What exactly is "Sexual Attraction"? Does it actually exist?

[ouinon]

Hi!:)

I'm beginning to think that "sexual attraction ( to persons )" may not actually exist.

NB. I realise that in the final analysis no social construct, ( like "sexual attraction", "love", "truth", "science", "free will", "woman" or "man", etc ), really exists outside of our mental "matrix" of the world, that none of these things actually have concrete existence. ie. "sexual attraction", "man", "woman", "truth", etc are just words/labels which we apply to the world, with more or less successful results.

So in a sense the obvious answer to my question is that "sexual attraction" doesn't exist. :) I suppose what I am trying to work out is whether it is a useful label/construct, whether in fact it is one of the more misleading, and less successful, labels/terms/social constructs in that its use leads not only to confusion and frustration for individuals but also to increasing problems in society, ( despite the massive profits which are made from belief in sexual attraction ).

What I am thinking is that although people are clearly genetically/chemically and socially attracted, ( non-sexually ) to certain individuals, based on many different criteria based on genes, upbringing, social conditioning, etc, what we call "sexual attraction" is actually the combination of a mental, emotional, physical and social attraction to someone AND particular relational dynamic/situational factors and/or certain "objects" ( whether body parts, clothes, or other "things" ), which excite sexual arousal.

I am suggesting that noone actually feels "sexually attracted" to a person, that what we use the term for is the combination of someone we like/are non-sexually attracted to WITH one or both of the two "impersonal" factors. ie. will feel like having sex, will want to become sexually intimate with, someone ( that we find sufficiently non-sexually attractive ) only when in the right situation/dynamic and/or when can play with certain "exciting" objects ( whether body parts or other objects ) with them.

I think that this would be a more useful and less confusing way of describing our sexual orientations/drives. ie. if society stopped pretending that it is a person ( a man or a woman etc ) who triggers sexual desire in us, and amended the language about sexual interest to make it clear that most people are turned on by, experience desire as a result of certain situations/dynamics ( which will vary from person to person ), and/or certain "objects" ( which will also vary from person to person ).

Some people react to these two things whether or not they "like" ( or otherwise non-sexually appreciate or value ) the person they are with, other people only react to them when with people they "like"/wholly appreciate in a non-sexual way, and many react to them, will experience desire, when there is "enough" of each factor to make for a reasonably satisfying mix of moderate non-sexual attraction to someone and moderate amounts of the objects or dynamics which turn them on.

I am suggesting that asexuality may be the result of needing either very high amounts of both ( non-sexual attraction and the "right" kind of situation/dynamic or object involvement ) at once, and/or because one is fairly inflexibly non-sexually attracted to people with whom one never or rarely enters into the "required" dynamics or with whom one rarely or never find the "objects " which turn one on.

Many people seem to be turned on by fairly banal sorts of situations, ( or perhaps they are simply more sensitive to all the more subtle non-verbal indications of the sort of "situation" which turn them on ), and others are turned on by the most ordinary "objects", ( eg. breasts ), at the same time as being intellectually, emotionally and physically ( but non-sexually ) attracted to a fair number of people, based on popular socially-conditioned criteria such as sex, age, financial standing, availability, etc. They will seem to experience "sexual attraction to people", never having had to work out what exactly it is that is turning them on.

I think that the increasing number of people coming out as asexual or queer, practising BDSM, etc is a sign that this model, ( the social construct of "sexual attraction to people/persons" ), is on its way out. "Sexual attraction to people" is becoming less and less believable. People are not "sexually attractive". They are non-sexually attractive, based on various pecking-order and more personal criteria, and then become partners for sex depending on whether the situation/dynamic is "right" and/or on the presence of certain body parts/"objects".

That's just my thoughts. If I sound very pedagogical that is just because I tend to think and write like that, trying out extreme positions in order to see more clearly, ( thesis, antithesis, synthesis ) not because I want to lay down the law on anything. I would really love to explore/discuss/debate this and welcome all contributions! :D

.

[Samael]

I dont know if the exact reason(s) for people's sexual orientations are all that well known yet. That is, it might be just a biological or genetical reason, or the impact of the environment where we live might have an effect on us, or it could be a whole lot of other reasons too. Personally I would bet a biological reason; there's something different about us when compared to people of other sexual orientations. Sure, it might just be psychological too, I don't know. The point is, I believe sexual attraction is more than a social construct - I believe sexual attraction exists independently in people who are "wired" to feel that. Of course, sexual attraction might just seem like a social construct to people who don't feel the pull to be physically intimite with another.

I'm not 100% sure I understood what you were trying to say, but these were my own thoughts :)

[LoNeR bY dEfAuLt]

Loving this post, an intriguing argument.

You're right, what is sexual attraction? Is it someone looking at another person and wanting to have sex with them? It must surely go beyond appreciating that person's physical appearance, because many things in this world that people are not sexually attracted to are physically attractive.

I can look at a woman and appreciate how beautiful she is, but it doesn't make me want to do sexual things with her any more than I would with a beautiful sunset or landscape, for example. They're all simply sights which are pleasing to look at, so you look at them.

Similarly, straight men can often appreciate the good looks of another man, and straight women can often appreciate the beauty of another woman. But given that they are supposedly straight, how does appreciating attractiveness in this way differ from the kind of attractiveness that they would feel toward someone of the opposite sex, for example? And what is it about that new level of attractiveness that makes it sexual?

I experience arousal, but even at my most aroused there isn't a woman on this Earth whom I would want to have sex with. And looking at pictures of beautiful women or indeed handsome men, or being around them, doesn't arouse me.

Unfortunately, I have no answers! Hopefully someone can suggest some....

[StoryWitch]

And looking at pictures of beautiful women or indeed handsome men, or being around them, doesn't arouse me.

To me, this is the key to sexual attraction and the lack thereof. Aces can experience sexual arousal in response to masturbation, porn, or solitary fantasies; they can appreciate other people's beauty (aesthetic attraction); they can desire to enter into relationships with people and sometimes hug/kiss/touch/be touched by them (romantic attraction); but they don't *get sexually aroused by looking at or having physical contact with those people*--and that, to me, is "sexual attraction."

That said, I'm sure other people's definitions vary, and the term is definitely a construct with no concrete definition, so I'm all for the questioning and deconstructing. :)

[ouinon]

Loving this post' date=' an intriguing argument.[/quote']

Thank you! :D

Aces can experience sexual arousal in response to masturbation' date=' porn, or solitary fantasies; they can appreciate other people's beauty (aesthetic attraction); they can desire to enter into relationships with people and sometimes hug/kiss/touch/be touched by them (romantic attraction); but they don't *get sexually aroused by looking at or having physical contact with those people*--and that, to me, is "sexual attraction."[/quote']

I'm suggesting that that reaction, arousal in response to and/or when in contact with or close to a person, is not "sexual attraction to a person"; that what causes the sexual arousal is not the person but the body-parts/"objects" ( of clothing, or whatever ), and/or the relational dynamics/situation, ( eg. being desired ).

ie. I don't think that anyone experiences what is known as "sexual attraction ( to a person )"; it is a myth/mirage/illusion created by language/labels... I am thinking that maybe everybody is "asexual" ( according to that definition of it anyway ). :lol

I don't think that what distinguishes my sexuality from most other people's is that I feel no "sexual attraction to people/persons" ( because noone does ) ... I think that what distinguishes it is that the people who match my non-sexual attraction criteria don't often combine with the dynamics ( or objects ) which turn me on.

And I am suggesting that this may be the case for many/most "asexuals", and that defining oneself as "not feeling sexual attraction to people/persons" is a bit of a tautology, because noone does, they just believe that they do, because society teaches us to look at it that way, and some people's criteria ( for non-sexual attraction and the dynamics/situational requirements and body-parts/objects ) match up more easily.

It's a bit like the emperor's new clothes; I'm saying that there is no such thing as "sexual attraction to people/persons" rather than "I must have some sort of optical-disorder/difference because I can't see the emperor's new clothes". :) :lol

Other people "see" the clothes/"sexual attraction to people" because they have never had to examine their sexual relationships and desire so closely that the "join" becomes visible and see that what turns them on/"attracts them" is the dynamic/situation and/or the body-parts/objects involved, ( not the person ), that the person in the absence of those two things is just a "good friend" or pleasant acquaintance or whatever.

I think this might explain why men tend to have far more fixed "sexual orientations" in tests/studies; it's because many/most men are turned on by objects/body-parts and the most "famous" objects/body-parts are generally attached to a particular sex/gender, whereas most women are apparently more turned on by relational dynamics/situations, and this fits with how much more flexible women seem to be in terms of sexual orientation.

So the question then becomes, what determines which dynamics and/or objects turn us on? And what/who is it that decides who in society is allowed to play which roles in such dynamics, and who is allowed to have which body-parts/objects?

Because it is that which will "drive"/herd" people into couplings based on sexual activity. If everybody could wear whatever clothes they liked, ( heels, make-up, skirts, ), have perfectly convincing breasts, perfectly convincing d***s, etc, etc, etc and if everybody could, as is increasingly the case, provide for and protect and express "desire for someone's body-parts" with material gifts/comforts/consumer goods, people would be less and less likely to continue choosing their sexual partner only from the opposite sex. :)

.

[ouinon]

PS. I'm just thinking that BDSM and other kinky sex suddenly looks very civilised indeed compared to the "first day of the xmas sales" frenzy to get the right body parts and/or other objects and enough money and power etc to turn people on which is what the current mainstream-mating game suddenly looked like to me. The fight to get one's hands on the body-parts/objects which will keep men attracted, or to get enough money to express desire sufficiently to women ...

... or the sentence to years and years of dutiful, muted, "affectionate", charitable, routine sex, seven minutes a go/day/week, which so many people seem to resign themselves to, ( the majority of women in long term relationships admit to frequently having sex for reasons other than desire, etc, and over a third infrequently/rarely or never have orgasms ), as I have resigned myself to no sex at all rather than risk trying ... BDSM for instance! :lol

BDSM, from what little I know of it, seems to be totally upfront about the part that objects/body-parts and/or dynamics/situations play in sexual arousal, its members not pretending that they are "sexually attracted" to "the person" of their partner, so much as simply finding them sufficiently emotionally, intellectually and physically attractive and compatible, turned on by the same dynamics and/or objects. ...

I think most people would be horrified to think that they weren't sexually attracted to the "person" of their partner but to their body-parts or to the role they play, the money they provide, etc ... I wonder whether that is why my son's papa was so disturbed by, and resistant to, my suggesting that he go out and find another woman to have sex with ... it embodied/made manifest the "split" in what he has seen as one thing.

He has done so anyway, but it's "bothering" him in some fundamental way. :)

[Siggy]

You might be interested in this thread on Apositive.

Personally, I think it is very asexual-centric to think that sexual attraction is not a useful construction. It's pretty useful, just not for everyone.

I also think it's important to remember that what you propose about "situations" and "objects" is just an alternate construction. One that may be more useful to you, although I can't say it's more useful to me. Really, I don't even know how to fit my experiences into that paradigm. Mind you, as a Gray-A, I have trouble fitting my experiences into the sexual attraction paradigm too.

[GirlInside]

We should get some sexuals' opinions on this matter.

I'm guessing it's some kind of programming:

10 EXECUTE PROGRAM "IS PERSON ATTRACTIVE?"

20 IF ATTRACTIVEQ=YES GOTO 30 ELSE GOTO 40

30 EXECUTE PROGRAM "SEXUAL ATTRACTION"

40 EXIT PROGRAM

[Siggy]

I think most people would be horrified to think that they weren't sexually attracted to the "person" of their partner but to their body-parts or to the role they play, the money they provide, etc ...

Okay, I read a bit more carefully, and this quote jumped out at me. It sounds like you're trying to propose a theory of reality, one that people are just too afraid to accept. But if we understand your proposal as an alternate construction, this is actually a bad thing. How is a social construction supposed to be useful if people just find it horrifying?

[ouinon]

You might be interested in this thread on Apositive.

Yes' date=' thank you very much. :) I've started reading it and it looks promising, will go back to it.

Personally, I think it is very asexual-centric to think that sexual attraction is not a useful construction. It's pretty useful, just not for everyone.

I also think it's important to remember that what you propose about "situations" and "objects" is just an alternate construction. One that may be more useful to you, although I can't say it's more useful to me. Really, I don't even know how to fit my experiences into that paradigm. Mind you, as a Gray-A, I have trouble fitting my experiences into the sexual attraction paradigm too.

I think most people would be horrified to think that they weren't sexually attracted to the "person" of their partner but to their body-parts or to the role they play, the money they provide, etc ...

Okay, I read a bit more carefully, and this quote jumped out at me. It sounds like you're trying to propose a theory of reality, one that people are just too afraid to accept. But if we understand your proposal as an alternate construction, this is actually a bad thing. How is a social construction supposed to be useful if people just find it horrifying?

I think that many people might find it horrifying now, in this social context, while still believing in the models of sexual partnership/relationship which emphasise the "personal" ( whether romantic or more pragmatic ) in sexual arousal, etc. I would have done 20 years ago. I would have thought it was awful. I vaguely remember someone suggesting something like this and finding the idea/analysis absolutely repellent and disgusting.

I'm not suggesting that people would always or inevitably be afraid to accept this other model of reality, but that it might seem shocking, etc to them, especially in the context of an already existing relationship entered into under the old model.

I don't understand in what way the alternative model that I describe, of no "sexual attraction to people/persons", is asexual-centric, because I am suggesting that it would both explain and perhaps solve a great many of the chronic sexual relationship issues that both society and individuals have under the current model.

I think that the model I describe would be better for the same reason that "needs based" disability rights are better than diagnosis based care/support services and rights. I think that it might enable a great many people to make better, because clearer-sighted, decisions about long-term partnerships, etc.

I think that it would encourage greater gender fluidity, a greater freedom in sexual choice for a great many people.

In what way do you think that the old model is "useful"?

.

[TSD]

This thread is so awesome. I think I just had a nerdgasm.

So I've never thought to try and better understand sexual attraction since I've always given it a functional definition: I just used it to refer to that strange magical thing that makes other people take certain actions or choices I never would. So you'll have to pardon me if I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying.

Anyways, are you suggesting that sexual attraction isn't to people but to situations and/or objects/aspects (usually) of people? Because that does seem to fit with the idea that most sexuals have something that "turns them on" or a "type" or so on. And this is an unimportant question, but if sexual attraction is the result of a combination of other types of attraction/situations (that we then refer to as sexual attraction), doesn't it still exist? It seems like you are just proposing a different model of how sexual attraction works.

And I am suggesting that this may be the case for many/most "asexuals", and that defining oneself as "not feeling sexual attraction to people/persons" is a bit of a tautology, because noone does, they just believe that they do, because society teaches us to look at it that way, and some people's criteria ( for non-sexual attraction and the dynamics/situational requirements and body-parts/objects ) match up more easily.

One thing to note is that the definition for asexuality we have on AVEN doesn't mention people- it just says an asexual is someone who "doesn't experience sexual attraction". So under this model it might not be a trivial statement, since it would just be saying asexuals don't experience whatever it is that we mean by sexual attraction- even if that is just some situation where various attractions meet up that we label sexual attraction.

Anyways, I'll have to think about this a bit more.

[ouinon]

This thread is so awesome. I think I just had a nerdgasm.

:lol

If sexual attraction is the result of a combination of other types of attraction/situations (that we then refer to as sexual attraction)' date=' doesn't it still exist? It seems like you are just proposing a different model of how sexual attraction works.[/quote']

Not exactly, but it is precisely this aspect of my argument which I had trouble expressing in the existing concepts, so I am not surprised that it isn't clear.

What I am suggesting is that we feel non-sexual ( emotional, intellectual and physical, etc ) attraction to various people, and that this becomes sexual excitement/arousal when combined with a person's "preferred" relational dynamics/situational factors and/or objects/body-parts ... and that this arousal may start at a very low, or high, level in quite public environments in response to those elements or only in private moments before beginning some kind of sexual activity ... and that there is no reason to call it "sexual attraction", when it is simply sexual excitement/arousal. Why call it anything else?

ie. It is sexual excitement/arousal itself which draws us towards sexual activity in order to scratch the itch, and that "tug"/"pull" is what has been called "sexual attraction", but it is already sexual excitement/arousal, the publically acceptable face of it perhaps, though this is another aspect of the construct "sexual attraction" which I think can be very confusing and disturbing for some, because we are brought up to think that sexual feelings in public are not acceptable ... perhaps that's why it has been called "sexual attraction" to make it sound as if noone gets actually sexually excited in public, when in fact people do, all the time.

One thing to note is that the definition for asexuality we have on AVEN doesn't mention people- it just says an asexual is someone who "doesn't experience sexual attraction". So under this model it might not be a trivial statement' date=' since it would just be saying asexuals don't experience whatever it is that we mean by sexual attraction- even if that is just some situation where various attractions meet up that we label sexual attraction.[/quote']

Yes, I noticed that the Aven Home Page doesn't actually refer to "sexual attraction to people", but several people have already posted on threads since I joined to say that it is directed at a person and is about wanting to have sex with someone, rather than wanting to go and do something on one's own in response to various stimuli, so it began to seem to me that the distinction between sexuals and asexuals lay there.

However I'm thinking that what we have called "sexual attraction" ( of any kind ) is "simply" some level of sexual excitement/arousal in response to dynamics/situations or objects/body-parts. People get turned on, and that includes quite a lot of "asexuals", judging by posts here ... the difference is not wanting to do anything sexual with a person when in that state ... or?

.

[Akeyami]

And looking at pictures of beautiful women or indeed handsome men, or being around them, doesn't arouse me.

To me, this is the key to sexual attraction and the lack thereof. Aces can experience sexual arousal in response to masturbation, porn, or solitary fantasies; they can appreciate other people's beauty (aesthetic attraction); they can desire to enter into relationships with people and sometimes hug/kiss/touch/be touched by them (romantic attraction); but they don't *get sexually aroused by looking at or having physical contact with those people*--and that, to me, is "sexual attraction."

That said, I'm sure other people's definitions vary, and the term is definitely a construct with no concrete definition, so I'm all for the questioning and deconstructing. :)

This ^^ I do think is how I feel about it as well. If we define sexual attraction in this way, it is easy for at least me to say that other than experiencing aesthetic appreciation, I have never felt it. Therefore, I can identify with having "a lack of sexual attraction".

[JJButterworth]

I think that sexual attraction is based on three things: physical appearance, personality and, situation. How big a factor each component varies from person to person.

[under_the_radar]

The OP's post is so familiar to what I thought was a fact long ago. I think there is so much of a societal expectation and psychological conditioning (subliminal and direct) that it is impossible to determine if "sexual attraction" truly exists outside of a co-morbid situation or as a primary factor. In all honesty I don't think it does and is something developed over time as a coping mechanism and formation of identity based on fear of lacking useful human traits regardless of how much harm is potential.

I've come to the conclusion that those who buy into these notions have developed a primary habitual state entirely derived from programming and cognitive dissonance, none the less, when it is believed to be true/natural the existence of sexual attraction becomes inherent regardless of it being an intrinsic or authentic trait.

I'm very happy to keep it real these days, having the above debate with myself during high school was very tiring! :lol:

[ouinon]

Thank you everybody for all your replies. :)

What I'm now wondering is, if "sexual attraction" doesn't actually exist, ( the "tug"/"pull" etc which sexuals experience being "merely" some publically-acceptable degree of sexual arousal/excitement in response to dynamics/situations and/or objects/body-parts, and not to a person, exactly like many asexuals experience in response to these things ), whether the reason why sexuals then seek out/ask a person/people to express/share this arousal with them is simply because sexuals ascribe/attribute their arousal to people/persons rather than dynamics/situations or objects/body-parts ...

ie. I am wondering whether the reason why some people ( perhaps many asexuals ) do not seek out a person/people to express/share their sexual excitement/arousal with is that they are aware, at some level too noticeable to ignore, that their excitement/arousal is about objects/body-parts and/or the dynamics/situation ... and they have integrated the belief, ( socially constructed/encouraged ) that it is "wrong" to have sex with a person if they are not excited by that person but by body-parts/objects and/or dynamics/situations, that it is a form of abuse or exploitation of someone to do that.

Whereas most sexuals, believing as they seem to do, ( as encouraged by society ), that they are "sexually attracted to people/persons", ( sexually excited/aroused by people/persons ), feel able to freely express and share their excitement with another because they see their arousal as a sort of compliment to a person, such that it is perfectly appropriate to share it with them, an expression of interest in and appreciation of a person, whereas to someone aware of what it is that is really exciting/arousing them it feels like "using" someone?

Which is where BDSM/fetish style sexual activity and partnerships are so radical, because they seem to be based on saying, "we know that it is not people/persons that turn us on but we think that so long as we find someone that we respect/like/appreciate in non-sexual ways, ( intellectual, emotional, physical, etc ), who is turned on by dynamics/situations and/or objects/body-parts which are compatible/work in tandem with those which we find sexually exciting then it is perfectly ok, and v satisfying, to express/share this excitement with another".

Are many asexuals in fact people who find it difficult to reconcile their inner knowledge that it is objects/body-parts and/or dynamics/situations rather than people/persons which turn them on with the sort of non-sexual relationships which they engage in? ie. Do they believe they would have to be "sexually excited/aroused by the person rather than dynamics or body-parts, etc" in order to do anything genuinely sexual with someone? Are many asexuals in fact suffering from a sort of "sexual repression" which stops them from expressing/sharing/engaging in what really excites them sexually with the sort of person that they are non-sexually attracted to?

What really excites them sexually seems too "impersonal", too concerned with body-parts/objects or with specific dynamics/situations to have anything to do with the sort of person they like/appreciate non-sexually, like an insult or perhaps too difficult/alarming to explain ... like being caught between a rock and a hard place ... aware of how their sexual excitement has nothing to do with people/persons ... but unable to set about sharing that with someone so that could explore it as a "team"?

I'm just wondering what percentage of asexuals move onto BDSM, and how many decide to simply renounce sexual activity with others, settle for solitary sexual behaviour, etc and how many don't even bother with that after a while/most of the time?

.

[ouinon]

PS. Just wondering whether this might have something to do with how we define "person". ... What is a "person"? Perhaps a person is nothing more than body-parts/objects and "role-play"/behaviours in certain situations ... in which case sexual attraction to "persons" does exist and it is perhaps belief in romantic, idealistic constructs of "person" which cause asexuality, particularly beliefs about one's "self", as surely not just a collection of body-parts behaving in certain ways as determined by genes, upbringing, social conditioning, environment, chemical state, etc.

Maybe finding objects/body-parts and/or dynamics/situations sexually exciting/arousing in company with another "person" threatens one's belief in being something more than a body reacting to situations, whereas on one's own it can apparently be completely controlled, ( reinforcing belief in free will and "personhood" beyond the body ), and the reactions can be written off as fantasy, as unreal. ? ... Sexual attraction "to people" ( who are only ever a sum/collection of body-parts and dynamics ), exists and my asexuality is the result of perceiving my "self" as more than mere body-parts and situations/dynamics ( and attachment to that perception/experience )?

:lol :lol :lol

It's also way easier, much less effort, to manipulate my own and imaginary objects/body-parts and dynamics/situations ( on my own ) than attempt to negotiate and communicate and act in cooperation with someone else and their needs ... that may have something to do with my being on or near the autism spectrum ... and/or a very high exposure to food opioid peptides ( in bread, cheese, pizza, etc ) since early infancy as a result of unusually permeable intestines :) ... such that the contents of my "head" have often felt more interesting and entertaining and exciting than "real" life! :? :lol :(

.

[Tabula Rasa]

I'm not sexual, but I do wonder if on many occasions sexual people talk/psych themselves into having "sexual attraction" toward another person out of social conditioning. Not that they would be asexual otherwise, but when I observe sexual people talk about having met someone, one of the first questions posed is, "So, any hanky-panky yet?" or something along those lines. So then there may be pressure to think and act sexual before the person is really ready to, given they're just getting to know the other person.

[samepage1]

Very thoughtful analysis in all the posts. I love this stuff. Of course sexual attraction is a social construct, and the question is how well does it apply to, or how useful is it in understanding real life experience. Sexual people may not need all this analysis to understand something that is more or less innate to them, whereas an an ace like myself who feels like they cannot relate to the experience of most people may find it helpful in figuring out what is different about my experience. I find this interpretation personally useful because there are things that can get me aroused, but I never feel the draw toward someone for the purpose of having sex. The combination postulate can explain this: at the extremes, for some people just one factor may be enough (e.g. physical attributes), for others (i.e. asexuals) no combination may be sufficient.

But to me it seems that most sexual people just from physical appearance can get a sufficient desire to experience sex with someone that if they wouldn't do it at the drop of a hat, at least it leads them to want to create the emotional connection/situation that would be sufficient for them to want to have sex with that person. This is the draw that I don't experience, and which I think, though not necessarily exclusively, can be termed sexual attraction.

[CreepyCrawler]

Hmm...how is this different from the AVEN discussion of attraction vs. arousal?

[ouinon]

Hmm...how is this different from the AVEN discussion of attraction vs. arousal?

Which one is that?

.

[samepage1]

Hmm...how is this different from the AVEN discussion of attraction vs. arousal?

Usually discussions on AVEN regard sexual arousal and sexual attraction as two separate things. Instead, I think, the OP is suggesting that sexual attraction is sexual arousal plus attraction that is of a non-sexual nature. According to the OP, sexual attraction doesn't really exist because the sexual part is just arousal, not attraction, and the attraction part is not sexual. Quote OP:

What I am thinking is that although people are clearly genetically/chemically and socially attracted, ( non-sexually ) to certain individuals, based on many different criteria based on genes, upbringing, social conditioning, etc, what we call "sexual attraction" is actually the combination of a mental, emotional, physical and social attraction to someone AND particular relational dynamic/situational factors and/or certain "objects" ( whether body parts, clothes, or other "things" ), which excite sexual arousal.

I am suggesting that noone actually feels "sexually attracted" to a person, that what we use the term for is the combination of someone we like/are non-sexually attracted to WITH one or both of the two "impersonal" factors. ie. will feel like having sex, will want to become sexually intimate with, someone ( that we find sufficiently non-sexually attractive ) only when in the right situation/dynamic and/or when can play with certain "exciting" objects ( whether body parts or other objects ) with them.

[Beenthere]

Thing is, it is possible to feel sexually attracted to a complete stranger. (Maybe not for everyone, but in general, it happens.) And for there to be no pattern to that as far as looks or, depending on the person, gender. Meaning, it does happen that there's almost no context, aside from being in the same place at the same time, within which the attraction takes place.

[under_the_radar]

PS. Just wondering whether this might have something to do with how we define "person". ... What is a "person"? Perhaps a person is nothing more than body-parts/objects and "role-play"/behaviours in certain situations ... in which case sexual attraction to "persons" does exist and it is perhaps belief in romantic, idealistic constructs of "person" which cause asexuality, particularly beliefs about one's "self", as surely not just a collection of body-parts behaving in certain ways as determined by genes, upbringing, social conditioning, environment, chemical state, etc.

Maybe finding objects/body-parts and/or dynamics/situations sexually exciting/arousing in company with another "person" threatens one's belief in being something more than a body reacting to situations, whereas on one's own it can apparently be completely controlled, ( reinforcing belief in free will and "personhood" beyond the body ), and the reactions can be written off as fantasy, as unreal. ? ... Sexual attraction "to people" ( who are only ever a sum/collection of body-parts and dynamics ), exists and my asexuality is the result of perceiving my "self" as more than mere body-parts and situations/dynamics ( and attachment to that perception/experience )?

:lol :lol :lol

It's also way easier, much less effort, to manipulate my own and imaginary objects/body-parts and dynamics/situations ( on my own ) than attempt to negotiate and communicate and act in cooperation with someone else and their needs ... that may have something to do with my being on or near the autism spectrum ... and/or a very high exposure to food opioid peptides ( in bread, cheese, pizza, etc ) since early infancy as a result of unusually permeable intestines :) ... such that the contents of my "head" have often felt more interesting and entertaining and exciting than "real" life! :? :lol :(

.

My definition of person doesn't coincide with many other people's definitions and it causes conflict by sexual standards and AVEN definitions. To me a person is an actual embodiment of a person, a reproduced image of a person, the voice over of a person (such as in animation, there is a human voice), the fantasy/imagined person. Any human representation including an android to me has a human pull component. I have no sexual pull to any of these things and no romantic pull to a person I have not developed a relationship with, but I believe a partner's involvement with any representation of a "person" and/or actual human other than myself is a transgression.

All desire for humans and human substitutes IMHO are a draw to another person regardless of it's tangible or intangible. I guess if it's assigned human attributes/personality/physiological components (especially if it has a soul and the ability to respond real or imaginary), it's a person.

[Sally]

Thing is, it is possible to feel sexually attracted to a complete stranger. (Maybe not for everyone, but in general, it happens.) And for there to be no pattern to that as far as looks or, depending on the person, gender. Meaning, it does happen that there's almost no context, aside from being in the same place at the same time, within which the attraction takes place.

I was told that's true by my extremely sexual ex-partner and my extremely sexual ex-husband. The sexual attraction simply happens; it doesn't require any kind of relationship having been established. It's attraction of a body to another body. That can happen within a relationship, of course, but it doesn't need a relationship to happen.

[Pamcakes]

Pardon me, but this appears to be a discussion purely of semantics, and nothing more.

Regardless of what factors contribute to it, most people simply classify the desire to engage in sexual activity with a particular person for at least partially physical reasons as sexual attraction.

Now, I'm not saying don't dissect the phenomenon - by all means, question reality; after all, cogito ergo sum - but try to keep in mind that something is both the sum of and more than the sum of its parts. I can say, "This isn't a computer; it's a synaptic net of wires and circuitry that combine to form a electronic brain," but that doesn't change the fact that what I've just described is, in fact, a computer.

P.

[Beenthere]

as an addendum I should point out the opposite phenomenon from what i wrote about above. You can meet someone who is "perfect" right down to all your friends rooting for them (and who is nice to you and good looking and whatever else)...and you can feel exactly nothing.

If there is a formula that adds up to what is called sexual attraction, it will never be deciphered.

[WünderBâhr]

Moving to Philosophy, Politics and Science forum (PPS). You may continue posting/commenting there. Thank you. :)

Bipolar Bear

Asexual Q&A co-mod

[Henny]

Pardon me, but this appears to be a discussion purely of semantics, and nothing more.

Regardless of what factors contribute to it, most people simply classify the desire to engage in sexual activity with a particular person for at least partially physical reasons as sexual attraction.

Now, I'm not saying don't dissect the phenomenon - by all means, question reality; after all, cogito ergo sum - but try to keep in mind that something is both the sum of and more than the sum of its parts. I can say, "This isn't a computer; it's a synaptic net of wires and circuitry that combine to form a electronic brain," but that doesn't change the fact that what I've just described is, in fact, a computer.

P.

"A synaptic net of wires and circuitry that combine to form a electronic brain" is a definition, whilst "computer" is a word. It's nonsensical speak of definitions as being "right" or "wrong", so it is more of a question of whether words are; though I think it is more about if a word helps facilitate communication. So the question is whether using the word "computer" to mean "a synaptic net of wires and circuitry that combine to form a electronic brain" is useful or not. Obviously, it is. Still, "computer" can also mean someone who is really skilled at math (or though perhaps it was a more widely used definition of the word computer in the past). So, using the word "computer" to refer to something does not always mean it is "a synaptic net of wires and circuitry that combine to form a electronic brain".

Maybe not people always use the same definition of sexual attraction when using that word. Hmm. Still, someone not familiar with the term schadenfraude would not react "Oh there's something new for me to experience" but rather "Oh, a useful word for me to describe something I experience". Language does not dictate what we experience. So I think most agree that there is such a thing as sexual attraction, perhaps just not on what it constitutes.

[Næt.]

Language does not dictate what we experience.

I've been lurking on Aven for a while, and haven't seen anything worthwile responding to, and you get the dubious honour of compelling me to do so.

I would disagree with you here, to some extent. I think language can influence the way you see the world. For example, colours:

"In short, the range of stimuli that for Himba speakers comes to be categorized as "serandu" would be categorized in English as red, orange or pink. As another example, Himba children come to use one word, "zoozu," to embrace a variety of dark colors that English speakers would call dark blue, dark green, dark brown, dark purple, dark red or black.

Roberson and her colleagues explain that different languages have differing numbers of "basic color terms." English has 11 such terms, the same as in many of the world's major languages, and Himba has five, each of which covers a broader range of colors."

Also here:

"Well over half a century ago, Benjamin Lee Whorf [...] proposed that language affects perception and thought and is used to segment nature, a hypothesis that has since been tested by linguistic and behavioral studies. Although clear Whorfian effects have been found, it has not yet been demonstrated that language influences brain activity associated with perception and/or immediate postperceptual processes (referred hereafter as “perceptual decision”). Here, by using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we show that brain regions mediating language processes participate in neural networks activated by perceptual decision. [...] This finding suggests that the language-processing areas of the brain are directly involved in visual perceptual decision, thus providing neuroimaging support for the Whorf hypothesis."

Interesting, no?