Is it possible to be ace with a high sex drive? Like does sex drive affect sexuality? And how would you describe having a high or low libido? I identify as demi sexual, but sometimes I think about whether or not I could be ace. Could anyone explain their experience with asexuality or demi sexuality?
Yeah, you can be asexual with a high "sex drive." Having a high libido is pretty much just feeling horny. It doesn't mean you want sex, necessarily, so I don't know if "sex drive" and "libido" is really the same thing. Asexuality is defined as a lack of sexual attraction. That's it. I'm not going to get into the specifics, because there's a hot debate about what that actually means, but I'll describe my own experience, as you asked. I don't want sex. I actually find it pretty disgusting. But, I'm also not asexual, because I feel sexual attraction. In my case, I feel sexually aroused through biting, kissing, and intimate touching, like running my hand down my partner's bare torso/back/whatever, as long as it isn't anywhere near the genitals. This is enough to sexually satisfy me. However, I haven't done this with anyone, nor do I feel like I need to. It'd be cool if I could, but if I never get the chance to, it's no biggie. So TL;DR, asexuality is more than just "do you want sex or not" and the definition of sexual attraction is pretty much subjective. As a parting note, for it to be attraction, it has to be directed towards someone. That's why straight men and gay women can get off on male/male porn, etc. Asexuality seems to be the same thing. So yes, you can still be asexual if you watch porn and get aroused, as long as you don't feel attraction to the people in it.
Libido is basically just feeling horny, and doesn't really say what genders you're attracted to... I have a low libido but I don't consider myself asexual (and hate when others consider me such!) since I feel sexual attraction. I think I could desire sex with a person, but it would be very minimal, like monthly or so.
If we are using the widely understood, studied, recognized, and used definition of asexuality, then NO, it is not possible to have a high sex drive and be asexual. Those two are completely incompatible. Asexuality, according to the widely used and understood definition used by virtually everyone credible in the field, is a complete lack of interest in sex. The asexual has zero attraction, zero desire for sex. "asexual", from its Latin roots, literally means "without sex". You cannot have a high sex drive if you have no interest in, or desire for, sex. True asexuality, according to this definition, is exceedingly rare. This is a classic example of how a tiny group of people has taken a word that was once clearly understood and based on 50+ years of research, study, analysis, and clinical application, and so completely hijacked the meaning that the word (at least to this tiny group) is virtually meaningless, since it can apparently mean absolutely anything. And there's no data, research, or grounding in anything credible or concrete to support the idea that one can have high sex drive and be asexual. Being asexual has nothing to do with what gender you're attracted to, except that being asexual means you have no sexual attraction to anything or anyone whatsoever. Sheesh.
Asexual, put simply, means you are not attracted to and thereby not interested in having sex with people. It is debatable whether having a libido 'disqualifies' one from being ace. Some people describe a sex drive as a sort of biological itch that needs to be resolved, and so may masturbate for a variety of not exclusively sexual reasons (e.g. to relieve stress, fall asleep easier, manage their libido alone). But when a situation or opportunity arises where they 'should' be sexually attracted to another person, they are not. And if you gave them a choice between having sex or doing some other enjoyable hobby, like playing a board game or eating cake, they'd probably choose the latter. A lot of asexual people do not personally feel the significance of sex in a relationship.
This is dependent on how you define it. I believe OP is using the word "libido" interchangeably with "sex drive." And if we are using "libido" as a general term to mean the factor that controls horniness, it is still possible to have a high libido without wanting sex at all.
Aaexual is a person that doesn't feel attraction towards other people in any circunstance or rarely feel desire to engage in sexual activity with another person. If I understand well what you said, having a high sex drive or libido just means that you feel a greater need to release sexual urges, but it doesn't mean that you must have sex to take care of it. I heard that some asexual people can have interest in sex, but can't feel aroused by their partners at all or is unable to feel as much as pleasure that bi, gay and straight people do with the genders they're attracted to. So yeah, I can see how this could be a possibility.
Asexual means you're not sexually attracted to anyone. But you can still want to have sex or enjoy sex, or you can hate sex and not want to have any.
According to the way those who work in the field and study sexuality and sexual orientation look at it, asexual people, as the term is most widely used have no desire for sex, and no sexual arousal. They are simply people for whom sex or arousal is not something that is a part of their life. So the above isn't the widely used definition. It might be one of the 10000000 alternative definitions promoted by a tiny group of people with no basis, research, or grounding for their definitions, but if we're seeking common language that is widely accepted, the above wouldn't be a match. That said, anyone can use any label they want, whether or not said label is objectively accurate. So if someone has sex with a million people and still wants to call him or herself "asexual", far be it from me to say that s/he shouldn't do that. I'm just focused on providing the most accurate information I can.
That may have been true in the past, but not anymore, I believe. The general definition seems to be, indeed, "a lack of desire for sex," but not in addition to complete absence of sexual arousal. Here is a study that suggests otherwise, and there was also a survey that focused on masturbation in asexual individuals. I could not find any source that listed a complete lack of sexual arousal as a requirement for being asexual. There are a few sources I found that said asexuals tend to have lower instances of sexual arousal, but this does not mean "no instances at all" and it is also a generalization, and we all know that generalizations don't cover everyone. It's true that anyone can use whatever label they want, though. Still, "objective definitions" can change—it is only objective because the majority says it is, and the knowledge of the majority can change.
Not to mention that sexual arousal is a physical thing, and in fact all human beings have it (we need to have it in order to even function). I don't think you can be aroused by a specific person and be asexual though, but it has to be arousal that is a complete physical response and not directed at anyone. A lot of women are also aroused during rape, but they're not attracted to the rape. It's a physical response that the body decides to do completely out of our control. Likewise, a severely depressed person can physically feel hungry, but still has no mental desire to eat and in fact, may even starve themselves as there is zero interest in eating. Despite what we do or don't want, we cannot remove biological human functions like hunger, tiredness, and libido. All humans have them.
I've seen these two studies before. There's several enormous problems. The first of which is that they cite AVEN as a credible source, which it is not. According to the article, it is AVEN's definition for asexuality that they are using, which is, in itself, incredibly sloppy research as AVEN's definition is not widely accepted among most clinicians and researchers. How that made it past peer review, I have no idea. The second is that is that the research instrument on which the authors developed the survey is based entirely on self-selecting individuals who self-identify as asexual. It's a recursive measure; anyone can identify him or herself as asexual. A secondary problem is that the instrument, while they claim it is validated, hasn't been independently checked by anyone else as near as I can see, and the authors who wrote the first study developed the measure referenced in the second study. So we can't really draw any meaningful conclusions from the study because the sample isn't methodologically sound, and the instrument being used to evaluate what's being evaluated isn't externally validated. Garbage in, garbage out. This is, unfortunately, an enormous problem in the field of sexuality research, especially on the so-called "asexual spectrum". Nearly all the material quoted by these authors is done by a tiny group of researchers basically quoting each other, and conveniently avoiding or minimizing other research out there that's been around for decades (and continuing currently.) Now... I have a mea culpa. I used the phrase "complete lack of sexual arousal", and that was an overstatement which I acknowledge. However, even the first study you cite says and goes on to say that the reasons for masturbation among (self-defined) asexuals may have nothing to do with sexual arousal, and that masturbation rates are much lower among (self-defined) asexuals than among the normal population. If we had a reliable, validated sample of asexuals, my guess is that the reported masturbation rates would plummet. So the bottom line for me, at least, is that we don't yet have anything solid to help revise the definitions. I will say that these studies, as bad as they are, are better than some earlier ones AVEN was quoting. But really, the quality of research in this field needs to improve a lot to be credible. Well... hopefully definitions on this sort of thing change not because a majority of people say what it is, but because a majority of researchers and professionals in the field change their viewpoint based on solid empirically-derived or research-based data. It's when we rely on crowdsourced opinion (which seems to be AVEN's preferred approach) that we get into trouble... and that's what't gotten the US into the current political conundrum it's in as well. Not a path we want to go down, methinks.
Firstly, OP, I hope you don't mind us discussing this, because I think it's pertinent to your original question. To Chip, I acknowledge that you do not believe AVEN is a credible source; however, you have not provided any alternative sources or really identified anyone by name, so I can't really respond to any of the studies/research you mentioned. Spoiler How can you validate anyone's sexual orientation? Anyone can identify themselves as asexual, yes, or homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, et cetera. There is no machine or method that can prove, with absolute certainty, that someone is a certain orientation. Sexology, which is what I presume you are referring to when you talk about people who research sexual orientations and such, is not a hard science. I believe it is impossible to verify true asexuals. I am not sure what instrument you are referring to, exactly. And I see your point, but it is still two separate studies focusing on different things using different methods. I do not believe they are methodologically unsound (although anyone who is curious can read it and determine what they think for themself). It would be helpful if you provided links to these sources. I believe most of the research you are referring to are the same group of researchers that say asexuality is a disorder, which it is not. Asexuality was in fact considered a disorder a while ago, but the entry in the DSM-V was changed to make the distinction between an actual disorder and asexuality as an orientation. That's right, which is also the definition AVEN uses. I still hold that you do NOT have to experience sexual attraction to have a high libido. Just because you feel horny, does not mean you want to direct that horniness towards anything. I'm actually not sure if this is a point you brought up to support what you are saying or if you are trying to show me that the sources I provided are not reliable, but I'll move on. It does not say that it doesn't have anything to do with sexual arousal, it says they do not do it for sexual pleasure. Masturbation demands some degree of arousal, otherwise it's not any more masturbation than it is to hold your penis while you urinate or washing your genitals in the shower. I am almost certain that the lack of sexual pleasure is referring to how they masturbate NOT to satisfy lust or a desire for sexual activity but rather to help them fall asleep, relieve tension, et cetera. And again, I do not believe it is possible to "validate" asexuals. It's like trying to get a valid group of gay people. How are you going to test for that? There should be more research, but I don't think the quality of the studies I cited are bad, for the reasons I said above. In such a field it is really, really hard to find hard evidence like it is in, say, chemistry. That doesn't mean it's any less credible, otherwise psychology would be in pretty big trouble. I see your point, now it was me that worded things wrong haha. But still, it's hard to re-evaluate my stance when I cannot find sources that support your given definition. As it stands, the issue here is there isn't much information in general; however, I think there are more studies that support that asexuality CAN encompass sexual arousal than those that actually disprove it. But I also acknowledge that is a stance that runs on assumptions that we disagree on. Actually, in the end, this may just be another case of "false until proven true" or "true until proven false." This is getting pretty long so if you feel this is detrimental to the nature of this thread I'm good with taking it to PMs, but I also feel like this may stem from fundamental belief differences, so I am also okay with agreeing to disagree.
Very briefly, I do stand by my original points; poor methodology; lack of supporting validation by other unrelated researchers; using an instrument designed by the researchers as validation for research; and letting participants self-identify in a study designed to identify traits of a class are all really terrible methodological flaws. I agree that there's a dearth of good information; I prefer older empirical data to highly flawed newer studies, and there's good and bad to that. I certainly don't agree (nor agree with researchers who indicate) that asexuality is a disorder; it's most definitely a sexual orientation. It's just that the vast majority of people who claim to be asexual probably don't meet the widely used definition, and are dealing with a psychological issue rather than a hardwired orientation. All of that said, we probably are hijacking the OP's thread, so I think we should probably cut it off here. I'm not even convinced there's even that much difference in our viewpoints, other than perhaps in the credibility of AVEN, but quite honestly, my focus is on disseminating accurate information rather than arguing, so at this point, I don't think PMs would be very helpful at least for the moment. This is an issue I continue to study, and my viewpoint, like many other viewpoints I've held, is certainly evolving.
Oy. Okay, I can see this has become a debate that I am not qualified to participate in. "Sexology" is a field unknown to me, and I can't say that my label goes beyond an honest attempt at describing an idiosyncratic sexuality. I consider myself asexual because I'm not sexually attracted to anyone. I don't feel stimulation at seeing naked people or sex acts or hearing dirty talk, I don't think about others doing anything sexual with me, I don't seek sexual pleasure (though I have been known to masturbate, albeit very rarely). That's all I can say. For me, asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to anyone or anything.
