Asexuality in general

So...umm sorry to necro a thread, but I've looking for a discussion on this, mainly to assess my own asexuality. I'm not sure if I'm asexual or just have a low-to-nonexistent sex drive or if they're not mutually exclusive and maybe I'm both. I've experienced sexual arousal, so I have some kind of drive, but I've never been interested in general partner sex, nor have I experienced traditional sexual/physical attraction to anyone. For the most part, I just wasn't terribly interested in sex, or in sex with people.

Um... even hardcore asexuals will have some passing understanding of getting a little turned on, you know.

Like everything, there's no one way of being asexual. Historically, "low libido" would be used to try to excuse asexuality (or, just explain it), so the two are easily confusable.

Frankly: what is a libido, anyway? And, how do you walk it?

As far as I'm concerned, even if you can get turned on (with either a) a lot of work or b) a running jump)... as long as sex isn't one the most important aspects of your life (and it confuses you how other people can make such a big song and dance about it), you're free to use the term.

edited 28th May '14 2:58:00 PM by Euodiachloris

lol thanks. This has gone a long way to ease my worries about being called a poser or something.

At least now I know I'm not weird for not really being interested in boys or what not. Sex is nice, but I don't require it.

I am pretty sure I am one. I'm in my 30s and in a years long live-in, romantic relationship with an older man who is about as interested in doing the horizontal mambo as I am - and that is, no interest. If anything, I think being in a relationship whereby people can just assume we're doing the straight sex-thing that other people do but are not, with no outside interests proves that asexuals exist and sometimes, they want to live together without "living together." We have a hot, juicy sweaty nasty brain-to-brain affair going on, I guess.

Weird? You betcha. Then again, we have surreal inside jokes about not being pianos, cars having butts and mountains being zits, so go figure. Brain-to-brain affairs can get mighty freaky.

On my end of it, at least, I'll openly admit that I'm a freak and the asexuality is just another "something wrong with me" among the many things that are wrong with me. I mean, I do have a somewhat sever known mental illness (just bipolar - I've never had waking hallucinations or anything) and I wonder if my version of it the rare kind that kills the sex drive (or if my meds do it to a degree). I also have some things that happened to me as a kid that might have affected me.

I find, in this world, if you're in any way "different," most of the world wants you to feel diminished, and sometimes people will treat you better if you act diminished / admit to being diminished, so I'm willing to do that in regards to this aspect of my life, as long as long as no one tries to force a "cure" on me. (After all, forcing or coercing a person to spread their legs without their really wanting to is generally referred to by a word starting with the letter "R" ).

All in all, I see my asexual nature as a good thing, because I think it's Nature telling me that I'm not meant to breed.

edited 29th May '14 2:01:46 PM by Shadsie

Does it count as asexual if you have a sex drive but no sexual orientation?

Some people debate the definition but "no sexual attraction" is the important bit.

Asexuality is defined by a lack of sexual attraction. That's pretty much it, and every other sex-related thing is still on the table, and asexuals vary a LOT in what they do or don't choose to partake in.

So yes, it's both possible and very common for an asexual person to have a sex drive. After all, a bisexual person doesn't automatically have twice the libido of a straight person. Who you're attracted (or not attracted) to is unconnected to it.

Asexual ≠ agendered, you know.

And, as stated, there are flavours: you have those who don't experience even romantic attraction to others and don't particularly like intimate relationships of any description. And, then there are those who do. There are those uncomfortable with the sheer mechanics of sex. And, those who can do it... but, generally need a reason other than "because sex". Usually "because I like this person, want to make them happy and want to keep the relationship, thanks". Sex can be seen as a form of exercise, in such cases. Neither the best thing since sliced bread, but not squicky, as such, either. But, also not something to be sought for itself: it's not exactly a burning need, after all. Not like, "Damn, I'm starving." Or, "Could do with a snooze... badly." Or, "Breathing would be nice."

Horses for courses. Either way, when sex is not imperative for itself as itself, but you know what gender you like to look at more than not and/or what you self-identify as gender-wise: asexual.

When you're unsure what or who you're even remotely attracted to or what you identify as — but, your body seems to be wired a fairly definate way, whatever your doubts on the subject? Agender.

If your body isn't clear on the issue, and your mind seems to be neither one thing nor the other — or you can decide, but you'd need cosmetic surgery to get the body to agree... intersex.

Nothing says you can't be an asexaul, agendered individual packed in a cismale body, for example. Or, like me: asexual, heterosexual (when even remotely interested, that's how I seem to be wired) cisfemale.

edited 29th May '14 3:03:17 PM by Euodiachloris

This my question too. I was always confused on whether or not I was asexual because I have no desire for partnered sex nor have I experienced physical/sexual attraction to others, but I do have a minimal but existent drive.

edited 30th May '14 10:01:03 AM by Sisi

Thought this would probably be the best place to go for information.

I have a character who I intend to write as asexual, but said character also has a small-ish romantic subplot going on.

And, the more I think about it, the more I'm realizing that I'm not entirely sure how to write romance with an asexual character/how much asexuality would effect the way said character would respond to someone else's attraction.

Any advice I can get here would be much appreciated.

Romantic attraction doesn't automatically equate sexual attraction, you know. <shrugs> Keep that in the forefront of your mind and you should be fine.

I guess what I'm saying is this: wanting to be with somebody and finding them great company doesn't automatically mean wanting to hit the sack. If they can accept that that may not be on the table (or, at least, not as happily, regularly or in the way they'd expect from a "normal" relationship — whatever one of those actually is), the romance can work. If they can't... then it won't.

The relationship would be a highly individual affair. Like... every relationship, ever.

And I understand that it would be lacking on the sexual side of things. I'm having difficulty figuring out what does or doesn't have some sexual undercurrent.

I suppose it doesn't really help that most if not all of the romances these days are typically sexually driven and etc. *facepalm*

Maybe I'm also too afraid of messing something up since, because of how few asexual characters there are, this one defines what 'asexual romance' means more than, say, a heterosexual romance would define heterosexual romance to everyone.

edited 31st May '14 1:29:21 AM by lancesolous13

...? There are plenty of examples of chaste romance knocking about. Victorian literature is stuffed to the gunwales with it, for instance. Or, anything marketed for the romance crowd that tiptoes around the subject: and, romance books did that for years.

Sex might sell, but it doesn't mean it's the only template you've got to go on. <confused>

I meant that there's almost none in 'present day' literature. As in stuff that's in the audience's consciousness currently.

And chaste romance isn't entirely accurate. Because sex is still a thing in asexual relationships, just one person doesn't exactly have the drive to do so...? Please forgive me if I have this totally wrong and sound ignorant, though I should say pretty much all of my info comes from one of my asexual friends.

Though, I'm not thinking 'Sex Sells' when I write my romances either, but I see a lot of examples these days of romances being mostly founded on 'You're hot(sexually attractive), I'm hot(sexually attractive), Let's go on a date'

Maybe I'll write out what I think might work when I get there and give it to a proof reader.

Not quite. Romance isn't sex and sex isn't romance. They go closely together for many, probably most people, but they aren't the same and they aren't inextricably linked. Asexuality is about sex, not romance.

A complete asexual has no sexual attraction to anyone (at the most extreme end of the spectrum, they find the very idea of having sex squicky, or even physically sickening). further back along the spectrum, closer to "normal" (yeah, I know, but I don't know a better way to put it), you have people who feel very little sexual attraction to anyone else, or only feel sexual attraction under very specific circumstances — in the ace community this is often called "semi-sexual" or demi-sexual" to distinguish it from "never feels sexual attraction, ever, towards anyone".

Romance, on the other hand. Romance is courtship, basically. It's developing intimacy between two people. For an ace or a semi-sexual person, it's still all the same things that go on in a courtship between two sexual people — flirting, teasing, compliments, small gifts, spending time together alone or in other company, conversations, whatever. It looks just like any other romance or courtship. It just isn't a lead-in to sex. It's something they do for its own sake, not to eventually get the other person into bed.

In a relationship between two aces, sex isn't a thing at all. Sex has as much bearing on their relationship as who won the Super Bowl has on the Tour de France.

edited 31st May '14 3:49:40 PM by Madrugada

I specifically used "chaste romance" because it is highly relevant.

And, this is a problem many Aces have when trying to talk to others about romance: other people find it hard to decouple romance from wanting sex or leading to sex. But, Aces don't find the concept of romance without sex hard to grasp, at all.

Which is why I stated: romance (or "togetherness", if you prefer) doesn't necessarily equate with sex. It's a form of bonding all its own, you know.

Just because the modern ideal in media when it comes to relationships seems based on sex doesn't mean it has always been the standard template. Which is why I pointed you at Victorian and Edwardian literature. Ace forms of romance? Were the "ideal" back then. <shrugs> Granted, they've not stayed exactly the same (time does march on, so, although you'll find a few Spades —those who are neither into sex nor romance— deciding that sex = evil, most of us don't think that way: we just find sex = uninteresting/ unnecessary), but you can get the general gist quite easily to update from.

edited 31st May '14 6:32:44 PM by Euodiachloris

True. So, I think what I'm getting caught around is what is the place (I don't really want to use the word value since that sounds so tacky, but it comes to mind) sex as in such a relationship and how much sexual drive is behind certain ways of flirting (When I myself flirt, its a lot of word pay and innuendos). Then there's also the notion that said character may flirt in certain ways in acknowledgment that the other character's sexuality is not the same... If that makes any sense.

<shrugs> I flirt with people in a number of ways (depending on what you mean by "flirt", of course). I don't mean anything sexual by it, but it's often read into what I've said and done — even if I've not, knowingly, put it there. Just being nice to others in a jokey or light way gets interpreted as "sexual" (much to my annoyance).

Perception is, in my experience, 9/10ths of the law. <_< In short: if somebody of a typical sexuality is used to flirting being sexual in context, they'll read that into anything you do or say. Even if it's not there.

So, I don't know how to help you, really. Because, to my mind: giving little gifts from time to time and being considerate, upbeat and trying to use humour? Don't mean "I want to sex you up" — but, they get interpreted that way. Frankly, I don't see how giving somebody a little treat when they feel a bit down and won't splurge on themselves is supposed to be a ramp to get them into bed. Sometimes, you just want to help them find a bright spot in the day because you just want to do that. Isn't the desire to cheer somebody up enough?

Frankly: the flirting won't be much different. Just... what is going on in the heads of the people doing the flirting and being flirted to will be different.

Think about it: what's the difference between "mothering" and "flirting", when you get right down to it? The perceived roles of those taking part, in the main.

edited 1st Jun '14 9:33:22 PM by Euodiachloris

Wait buying things for people counts as flirting? I buy stuff for my friends all the time and it's never been taken as anything other than me being far to nice for my own good.

I've had it be seen as me being flirty when I did it. Which... is why I've learned to be careful.

After all, when a girl buys a guy a box of what she knows he fancies when he's had a bad day in the office... she's obviously trying a come on, right? <_<

I think it depends on the pre-existing relationship. Context is important. If you never flirt with your friends, they probably won't take that one thing as flirting.

edited 2nd Jun '14 7:22:11 AM by Zendervai

That's the thing: what one person considers "flirting", another may just consider "being friendly".

And, the circumstances are usually that I try being friendly to anybody I meet. Because, I was taught to be. If I see a work college having a bad day through no fault of their own, the coffee I hand them (or whatever) is just meant as a gesture that somebody has noticed the mare they're having (and, not in the "going down in the monthly report" way). And, it's not meant as a "fancy you" thing. <_<

Just as, if I see somebody battling with their bags near a door and offer to help, I'll keep it open for them: male or female, regardless of age.

But, some (by no means all or all the time) have taken such moves as signs that I wish more. Which... um, no.

edited 2nd Jun '14 7:31:31 AM by Euodiachloris

I've met people who seem to assume that if you do anything for someone else, regardless of the circumstances or the scale, you want to have sex with them. That just seems kind of sad to me, since you aren't even considering the possibility that someone might be nice just because they are nice.

In addition to what has already been discussed: Is your character at least passingly familiar with courting? If they know what they're expected to do, they could take strides to act in a normative manner, either for the sake of keeping up appearances or for their partner's sake.

Take sex, for instance. It's not uncommon for asexual romantics to participate in sex despite their disinclinations, and even enjoy the intimacy and emotional bonding of the moment.

The same goes for any other activity lovers would share while friends would not—the asexual is in the relationship for the sake of intimacy, and even if they have no sexual desire towards their partner, if they're sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject they can...well, not pretend, but act for their partner's sake.

(Please note that I'm not using euphemisms. I have no qualms over talking about sex (I mean, I wouldn't do it in polite company, begging your pardons, but if everyone else was fine with it I wouldn't care), especially with clinical disinterest. I'm not talking about faking orgasms. I'd honestly be sceptical if I were to be told that asexuals are usually incapable of it.)

(I confess that I don't really understand asexual romantics—isn't chaste romance just friendship? Really close friendship, friendship that my society at the least frowns upon (We're uncomfortable with love that is neither familial nor sexual), but friendship nonetheless—but my default response to having had sex would be to scrub my skin with steel wool, so I'm something of an outlier, methinks.)

"Chaste romance" is considered stronger than "friendship". Partnership, whatever form it takes, needs glue to hold it together, and romance without sex can actually do it. If both sides work at it.

What constitutes romance, however, will differ, depending on the people involved within the relationship.

It's even like sex itself: not everybody is into the same kind of thing even there. So, a little give and take must be par for the course for a healthy relationship. Particularly if one partner has or grows to have a strong fetish the other doesn't much care for or actively dislikes. Or, they both started on the same page, but one partner changed to not like, or be unable to do, a specific thing any more.

It's the same deal in any unequal partnership: something has to act as glue and/or a compromise, or the relationship is doomed in the longer term.

On the less sexy side: say your partner is heavily into horror movies, but you can't usually stand them. You might see the odd one with them, to keep them happy — even though you spend most of the time wishing you weren't there (or find out that, actually, this one is kind of good, if a bit gory and not really your thing). In return, they get to go to the theatre with you to see a musical. During which they squirm (or, find themselves kind of enjoying it despite themselves, even though it's still not really their thing). But, you can both agree on what restaurant you're going to enjoy before or after either activity — whatever either feel doing the thing that has trepidations attached. And, even the bickering involved in the whole "you know I can't stand those!" bit can be a form of ritual romance/ bonding.

Well, sometimes.

edited 2nd Jun '14 12:08:20 PM by Euodiachloris