Should We Stop Calling Asexuality Asexuality

[Hanchu]

Take a biology degree. Or class.

Already did, it just pisses me off a bit that they had to use that specific word when nonsexual fits just as well, IMO better because it'll make people who actually get confused when they hear someone say they're asexual understand what that person actually meant right off.

Thank you to Stagnant Axon Terminal and everyone else that has been working to help the rest of us fully understand what asexuality actually is (yeah, my definition was pretty limited, I was heading off to bed for the night and wanted to get this up first and thats what I came up with on my 4 hours of sleep over the last few days)

Thank you to Ebola for this beautiful reply:

*Replicates* Yep, still works. I am really asexual. Oh, dear... I think I broke something. Wow, I didn't know that was going to spill so much cytoplasm... Oops.

Nonsexual isn't good either , since it sounds like a person without a sex drive

[Olthar]

Seeing as how "a-" means "not," you're literally just making the same exact word but two letters longer.

[Salandriagado]

It's not "non optimal". Hell, considering the excess of population we have, having an instinctive desire to produce more sounds decidedly suboptimal to me.

I was saying that the term is non optimal because of all the confusion it brings with it. Not that people who don't want to have sex are not optimal.

It doesn't bring confusion. Like, at all. If you can't cope with words having multiple meanings, I have no clue how you cope with the English language in general, and for the love of god don't go into anything maths related. I also think you're vastly overestimating how many people are familiar with the word "asexual" in the reproductive/biological context.

[Abidawe]

Seeing as how "a-" means "not," you're literally just making the same exact word but two letters longer.

I like longer words, what can I say

[Hanchu]

Seeing as how "a-" means "not," you're literally just making the same exact word but two letters longer.

I like longer words, what can I say

Then how about saying Notsexuallyattractedtoanygenderbutnotbecausetheydonthaveasexdrive , as apposed to nonsexual which implies that asexuals have no sex drive

[Abidawe]

I like longer words, what can I say

Then how about saying Notsexuallyattractedtoanygenderbutnotbecausetheydonthaveasexdrive , as apposed to nonsexual which implies that asexuals have no sex drive

Because that's technically not a word, it would require a series of hyphens due to the fact that its a sentence without spaces, its also a bit too specific

By nonsexual I meant that they don't have a desire to have sex, not that they have no sex drive but I see where there would be confusion, maybe if someone could come up with a reasonable word that wasn't too straightforward or vague.

[Hanchu]

Then how about saying Notsexuallyattractedtoanygenderbutnotbecausetheydonthaveasexdrive , as apposed to nonsexual which implies that asexuals have no sex drive

Because that's technically not a word, it would require a series of hyphens due to the fact that its a sentence without spaces, its also a bit too specific

By nonsexual I meant that they don't have a desire to have sex, not that they have no sex drive but I see where there would be confusion, maybe if someone could come up with a reasonable word that wasn't too straightforward or vague.

No sex drive means not desiring sex , asexual means lack of sexual attraction to any gender.

[Abidawe]

Because that's technically not a word, it would require a series of hyphens due to the fact that its a sentence without spaces, its also a bit too specific

By nonsexual I meant that they don't have a desire to have sex, not that they have no sex drive but I see where there would be confusion, maybe if someone could come up with a reasonable word that wasn't too straightforward or vague.

No sex drive means not desiring sex , asexual means lack of sexual attraction to any gender.

Yet the asexuals above (or at least claimants) described not having a desire to have sex with anyone (lack of a sexual attraction to any gender) but that they do indeed participate in sexual acts whether it is to please their partner or to have children. Sex drive is variable (in people who experience sexual attraction in a general sense) and the way the asexuals who have posted on this forum described their observance of asexuality it sounds as if it is not present in an asexual being. This does not mean the cannot have sex it simply means they have no desire to do so and if they do it seems boring/mundane.

[Salandriagado]

No sex drive means not desiring sex , asexual means lack of sexual attraction to any gender.

Yet the asexuals above (or at least claimants) described not having a desire to have sex with anyone (lack of a sexual attraction to any gender) but that they do indeed participate in sexual acts whether it is to please their partner or to have children. Sex drive is variable (in people who experience sexual attraction in a general sense) and the way the asexuals who have posted on this forum described their observance of asexuality it sounds as if it is not present in an asexual being. This does not mean the cannot have sex it simply means they have no desire to do so and if they do it seems boring/mundane.

It varies. For me, it goes way beyond merely "boring". Even the thought of having sex is repulsive to me, and actually trying to have sex results in feeling physically ill, to the point that I've been unable to actually get close to the actual act.

[New Baldonia]

I really don't see why we should. As long as it isn't a derogotory term, and is just a descriptive term, calling "the lack of sexual attraction towards both males and females" sounds a lot worse than asexuality.

Well if you put it that way, then yeah its really verbose. why dont try "I'm just not that big into sex" instead. This takes me back to my first post, do you really need a word for this?
From what I've been reading, those who identify as asexual don't really have a consensus among themselves other than the fact that sometimes they just don't want to get laid.

Again, take myself for example. I dont really want sex right now. If a really attractive woman came into the room I'm in, I'm not going to try anything with her, partially because she's a stranger and that would be really weird, but also because I'm just not down for that at this exact moment. However, at a later date and time, I might try making the moves on her. And from what I've read in this thread so far, an asexual can experience the exact same thing. Really all I've learned so far in this thread is that Ironfoot might have erectile dysfunction, or just require a lot of foreplay (which is a common thing btw, though not something I myself need).

To anyone here who classifies themselves as asexual, have you considered that maybe you've just got a really specific fetish that you've yet to stumble upon? Or maybe that the people you're dating right now (or have in the past) just aren't you're type? The way its being described so far sounds about like what I assume sex with a best friend would feel.

[Abidawe]

I really don't see why we should. As long as it isn't a derogotory term, and is just a descriptive term, calling "the lack of sexual attraction towards both males and females" sounds a lot worse than asexuality.

Well if you put it that way, then yeah its really verbose. why dont try "I'm just not that big into sex" instead. This takes me back to my first post, do you really need a word for this?
From what I've been reading, those who identify as asexual don't really have a consensus among themselves other than the fact that sometimes they just don't want to get laid.

Again, take myself for example. I dont really want sex right now. If a really attractive woman came into the room I'm in, I'm not going to try anything with her, partially because she's a stranger and that would be really weird, but also because I'm just not down for that at this exact moment. However, at a later date and time, I might try making the moves on her. And from what I've read in this thread so far, an asexual can experience the exact same thing. Really all I've learned so far in this thread is that Ironfoot might have erectile dysfunction, or just require a lot of foreplay (which is a common thing btw, though not something I myself need).

To anyone here who classifies themselves as asexual, have you considered that maybe you've just got a really specific fetish that you've yet to stumble upon? Or maybe that the people you're dating right now (or have in the past) just aren't you're type? The way its being described so far sounds about like what I assume sex with a best friend would feel.

This guy just pretty much said what I've been thinking

[Dain II Ironfoot]

No sex drive means not desiring sex , asexual means lack of sexual attraction to any gender.

Yet the asexuals above (or at least claimants) described not having a desire to have sex with anyone (lack of a sexual attraction to any gender) but that they do indeed participate in sexual acts whether it is to please their partner or to have children. Sex drive is variable (in people who experience sexual attraction in a general sense) and the way the asexuals who have posted on this forum described their observance of asexuality it sounds as if it is not present in an asexual being. This does not mean the cannot have sex it simply means they have no desire to do so and if they do it seems boring/mundane.

Actually, no.
I'm asexual and i do enjoy seks, i just do not feel sexually attracted to the person i'm having seks with (wether its my romantic partner or just a random person). I enjoy sex for the feeling it gives me, a good and relaxed feeling. Mastrubation isn't the same. Though i can go long times without sex if i want to, its not that i have sex on a weekly basis, at the moment its more like a handful of times a year.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

I really don't see why we should. As long as it isn't a derogotory term, and is just a descriptive term, calling "the lack of sexual attraction towards both males and females" sounds a lot worse than asexuality.

Well if you put it that way, then yeah its really verbose. why dont try "I'm just not that big into sex" instead. This takes me back to my first post, do you really need a word for this?
From what I've been reading, those who identify as asexual don't really have a consensus among themselves other than the fact that sometimes they just don't want to get laid.

Again, take myself for example. I dont really want sex right now. If a really attractive woman came into the room I'm in, I'm not going to try anything with her, partially because she's a stranger and that would be really weird, but also because I'm just not down for that at this exact moment. However, at a later date and time, I might try making the moves on her. And from what I've read in this thread so far, an asexual can experience the exact same thing. Really all I've learned so far in this thread is that Ironfoot might have erectile dysfunction, or just require a lot of foreplay (which is a common thing btw, though not something I myself need).

To anyone here who classifies themselves as asexual, have you considered that maybe you've just got a really specific fetish that you've yet to stumble upon? Or maybe that the people you're dating right now (or have in the past) just aren't you're type? The way its being described so far sounds about like what I assume sex with a best friend would feel.

Because there is a huge difference between "I'm not into sex" and "I don't experience sexual attraction." They are not one in the same. For most asexuals, it's not "sometimes don't want to get laid" it's "I cannot experience the feelings that cause other people to desire sex with their partner."

Please stop trying to talk about sexuality when you clearly know jack shit about it.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

I really don't see why we should. As long as it isn't a derogotory term, and is just a descriptive term, calling "the lack of sexual attraction towards both males and females" sounds a lot worse than asexuality.

Well if you put it that way, then yeah its really verbose. why dont try "I'm just not that big into sex" instead. This takes me back to my first post, do you really need a word for this?
From what I've been reading, those who identify as asexual don't really have a consensus among themselves other than the fact that sometimes they just don't want to get laid.

Again, take myself for example. I dont really want sex right now. If a really attractive woman came into the room I'm in, I'm not going to try anything with her, partially because she's a stranger and that would be really weird, but also because I'm just not down for that at this exact moment. However, at a later date and time, I might try making the moves on her. And from what I've read in this thread so far, an asexual can experience the exact same thing. Really all I've learned so far in this thread is that Ironfoot might have erectile dysfunction, or just require a lot of foreplay (which is a common thing btw, though not something I myself need).

To anyone here who classifies themselves as asexual, have you considered that maybe you've just got a really specific fetish that you've yet to stumble upon? Or maybe that the people you're dating right now (or have in the past) just aren't you're type? The way its being described so far sounds about like what I assume sex with a best friend would feel.

1) I don't know, i can't look into the future.
2) I've dated pretty much all kinds of woman, so no, that wouldn't be the case. But that isn't the point either, there's a difference between sexual attraction and romantic attraction.

The biggest issue on this whole discussion remains that sexual people cannot feel what asexuals feel and vise versa. Obviously we will never know what we all feel so its basicly starting to get pointless and its becoming an endless discussion really.

[New Baldonia]

Because there is a huge difference between "I'm not into sex" and "I don't experience sexual attraction." They are not one in the same. For most asexuals, it's not "sometimes don't want to get laid" it's "I cannot experience the feelings that cause other people to desire sex with their partner."

what, pleasure? Cause that's the main reason I have sex. and from what is written here:

Actually, no.
I'm asexual and i do enjoy seks, i just do not feel sexually attracted to the person i'm having seks with (wether its my romantic partner or just a random person). I enjoy sex for the feeling it gives me, a good and relaxed feeling. Mastrubation isn't the same. Though i can go long times without sex if i want to, its not that i have sex on a weekly basis, at the moment its more like a handful of times a year.

it seems I'm not alone in this.
If you don't want to bang someone, then that's a lack of sexual attraction. And the "feelings that cause other people to desire sex with their partner" is pleasure, which from what everyone else has said, asexuals are perfectly capable of that.

Unless maybe you're talking about non-sexual attraction (aka, love) then I fail to see how this is really anything special. If it is that asexuals are incapable of experiencing "love", then perhaps they should see a doctor to determine if they might have autism or aspergers instead.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

Because there is a huge difference between "I'm not into sex" and "I don't experience sexual attraction." They are not one in the same. For most asexuals, it's not "sometimes don't want to get laid" it's "I cannot experience the feelings that cause other people to desire sex with their partner."

what, pleasure? Cause that's the main reason I have sex. and from what is written here:

Actually, no.
I'm asexual and i do enjoy seks, i just do not feel sexually attracted to the person i'm having seks with (wether its my romantic partner or just a random person). I enjoy sex for the feeling it gives me, a good and relaxed feeling. Mastrubation isn't the same. Though i can go long times without sex if i want to, its not that i have sex on a weekly basis, at the moment its more like a handful of times a year.

it seems I'm not alone in this.
If you don't want to bang someone, then that's a lack of sexual attraction. And the "feelings that cause other people to desire sex with their partner" is pleasure, which from what everyone else has said, asexuals are perfectly capable of that.

Unless maybe you're talking about non-sexual attraction (aka, love) then I fail to see how this is really anything special. If it is that asexuals are incapable of experiencing "love", then perhaps they should see a doctor to determine if they might have autism or aspergers instead.

There's a difference between the two. A sexual person experiences sexual attraction to another person (wether this to be a romantic partner or a random person), asexuals don't get that feeling.
Let me put it down otherwise, sexual people see an attractive person or date an attractive person. At some point (this can be instantly or it can take some time) they get the desire to have sex with them.
Asexuals never get that, they see an attractive person, notice that the person is attractive, and walk on. Same goes with a romantic partner, they love them and all, but will never have a desire to have sex with them, yet they can have sex with them (to pleassure the partner) and they can enjoy having sex with them (pleassure for yourself).

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Because there is a huge difference between "I'm not into sex" and "I don't experience sexual attraction." They are not one in the same. For most asexuals, it's not "sometimes don't want to get laid" it's "I cannot experience the feelings that cause other people to desire sex with their partner."

what, pleasure? Cause that's the main reason I have sex. and from what is written here:

Actually, no.
I'm asexual and i do enjoy seks, i just do not feel sexually attracted to the person i'm having seks with (wether its my romantic partner or just a random person). I enjoy sex for the feeling it gives me, a good and relaxed feeling. Mastrubation isn't the same. Though i can go long times without sex if i want to, its not that i have sex on a weekly basis, at the moment its more like a handful of times a year.

it seems I'm not alone in this.
If you don't want to bang someone, then that's a lack of sexual attraction. And the "feelings that cause other people to desire sex with their partner" is pleasure, which from what everyone else has said, asexuals are perfectly capable of that.

Unless maybe you're talking about non-sexual attraction (aka, love) then I fail to see how this is really anything special. If it is that asexuals are incapable of experiencing "love", then perhaps they should see a doctor to determine if they might have autism or aspergers instead.

You get a sexual attraction, a certain form of a desire to have sex with particular people. Asexuals do not. They may want pleasure, but it has nothing to do with their partner, because they on't experience sexual attraction.
Lets say you get into a relationship with someone who embodies every single sexual and aesthetic trait that you find absolutely unappealing in every way. But you love their personality and who they are as a person. But there is not a single instance that your partner induces arousing thoughts to you, or makes you want to have sex with them. You may have sex with them in some instances, to please them or because you want pleasure, but it was never you partner that made you want to have sex. Your partner is still not sexually appealing in any way, shape, or form.
But here's the thing, this is only an occurrence for you with this specific person. Other people can make you feel aroused or desire them sexually. For asexual people, this is a permanent fixture in their lives, they feel this way towards all partners they could ever possibly have. If the entire world unanimously voted on Joe Blow to be the most sexually appealing man on the planet, asexuals would feel nothing towards them sexually. Ever.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

what, pleasure? Cause that's the main reason I have sex. and from what is written here:

it seems I'm not alone in this.
If you don't want to bang someone, then that's a lack of sexual attraction. And the "feelings that cause other people to desire sex with their partner" is pleasure, which from what everyone else has said, asexuals are perfectly capable of that.

Unless maybe you're talking about non-sexual attraction (aka, love) then I fail to see how this is really anything special. If it is that asexuals are incapable of experiencing "love", then perhaps they should see a doctor to determine if they might have autism or aspergers instead.

You get a sexual attraction, a certain form of a desire to have sex with particular people. Asexuals do not. They may want pleasure, but it has nothing to do with their partner, because they on't experience sexual attraction.
Lets say you get into a relationship with someone who embodies every single sexual and aesthetic trait that you find absolutely unappealing in every way. But you love their personality and who they are as a person. But there is not a single instance that your partner induces arousing thoughts to you, or makes you want to have sex with them. You may have sex with them in some instances, to please them or because you want pleasure, but it was never you partner that made you want to have sex. Your partner is still not sexually appealing in any way, shape, or form.
But here's the thing, this is only an occurrence for you with this specific person. Other people can make you feel aroused or desire them sexually. For asexual people, this is a permanent fixture in their lives, they feel this way towards all partners they could ever possibly have. If the entire world unanimously voted on Joe Blow to be the most sexually appealing man on the planet, asexuals would feel nothing towards them sexually. Ever.

I fully agree, and just to add another example of it. Everybody has sexual fantasies, even asexuals. Now lets say a sexual came into a situation where this fantasy could become reality. A sexual person would feel the need to engage in it.
When this would happen to an asexual he or she wouldn't feel the need to engage in it wether they enjoy sex or not.

[Saint Kitten]

If we aren't going to call it Asexuality what would we call it? Not Interested-ity?

[Abidawe]

If we aren't going to call it Asexuality what would we call it? Not Interested-ity?

Bingo

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

If we aren't going to call it Asexuality what would we call it? Not Interested-ity?

Bingo

Wrongo.

[New Baldonia]

There's a difference between the two. A sexual person experiences sexual attraction to another person (wether this to be a romantic partner or a random person), asexuals don't get that feeling.
Let me put it down otherwise, sexual people see an attractive person or date an attractive person. At some point (this can be instantly or it can take some time) they get the desire to have sex with them.
Asexuals never get that, they see an attractive person, notice that the person is attractive, and walk on. Same goes with a romantic partner, they love them and all, but will never have a desire to have sex with them, yet they can have sex with them (to pleassure the partner) and they can enjoy having sex with them (pleassure for yourself).

ok, I understand what you're getting at now.

I still fail to see the point in giving this a name though. You could still just tell someone flat out how you feel about sex and your partner would undoubtedly understand you far more than if you just said "I'm asexual". If you're not planning on engaging in intercourse with someone, then is there really a need to go more in depth than "I'm just not big into sex"?

[Abidawe]

Bingo

Wrongo.

Its a joke-o

[Swith Witherward]

I personally believe we should because Asexual means you reproduce BY YOURSELF (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction) not that you are not sexually attracted to anyone.

The technical term for having no physical or sexual attraction to any other being would be NONsexual, the lack of a sexual preference/attraction. Not sure if anyone agrees with me on this but its honestly always kind of ticked me off that people are just using the word even though it means something completely different than what they mean.

Do you want to know how to tell if your asexual? Let's use a starfish as an example, rip off your arm and if another being grows from it and your arm grows back then you are definitely asexual. But that's just my opinion, if you disagree please enlighten me on why and what you can use to reinforce the idea that human asexuality is actually a thing...

asexual (adj.)
1830, as a term in biology, a hybrid [word] from a- (2) "not" + sexual. In general contexts, attested from 1896.

Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction by which offspring arise from a single organism, and inherit the genes of that parent only;

As you can see, the adjective can be applied to many things. NON is a prefix that is better applied this way: Their relationship was platonic, ergo it was nonsexual in nature.

Asexual people can and do reproduce. Some prefer a completely nonsexual relationship, however.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

There's a difference between the two. A sexual person experiences sexual attraction to another person (wether this to be a romantic partner or a random person), asexuals don't get that feeling.
Let me put it down otherwise, sexual people see an attractive person or date an attractive person. At some point (this can be instantly or it can take some time) they get the desire to have sex with them.
Asexuals never get that, they see an attractive person, notice that the person is attractive, and walk on. Same goes with a romantic partner, they love them and all, but will never have a desire to have sex with them, yet they can have sex with them (to pleassure the partner) and they can enjoy having sex with them (pleassure for yourself).

ok, I understand what you're getting at now.

I still fail to see the point in giving this a name though. You could still just tell someone flat out how you feel about sex and your partner would undoubtedly understand you far more than if you just said "I'm asexual". If you're not planning on engaging in intercourse with someone, then is there really a need to go more in depth than "I'm just not big into sex"?

In a way you do certainly have a point, though as you know people got to have names for everything these days. I personally don't bother at all about the name, i wouldn't even bother about it if it wouldn't have a name at all. Fact is that when i tell people i'm asexual most of them don't know what it is and i still need to explain it anyways.