Sensual attraction

[an indignant hedgepig]

Here's my question: as a recently self-identified ace, I am still struggling with the distinction between sexual and sensual attraction.

I have heard that sexual attraction does not always boil down to "I want to have sex with that person", but more often can be reduced to "I want to be close to that person, this person is intriguing to me, I want to know and be near this person". This I understand, but it seems like a very strange definition to me, because I have had this sort of pull to people I have no particular urge to be in physical contact with - manifesting as a platonic crush, a strong desire to be friends with someone. I am fairly certain this is not what they mean when they talk about sexual attraction, although it could be, I don't know.

My partner has described sexual attraction as this sort of want-to-get-to-know feeling, plus a desire to do something with that person - which I also get, but that urge to do never translates to desire for sex, but can rather be satisfied by, say, seeing a movie with them, or going to an arcade.

Other people I've heard say that there's a desire for physical contact, but this is where I'm confused - is a desire to, say, hold hands or hug someone the same thing as sexual attraction, even when the actual act of sex itself is never involved in the thought process? Where's the distinction between sensual and sexual attraction? Do you have to think "I'd like to have sex with them" to be sexually attracted to someone, or is saying "I'd really like to hug that person for a really long period of time and maybe kiss them" enough?

I know the fact that I'm confused about this probably means I'm exactly as asexual as I think I am, but if anybody can clear this up for me, I'd appreciate it.

[CrowWakes]

I dont personally know it as sensual I know about the difference between sexual and romantic. sexual is obviously anything that could be perceived as sexual kissing groping what have you, romantic is basically, loving someone. romantic would be such as cuddling where sexual is different obviously

correct me if you see an error anyone**

[Guest]

Hi there, very sensual asexual here ^_^

Sexual attraction is attraction that makes you want to have actual partnered sex with a person (that's partnered genital stimulation causing sexual pleasure etc) Some people say that sexual attraction is looking at someone and becoming aroused, with no desire for partnered sex, but I personally say that is a form of sensual attraction, not sexual attraction. If you are becoming aroused and feeling sensual, but don't want actual sex with that person, then it's not sexual attraction (as far as I am concerned anyway).

Sensual attraction can be all the feelings and actions involved with sexual attraction, minus the actual desire for partnered sex, So that could include deep slow kissing, naked cuddling, caressing each other's bodies, bathing/showering together etc etc, and these things may or may not include arousal, but as long as it doesn't lead to an actual desire to have partnered sex with each other, then it's sensual attraction, not sexual attraction.

Re. the above post. non-sensual romantic intimacy might be cuddling each other fully clothed, closed mouth kissing, holding hands etc, but no desire to go further than that. Sensual intimacy is everything between that and sexual intimacy, and sexual intimacy is once actual partnered genital stimulation becomes involved.

[Goaty]

I think cuddling counts as sensual. I really have no idea how to define any of these things though, I'm just as curious as you are, OP!

I guess... I would imagine that urge to do something or touch someone would be considered sexual attraction if those actions were explicitly sexual in nature. Maybe these actions don't even have to be sexual right at the moment, but if the one experiencing the attraction and partaking in this action feels they would like to move to more sexual activities later* then these actions could still be a reaction to sexual attraction. But I'd say if a desire for action doesn't involve genitals it could just be called sensual. Like holding hands or cuddling or kissing would be sensual.

*I feel this needs a bit of explaining: I mean this 'later' to be at any point in time in the future. This sexual activity could also require build-up, like more of an emotional connection, as I know not every person sexually attracted to someone else wants to jump in bed with them right away. I want to make it clear that this build-up would be different than that required for demisexuals though. I'd imagine the attraction a non-asexual would feel to someone they see lets them know right away that they would be up for sexual activities at some point, just that the actual activities could only take place under appropriate conditions. Whereas, from what I understand, a demisexual wouldn't know if sexual activities with someone were at all possible until a deep connection is forged with them.

That may all make absolutely no sense and also may not be accurate at all. Anyone, feel free to correct me. I'm pretty much just making stuff up from what I understand about the subject and what I am attempting to imagine, as I really have zero experience. Maybe that's a bad idea, sorry. Feel free to call me out. Just havin' some thoughts, I'd like to see if they are correct in any way. I really do not mean to offend, I'm terribly sorry if I do!!

[Guest]

I am curious as to the differences as well. What others have said already would be my best guess.

[Star Bit]

I feel a bit confused on where to start after reading other interpretations of sensual attraction here, so I'll try to state things simply.

Sensual technically means any form of physical contact, but in the Ace community we realize the differences; just like romantic attraction and sexual attraction are separate, so it just means a desire for cuddling, holding hands, etc. People who experience sensual attraction separately from romantic attraction obviously experience a platonic version of this; no extensive kissing but pecks on the cheek, etc. Your partner probably explained sexual attraction the way he did because he can't separate the other attractions he feels for you because they're all felt at once. Btw, what he described is platonic attraction. Here's a list of all the attractions:

There are 6 types of attraction. They're all typically felt with romantic attraction (and why there can be confusion between attractions) but they aren't needed to make it valid. They can all be felt separately, without romantic attraction, and in different combinations. The desire to act in a certain way can also be separate from the attraction (e.g. sexual attraction with no sexual desire/desire to act on it, or romantic desire with no romantic attraction), but having either of those means the person is sexual/romantic/gray.

· Sexual attraction - the impulse to have sex with a specific person; to do genital involving things to/with their body. Synonyms are sexually alluring, sexually appealing, sexually enticing, sexually tempting, etc.

· Romantic attraction - an emotion; so it doesn't translate well into words, but it can be inadequately put as soft/warm/fuzzy feelings with some degree of fixation (at least in comparison to one's normality with others). Some people have a physical reaction to the feeling and others don’t (i.e. butterflies in their stomach, heart rate increase, blushing, etc. [though those are also symptoms of platonic nervousness]). Others may react mentally with a dreamy mindset, anxious euphoria, infatuation, romantic fantasies, etc.

· Aesthetic attraction - the pull to look at someone because of their beauty and/or mannerisms, which is different from just recognizing good looks/what’s aesthetically pleasing.

· Emotional attraction - the fixation on someone because of their emotions (optimism, stoicness, etc.), and by extent personality. I would compare it to having a favorite character or admirance.

· Sensual attraction - the impulse to have non-genital physical contact with someone specific. There are 3 forms of sensual attraction; platonic, romantic (which is how it’s normally used), and sexual (which is under Gray-asexuality).

Platonically displaying this above the norm qualifies as a type of queerplatonic relationship (QPR), which can be compared to how many people have the urge to act toward their pet(s), though this term is typically applied to other humans. Romantically it would differ by expression, licking, caressing, etc. And sexually it would be a kink/done for sexual arousal with no genital contact.

· Platonic attraction - (aka a friend crush or squish; a play on the romantic word crush) the impulse to further know or befriend someone specific. The desired bond can vary from being friends, to close friends, to best friends. It may include nervousness or admirance, and once the desired bond is reached the squish goes away.

· And it's possible to find someone charming without romantic attraction. (look up charming's definition/synonyms for further clarification), as well as have romantic sensual attraction without romantic attraction (which alone would actually be Gray-romantic/Gray-aromantic, or if lasting, actually be a romantic relationship).

· And not everyone is into making out (there are cultures that don’t have it), nor do people need romantic feelings to desire to make out (or be in a romantic relationship for that matter). So whether you do or don't desire it, it isn't an indicator of orientation.

· It’s also possible to feel queerplatonically about someone. A queerplatonic relationship (or one sided, a 'queerplatonic squish' aka 'queerplatonic crush') is a platonic relationship that has (or is desired to have) the characteristic(s) associated with a romantic relationship (excluding sex and making out). It can be an importance/closeness stronger than the best friend norm and/or displaying platonic sensual contact above the norm (which depending on the culture may include chaste kissing, although a person preferring chaste kissing or no kissing does not make them aromantic). Or in short, "super best friends." They may or may not have monogamy, live together, have kids, or be mistaken for a couple. Romantics and Aromantics can have QPRs. An example would be Turk and JD from Scrubs.

(The following is currently under some definitions of the term queerplatonic, but others agree these should be split up into another term; one of which possibly being Quasiplatonic; an alternative term for queerplatonic for those who want to avoid the gay interpretation of the word queer, but the prefix quasi does not actually reflect that and means the opposite; nor does the word platonic hold up under it either; as the word cannot include sex or romance.)

A quasiplatonic relationship (QSPR/ QZPR) should mean a friends with benefits relationship that can involve making out and/or sex (though FWB should suffice, but it may be useful for people in committed FWBs who dislike the term because it’s commonly used without commitment).

A quasiromantic relationship (QSRR/ QZRR) should mean a relationship that someone does not want to call romantic because it is (accurately) QP to one and romantic to the other.

_{But currently it means this: "Someone who identifies as quasiromantic may see their attraction as non-traditional or may feel it differs from crushes, perhaps a mix between platonic, romantic, aesthetic, or somewhere completely different and/or it involves other non-traditional aspects, such as rare attraction, or attraction but non-physical, non-platonic but romantic, etc."}

And to clarify the remaining types of relationships that were not mentioned, a relationship does not need romantic attraction nor romantic desire to be romantic (nor does it need typical romantic things), it simply needs to have what is categorized as romance (even if mutual absence in romantic attraction is desired). Just like neither sexual attraction nor sexual desire are needed to have a sexual relationship; simply being sexually active is. So past the obvious mutual romantic attraction option that may or may not have atypical/hyporomantic/sparsely romantic things (and it still being a romantic relationship), if someone’s relationship resembles it enough (whether romantic attraction is nonexistent or one-sided) and has no possible way of saying those things are applicable to normal friendship behaviors of any kind, then it is a romantic relationship. An example would be people who desire a FWB situation with queerplatonic characteristics; which is 99% the same as a normal romantic relationship minus the romantic feelings. Think of it like colors; there are many ways to make certain colors, but all those ways are still that one color.

[Guest]

The reason I disagree with "sexual attraction is being aroused by another person" is because being aroused by another person and desiring partnered sex with them are very different things, though for many people these two things are experienced simultaneously. Me being aroused by a spanking fetish makes me no less asexual than I am if I'm aroused for example, by large breasts, as long as there is no desire for *partnered* sex attached to that arousal. I might not want to experience the fetish any more than I want to have sex with a woman with large breasts, or I may just want to experience the fetish (being spanked) without having sex, or play with the breasts without having sex (I'm just is using this as a random example by the way, I'm not actually referring to myself here with the big breast thing). But either way, unless I desire actual partnered sex due to my arousal, then it's not sexual attraction.

The reason I am so strong on this point is because so many people instantly say one is not asexual if they experience arousal by another person, due to AVENs definition of an asexual being someone who does not experience 'sexual attraction' however AVEN actually defines sexual attraction *as* the desire for partnered sexual contact, a desire to be sexually intimate with another person. I say again, one can be aroused by someone, while having absolutely no desire to have partnered sex with them, and often without the thought of partnered sex even crossing their mind (I experience this myself regularly). It frustrates me when people are fine with someone being aroused by a fetish, they say one can be aroused by fetish acts and still be asexual, but being aroused by aspects of a human/by a human as a whole, means someone must not be asexual. How is is being aroused by the site/the thought of large breasts (or by a person in general) any different than being aroused by the idea of/act of being spanked, if none of these lead to a desire for actual partnered sex?

To me, it's the lack of an innate desire for partnered sex with people of any gender (regardless of how aroused one is) that makes someone asexual. Many asexuals *do* have sex, for varying reasons, but the general thing that asexuals have in common is that they could/can live without partnered sex/sexual relationships if they had to without experiencing distress due to the lack of partnered sex in their lives. It has nothing to do with who or what arouses a person; if they just don't innately desire partnered sex, regardless of whether or not they are aroused (or what they are aroused by) then they very probably fall on the ace spectrum.

I'd personally like to scrap the term "sexual attraction" from the face of the earth, because it is defined so differently from person to person, leading to rifts in the asexual community as to "who is really asexual and who is not".. it's very frustrating. Also it causes instant issues if you make the definition of sexual attraction too broad (start including all sorts of other factors into it) and then say "you can experience some of these forms of sexual attraction but not others and still be asexual" because people then instantly say "oh no, that's Gray or Demi then, not 'fully' asexual" .. but no, if you have no innate desire for partnered sex, regardless of any other factors (ie being aroused by kissing someone, but that arousal never leading to a desire to have actual sex with the person/people you kiss) then you can still be fully asexual.

That's why dividing it into sensual and sexual attraction can make things much easier. Sensual attraction is "loving kissing someone, even to the extent of feeling arousal while kissing them" (remembering arousal is often just the body's natural response to intimate stimuli) and sexual attraction in this case would be "loving kissing, feeling aroused while kissing AND wanting to have sex with the person you are kissing because you are aroused by them and/or by kissing them" ..But, again, just to reiterate, feeling aroused (no matter what it's caused by) does not automatically equate to "I *need* to have partnered sex with person, masturbation alone will not satisfy me, I won't be able to really enjoy myself unless I have sex *with* this person, I wish I could have sex with them, I'd love to have sex with them" etc etc

In regards to the 0P, it doesn't really sound to me like you are experiencing sexual attraction or sensual attraction (as I define the terms) but more a form of platonic attraction if the desire to get to know someone doesn't involve wanting to be sensually or sexually intimate with that person. I should have made that clear in my first comment here sorry

[coyote55]

To me, it's the lack of an innate desire for partnered sex with people of any gender (regardless of how aroused one is) that makes someone asexual. Many asexuals *do* have sex, for varying reasons, but the general thing that asexuals have in common is that they could/can live without partnered sex/sexual relationships if they had to without experiencing distress due to the lack of partnered sex in their lives. It has nothing to do with who or what arouses a person; if they just don't innately desire partnered sex, regardless of whether or not they are aroused (or what they are aroused by) then they very probably fall on the ace spectrum.

I really like this as a concise overview of asexuality, and will use it when describing my condition to family and friends. From here, one can easily go on to describe the various types of asexuality, and most of them, if not all, are logically consistent with this statement.

[Whispearl]

I always described sexual attraction for myself as seeing people in a sexual way, which I know is simplified but it applies best to my situation. And for me, sensual attraction is the desire to physically interact with people in any way that you perceive as non-sexual, so it varies by person. So for me, sexual interactions are like touching for the sake of sex, and sensual interactions are like touching for the sake of just touching. So that's how I distinguish it for myself.

[sp4c34c3]

I am trying to figure out both myself. Personally, I don't think I have ever had a sexual attraction to anybody. But I have seen people have sexual attraction to me. Or what I think a lot of people would call sexual attraction.

For example, you get a call to meet a potential partner at 2 am in your front lawn. At the meet, the potential partner proceeds to talk briefly and then shortly thereafter removes all clothing. What I do is tell the person to leave and go back inside. I would imagine that if I had experienced a sexual attraction as well, I would have proceeded to remove my own clothes and committ the act of intercourse.

Someone else once posted that he had a girl naked in bed that told him to 'do whatever he wanted' and he kissed her and went to sleep, never thinking to consider having sex

maybe I am taking this wrong, but sensual is by feeling. So if you do any kind of feeling (sensation?) and after said feeling event feel an attraction, then it is sensual? and I would venture to say that a sexual can turn into a sensual one or vice versa. basically, they are not like opposites or opposing each other (or not at all the mutually exclusive kind of thing)

Or maybe it is different. To me sexual attraction means that 2 people meet, feel this attractive force, gain motivation to carry out a series of behaviors and the end result is sex. It would be awesome if some people with experience having this attraction would speak up.

[Guest]

Your partner probably explained sexual attraction the way he did because he cant separate the other attractions he feels for you because they're all felt at once. Btw, what he described is platonic attraction. Here's a list of all the attractions:

1. No no no. You don't just get to decide that sexuals don't understand themselves and that you actually understand them better. That's fucked.

2. That list of attractions is idiotic.

3. If you feel "sensual" attraction, you are feeling the same attraction that sexuals feel, you just don't have the component "desire".

BOOM.

[Lenika]

Your partner probably explained sexual attraction the way he did because he cant separate the other attractions he feels for you because they're all felt at once. Btw, what he described is platonic attraction. Here's a list of all the attractions:

1. No no no. You don't just get to decide that sexuals don't understand themselves and that you actually understand them better. That's fucked.

2. That list of attractions is idiotic.

3. If you feel "sensual" attraction, you are feeling the same attraction that sexuals feel, you just don't have the component "desire".

BOOM.

I think that sums it up!

[Guest]

2. That list of attractions is idiotic.

If you are using that term for its literal definition, then you are using it wrong. There is nothing counterproductive about that list. If you are using it to mean stupid, I think that is unnecessarily rude and just wrong. Trying to explain and figure things out is never stupid and it is belittling to try to say otherwise.

[Star Bit]

I didn't say he "doesn't understand himself." Last i checked, the word probibly wasn't absolute (therefore i wasn't saying i was right, just that it was probable), and what he DESCRIBED was platonic attraction prior to his sexual feelings. I wasn't degrading him either, i was mentioning why its understandable that an average sexual person can't describe their attraction for someone without mentioning the others. As well as me not mentioning that being uninformed of the existance/names of other attractions doesn't help the indistinguishment.

Secondly, my list isn't stupid; theres one just like it on AVEN's wiki (though without emotional attraction). Yes, i worded things on my own and its nothing "profetional," but it sefices. And there is platonic sensual attraction, so saying its the same as what sexuals feel with no desire isn't accurate.

[Guest]

And there is platonic sensual attraction, so saying its the same as what sexuals feel with no desire isn't accurate.

Strongly disagree, and quoting AVEN does not count as proof or authority to me.

[Star Bit]

I know this may sound odd, but technically my desire to kiss, hug, and cuddle with my pets is sensual attraction. I most certainly do not have sexual or romantic attraction for them, yet it is platonic sensual attraction. I would think that anyone with pets has felt this. Sometimes they're so cute that i get the overwhelming urge to hold/hug them. I even experience disapointment when they don't want my love (typically the cats). I'm not the only one either; my parents react in the same way. As well as sometimes forcing the slightest amount of affection before they start to get mad from it. So it shows how much of a desire it is, yet it's not sexual attraction or missing a component. Although i agree that sexuals can feel this way with their partner, feeling sensual attraction is not the same thing as sexual attraction (or sexual arousal) with no drive.

[Ricecream-man]

*pulls himself away from potential Hot Box style debate*

I would say it does indeed come down to sexual activities involving/leading up to highly erogenous zones.

Holding hands, cuddling, wanting skin to skin contact are all sensual attractions.

Sexual would be when you become sexually aroused by the thought of the person.

In the case of Pan-Ficto, if you get aroused by the thought of large breasts, it's not necessarily sexual. However, if you get aroused at the thought of the individual with large breasts, or wanting to engage in sexual activities with said breasts then yes, it's considered sexual attraction.

Not sure that made sense or not.

[Star Bit]

Agreed; there is a difference between wanting physical contact and wanting to sexually arouse your partner with that contact.

[Guest]

*pulls himself away from potential Hot Box style debate*

I would say it does indeed come down to sexual activities involving/leading up to highly erogenous zones.

Holding hands, cuddling, wanting skin to skin contact are all sensual attractions.

Sexual would be when you become sexually aroused by the thought of the person.

In the case of Pan-Ficto, if you get aroused by the thought of large breasts, it's not necessarily sexual. However, if you get aroused at the thought of the individual with large breasts, or wanting to engage in sexual activities with said breasts then yes, it's considered sexual attraction.

Not sure that made sense or not.

I disagree, because being 'aroused by a person' is no different from being aroused by the idea of being spanked, if no desire for partnered sex is involved. It's just arousal. You can be 'aroused by a person' without desiring to engage in partnered sex with them, just as you can be aroused by the idea of spanking without wanting to engage in partnered sex.

And when people say ''aroused by the person'' that's just a silly expression anyway. What is aroused by the person? honestly?

For many people, it might be aspects of a person's personality, as opposed to their appearance, that makes them desire partnered sex with them.. for someone else it might only be the way they look and have nothing to do with their personality, for others it may be their laugh, or their intelligence, or the fact they saved someone from drowning, that can make someone want to have sex with another person. It may just be that ''that chick has huge tits, I want to bone her'' (being a large chested person, I have been on the receiving end of this plenty of times)

So if a sexual person wants to have sex with someone because they love their personality, but don't actually find the person attractive, does that make it less sexual attraction than if they want to have sex with someone because they only find their body 'super hot' but really couldn't care less about their personality?

No, because they ''want to have sex with the person'' ..it's the wanting to have sex that makes it sexual attraction, because it's the wanting to have sex/experience sexual release with that person (because he has a great personality or she has gorgeous eyes and a full butt or because I am in love with him and that makes me desire sex with him etc etc) that asexuals in general do not experience, regardless of who or what they are aroused by.

If not experiencing sexual attraction is what makes someone asexual, and you are saying sexual attraction is 'being aroused by another person' (whatever that means) then that would make a shitload of asexuals Gray or Demi, when really, if they have absolutely no desire for partnered sex ever, regardless of who they aroused by, they are actually just asexual, not Gray of Demi (though of course Gray and Demi still fall on the ace spectrum, they just generally desire partnered sex under specific circumstances)

I say again, one can experience arousal, regardless of what it is caused by, without desiring partnered sex. If no desire for partnered sex is involved, then it's not sexual attraction. Though I say again, I personally hate the term sexual attraction and feel it should be wiped from the face of the earth because it causes so much confusion and conflict in the asexual community.

[Guest]

Agreed; there is a difference between wanting physical contact and wanting to sexually arouse your partner with that contact.

No one here said there wasn't a difference. If you desire physical contact for the sake of arousing your partner so you can engage in mutually enjoyable sex (partnered genital stimulation to experience sexual pleasure) with them, that's sexual attraction/sexual activity because the goal is sex.

If you desire naked cuddles and slow kissing, during which your body may accidentally become aroused (due to the stimulation of erogenous zones in the lips during the kissing for example) but neither of you desire partnered sex with each other, the goal wasn't to have sex - it was just to be sensual together, and no sex happens because regardless of whether you are aroused, you just have no desire for partnered sex, ever, then it's sensual attraction/sensual activity, not sexual attraction. It was just a desire to be sensual, not to be sexual or have sex, and didn't lead up to sex. EDIT: For many sexual people, that kind of sensual activity (naked kissing which causes arousal) would lead to enjoyable partnered sex, but for two sensual asexuals, sensual activity leads to them then getting dressed and having a cup of tea because for them, sex just isn't something either of them desire or want enough to actually have it (by sex I mean any partnered genital stimulation to experience sexual pleasure/sexual release)

That's the difference between sensual activity and sexual activity, as I have already explained multiple times.

EDIT 2: and, for someone who does not experience sensual attraction, that whole ''sensual activity'' business probably seems pretty undesirable, just as sexual activity is undesirable for people who experience sensual attraction but not sexual attraction (the innate desire for actual partnered sex). Someone who does not experience any sensual attraction may rather just cuddle their partner on the couch, hold hands etc..with nothing more than that ever (which of course is fine too!).

And I know that some people believe sensual activity is just another form of sexual activity, but to me, if it doesn't involve the need partnered sexual release/partnered sexual pleasure (ie genital stimulation and/or orgasm) ever, then it's not sexual.

[whitesphere]

In the most literal sense, we have a sensual attraction when we run our fingers through a pet's fur, walk barefoot on grass (if that's pleasurable to us), smell something pleasing or see something we feel is beautiful.

When we use it in terms of interactions with other people, sensual attraction is the desire to, well, touch/taste/smell the person. The problem is this is so deeply intertwined with sexual desire --- I can't imagine someone feeling sexual but NOT sensual desire for someone --- that it's considered quite creepy to, say, want to smell someone's hair or run your fingers through their hair --- unless they are your romantic partner.

Now, the deeper question is this --- what part of the brain MAKES someone's scent/touch/etc pleasing? This probably comes from the parts of the brain which make VERY rapid, possibly subconscious assessments of the person's fitness as a mate for childbearing purposes. Other sensual pleasures come from things which on a deep level are associated with safety or possibly good food/water, or have positive memories associated with them.

So, is sensual pleasure sexual? My guess is, in the way I said above, yes. However, for example a romantic asexual might very much want to taste/touch/smell someone s/he's in love with, but still have the flat indifference (or even revulsion) towards the sexual act itself. So they would still be asexual even though the sensual attraction may be partly sexual in nature.

For example, I was once with a woman who desperately wanted to have sex with me, but I was quite happy just making out and didn't know she wanted sex. Had I known, I probably wouldn't have gone as far as I did, since it clearly confused and hurt her emotionally. My actions are my responsibility, after all.

[Ricecream-man]

Agreed; there is a difference between wanting physical contact and wanting to sexually arouse your partner with that contact.

No one here said there wasn't a difference.

Ficto, I was responding to the OP and giving an answer. This part wasn't a response to you, but rather affirmation and response to the original post. Not sure why you added that line in response to Star Bit and by extension myself.

*pulls himself away from potential Hot Box style debate*

I would say it does indeed come down to sexual activities involving/leading up to highly erogenous zones.

Holding hands, cuddling, wanting skin to skin contact are all sensual attractions.

Sexual would be when you become sexually aroused by the thought of the person.

In the case of Pan-Ficto, if you get aroused by the thought of large breasts, it's not necessarily sexual. However, if you get aroused at the thought of the individual with large breasts, or wanting to engage in sexual activities with said breasts then yes, it's considered sexual attraction.

Not sure that made sense or not.

I disagree, because being 'aroused by a person' is no different from being aroused by the idea of being spanked, if no desire for partnered sex is involved. It's just arousal. You can be 'aroused by a person' without desiring to engage in partnered sex with them, just as you can be aroused by the idea of spanking without wanting to engage in partnered sex.

And when people say ''aroused by the person'' that's just a silly expression anyway. What is aroused by the person? honestly?

For many people, it might be aspects of a person's personality, as opposed to their appearance, that makes them desire partnered sex with them.. for someone else it might only be the way they look and have nothing to do with their personality, for others it may be their laugh, or their intelligence, or the fact they saved someone from drowning, that can make someone want to have sex with another person. It may just be that ''that chick has huge tits, I want to bone her'' (being a large chested person, I have been on the receiving end of this plenty of times)

So if a sexual person wants to have sex with someone because they love their personality, but don't actually find the person attractive, does that make it less sexual attraction than if they want to have sex with someone because they only find their body 'super hot' but really couldn't care less about their personality?

No, because they ''want to have sex with the person'' ..it's the wanting to have sex that makes it sexual attraction, because it's the wanting to have sex/experience sexual release with that person (because he has a great personality or she has gorgeous eyes and a full butt or because I am in love with him and that makes me desire sex with him etc etc) that asexuals in general do not experience, regardless of who or what they are aroused by.

If not experiencing sexual attraction is what makes someone asexual, and you are saying sexual attraction is 'being aroused by another person' (whatever that means) then that would make a shitload of asexuals Gray or Demi, when really, if they have absolutely no desire for partnered sex ever, regardless of who they aroused by, they are actually just asexual, not Gray of Demi (though of course Gray and Demi still fall on the ace spectrum, they just generally desire partnered sex under specific circumstances)

I say again, one can experience arousal, regardless of what it is caused by, without desiring partnered sex. If no desire for partnered sex is involved, then it's not sexual attraction. Though I say again, I personally hate the term sexual attraction and feel it should be wiped from the face of the earth because it causes so much confusion and conflict in the asexual community.

I'm not sure if you read what you wrote properly. You said that the thought of being aroused by a person was silly and then listed all of the different ways in which you can be sexually attracted to a person. I didn't say nor mean, that you would be aroused by the image of a person. Plenty of allosexuals out there also acknowledge that there's more to a person being "sexy" than the way they look. No matter what the underlying cause of attraction may be, the fact that they do want to have sex with that individual makes it sexual attraction.

Next, you said that the lack of desire for partnered sex is what makes a person asexual. However, every major platform I could find defines an asexual as "someone who does not experience sexual attraction." If you are sexually attracted to an individual but don't desire partnered sex with said individual then yes, I feel that you fall more under a gray-a.

There's even a wiki post about it.

Asexuality and sexuality are not black and white; some people identify in the gray (spelled "grey" in some countries) area between them. People who identify as gray-A can include, but are not limited to those who:

• do not normally experience sexual attraction, but do experience it sometimes
• experience sexual attraction, but a low sex drive
• experience sexual attraction and drive, but not strongly enough to want to act on them
• people who can enjoy and desire sex, but only under very limited and specific circumstances

Edit: Just to prevent this argument from coming up. I do understand and acknowledge the difference between sexual attraction and libido.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Ricecream-man

[CNGB]

I think, in general, the people who say that sexual attraction is a desire to get to "know" a person better are not going to be asexual. Allosexuals usually don't know about asexuality, and if they do they don't really understand it. Allosexuals tend to experience sensual attraction just as they do sexual attraction, but they don't call it sensual attraction--that's just not a term in their vocabulary, because they don't need these things to try to figure themselves out.

It'd be easier to say that sexual attraction is when you want to have sex with somebody, and sensual attraction is when you want to touch somebody. That keeps everything nice and simple.

[Guest]

Agreed; there is a difference between wanting physical contact and wanting to sexually arouse your partner with that contact.

No one here said there wasn't a difference.

Ficto, I was responding to the OP and giving an answer. This part wasn't a response to you, but rather affirmation and response to the original post. Not sure why you added that line in response to Star Bit and by extension myself.

*pulls himself away from potential Hot Box style debate*

I would say it does indeed come down to sexual activities involving/leading up to highly erogenous zones.

Holding hands, cuddling, wanting skin to skin contact are all sensual attractions.

Sexual would be when you become sexually aroused by the thought of the person.

In the case of Pan-Ficto, if you get aroused by the thought of large breasts, it's not necessarily sexual. However, if you get aroused at the thought of the individual with large breasts, or wanting to engage in sexual activities with said breasts then yes, it's considered sexual attraction.

Not sure that made sense or not.

I disagree, because being 'aroused by a person' is no different from being aroused by the idea of being spanked, if no desire for partnered sex is involved. It's just arousal. You can be 'aroused by a person' without desiring to engage in partnered sex with them, just as you can be aroused by the idea of spanking without wanting to engage in partnered sex.

And when people say ''aroused by the person'' that's just a silly expression anyway. What is aroused by the person? honestly?

For many people, it might be aspects of a person's personality, as opposed to their appearance, that makes them desire partnered sex with them.. for someone else it might only be the way they look and have nothing to do with their personality, for others it may be their laugh, or their intelligence, or the fact they saved someone from drowning, that can make someone want to have sex with another person. It may just be that ''that chick has huge tits, I want to bone her'' (being a large chested person, I have been on the receiving end of this plenty of times)

So if a sexual person wants to have sex with someone because they love their personality, but don't actually find the person attractive, does that make it less sexual attraction than if they want to have sex with someone because they only find their body 'super hot' but really couldn't care less about their personality?

No, because they ''want to have sex with the person'' ..it's the wanting to have sex that makes it sexual attraction, because it's the wanting to have sex/experience sexual release with that person (because he has a great personality or she has gorgeous eyes and a full butt or because I am in love with him and that makes me desire sex with him etc etc) that asexuals in general do not experience, regardless of who or what they are aroused by.

If not experiencing sexual attraction is what makes someone asexual, and you are saying sexual attraction is 'being aroused by another person' (whatever that means) then that would make a shitload of asexuals Gray or Demi, when really, if they have absolutely no desire for partnered sex ever, regardless of who they aroused by, they are actually just asexual, not Gray of Demi (though of course Gray and Demi still fall on the ace spectrum, they just generally desire partnered sex under specific circumstances)

I say again, one can experience arousal, regardless of what it is caused by, without desiring partnered sex. If no desire for partnered sex is involved, then it's not sexual attraction. Though I say again, I personally hate the term sexual attraction and feel it should be wiped from the face of the earth because it causes so much confusion and conflict in the asexual community.

I'm not sure if you read what you wrote properly. You said that the thought of being aroused by a person was silly and then listed all of the different ways in which you can be sexually attracted to a person. I didn't say nor mean, that you would be aroused by the image of a person. Plenty of allosexuals out there also acknowledge that there's more to a person being "sexy" than the way they look. No matter what the underlying cause of attraction may be, the fact that they do want to have sex with that individual makes it sexual attraction.

Next, you said that the lack of desire for partnered sex is what makes a person asexual. However, every major platform I could find defines an asexual as "someone who does not experience sexual attraction." If you are sexually attracted to an individual but don't desire partnered sex with said individual then yes, I feel that you fall more under a gray-a.

There's even a wiki post about it.

Asexuality and sexuality are not black and white; some people identify in the gray (spelled "grey" in some countries) area between them. People who identify as gray-A can include, but are not limited to those who:

• do not normally experience sexual attraction, but do experience it sometimes
• experience sexual attraction, but a low sex drive
• experience sexual attraction and drive, but not strongly enough to want to act on them
• people who can enjoy and desire sex, but only under very limited and specific circumstances

Edit: Just to prevent this argument from coming up. I do understand and acknowledge the difference between sexual attraction and libido.

No my reply was to Star Bit (the way their comment was worded) I took at is an opportunity to expand on my opinion.

.No matter what the underlying cause of attraction may be, the fact that they do want to have sex with that individual makes it sexual attraction.

Yes exactly. Wanting to have sex with someone is sexual attraction/the desire for partnered sex. But feeling aroused by a person does not always equal wanting to have sex with them, so feeling aroused by a person with no desire for partnered sex/to have sex, with them is not sexual attraction.

Next, you said that the lack of desire for partnered sex is what makes a person asexual. However, every major platform I could find defines an asexual as "someone who does not experience sexual attraction." If you are sexually attracted to an individual but don't desire partnered sex with said individual then yes, I feel that you fall more under a gray-a.

AVEN itself defines sexual attraction in it's official FAQ *as* the desire for partnered sex. So what they mean in their title definition, when they say sexual attraction, is ''an asexual is a person who has no desire for partnered sex'' .

Therefor: Gray-A

Does not normally have an innate desire for partnered sex, but does desire it sometimes.

Has a desire for partnered sex, but low sex drive (ie doesn't desire it a hell of a lot). etc

Take away the airy-fairy term Sexual Attraction (which no one can agree on the meaning of, so most people make it mean whatever they want it to mean) and replace it with what AVEN actually defines sexual attraction as (the desire for partnered sex) and you have a very clear, concise definition of asexuality.

But yeah, sexual attraction (the desire for partnered sex) is having an innate desire for partnered sex with another person (for whatever reason, it may have nothing to do with finding them sexy).

Sensual attraction: The desire for sensuality, that may or may not involve arousal, with no desire for partnered sex attached.

And being aroused by a person, with no desire for partnered sex, to me, is no different than being aroused by the idea of being spanked, with no desire for partnered sex. It's just arousal, with no desire to act on that arousal with another person. Therefor, with no desire for partnered sex involved, it is not sexual attraction, it's just arousal.

[Ricecream-man]

No my reply was to Star Bit (the way their comment was worded) I took at is an opportunity to expand on my opinion.

Ahh, understood. It just came off as unnecessarily argumentative which I just didn't understand the reasoning behind.

Quote

AVEN itself defines sexual attraction in it's official FAQ *as* the desire for partnered sex. So what they mean in their title definition, when they say sexual attraction, is ''an asexual is a person who has no desire for partnered sex'' .

Therefor: Gray-A

Does not normally have an innate desire for partnered sex, but does desire it sometimes.

Has a desire for partnered sex, but low sex drive (ie doesn't desire it a hell of a lot). etc

Take away the airy-fairy term Sexual Attraction (which no one can agree on the meaning of, so most people make it mean whatever they want it to mean) and replace it with what AVEN actually defines sexual attraction as (the desire for partnered sex) and you have a very clear, concise definition of asexuality.

But yeah, sexual attraction (the desire for partnered sex) is having an innate desire for partnered sex with another person (for whatever reason, it may have nothing to do with finding them sexy).

Sensual attraction: The desire for sensuality, that may or may not involve arousal, with no desire for partnered sex attached.

And being aroused by a person, with no desire for partnered sex, to me, is no different than being aroused by the idea of being spanked, with no desire for partnered sex. It's just arousal, with no desire to act on that arousal with another person. Therefor, with no desire for partnered sex involved, it is not sexual attraction, it's just arousal.

So just curious. In that case do you:

Consider voyeurs to not be sexual in nature? If they get aroused at watching/the thought of others having sex but do not wish to engage in it themselves?

[Guest]

Warning TMI sexual discussion

Sorry I'm in town, so my reply will be lame and unformatted until I get home and can go on my computer to fix it up.

Well just as there are asexual fetishists, I imagine one could easily be an asexual voyeur.. I mean, couldn't someone very much enjoy watching sex (the same way as someone enjoys watching boxing or rugby - I know people who practically seem to live for sports like that haha) with no desire to actually have sex with another person themselves? I know my mum loves watching boxing, but she'd certainly never want to get in a boxing ring haha. Also, I know many asexuals enjoy watching porn and masturbating to it, which again is sort of the same thing. You might enjoy watching porn etc, but it's not like you want to actually join in on the sex or have sex with the people involved.. you're just looking for something to stimulate your mind while you relieve your arousal, and porn is that stimulation. To me, that doesn't make someone Gray-A because they still have no innate desire to actually physically engage in sex with another person. We actually have another extremely extensive topic covering all this on AVEN (can't link on my phone but I'll link when I get onto my comp) it's called "Defining Asexuality: A Better Definition" .. it's now about 33 pages of discussion of what asexuality actually is and what sexual attraction is (and is not) etc, and honestly, having been involved with that topic for so long has taught me soooooo much about myself and my asexuality it's insane. My replies over the last few pages of it sum up my thinking on the whole 'sexual vs sensual' attraction thing pretty darned thoroughly, whereas to begin with (on about page 13 or so when I started commenting, months ago) I really didn't have the right words to properly explain how I felt. . If you do go there, ignore the poll; that was made by the OP many months ago and doesn't really reflect the thinking of anyone involved in the actual discussion. :)

Anyway, my main point is, I believe one can absolutely be aroused by another person, or aroused by the act of sex, without desiring to have actual sex with that person, or without desiring to have partnered sex at all, no matter how much you enjoy watching the act (I love watching movies with torture in, and actually quite enjoy writing about torture.. and sex for that matter lol.. but I don't actually want to torture anyone, or to have sex with anyone.. haha). To me, it's the lack of an innate desire for partnered sex that makes an Asexual (because all sexual people have an innate desire for partnered sex to some extent or another) so as long as you have no innate desire to engage in partnered sex (partnered genital stimulation to experience sexual pleasure with another person), then you are at the 'Asexual' portion of the spectrum, not the Grey or Demi or 'allo'sexual portions.

EDIT: so wouldn't a voyeur with no desire to partake in the act of partnered sex themselves, just count as an asexual fetishist or an ace with kinks? That's how I would define them anyway. Of course if that person would 'prefer' to identify as Gray-A, then that is entirely up to them

[Star Bit]

Agreed; there is a difference between wanting physical contact and wanting to sexually arouse your partner with that contact.

No one here said there wasn't a difference. If you desire physical contact for the sake of arousing your partner so you can engage in mutually enjoyable sex (partnered genital stimulation to experience sexual pleasure) with them, that's sexual attraction/sexual activity because the goal is sex.

If you desire naked cuddles and slow kissing, during which your body may accidentally become aroused (due to the stimulation of erogenous zones in the lips during the kissing for example) but neither of you desire partnered sex with each other, the goal wasn't to have sex - it was just to be sensual together, and no sex happens because regardless of whether you are aroused, you just have no desire for partnered sex, ever, then it's sensual attraction/sensual activity, not sexual attraction. It was just a desire to be sensual, not to be sexual or have sex, and didn't lead up to sex. EDIT: For many sexual people, that kind of sensual activity (naked kissing which causes arousal) would lead to enjoyable partnered sex, but for two sensual asexuals, sensual activity leads to them then getting dressed and having a cup of tea because for them, sex just isn't something either of them desire or want enough to actually have it (by sex I mean any partnered genital stimulation to experience sexual pleasure/sexual release)

That's the difference between sensual activity and sexual activity, as I have already explained multiple times.

EDIT 2: and, for someone who does not experience sensual attraction, that whole ''sensual activity'' business probably seems pretty undesirable, just as sexual activity is undesirable for people who experience sensual attraction but not sexual attraction (the innate desire for actual partnered sex). Someone who does not experience any sensual attraction may rather just cuddle their partner on the couch, hold hands etc..with nothing more than that ever (which of course is fine too!).

And I know that some people believe sensual activity is just another form of sexual activity, but to me, if it doesn't involve the need partnered sexual release/partnered sexual pleasure (ie genital stimulation and/or orgasm) ever, then it's not sexual.

What? Did you not read SkulleryMaid's comment? She said she didn't believe there could be platonic sensual attraction/ it can only be sexual, so i said what you replied to. There was someone saying there wasn't a difference.

I am romantically asensual; asensual has two sides; platonic and romantic. But i don't specify because most ppl who use it to mean romantically; since being platonically asensual is just a person with boundaries. To make sure things are clear, I experience no romantic sensual desire but am indifferent if my partner were to do so. It also does not mean i could not enjoy it; just like an asexual with sex. I could enjoy it for moral satisfaction; satisfying them, or it could be blissening (for an asexual, sex can still be arousing, but it still means they do not desire sex).By your comment, I'm not sure if you know, so I'll say that the phrase "sensual attraction" in the asexual community means non-sexual sensual contact like kissing and hugging,etc. Yes, technically the word sensual includes sex, but you also know we realize romantic attraction doesn't have to include sexual attraction.