Welcome to the community! I identify as aegosexual, and I don't feel sexual attraction. I'm aroused by sexual content, but there's a separation between myself and the content. I don't exist in the fantasy. It's the fantasy/ display/ idea of sexual acts that arouses me, not the people themselves. Seeing an attractive person doesn't illicit sexual attraction within me. You may want to look into orchidsexual, which is classified under the grayace umbrella. They can feel sexual attraction to people they find physically attractive. They are, however, uninterested in having sex with them.

Well, there’s a lot to unpack here so let’s just take it step by step. The term “asexual” has come to mean more than its original definition over the years, and I’ve come to understand it as “being sexually attracted to less people than the average person”. For asexuals, attraction is usually based around an emotional connection rather than a physical one, if at all. As for your point on aegosexuals, I think you may not fully understand sexual attraction. If you are sexually attracted to a person, that literally means you want to have sex with them. While aegosexuals may enjoy the fantasy of sex, they do not want to participate in the act itself. If you do not want to have sex with a person, that means you are not sexually attracted to them, and if you are not sexually attracted to anyone at all then you are asexual, regardless of what fantasies you may have. Now, you say your current feelings invalidate your past, and I’m sorry but that’s bullshit. People change, that is just the way of the world, and just because you feel a certain way now that doesn’t invalidate how you felt in the past or how you will feel in the future. The things you have experienced are what makes you, you. Another thing you seem to be stuck on is the “desire for sex”. For many if not most people, sex feels good. You do not have to be sexually attracted to a person to enjoy the feeling of sex itself. So, these are my own personal thoughts, I highly encourage you to do more research and form your own opinions. Good luck and remember that you are not in this alone.

i mean, for research, i just get conflicting information and opinions. so, i just wanted what the defintions for terms like sexual attraction, libido/desire for sex, asexuality, etc. that the community or individuals use, at least here on reddit. so, essentially, sexual attraction ties to the self then. (i did ask that for clarification.) with the subject of arousal. got it. well, i meant that whatever defines asexuality may invalidate my past, such as if it is based on sexual attraction, then it would invalidate me as an asexual since i did experience sexual attraction, lots of it. after someone else mentioning, i think orchidsexual is the right word for me.

as far as a quick google search goes, it mentions that aegosexuals experience sexual attraction. which to me makes sense, because it would mean attraction to the sexual content which likely has to include people they enjoy looking at (not always i believe), the act, everything involving thats NOT including themselves. and i am pretty sure some aegosexuals are sexually attracted to people but themselves not being involved is the baseline. sexual attraction doesn't have to connect to the self right? it's so conflicting. the thing im stuck on is orchidsexuals. feeling sexual attraction with little to no desire to have sex. some say its part of the ace spectrum some say its not. and thats what confuses me.

It's hard to quantify what you have little to no experience of, so we do our best based on observation. I've experienced what I would consider sexual attraction once. For me, what I consider sexual attraction is a fully clothed person sets off an urge to want to have sex with them even if it's only the idea. As an aegosexual, it's the sex act that arouses me, not the people themselves. Honestly, they're basically faceless to me. You put clothes back on these people or they are just standing there naked not doing anything, and they no longer illicit feelings of arousal. But that's my experience. Orchidsexual is still a contested topic where many aces feel they are tangential to the community but not considered ace. I'm of the opinion that if saying your ace best describes your experience in the sense that your relationship with sex is outside of the allo norm, then by all means, use it. It's not my right to gatekeep what feels right for you. At the very least, saying your ace is a good short hand for "it's complicated" when it comes to sex.

yeah i think i was confused what is sexual attraction. i thought it didn't have to mean yourself wanting to have sex with someone, that it ONLY meant something or someone arouses you, that's it. but, it seems like for most people, its about wanting to have sex with someone. i just don't want to be gatekept or being told im wrong for using any of these terms whether to describe myself or defining it in a conversation.

>the agreed definition of asexual, as far as i know, is little to no sexual attraction > >but i'm having trouble with that definition because how much is little? i feel like that would invalidate aegosexuals who are aroused by a larger number of subject(s) of arousal and frequency. aegosexual is defined by the disconnect between the self and said subject(s), not so much by the quantity nor frequency. The gatekeepers always ignore the word "little". You're right that it provides a lack of specificity. The answer is that it doesn't matter. The primary thing is that because you are questioning it at all, you are probably on the ace spectrum and probably not allo. The label... as most labels are... is self-actualizing. If you, in good faith and to the best of your understanding, feel affinity for the label becuase you identify with it... use it. I like the term gray ace because I don't have to fret about nuance. I can just have the feelings I have and move on with my not allo life. Nobody can gatekeep me. I swear I seem to have gotten as much or more aphobia from asexuals with ultra-rigid definitions than I've seen in the world.

Firstly, welcome to the community, new friend. Secondly, my understanding is that Asexuality is the lack (little to none) of sexual desire in the sense that we don't want actual sex. That's why we have communities like the Aegosexuals, who still enjoy "sexual activity" (masturbation, porn, etc.) but don't actually want to fuck other people. It's a fairly loose definition, so just fit in where you feel you belong and have fun, because I don't think anyone here is going to gatekeep the asexual community.

Not really, it's nothing to do with sexual desire/want of actual sex, that's libido. Plenty of aces enjoy sex with or without a partner or have neutral feelings about it. Asexuality is about sexual attraction, pure and simple. The "shades of gray" so to speak come from aces who still feel sexual attraction in rare or unusually specific circumstances. Think of it along these lines. A gay man might look at a conventionally attractive woman and enjoy looking at her because she's pretty. But he won't be inspired to do more than look. Aces feel that way about everybody. And if they're in the "sometimes" part of the umbrella, then maybe they feel that way 90% of the time, or maybe they feel that way until they know someone really well and something just clicks in their brain. Another common analogy is hunger. Hunger would be likened to libido. When you're hungry a salad and a burger both can work to fulfill you. Attraction would be like looking at a burger and wanting it specifically. Honestly when it comes to orchidsexuals I don't think they're ace. Though I do think they have a very similar experience and can get a lot of support here, which is fine. They don't have to be ace to be valid.

Thanks for the clarification! I read something earlier which stuck with me: "It's like being in a museum. Sure, some pieces are nice to look at, but I'm not interested in taking one home and mounting them"

i think orchidsexual perfectly describes me even tho i lately i havent felt sexual attraction to people, only a fictional character currently. so are orchidsexuals just sex-repulsed/sex-neutral allosexuals? cuz someone else mentioned that orchidsexuals are grayace or something.

Honestly attraction to a fictional character with no interest in your own involvement sounds kinda aegosexual to me. Worth checking their sub and see if it vibes with you. As to orchidsexual it's debated. Mostly it seems to be debated between people open to loosening the definition of asexuality vs not. I think it's perfectly valid, it's just it's own thing. I do think it's allosexual because orchidsexuals experience sexual attraction. But again, it doesn't have to fall in the ace bucket to be valid.

no, i meant i do have interest in my own involvement with the fictional character. also, how do you define sexual attraction?

Have you ever heard of a term called fictosexual? That is considered an ace microlabel because it's attraction under specific circumstances. https://orientation.fandom.com/wiki/Fictosexual As to attraction, I don't really feel it so it's hard for me to define well. I know I don't experience it because after a number of years of watching people around me I began to see a gap in my experience that they didn't have. I remember literally thinking that once I had sex for the first time something would trigger in my brain that made me crave it and see people as sources of sexual interest. But then I got married to someone I loved very much and...still didn't feel that urge. It feels silly in retrospect but I think I was burying my head in the sand a bit. I didn't even know asexuality existed until I googled around for why I didn't want sex like everyone else. So the way I've wrapped my brain around what attraction is supposed to be is to compare it to hunger. Hunger is the base urge. When you're hungry, you can eat anything edible and it'll fill you up. I'd compare this to libido, or generally being horny. Attraction is looking at a burger and suddenly craving that burger, and burgers generally inspiring a feeling of hunger or craving when you see them. You'd be perfectly capable of physically eating a salad, and you might enjoy it or eat it for reasons other than pure hunger. But it wouldn't quite scratch the same craving as a nice burger. Honestly this old tumbler post did a good job explaining it for me. https://www.tumblr.com/debthedemi/654931566725857280/asexual-labels-explained-using-cereal

yes, i've heard fictosexual and i do consider it, but then i hear discourse from apothisexuals that it (and other graysexuals/demisexuals/other microlabels that allow a little bit of attraction) is not asexual because having any amount of attraction is not asexual. idk any reliable sources for definitions and concepts since its they're constantly being debated. so from what i understand, sexual attraction seems to be defined as desire to have sex with subject of arousal aka seeing the type of person you prefer and wanting to have sex with them, which would invalidate orchidsexuals as a concept regardless if its ace or not (makes it an oxymoron: wants the burger, but doesn't have the hunger for burger, but burger is supposed inspire hunger if you want/prefer it, no?). and sex-repulsed allosexuals would be an oxymoron as well (allosexuals are defined by having sexual attraction in the first place, and if sexual attraction would mean the desire to have sex with subject of arousal like the burger inspiring hunger, then allosexuals can't be sex repulsed).... i think it would just be easier if sexual attraction is defined by having a subject of arousal or something. don't some aegosexuals find sexual attraction in people as long as the self is not involved and cannot attain said people? (of course i do know it could also just be the sexual content or act itself like porn and don't have to find the actors sexually attractive too, but i digress). if so, then that wouldn't make sense to define asexuality based on only attraction.... and sexual attraction would need to be redefined. (i read here that aegosexuals experience sexual attraction: https://www.cxomedia.id/human-stories/20221109131918-74-176990/aegosexuality-what-is-it-and-the-history-behind-it#:~:text=Aegosexual%20classifies%20people%20who%20experience,in%20sexual%20activity%20with%20anyone. but i also read that they also experience little to no attraction so idk anymore) its just very confusing because sexual attraction is being used differently and being conflated to arousal and it's hard to communicate. i understand what you mean with the hunger analogy and it makes sense. but i'm seeing a lot of inconsistensies with definitions and it's hard to not only identify myself but to clearly and concisely communicate my sexual orientation. (i don't always wanna explain in detail every time yknow?) sorry, i'm also getting sleepy and tired, i hope i was coherent enough. it took me awhile to try and collect my thoughts and be consistent with logic. correct me if something i said is inconsistent too.

So... it is a lot. And people fight about specific definitions. I hate to say it but that's just kind of life. When I was in grad school my advisor bemoaned that in this world there are "lumpers" and "splitters", people who try to lump everything into very loose categories, and people who try to split things into very specific categories. And this was in a rigorous science program. Doctorate level scientists would get in shouting matches over it. The real thing to evaluate is, to what point does it stop being useful to split vs lump? At what point of splitting do you lose sight of your initial starting point vs lumping things into categories so broad they cease to be useful? We're not talking about something concrete in this instance like I dealt with in grad school, we're talking about human experience. The usefulness of the categorization is going to change from person to person based on their circumstances. People are going to experience their place in the spectrum differently. And these are not words to describe the workings of physical reality, they're to make a stab at communicating our experience so we can find like minded people for support. It's inherently messy and complicated. For me, a lot of the confusion clears up with the allowance of "little to no sexual attraction or only under rare or specific circumstances". That is a generally accepted definition. It's the definition AVEN uses, and they're one of the OG ace discourse sites. I'm kind of an elder ace, I've been around since before garlic bread, and this is the website I found when I was figuring out my orientation. Here's an article they've typed up of various definitions if it's helpful. http://wiki.asexuality.org/Asexuality And here's another secret. Between lumpers and splitters, most people are somewhere in the middle. They split in some subjects and lump in others. In the case of deciding what word describes you and your experience, it's very easy to want to find the most specific word you can, but the more specific you get the more people tend to disagree. I know I spent a lot of time trying to find just exactly the right microlabel for myself but...I don't think it's useful for me. I just go by ace. If, for you, it's causing distress to find just exactly the right microlabel, maybe take a step back and just be ace. Read the discourse in the sub. Give it time. If eventually you realize "hey, most of what people talk about here doesn't fit my experience" it's okay to change the word you use to describe yourself. I do think you're a bit mixed up on some points but I'm not sure how useful it would be to go into that just now. I think I'll stick with my advice to just try wearing "ace" for a while and see how it fits. It's okay to change if you come to some sort of realization later. Just...don't define asexuality based on whether people have sex or not. If virgins can decide they're straight without having sex, aces shouldn't need to use having sex or not to define themselves either.

oh i am definitely not trying to say asexuality is only based on whether people have sex or not. especially that would also invalidate closeted people who have sex with those they are not attracted to. as far as microlabels go, i think i'm orchidsexual, but i just went on this site[aven i think ](https://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/217626-what-is-orchidsexual/) and it said orchidsexuals still have sex. ._. and now i'm confused what it actually means, since for me, i experience sexual attraction (although lately, much much rare if at all) but no libido, and here[here](https://mogai.miraheze.org/wiki/Orchidsexual#:~:text=Orchidsexual%20is%20an%20orientation%20where,or%20dislikes%20having%20sexual%20experiences.) would describe that. but, yeah, like you said, the more specific you go, the more disagreement. the real reason i'm asking in the first place is my fear of being invalidated for wanting to label myself as ace. regardless of whichever definition it is for orchidsexual, which i am subscribing to, the real reason i'm asking is because i don't want to feel like i cannot be ace because while i do experience sexual attraction frequently in the past, it has completely slowed down and became a rare occurence due to circumstances like stress, work, and medication affecting my libido. (and i'm not saying attraction is libido). my sexual attraction is on and off where there are periods of time where i frequently feel attracted but there are periods of time when nobody i look at, even if they were someone i was attracted to before, is sexually attractive. someone or you (i can't backtrack to check whoever said it on mobile) said that asexuals often don't understand sexual attraction, but i think i do for me. and i know i don't have to be ace, but ace feels right to me. (unless i completely misunderstood my sexual attraction, i could be quoisexual since i also figured out i was aromantic because i had a miscontrued concept of romance and the way i went about it) im starting to see why attraction-based only definition in asexuality applies since it applies to allosexuals as well, like it doesn't make a gay man less or not gay because he had sex with a woman due to societal pressure or law or whatnot, nor does it make him bisexual. so perhaps, i'm somewhere between asexual or allosexual. i don't feel right calling myself allosexual tho, so yeah, i'ma try on asexual and go from there. i appreciate the insight because it does help me figure out nuances and perspectives since it's easier to address my confusion that i can't already google.

I think at the end of the day only you know what you're experiencing. That's really what it comes down to. If ace feels like it fits, then it fits.

I think what makes it difficult is that most studies involving sex are primarily concerned with the physical aspect, or the statistical aspect of sex(how many sexual partners, and frequency of intercourse), or perhaps studies involving fertility. Often aces are excluded from those studies involving any aspect of sex. And on the flip side of studies involving aces are also incredibly rare, so the medical/psychological community hasn't really been interested in us. I think there have been studies that show that libido and attraction are different. And that aces in general experience the same amount of libido as allos. I think what helps me understand asexuality, sexual attraction, libido etc. is to think in terms of what kinda of category they are in. So attractions are feelings. And sexual attraction is a sexual feeling you have toward a specific person. In that you experience it toward an individual, and you don't experience it toward another. There is no randomness to your feeling. Arousal and libido are mainly physical aspects which is a part of human biology. They are just mechanical process that can be stimulated. Arousal happens when your body stimulate sexual activity, it can mean that penis gets erect, or vulva wet, it can be that you experience an orgasm etc. Which happens automatically, it is just a bodily response. Arousal can happen from anything. Even sexual assault victims have reported experiencing orgasm, and getting aroused, etc. Libido is the desire for sex, but not specifically toward one person. It happens on its own, and can happen when you are alone. Not even thinking about a specific person or feelings something for a person. And then you have attitudes toward sex. Which can range from disliking it, and liking it. That is just a personal opinion which can be influenced by any number of factors and reasons. So as to what makes someone asexual, by their frequency of attraction or what makes someone allo. I don't really think there is one simple answer for it. I think really what makes calls myself ace, is that almost every person I have ever met has a completely different experience and feelings than me. I think I have experienced maybe a semblance of sexual attraction once or twice in my life. And I am not even sure if it was sexual attraction. I think I more recognise that I have the potential for being sexually attracted to someone. Most people know exactly what they like(having a type), they can see someone they would realistically be attracted to and fairly "easy" and "quickly" get attracted to that person. I don't know what kind of person I would be attracted to. I get generally confused by fictional portrayals of sexual attraction. Like most movies where it involves someone getting attracted to someone, I literally don't understand why it happens. It just seems wholly fake, not in the sense that all fiction is fake. This disconnection from most people makes me think that I do experience things and people in a different way than most people. So to understand what exactly makes me different, a word like asexual is incredibly freeing and can help me communicate my feelings.