their desires since the desire is a partly mental product. It's especially unlikely that they'll know what sex is below the age of 10.

We should differentiate here between sexual attraction, and arousal. Arousal is a physical response to mental, visual, physical or other stimuli. Attraction is a desire (or precursor to a desire) to engage in acts with another individual. It's possible to experience arousal without any desire for another person, which is what many asexuals experience. They don't find people sexually appealing.

Keep in mind there are several subcategories - one being 'demisexual' (those who feel sexual attraction and desire only with someone they have a deep emotional connection with)
- that suggest asexuals

Sure. Some people are only open to the physical side of sex while others require pre-conditions such as the possibility of continuance.

I would vote for distinguishing physical from hormonal from emotional asexuality. These are all different.

No, I'm talking about sexual attraction, which is different from the willingness to engage in sex. You can be asexual and willing to have sex with a partner out of love. You can be sexually attracted to an attractive coworker and be unwilling to have sex because you're married. The difference between an asexual and a sexual is (in many definitions) that the former does not experience sexual attraction - that is, a physical or mental response to a specific individual that involves or results in a desire to engage in sexual acts with them.

Demisexuals are slightly different again from asexuals in that they do experience sexual attraction, but only in very limited circumstances (when in love or emotionally attached to a partner). They're the luckiest imo.

You're right, 'emotional asexuality' is different from asexuality. People who do not experience romantic attraction often identify as 'aromantic'.

Hormonal asexuality:
Not entirely sure what you mean here, but if you're suggesting imbalanced hormone levels that result in low sex drive - this is different to asexuality. Asexuals often have completely healthy, normal bodies: they simply do not experience directed sexual desire. It is also possible to be asexual with a very high sex drive (a clearer word is libido, since there's generally no desire for sex): you simply wouldn't be interested in sex, but would require self-guided release.

The easiest way to think about it is this:
Heterosexuals experience sexual attraction to the opposite sex
Homosexuals experience sexual attraction to the same sex.
Asexuals experience do not experience sexual attraction.

There are competing models of asexuality whose criteria conflict somewhat with the above, or introduce grey areas, but I think the above is the definition as it was originally conceived.

I've only been reading up on this the last few days; if anyone wants to make any corrections, please do.

 

[cheese]

Mellvar:
There are all sorts of people out there, and while those seeking emotional/mental intimacy may not be the majority, they do exist.

Also, asexuality makes a normal romantic relationship very difficult.

 

[Melllvar]

Mellvar:
There are all sorts of people out there, and while those seeking emotional/mental intimacy may not be the majority, they do exist.

So they say. If you consider the number of people a socially introverted guy meets in a year though, the number of people he actually gets to know, and the stress that comes with desiring something and knowing how difficult it will be to ever get it: I'd generally rather these desires be gone. Of course, that's easy say now. I can see where this could be a "You may get what you want, but will you want what you get" kind of thing.

Also, asexuality makes a normal romantic relationship very difficult.

Yeah, I can see where that would be a more-than-minor inconvenience if you did hit it off with someone.

Anyhow, since I've established I'm not asexual, I'm going to turn this thread back over to the original topic. Sorry for the hijacking.

 

[cheese]

Pfft, no worries.

Also, that was meant to be more an encouragement thing, than a "u so dum ppl r nice!!!!1" comment.
I can understand wanting to eliminate problematic desires.

This thread is no longer about the mere presence of asexuals if you haven't noticed - it's about anything to do with sexuality, mostly a- but otherwise as well, so stick around if you're interested.

 

[cheese]

From AVEN forums:

Hyposexual means you don't need sexual stimulation. Asexual means you don't need sex.

A hypersexual sexual will probably need lots of sex.

A hyposexual sexual will probably not need lots of sex.

A hypersexual asexual will not feel the need for sex but will probably jack off a lot.

A hyposexual asexual would be a nonlibidoist.


The above should demonstrate the difference between sex drive/libido, and sexual attraction/desire for people.

*edit
As will this link:
http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Attraction

 

[Adymus]

This just seems so unneccesary to me... Why would you make an entire sexual orentation based on "Thinks sex is meh", or "Kind of sexually drivenish."

 

[BigApplePi]

I question this line: "There are all sorts of people out there, and while those seeking emotional/mental intimacy may not be the majority, they do exist."

It's the word "majority." We could argue near everyone unconsciously wishes intimacy underneath if they have survived past one year or so of age. Survival is dependent on initial nurturing or intimacy. After that there is an awful lot of stimulus-response during the learning years of childhood. I would not rely on a message board of introverts to judge this.

In an extroverted family, all sorts of experiences can happen: one sees affection of parents, divorce, fighting, kissing, partnership, rage, possession, dependency, love, hate -- all sorts of things that would stimulate or turn off sexual attraction when one passes through puberty.

At the earliest case, think of breast feeding or bottle feeding. This is intimacy. Now how was one weened? Gradually or suddenly? This could be painful or natural if gradually replaced by other nourishment. If painful, one might seek to avoid intimacy in the future: hence asexuality.

 

[shoeless]

i don't like the term asexual, or necessarily defining it as a separate orientation... but... yeah, that's pretty much me in a nutshell.

hmm.

 

[cheese]

I question this line: "There are all sorts of people out there, and while those seeking emotional/mental intimacy may not be the majority, they do exist."

It's the word "majority." We could argue near everyone unconsciously wishes intimacy underneath if they have survived past one year or so of age. Survival is dependent on initial nurturing or intimacy. After that there is an awful lot of stimulus-response during the learning years of childhood. I would not rely on a message board of introverts to judge this.

In an extroverted family, all sorts of experiences can happen: one sees affection of parents, divorce, fighting, kissing, partnership, rage, possession, dependency, love, hate -- all sorts of things that would stimulate or turn off sexual attraction when one passes through puberty.

At the earliest case, think of breast feeding or bottle feeding. This is intimacy. Now how was one weened? Gradually or suddenly? This could be painful or natural if gradually replaced by other nourishment. If painful, one might seek to avoid intimacy in the future: hence asexuality.

I meant those who desire emotional and mental intimacy before considering physical intimacy. Sorry, it was unclear. It was in response to Mellvar and had nothing to do with asexuality, nor was it implying sexual people do not desire other forms of intimacy.

 

[Minuend]

Makes me wonder; how often is it normal to be sexually attracted to someone?

I've never been, but I never meet new people either (loner), so I just figured I haven't met the right ones. Just being good-looking does nothing. I don't have any strong desire for a relationship either. Sometimes I think it would be nice to have someone there, but I think it's just the romantic idea I like, reality is usually more... disappointing.

It doesn't really matter to me what I am, it doesn't change things. I don't really think I'm asexual. But I'm still curious how often it's normal to be sexually attracted to other people. Every time one look at a picture of a sexy character?

 

[BigApplePi]

Could it be like ice cream? If one has never tried it (under the right circumstances), one might know about it yet have no particular desire for it.

 

[BigApplePi]

I meant those who desire emotional and mental intimacy before considering physical intimacy. Sorry, it was unclear. It was in response to Mellvar and had nothing to do with asexuality, nor was it implying sexual people do not desire other forms of intimacy.

Makes sense. It takes a certain knack to take things out of context when they aren't meant to be .

We could conjecture the sex drive is like an itch. One consciously wishes to satisfy it as a priority. One may not go about satisfying it in the right way, but it doesn't go away. While it is true that emotional and mental intimacy are the best way to satisfy that drive when it returns again and again, that has nothing to do with remaining in the up front position.

That could be a good argument for asexuality. One trains oneself to pacify the itch by ignoring it.

 

[ashitaria]

o.O

I FIT ALL OF THE DESCRIPTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that I can definitely identify myself as asexual.

 

[Beat Mango]

Something like demi-semi-sexual Overly sexual people(ie, most everyone) get on my nerves

 

[Jah]

Fluctuating between satyriasis or hyper sexuality, and seeming asexual tendencies.

Some weeks I can go through handfuls of women, desiring all of them more than anything, wanting to fully satisfy them in every way, and usually succeeding at more than that. While others I can't stand being near people at all, and even sex becomes nothing except something I do to keep the woman satisfied, if in any form of relationship, while gaining no pleasure myself. (these periods last between weeks and months and never seem to follow any pattern.)

Relationships seldom last for long, due to this unstable sexuality.

 

[AliTree]

*waves* me! i'm demisexual for my boyfriend only. :]

 

[echoplex]

I don't think so. It would probably be alot simpler to just say that I am -- and it would certainly serve as a nice canned answer for most people. Meh.

But no, I just really don't act on my attractions. I don't think that should be categorized as asexuality at all. It's called being awkward; i.e. I never get into the good categories. I can't help but think I would enjoy being asexual, although I may be wrong. It does seem like a perspective with benefits -- mainly the benefit of not wanting to touch complete strangers you don't feel like talking to until they'll let you touch them (perhaps this would exist anyway). I don't really think I'm relationship-material because the whole sex-game seems so far removed from the way I approach relationships. But sadly, I can't just be labeled asexual, but rather something foul like confused, weird, or well, horny. Yeah.

That's not to suggest there aren't people who really don't experience sexual attraction, the bastards.

Also, the question of whether it should even be considered an orientation is an interesting one, I think. To be exact, asexuality is not really a sexual orientation, but the lack of one. But from a social perspective, since we live in a sexual society, the concept of asexuality can help 'breeders' better understand those who can't quite relate to their level of sexual proclivity. I think using it as a sexual category facilitates the recognition that not everyone is sexually-driven, and the use of other more specific categories can help draw more distinctions thereof. (like demisexual, and those kinda-sorta ones)

Maybe it's not really a sexual orientation, but I think it's a neatly-packed way to give those who don't relate to the norm a way to categorize themselves. Without it, others who don't understand will likely make assumptions about them (the most popular one being that they are homosexual).

 

[Redfire]

Asexuality

Are there any asexuals on this forum? Personally I feel physiologically capable of the act, but I don't particularly enjoy it. I don't masturbate, for one thing, which I hear is strange in males.

I did like some individual women in the past though, I just didn't want to have sex with them. According to all-mighty Wikipedia I can be a "hetero-romantic asexual"; meaning I like the romantic aspect of a relationship with the opposite sex (do I? I just find some women really beautiful and I like being around them). You can also be "demisexual"; meaning you "may feel sexual desire once a reasonably stable/large emotional connection has been created". And the name sounds really cool.

Also according to wiki, asexuals are about 1% of the population. That means you probably know one, even if you are not aware of it.

Discuss.

 

[not]

Re: Asexuality

No. I am not asexual. I do relate to not wanting to bother with sex. That is not the same as saying that I lack the desire, but merely the motivation.

 

[Redfire]

I did browse the forum for "asexuality" but not for "asexual". Sorry.

 

[GodOfOrder]

Re: Asexuality

Are there any asexuals on this forum? Personally I feel physiologically capable of the act, but I don't particularly enjoy it. I don't masturbate, for one thing, which I hear is strange in males.

I did like some individual women in the past though, I just didn't want to have sex with them. According to all-mighty Wikipedia I can be a "hetero-romantic asexual"; meaning I like the romantic aspect of a relationship with the opposite sex (do I? I just find some women really beautiful and I like being around them). You can also be "demisexual"; meaning you "may feel sexual desire once a reasonably stable/large emotional connection has been created". And the name sounds really cool.

Also according to wiki, asexuals are about 1% of the population. That means you probably know one, even if you are not aware of it.

Discuss.

Indeed, I am a bi-romantic asexual.

As for your masturbation habits, they have little bearing on you status as an asexual. You could be a compulsive masturbator, and an asexual. What matters is your object, of sexual attraction. If you have no object, and thus only have a raw libido, you are an asexual.

Many find it a hard concept to understand, but it definitely exists.

 

[not]

I find the notion of there being an 'asexual spectrum scale' curious. Isn't the point of asexual to be without? I'd think once preference or desire enter into the equation then you would no longer be asexual... Is there an atheist spectrum scale as well?

 

[GodOfOrder]

I find the notion of there being an 'asexual spectrum scale' curious. Isn't the point of asexual to be without? I'd think once preference or desire enter into the equation then you would no longer be asexual... Is there an atheist spectrum scale as well?

Are you speaking about the bi-romantic thing? Or are you referring to the existence of gray-sexuals?

Romantic orientation determines who you wish to have relationships with. But one can have a romance based relationship without having a desire for sex. Love, support, emotional intimacy that surpasses what one would consider mere friendship, these are reasons for romance. Conversely, one can be an a-romantic sexual; one who is interested in fucking, and nothing else.

People who refer to themselves as gray-sexuals, feel sexual attraction only under very specific or rare circumstances. The difference is significant enough, that it warrants a distinction from what is considered normal sexuality. They often identify more with having no sexual impulses at all than they do with the opposite end of the spectrum.

 

[Latte]

I had a year or so long period of a lack of desire to have sex with anyone, and within that year there was a half year where there was no libido either.

I was in severely poor general neurological health at the time, which I attribute it to.

Upon partial recovery, the order of functionality acquisition was ---->libido re-engage --->demisexuality --> "Normal sexuality". And amusingly I later developed for the first time in my life from heteroromantic to biromantic and then mild very personality dependent and picky sexual attraction to males.

I think I sensed that I had the potential/mindspace to develop an attraction to males before consciously feeling it, and I did things such as consciously initiated deep immersion empathy and mindstate simulations to "understand" how one could be attracted to males better and experience it. Eventually it was a part of me. Deep immersion empathy and mindstate simulations were also but to a lesser extent utilized in the period of heterosexual recovery. I suspect in both cases it influenced the speed, manner and whether the capacities were acquired.

I do think the term Asexuality is quite misleading/confusing to people who have not read about the extent of the parameters of its definition.

My experience and observation of others who fall within the Asexuality umbrella has led me to regard it through the prism of neurological non-development, as I have tended to always observe a lack of the inclusion of some other "normal" cognitive formats in their overall cognition.

The intersection of genetics affecting how automatically one develops something, diet affecting the same thing and one's social/cultural environment affecting what kinds of mindstates one observes in others, how one wants to be, how one percieves oneself, what interpersonal situations one deals with and general things like stress. There are also things like mild neurological diseases, strong/extreme genetic neurological deviancy from what would enable the development of all brain areas that can be necessary and strong food sensitivity reactions that can single handedly effect the lack of physical potential for development of some specific region of the space of potential for human sexuality.

 

[not]

@GodOfOrder

Once the two threads were merged I went back to read the original thread. I was responding to many previous statements within the older portion of the thread. I actually wasn't directly speaking to you above.

After further examining the definition of the word though, I realize that my own definition of asexual was more specific than how the term is actually defined. Asexual simply means, without sexual activity. So I guess the 'scale' is to define the reasons why a person might not be sexually active. I thought the term included lack of desire within the definition.

Given the simpler definition of the word, I float in and out of being asexual. I seek out sex once in a while, but I have currently found an equilibrium where I don't desire the extraneous circumstances that come along with having a sexual encounter, and can live without sex. It is still lack of motivation, or the analyzing of the cause and effect of my potential actions, that keep me asexual.

My personal issue with having sex frequently is that I have contradictory desires. I simultaneously want to have deep, close, meaningful sex while maintaining a distance emotionally outside of the bedroom. I think if I found a mate that I related to better, that would give me the space I needed to function as an INTP, I'd be more open to it.

My personal experience to date is that I either have sex that has no meaning, therefore lacks fulfillment, or I end up with someone that becomes way to emotionally attached. I don't enjoy one night stands because there is no time to explore. I don't like to be smothered either.

 

[Grayman]

@ not

By that definition everyone is asexual unless someone can fuck 24/7 no rest


I believe it is desire but the line that seperates sexual with asexualn is as wide and as thin as the line that separates dark gray from black in a dark room.