Faelights Posted October 16, 2011 Author Share Posted October 16, 2011 Now I'm really confused... =/ SkulleryMaid, if you don't mind me asking... what are your respective definitions of "sexual attraction" as opposed to "sexual desire"? Please provide both, because I'm having trouble understanding how you're differentiating between them. Do I mind? I am delighted. :) Sexual attraction always has a mind of it's own. Just because your rational mind happens to like it too doesn't make it anymore like "sexual attraction" than you being attracted to that evil chain-smoking hooker standing in the corner. Even if you're the exceptionally rare type that only experiences sexual attraction when close connections are made, it's not sexually different than any of the above. Being aroused by a human being = being aroused by a human being. Hahaha yes. :lol: There's that split second before your brain has a chance to process things, where you are aroused by another person. Then, a moment later, your brain jumps in and can kill that attraction on the spot. Like, for instance, the evil chain-smoking hooker. Your body may register something for a second, but then your brain pops in, and all your morality, your judgments about cleanliness, etc etc etc register and the attraction dies (because touching that hooker would be disgusting!). And this all takes place in a matter of moments for most people. Desire to have sex =/= sexual attraction, in my book. Desire to have sex depends on so many factors, and sexual attraction is just one of them. If I see a sexually attractive stranger walking down the street, my desire to actually have sex with her is zero in pretty much every case. But to say that I'm not sexually attracted to strangers would be completely wrong. I dunno, maybe you just have to feel it to understand it. It's sexual arousal when certain hormonal and emotional responses and thoughts adds up to the desire to have sex. No it isn't. At all. Like at all at all. That's called "wanting to have sex". Sexual attraction is essentially: libido+instigating factor. Most of the time when I feel sexual attraction is is NOT accompanied by a desire to have sex. Sometimes I feel sexual attraction and am like "ew gross, don't be attracted to that!" I was actually hoping for two sentences/paragraphs that could be compared to one another, but I suppose this works just as well, too... except now I need to ask clarifying questions. XDDDD Based on the quotations you provided, I'm getting the following impressions: Sexual desire is specifically the conscious thought that you want to have sex with someone. It is the combined result of many factors, includingsexual attraction Personal mores, believes, values Considerations of the other person e.g. their personality, physical appearance, trustworthiness [*]Sexual attraction, on the other hand, is a combined result of libido and a instigating factor for the libido, which may or may not be a person. Is libido deemed unconscious, uncontrolled, etc? Is this different from sex drive? Can the instigating factor be consideredA "trigger" for libido? Can it be considered a "direction", as in (to use physics) libido is to speed (magnitude) as sexual attraction is to velocity (vector)? As in the libido is directed towards something specific? Is the sexual attraction felt in the form of arousal? Please take a look at those and correct any wrong conclusions I've made. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 I was actually hoping for two sentences/paragraphs that could be compared to one another, but I suppose this works just as well, too... except now I need to ask clarifying questions. XDDDD Based on the quotations you provided, I'm getting the following impressions: Sexual desire is specifically the conscious thought that you want to have sex with someone. It is the combined result of many factors, includingsexual attraction Personal mores, believes, values Considerations of the other person e.g. their personality, physical appearance, trustworthiness [*]Sexual attraction, on the other hand, is a combined result of libido and a instigating factor for the libido, which may or may not be a person. Is libido deemed unconscious, uncontrolled, etc? Is this different from sex drive? Can the instigating factor be consideredA "trigger" for libido? Can it be considered a "direction", as in (to use physics) libido is to speed (magnitude) as sexual attraction is to velocity (vector)? As in the libido is directed towards something specific? Is the sexual attraction felt in the form of arousal? Please take a look at those and correct any wrong conclusions I've made. lol... the velocity thing... I was actually just thinking about that before I read your post. :) 1. Sexual desire. I don't think it's a conscious decision to have sex, more like a conscious drive or desire to have sex. But it is conscious. I can have a desire to have sex with someone, but still decide not to go through with it for whatever reason. I think sexual desire is, essentially, sexual attraction, after sexual attraction has been put past all the tests of morals and mores, personal comfortability with sexual things (repulsion would terminate sexual attraction so it would never become sexual desire), sleepiness, the ick factor. If sexual attraction makes it past all that subconscious stuff, then you're left with desire. What you choose to do with that desire is a whole different question. sexual attraction = pure physiological response to a person then... interceding subconscious stuff which either kills the attraction, or leads to... sexual desire = conscious awareness of desire 2. I think sex drive is more like the frequency with which you feel desire. I would say that I have a high sex drive, because ideally I would like to have sex 3-4 times a week in a relationship. When I'm single I seek out sex with frequency because I like to have it a lot. When we talk about people with a low sex drive, what's generally meant is that they don't desire sex very often, like once a month in a relationship. So, at least in common vernacular, sex drive is a statement of the frequency (and maybe strength? I don't use it this way, but others may) of your sexual desire. 3. Sexual attraction. Arousal caused by instigating factor (for ease, I'm just going to start saying "person", although if for you, it's a cactus, please feel free to substitute "cactus" for "person" :lol: ). Velocity metaphor is pretty good. Whether or not you can have attraction without libido, I don't know. I'm inclined to say no, but that's just because I can't conceive of sexual attraction without libido. My inability to conceive of it isn't a good enough argument for me to say conclusively either way if libido is necessary or not. Regardless of if libido is necessary, it definitely is sufficient. Arousal triggered specifically from another person is sexual attraction. Whether sexual attraction also includes things outside of arousal, I can't say. Of course my understanding of all this stuff is changing and evolving too as we all discuss this and different perspectives are added. Link to post Share on other sites
Faelights Posted October 16, 2011 Author Share Posted October 16, 2011 lol... the velocity thing... I was actually just thinking about that before I read your post. :) 1. Sexual desire. I don't think it's a conscious decision to have sex, more like a conscious drive or desire to have sex. But it is conscious. I can have a desire to have sex with someone, but still decide not to go through with it for whatever reason. I think sexual desire is, essentially, sexual attraction, after sexual attraction has been put past all the tests of morals and mores, personal comfortability with sexual things (repulsion would terminate sexual attraction so it would never become sexual desire), sleepiness, the ick factor. If sexual attraction makes it past all that subconscious stuff, then you're left with desire. What you choose to do with that desire is a whole different question. sexual attraction = pure physiological response to a person then... interceding subconscious stuff which either kills the attraction, or leads to... sexual desire = conscious awareness of desire 2. I think sex drive is more like the frequency with which you feel desire. I would say that I have a high sex drive, because ideally I would like to have sex 3-4 times a week in a relationship. When I'm single I seek out sex with frequency because I like to have it a lot. When we talk about people with a low sex drive, what's generally meant is that they don't desire sex very often, like once a month in a relationship. So, at least in common vernacular, sex drive is a statement of the frequency (and maybe strength? I don't use it this way, but others may) of your sexual desire. 3. Sexual attraction. Arousal caused by instigating factor (for ease, I'm just going to start saying "person", although if for you, it's a cactus, please feel free to substitute "cactus" for "person" :lol: ). Velocity metaphor is pretty good. Whether or not you can have attraction without libido, I don't know. I'm inclined to say no, but that's just because I can't conceive of sexual attraction without libido. My inability to conceive of it isn't a good enough argument for me to say conclusively either way if libido is necessary or not. Regardless of if libido is necessary, it definitely is sufficient. Arousal triggered specifically from another person is sexual attraction. Whether sexual attraction also includes things outside of arousal, I can't say. Of course my understanding of all this stuff is changing and evolving too as we all discuss this and different perspectives are added. Alright... *rubs her paws together* here we go again... in the wee hours of the morning... XD So far we've established that sex drive =/= libido, as sex drive has to do with frequency, while libido has to do with the capacity to be aroused. We will have to stop using them interchangeably (well, I have been, anyway, so I will have to stop). I'm going to continue to use "trigger" instead of "person" for "instigating factor" for the moment (for a good reason, I swear). Let's assume, for the moment, that libido is the basis of sexual attraction. In that case: libido + trigger = sexual attraction to trigger Sexual attraction + subconscious assessment other factors related to the desirability of the trigger = sexual desire i.e. desire to engage in sexual activity with the trigger Even if you have the sexual desire, you can still make a conscious decision whether or not to engage in sexual activity with the trigger. New questions: Is sexual attraction a necessary component of sexual desire? Or is it merely an important factor? Can you consciously decide to engage in sexual activity with someone, motivated purely by libido but NOT sexual attraction? If so, are you still motivated by sexual desire? Can you consciously decide to engage in sexual activity with someone, motivated purely by libido but NOT sexual desire? Once again, please review and comment. ^_^ Link to post Share on other sites
PiF Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 you lot are thinking to much so i will reply from experience rather than discussion Is sexual attraction a necessary component of sexual desire? Or is it merely an important factor? to be honest i do feel they are one and the same..but somewhere along the line someone has split it into two for a specific purpose other than thier is a difference Can you consciously decide to engage in sexual activity with someone, motivated purely by libido but NOT sexual attraction? If so, are you still motivated by sexual desire? well yes i have fucked and not seen it as a libido issue as i thought i wanted to make someone happy and viola..boner and did the deed..there was no sexual attraction/desire to it at all..it was pure thought and going through the motions Can you consciously decide to engage in sexual activity with someone, motivated purely by libido but NOT sexual desire? Once again, please review and comment. ^_^ see answer 2 really i'm not sure if it helps though? Link to post Share on other sites
Vampyremage Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 SkulleryMaid, you are seriously deserving of some It has struck me for quite some time that something seemed just a little bit off with the way that sexual attraction is talked about in AVEN, I just couldn't quite figure out how. I think its difficult for someone who hasn't experienced sexual desire or sexual attraction to make that clear differentiation between the two of them. I think that we are really getting to something important with this discussion, however. A question about libido, however. How do you explain those of us who have a libido but no trigger of said libido? I know for myself, if I don't masturbate for a few month, it'll just sort of creek up and start complaining at me. From what I have been able to tell, there is no trigger of such a thing, its just a matter of too much time has passed since the last time I tended to it. From various discussion on here, my understanding is that this is a very common experience libidinous asexuals. Link to post Share on other sites
the Lady Ashuko Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Being aroused by a human being and wanting to have sex sound like the same thing to you? Here. Example. A tingly feeling in the underbits and thinking "whoa, that person is HOT". I have to disagree with that. I get that feeling a lot, but it don't mean that I want to get them into bed. The person in bold feels sexual attraction but not sexual desire. When I read your posts specifically, yeah they do. I often lose track of which one you are trying to explain because they sound pretty interchangeable. I started to understand (not agree, but not be lost) after birdwing's post, then you started explaining again and now I'm lost again (and annoyed and frustrated because I hate being confused). Apart from just having no personal basis to build from, your explanations are so chaotic I have nothing to latch on to and get more confused the more I read. Link to post Share on other sites
Member33070 Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 x Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Boy, I feel like my definitions are so simplistic, they resemble the intellectual capacity of a bug compared to Bird's, Skullery's, etc. However. 1) Desire/libido: Bodily sensation. 2) Sexual attraction: Bodily sensations directed toward a human being. Asexual feels 1) only. Sexual can feel 1) and 2). (No criticism implied toward those who love bugs) Link to post Share on other sites
Member33070 Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 x Link to post Share on other sites
Lucinda Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 * Assumption: Asexuals can experience the general attraction to sex, but not sexual desire (the type that develops after sexual attraction). So an asexual can want to have sex, but it won't be a result of sexual attraction to a specific person. By general attraction to sex, you mean draw to sex, general desire for sex, interest in sex. This is the crux of my argument that asexuals do not want to have sex, have no interest in sex, and no general desire for sex. The preference is to not bring anyone else into the picture for means of gaining personal sexual gratification. Question: By "sexual desire" here, do we mean the type of sexual desire that develops after one experiences sexual attraction, or the general "attraction to sex" concept? In relation to sex drive, your sex drive doesn't care about the who, your sex drive is basically telling you that now would be a good time to get banged. Is it really necessary for me to tell you?? :P Think primal, Birdwing. :D Libido * Capacity/ability to feel sexual attraction. * Assumption: A nonlibidoist cannot feel sexual attraction. Using the word libido is only sexual contexts sounds pretty Freudian to me. The word in its original translation is much more encompassing. Therefore, I can't imagine anyone being a nonlibidoist. Assumption: One who does not experience the "attraction to sex" cannot experience sexual attraction (but one can experience the "attraction to sex" without experiencing sexual attraction). If you believe sexual attraction is involuntary, then it is irrelevant. SkulleryMaid wants sex, she just might bang regardless of sexual attraction. Lucinda doesn't want sex, she won't bang regardless of sexual attraction. Previously-defined asexuals who have fetishes towards objects, ideas, etc. (but not towards people) experience sexual attraction towards those objects. Yes, which is why I question the focus on sexual attraction. Assumption: Asexuals CAN experience sexual attraction - just not towards people, they can experience it towards objects/ideas (ie fetishes). Since they are not sexually attracted to people, the attraction never develops into sexual desire with other people, and they do not experience sexual desire. What's the difference between this group and the group you called previously-defined asexuals ??? # Assumption: Asexuality is more of a lack of sexual orientation (we need a really good justification for this if we're going to claim it). Apples and oranges. Lucinda Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Boy, I feel like my definitions are so simplistic, they resemble the intellectual capacity of a bug compared to Bird's, Skullery's, etc. However. 1) Desire/libido: Bodily sensation. 2) Sexual attraction: Bodily sensations directed toward a human being. Asexual feels 1) only. Sexual can feel 1) and 2). (No criticism implied toward those who love bugs) I agree with your definitions, but... simplistic is intelligent, IMO. A question about libido, however. How do you explain those of us who have a libido but no trigger of said libido? I know for myself, if I don't masturbate for a few month, it'll just sort of creek up and start complaining at me. From what I have been able to tell, there is no trigger of such a thing, its just a matter of too much time has passed since the last time I tended to it. From various discussion on here, my understanding is that this is a very common experience libidinous asexuals. I don’t think libido and attraction are the same thing. You can have a libido but it’s never directed at anyone/anything. Using the velocity metaphor… the engine in your car works, and you can rev it up and get speed (libido), but there’s no direction (trigger), so you’re not actually going anywhere and don’t achieve velocity (attraction). Same with PiF’s statement… well yes i have fucked and not seen it as a libido issue as i thought i wanted to make someone happy and viola..boner and did the deed..there was no sexual attraction/desire to it at all..it was pure thought and going through the motions You can have a libido and therefore be capable of having sex. Your capability has nothing to do with sexual attraction or desire. You could make a conscious decision to have sex without experiencing attraction or desire. You can also make a conscious decision to have sex based on desire but not attraction. Lets say it’s Saturday night. You and your partner go out to dinner and have a great time. Then you get a text from a friend inviting you to a party, so you go. Your friend made some awesome artichoke dip for the party and really wants you to have some, so you eat it even though you’re not hungry. You wouldn’t have eaten it except to please her. That’s like making a conscious decision to have sex without attraction or desire. Now let’s say that you are hungry, but you don’t like artichoke dip. You eat it anyway, because you’d rather eat than be hungry. That’s like making a conscious decision to have sex with someone you’re not attracted to because you desire sex. New questions: Is sexual attraction a necessary component of sexual desire? Or is it merely an important factor? Can you consciously decide to engage in sexual activity with someone, motivated purely by libido but NOT sexual attraction? If so, are you still motivated by sexual desire? Can you consciously decide to engage in sexual activity with someone, motivated purely by libido but NOT sexual desire? Once again, please review and comment. ^_^ You’ve uncovered a flaw in my descriptions! You’re right, if I’m calling sexual desire something that happens after sexual attraction, then the results are little skewed. I’m not entirely sure how to resolve the problem right this moment. I don’t know the answers to these questions. :o My off the cuff thinking… I’m not sure that libido can be considered a motivation to have sex with another person. But I really don’t know… my brain hasn’t wrapped around this yet. But maybe, since you’re talking about motivations, that’s a good way to look at sexual desire? Like, sexual attraction is arousal by trigger, and sexual desire is the motivation to act. And you can have the motivation to have sex with someone else without sexual attraction, and you can have libido without having motivation to have sex with someone else… So maybe sexual desire is actually a specific motivation (regardless of your ultimate conscious decision to act) to have sex with someone? Fae, what are your thoughts on this? Because you’re mod are you restricted from opining? BTW, I want to say how much I appreciate you guys allowing me to discuss this stuff with you and treating me like a decent human being in the process. It makes me happy. Oh, and PiF: to be honest i do feel they are one and the same..but somewhere along the line someone has split it into two for a specific purpose other than thier is a difference No, there is a difference. I think we’ve reached a tipping point where enough people have said “hey, they are not the same thing” to continue calling them the same thing. PiF, I think you and Sally are in the same boat, where for you guys, sexual attraction and sexual desire ARE the same thing… zero. But that’s not true of other people, and the definitions need to fit sexuality in general, not just your specific individual experience. I’m not surprised that this is a confusing issue. Until asexuality came into the foreground, it was just assumed everyone experienced sexual desire. So yeah, sexual orientation definitions only talked about attraction, because it was assumed that everyone felt it, and the only relevant parameter was who the attraction was targeted at. With asexuality, we have to re-examine those underlying assumptions. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Lucinda ninja'd me!! I agree with 100% of her post. Link to post Share on other sites
Member33070 Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 x Link to post Share on other sites
Lucinda Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 If you are defining libido as the capacity to become aroused, then I still declare that there is both mental and physical arousal. These two arousals can form a feedback loop. Sexual desire and general desire to have sex definitely involve thought processes, can feed fantasies, and as some have admitted can be distracting. They are associated with mental arousal. Think of any other sort of desire. It is based on your interests and tastes. If your stomach is empty and invokes your hunger drive, your mind may start thinking about what you desire to eat. Your body isn't telling you specifically what will be satisfying and delicious ... your mind is. I have an interest in skydiving. Furthermore, I actually desire to experience jumping out of planes. My desire comes from thinking how fun and exciting and pleasurable it will be. So, I disagree that sexual desire is a bodily sensation. Physical arousal is a bodily sensation. Sexual desire is not the same as sex drive. Lucinda Link to post Share on other sites
Vampyremage Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I'm not sure that having a libido and being able to experience arousal necessarily need to occur together. Having the right parts stimulated in the right fashion, assuming those parts are physically capable of experiencing such sensation, could be sufficient to become aroused whether or not one has a libido outside of being in an aroused state. In my own case, I do have a libido though it is very low. However, I sometimes masturbate even when my libido isn't acting up because it feels physically pleasant. I can get myself into an aroused state whether or not my libido is acting up. Therefore, it seems conceivable to me that even someone lacking in a libido could still theoretically become aroused given the right stimulation. Perhaps a non-libidinous asexual can confirm or refute this theory? Link to post Share on other sites
Faelights Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Lucinda ninja'd me!! I agree with 100% of her post. Weird, because I currently agree with at least parts of what you are saying but not with what Lucinda is saying. Just felt the need to say this before I go back to untangling the different posts. It's much easier to figure these things out in a one-on-one conversation like we were having last night. XD You do bring up a good point with the mod thing... hmm. EDIT: By the way, I'm gonna recommend that this discussion be split off from the original discussion and moved to Asexual Musings and Rantings. Link to post Share on other sites
Member33070 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 x Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Lucinda ninja'd me!! I agree with 100% of her post. Weird, because I currently agree with at least parts of what you are saying but not with what Lucinda is saying. Just felt the need to say this before I go back to untangling the different posts. It's much easier to figure these things out in a one-on-one conversation like we were having last night. XD I will go back and re-read. I have to admit to being in a hurry, because the car was leaving for a burrito run, and I like burritos. :) Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 * Assumption: Asexuals can experience the general attraction to sex, but not sexual desire (the type that develops after sexual attraction). So an asexual can want to have sex, but it won't be a result of sexual attraction to a specific person. By general attraction to sex, you mean draw to sex, general desire for sex, interest in sex. This is the crux of my argument that asexuals do not want to have sex, have no interest in sex, and no general desire for sex. The preference is to not bring anyone else into the picture for means of gaining personal sexual gratification. Agreed, and I have nothing to add. Question: By "sexual desire" here, do we mean the type of sexual desire that develops after one experiences sexual attraction, or the general "attraction to sex" concept? In relation to sex drive, your sex drive doesn't care about the who, your sex drive is basically telling you that now would be a good time to get banged. Is it really necessary for me to tell you?? :P Think primal, Birdwing. :D Agreed. Unfortunately, these things haven’t been well considered before, so we don’t have precise language. There is sexual attraction and desire for specific people, but there’s also a general “I’m a sexual” kind of interest in sex that exists regardless of whether there’s someone sexually attractive in your vicinity. Libido * Capacity/ability to feel sexual attraction. * Assumption: A nonlibidoist cannot feel sexual attraction. Using the word libido in only sexual contexts sounds pretty Freudian to me. The word in its original translation is much more encompassing. Therefore, I can't imagine anyone being a nonlibidoist. I don’t have a great understanding of libido. To me, it’s simply sexual arousal, but I can’t say I really know. Assumption: One who does not experience the "attraction to sex" cannot experience sexual attraction (but one can experience the "attraction to sex" without experiencing sexual attraction). If you believe sexual attraction is involuntary, then it is irrelevant. SkulleryMaid wants sex, she just might bang regardless of sexual attraction. Lucinda doesn't want sex, she won't bang regardless of sexual attraction. Agreed. The “attraction to sex”, if you will, is the only thing that’s really relevant. Whether or not that basic attraction to sex ever culminates in an event where I find someone attractive doesn’t make me any more or less sexual. I could be a repressed or repulsed sexual, I could have experienced extreme trauma, I could have a personality that doesn’t allow me to trust anyone else… all of these things could keep a sexual person (a person who a general “attraction to sex”) from experiencing attraction. Previously-defined asexuals who have fetishes towards objects, ideas, etc. (but not towards people) experience sexual attraction towards those objects. Yes, which is why I question the focus on sexual attraction. Agreed. I have nothing to add here. Assumption: Asexuals CAN experience sexual attraction - just not towards people, they can experience it towards objects/ideas (ie fetishes). Since they are not sexually attracted to people, the attraction never develops into sexual desire with other people, and they do not experience sexual desire. What's the difference between this group and the group you called previously-defined asexuals ??? Agreed. # Assumption: Asexuality is more of a lack of sexual orientation (we need a really good justification for this if we're going to claim it). Apples and oranges. Agreed. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 They respond to you "but my doctor told me I could only eat citrus fruit, and I'm eating this, so this must be an orange." At that point I'd yell at them for being completely irrational. Sally, I don't think anyone's debating whether you've felt sexual attraction. For you, attraction and desire are the same... zero. While I don't feel either desire or attraction, to me they're NOT the same. The very word "attraction" means you're drawn to someone (or something). Filings are attracted to a magnet. There's another entity involved. Desire can mean a desire to have a...you know, that thing I don't even want to think of which can be achieved by doing that thing I don't even want to think of, which is done all by yourself. But being sexually attracted means there's an action that you're likely thinking about (sex) and it's with someone else (attraction). Link to post Share on other sites
Member33070 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 x Link to post Share on other sites
Faelights Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Before I start, this general disclaimer that everything I express below are my own opinions, and are not necessarily representative of AVEN as a whole. * Assumption: Asexuals can experience the general attraction to sex, but not sexual desire (the type that develops after sexual attraction). So an asexual can want to have sex, but it won't be a result of sexual attraction to a specific person. By general attraction to sex, you mean draw to sex, general desire for sex, interest in sex. This is the crux of my argument that asexuals do not want to have sex, have no interest in sex, and no general desire for sex. The preference is to not bring anyone else into the picture for means of gaining personal sexual gratification. Agreed, and I have nothing to add. Question: By "sexual desire" here, do we mean the type of sexual desire that develops after one experiences sexual attraction, or the general "attraction to sex" concept? In relation to sex drive, your sex drive doesn't care about the who, your sex drive is basically telling you that now would be a good time to get banged. Is it really necessary for me to tell you?? :P Think primal, Birdwing. :D Agreed. Unfortunately, these things haven’t been well considered before, so we don’t have precise language. There is sexual attraction and desire for specific people, but there’s also a general “I’m a sexual” kind of interest in sex that exists regardless of whether there’s someone sexually attractive in your vicinity. Libido * Capacity/ability to feel sexual attraction. * Assumption: A nonlibidoist cannot feel sexual attraction. Using the word libido in only sexual contexts sounds pretty Freudian to me. The word in its original translation is much more encompassing. Therefore, I can't imagine anyone being a nonlibidoist. I don’t have a great understanding of libido. To me, it’s simply sexual arousal, but I can’t say I really know. Assumption: One who does not experience the "attraction to sex" cannot experience sexual attraction (but one can experience the "attraction to sex" without experiencing sexual attraction). If you believe sexual attraction is involuntary, then it is irrelevant. SkulleryMaid wants sex, she just might bang regardless of sexual attraction. Lucinda doesn't want sex, she won't bang regardless of sexual attraction. Agreed. The “attraction to sex”, if you will, is the only thing that’s really relevant. Whether or not that basic attraction to sex ever culminates in an event where I find someone attractive doesn’t make me any more or less sexual. I could be a repressed or repulsed sexual, I could have experienced extreme trauma, I could have a personality that doesn’t allow me to trust anyone else… all of these things could keep a sexual person (a person who a general “attraction to sex”) from experiencing attraction. Previously-defined asexuals who have fetishes towards objects, ideas, etc. (but not towards people) experience sexual attraction towards those objects. Yes, which is why I question the focus on sexual attraction. Agreed. I have nothing to add here. Assumption: Asexuals CAN experience sexual attraction - just not towards people, they can experience it towards objects/ideas (ie fetishes). Since they are not sexually attracted to people, the attraction never develops into sexual desire with other people, and they do not experience sexual desire. What's the difference between this group and the group you called previously-defined asexuals ??? Agreed. # Assumption: Asexuality is more of a lack of sexual orientation (we need a really good justification for this if we're going to claim it). Apples and oranges. Agreed. Before I say anything else, I just realized I really need to clear something up in my understanding of Lucinda's definitions, particularly of the concept of libido. Lucinda defines it as: Libido * Capacity/ability to feel sexual attraction. * Assumption: A nonlibidoist cannot feel sexual attraction. Using the word libido in only sexual contexts sounds pretty Freudian to me. The word in its original translation is much more encompassing. Therefore, I can't imagine anyone being a nonlibidoist. However... if libido is the capacity/ability to feel sexual attraction, which presumably has a trigger/direction... then where does the ability to feel a general interest in sex, which has no trigger/direction, come from? Arguably, a general attraction to sex is different from sexual attraction. Perhaps what is really being said here is that libido is a necessary component to sexual attraction, rather the entire capacity/ability to feel sexual attraction? Otherwise, I would have to think there must be some other undefined thing that feeds into both libido that is the capacity/ability to feel sexual attraction, and general interest in sex that is not directed/triggered the way sexual attraction is. ***** Moving on, the part I don't agree with is the "asexuals do not have a general attraction to sex" part. I DO think that it's possible for asexuals to have a general attraction to sex; hence the focus on sexual attraction. To be absolutely clear, yes, I believe that asexuals can have a general attraction to sex without sexual attraction, either born from or is "sexual interest" may or may not experience a general sense of sexual desire that has no direction because there is no sexual attraction involved may or may not make a conscious decision to satisfy the general interest in sex and/or sexual desire with another individual. Remember, it was established earlier that sexual attraction is at least partially a result of directed libido i.e. primal instinct to engage in sex + trigger = sexual attraction to the trigger. (Sorry Lucinda, I have no idea what other things libido brings to mind for you, perhaps you could suggest a better term?) Regardless, I am working under the assumption that this is true, and I also submit the possibility that this "primal instinct" or "sexual interest" can cause a general interest in sex that may never be directed or triggered in any way. Why do I think this? Because if I were to think otherwise, what identity in the form of sexual orientation is left for people who have a general interest in sex, but find that this interest is not TRIGGERED or DIRECTED in any way? Would the above individuals just be "sexual", even though they have no "trigger" and therefore no sexual attraction? Do they not have an sexual orientation that indicates the general pattern of their sexual attraction? Does it matter whether or not they make a conscious decision to fulfill this general interest in sex with another person, when no person has ever triggered them in any way? I will repeat the question I asked SkulleryMaid earlier: Is sexual attraction a necessarily component of sexual desire, as those terms are defined here? I submit that no, it is not a necessary component of sexual desire. ***** I was, in fact, trying to work up to something with all my earlier posts. The reason why I decided to use "trigger" instead of "person" is for the following reason, that there seems to be a consensus somewhere that sexual attraction need not be directed towards or triggered by another individual. However, from what I've seen of definitions of different sexual orientations, it seems that sexual orientation is often used to describe sexual attraction towards other individuals, as classified by the sex (gender?) of the "trigger". I realize that some think of "sexual orientation" as a term created for the purpose of politics; however, I am inclined to think that its actual use has outgrown those origins. What I would like to explore are the following questions: Is it possible for "sexual orientation" to be defined by only using those terms above? Or are there additional terms we must incorporate? If there are additional terms, what are they and what are their definitions? I realize that APA provides a textbook definition of sexual orientation, but I would like to put it aside for now and see how a layperson might define it, based on their day-to-day understanding of "sexual orientation", whether or not that understanding is incorrect (i.e. let's put aside our judgment about whether or not the definition is correct and just focus on figuring out what our intrinsic understanding of "sexual orientation" is). EDIT: GAH, didn't see Birdwing's post before I replied. Will attempt to work with that chart now. EDIT 2: Link to a visual of my thought process using Birdwing's chart. Link to post Share on other sites
Vampyremage Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Its late and I'm kind of tired and getting ready for bed so I'm going to keep this brief. I will say that I think Birdwing's latest chart clears up many of the problems of the previous chart. While there may still be things that need to be cleared up, I'm too tired to figure out what those are right now, so for the time being I'll just say that Birdwing deserves some for the wonderful chart. Link to post Share on other sites
Faelights Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Here's my thought process using Birdwing's chart (follow the red): Link to post Share on other sites
Member33070 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 x Link to post Share on other sites
Faelights Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 Fae, I think what's going on there (with the "Can there be sexual desire but no sexual attraction?") is a mix up between our concepts for sexual interest and sexual desire. I suspected this might be the case after I saw your chart. But I need to think about it more. Because my immediate instinct is to ask the question, how do we classify (god, I hate using this word in this context; it's so impersonal) a person who only has sexual interest and consciously decides to fulfill that sexual interest by engaging in sexual activity with another person, because hell, it feels good with another person? I'm not sure why you crossed out the "with trigger (person, fetish)"...is that the sexual interest vs. sexual desire thing again? Yes. Link to post Share on other sites
Member33070 Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 x Link to post Share on other sites
Faelights Posted October 17, 2011 Author Share Posted October 17, 2011 I suspected this might be the case after I saw your chart. But I need to think about it more. Because my immediate instinct is to ask the question, how do we classify (god, I hate using this word in this context; it's so impersonal) a person who only has sexual interest and consciously decides to fulfill that sexual interest by engaging in sexual activity with another person, because hell, it feels good with another person? Nonlibidoist asexual, or libidoist asexual maybe. Following the chart... AH I SEE THE PROBLEM. I need to break that part up. Fixing. For lack of a better term, I think I might be trying to describe an asexual hedonist--an individual who has sex for the sake of sex but who nevertheless doesn't feel sexual attraction. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Yay!! Fae, thanks for chiming in. When you have some really smart and knowledgeable people as mods and they can't contribute, it's kind of a handicap for the rest of us. Your input is necessary and appreciated. :) Before I start, this general disclaimer that everything I express below are my own opinions, and are not necessarily representative of AVEN as a whole. However... if libido is the capacity/ability to feel sexual attraction, which presumably has a trigger/direction... then where does the ability to feel a general interest in sex, which has no trigger/direction, come from? This is one question too deep for me. I feel completely comfortable saying that there either is or isn't a general interest in sex (the difference between being a sexual or asexual being), and leaving it at that. Where it comes from is a question that has no answer. That's the same thing as asking where asesxuality comes from, or where homosexuality comes from... we don't know. We maybe can label it, but I'm not sure we'll ever really understand it. ***** Moving on, the part I don't agree with is the "asexuals do not have a general attraction to sex" part. I DO think that it's possible for asexuals to have a general attraction to sex; hence the focus on sexual attraction. To be absolutely clear, yes, I believe that asexuals [*]can have a general attraction to sex without sexual attraction, either born from or is "sexual interest"[*]may or may not experience a general sense of sexual desire that has no direction because there is no sexual attraction involved [*]may or may not make a conscious decision to satisfy the general interest Why do I think this? Because if I were to think otherwise, what identity in the form of sexual orientation is left for people who have a general interest in sex, but find that this interest is not TRIGGERED or DIRECTED in any way? Would the above individuals just be "sexual", even though they have no "trigger" and therefore no sexual attraction? I think we understand each other very well, actually. Everything you say makes total sense to me, and fits pretty well into my understanding of all this. Now, my personal inclination is to say that, yes, those people would be considered sexual. But like I've said before, my interest is in fostering a more complete understanding of human sexuality... I personally don't feel comfortable advocating one way or another about who gets included into which club. I was, in fact, trying to work up to something with all my earlier posts. I realize that some think of "sexual orientation" as a term created for the purpose of politics; however, I am inclined to think that its actual use has outgrown those origins. I'm inclined to agree. Link to post Share on other sites
PiF Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 No, there is a difference. I think we’ve reached a tipping point where enough people have said “hey, they are not the same thing” to continue calling them the same thing. half a dozen people on an internet forum in aven doth not maketh a tipping point PiF, I think you and Sally are in the same boat, where for you guys, sexual attraction and sexual desire ARE the same thing… zero. Probably so..me and Sally have been through enough years to go through the "lets over complicate things just for the sake of it" and reverted back to what works K.I.S.S. But that’s not true of SOME other people, and the definitions need to fit sexuality in general, not just your specific individual experience. I added a bit I hope you don't mind :lol: the definitions can fit sexuality all they want..they have nothing to do with me as I am non sexual..an asexual and there is lies the whole difference asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction..there it is..pure and simple..it's not confusing...it's very clear and precise the fact that some are choosing to get from a 2 b..via lmnop does not change the definition..it just allows those that wish to debate..to debate..and confuse themselves :lol: Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.