Let me emphasize here – I disagree with the definition that asexuality is  ‘lack of sexual attraction’ and consider asexuality as ‘lack of sexual desire’. I also don’t agree that individuals with a sex life could call themselves asexual. According to me asexuals do not have desire and do not have a sex life and asexuality is an orientation and not a disorder. I believe that if some psychologists and other individuals promote asexuality as lack of sexual attraction, it is unscientific as it is difficult to study sexual attraction and the study should be based on sexual desire and sexual practice. Also continuing to promote the idea of asexuality as ’sex life sans the sexual attraction’ would mean endorsing and encouraging unethical and irresponsible sexual behavior, which I don’t support and that is why I have emphasized on a change of definition.                                                                                                                        _____________                                                                                  

Finn – I consider myself as asexual, but I still have sex. I do it because I have to. And I have to because I’m married to a person with normal sexuality. So I wouldn’t disclude this group from the definition.

 

Saberi - Finn, thanks for your comments. If you’re having a regular sex life and have no dislike for sex, you are not asexual. I don’t know why you like to call yourself asexual. If you truly have no sex desire, you’ll stop the practice sooner or later, so my definition that a true asexual does not have sexual desire and has no sexual practice holds. So people engaging in sexual practice could be excluded.          

 

Ray- As an aside, studying asexuality purely from a psychoanalytical perspective as your article seems to do, is likely to give a very rigid and narrow defintion due to the underlying assumptions of sexual disfunction.

 

Saberi – Ray, thanks for your comments. I haven’t written about asexuality purely from a psychoanalytic viewpoint. In psychoanalysis, the sex drive is the basic drive of all humans and psychoanalysts would completely disagree that asexuality is an orientation and would consider asexuality as a sexual aversion disorder. On the other hand, I consider asexuality as an orientation rather than a disorder or dysfunction, so I am not completely taking a psychoanalytic perspective.                    

 

Ray - Although theres some very valid points in your article, you seem to have not taken account of gender within your narrowed definition of asexuality. The article suggests that you have considered low libido as a valid factor in a diagnostic criteria of asexuality, yet then go on to argue that an individual who masturbates cannot be asexual but rather is defined by another category.However, research suggests that libido is linked to the menstrual cycle and can increase in the days prior to ovulation. It would then be logical to assume that in women at least, the increase in libido could result in masturbation outside of sexual attraction. Your article would suggest that the above mentioned person is asexual based on diagnostic criteria, yet from your personal criteria would be autoerotic. The arguments seem contradictory when taking account of libido and gender differences.

 

Saberi – I never tied masturbation to ’sexual attraction’ but rather to ’sexual desire’. I distinguish between ‘lack of sexual attraction’ which some psychologists use to define asexuality and ‘lack of sexual desire’ which according to me identifies asexuality. There is no contradiction. You find this contradictory because you consider sexual desire as similar to sexual attraction. I differentiate between the two. You may not have any sexual attraction towards anyone but that does not make you asexual and if you masturbate that makes you autoerotic. if you do not have sexual desire, that makes you asexual.                         

 

pretzelboy- Having read your response to the comment you have received, I think it may be helpful to take a step back and reflect. Some people identify as asexual. Everyone who does so has their own reasons for doing so and has likely spent a good amount of time thinking about that. When you tell people who identify as asexual that they aren’t really asexual, you are perceived as an outsider attempting to invalidate people’s identities. This tends to make people angry. More than that, in your approach to asexuality, you don’t seem to try to understand the experiences or perspectives of asexuals. You cite some amorphous group “psychologists” to bolster your authority, but a) none of the psychologists who have published on asexuality agree with your definition and b) psychologist are a rather diverse lot. I think that if you read more of the experiences of asexuals, it would help your understanding of a lot. 

 

Saberi - Pretzel. Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your concerns. But asexuality is controversial and some psychologists completely deny that such an orientation exists. I completely disagree with such viewpoints and do believe that asexuality is an orientation and that we have to know it better. My problem is people who identify themselves as asexuals may not be asexuals at all. I worked on this problem because I can personally relate to this as well. But I completely believe asexuality has more to do with desire than with attraction and I’m talking from an ‘insider’s’ perspective rather than as an outsider. I don’t agree with the basic definition of asexuality so my concern is to look deeper into the definition of asexuality rather than experiences of individuals who may not actually be asexuals. Many individuals who consider themselves asexuals could be autoerotic celibates. First, we have to fix the definition, that’s my whole point.But this is controversial and I’ll write more to make the points clear.