What Is Sexual Attraction?

[(A)rrogant Avian]

I understand that sexual attraction is when people find someone sexualy attractive, but how? If someone is heterosexual, how can they find something sexualy attractive if it is not exclusive for the sex they're attracted to?

Eg, a man finding a woman's hair as attractive.

And if it is the case that they only find the hair attractive on women, then what if it's hard to tell if it's a woman?

I don't really understand how someone can look at a feature of someone and feel that they want to have sex with the person. I could just be ranting, but the more I think about sexual attraction, the less I understand it....

[Sage Raven Domino]

I think that there are small primary triggers of attraction, say, a hetero man can give a woman one imaginary point for pretty hair, one for shaved long legs, and so on; if there are enough triggers present in a person, then noticeable sexual attraction to them arises. If it's hard to determine the gender of a person, it almost automatically implies that not enough triggers are present.

Btw, that's why I think sexuals should have way more '1s' on their 'aesthetic attractiveness grades' lists than '8s' and almost no '10s' (supposed to be 'one for life'). It's just too rare for 10 major triggers to add up in one person. Strangely enough, heteros I talk to about that prefer to give away a ton of '10' marks, to up to 10% of the whole target population, and call me too greedy for giving marks like I do.

But, say, Bill Kaulitz is a strong '4' on my scale, i.e. pleases my eye more than over 85% of people I've seen, even though he's not feminine.

[(A)rrogant Avian]

I think that there are small primary triggers of attraction, say, a hetero man can give a woman one imaginary point for pretty hair, one for shaved long legs, and so on; if there are enough triggers present in a person, then noticeable sexual attraction to them arises. If it's hard to determine the gender of a person, it almost automatically implies that not enough triggers are present.

Btw, that's why I think sexuals should have way more '1s' on their 'aesthetic attractiveness grades' lists than '8s' and almost no '10s' (supposed to be 'one for life'). It's just too rare for 10 major triggers to add up in one person. Strangely enough, heteros I talk to about that prefer to give away a ton of '10' marks, to up to 10% of the whole target population, and call me too greedy for giving marks like I do.

But, say, Bill Kaulitz is a strong '4' on my scale, i.e. pleases my eye more than over 85% of people I've seen, even though he's not feminine.

Is that what those numbers are?! I don't see why allosexuals need a scoring system though....

[Sage Raven Domino]

I think they need it to 1) figure out which person to have sex with at a certain night when given many options, 2) determine who 'takes' whom when a group meets a group of the opposite sex (it works much like sorting by ratings in chess team matches), 3) compare and brag their 'results', i.e. getting laid with someone who's widely considered a 10 is a much bigger achievement earning much more respect than, say, with a 3.

Extending the chess analogy, I think that those marks also serve to approximate the chance of 'scoring a point', like FIDE Elo ratings, i.e. an 8 is very likely to be 'accepted' by a 4, while a 5 is very likely to be rejected by a 9 unless using sophisticated pickup techniques, but would have more success on average with a 6.

[Geo]

You don't understand it because it's a false concept. "Sexual attraction" as you are describing it here doesn't exist. What you are talking about sounds like physical attractiveness or good looks. This is not what drives us to have sex with each other. Looks are one thing but there are many other forms of attraction that we use to pick a partner. But still none of those are why we have sex in the first place. We have sex because it's something we innately desire. Attraction only serves to help us pick who we have sex with.

[Sage Raven Domino]

Attraction only serves to help us pick who we have sex with.

But why is it help at all then? Why does anyone find aesthetically attractive people more suitable for sex a priori? It puzzles me. (Smart sexuals of course indeed pick partners basing not only on looks, but also on perceived bed experience, sensitivity and so on.)

My trigger addition argument of course applies not only to looks, but to all qualities one seeks in a potential partner. I was using looks just as an example. The point is that a masculine person might have attractive feminine traits, but usually not enough of them, because attracting heterosexual males sexually is something s/he would like to avoid as per the gender choice.

[Geo]

Attraction only serves to help us pick who we have sex with.

Why does anyone find aesthetically attractive people more suitable for sex a priori?

The evolutionary standpoint is it's because they appear healthier.

[Sage Raven Domino]

Yeah, blame the slow evolution :D The homo sapiens has grown way beyond its limits.

[WhenSummersGone]

I see sexual attraction as someone you want to have sex with. A desire for sex is one thing but the direction is sexual attraction. Hetero/Homo/Bi/Pan is based on sexual attraction, which gender you would have sex with. I personally believe sexual attraction exists.

Also I feel that if someone is turned on by something then it could be a fetish. It's sex/gender that determines who you are sexually attracted to.