I'm not sexuality attracted to anybody....not even my boyfriend

While the last response was a bit on the attacking side, the actual information Suspector provided to the OP is pretty much on the mark.

It's important, when we're talking about asexuality, to realize there are two completely different definitions of the word.

One definition is recognized, widely accepted, grounded in research, and has been in use for decades.

The other is grounded in crowdsourced groupthink, has absolutely no credible research or scientific basis behind it, can essentially mean anything depending on who you ask, and is used only by a tiny community. This definition is not in use by anyone other than this small group.

The commonly used definition of asexual refers to a hardwired orientation. For people who are asexual according to this definition, it is a lifelong, unchangeable condition. These people do not feel any sexual attraction whatsoever, but they also don't have revulsion toward sex, refuse to be touched, or have any negative connotations with is. The "a" in "asexual" is a Latin prefix that means "without." People who are using the term "asexual" in the context of the widely used, accepted definition simply have zero interest in sex and don't feel arousal except the involuntary, mechanical arousal that comes from stimulation.

The description that you give does not meet the widely accepted definition of asexual, and Suspector is correct: what you're experiencing is clearly not asexual in that context. It does sound a lot more like a psychological issue that may well be arising from trauma, family-of-origin issues, extreme anxiety, extreme shame and body image issues, or some combination of those. Since all of those things are psychological, non-hardwired, and changeable, what you describe is not asexual according to the widely accepted definition.

Further, Suspector is also correct on the idea of therapy: Based on what you have described, it's highly likely that with therapy, all of the symptoms you're describing (including the low or nonexistent sex drive) would resolve themselves. You are, based on your description, almost certainly not asexual if we are using the widely accepted definition, and the situation you have is almost certainly one that can be resolved with appropriate therapy.

One of the problems with people who have adopted the unsupported/alternative/groupthink-defined definition of asexuality is that many of them tend to get highly offended if anyone remotely suggests that what is going on for someone isn't asexuality. Unfortunately, it is that advice/idea/argument that is harmful to people.

If the information someone offers to anyone else is to have any validity, and is truly meant for the individual rather than to justify the feelings of the advice-giver, then it should be able to stand up to scrutiny and thoughtful analysis. One thing that absolutely is not in dispute (except possibly by this fringe group): We are hardwired for connection, and emotional and physical closeness is a significant part of why we are here. In the OP's case, it makes a lot more sense to consider and rule out the idea of a psychological origin for the issue than it does to simply accept that this is the way one is and one must go through life pushing away anyone that offers closeness and intimacy.

 

No, I'm not thinking of hyposexual; that's a different condition with low (but not nonexistent) sex drive. Again, that's if we're using the widely accepted definition rather than one that a small group has redefined to its own liking.

As far as the word "queer"... it's not a word I use, not because it's hijacking literary heritage, but because the definition of the word is, in fact, "strange or odd" and I personally don't define myself that way... though anyone else who wishes to is more than welcomed to do so.

No offense is intended. As I've said before, if words, particularly words associated with psychological issues, are to have any meaning, there needs to be agreement on what they mean. If I and a few thousand people decide that a gallon of water is 64 ounces... we can decide that, call 64 ounces a gallon, and we can try and propagate that definition... but if the other 300 million people, including those who use those terms professionally, believe that "gallon" means 128 ounces... we don't accomplish much by trying to redefine a word that already has a definition that's been in use for decades.

Same applies here.

People are welcomed to create whatever definitions they wish, but they don't have the right to try to force those who are using those words the way they have always been used to stop using them that way.

 

Becki, with respect, post or don't post, but you are not a forum moderator. Please leave that job to the staff team.