They're so cute and I NEVER want to have sex with them

[StraightA's]

One this I am really struggling with when I see myself as asexual is that I deffinitely still get gut reactions to people. I see someone walk into class and I'm thinking "Sit next to me! OH GOD! He sat next to me! Do I look at him? NO! Just stare at the blackboard for no reason until he's not looking." That's only a slight exageration. I have never had sex and can never see myself engaging in sexy situations. (The steamiest thing I can think of is cuddling while watching GoT or arguing over the next DC movie.) No matter what I deffinitely have strong romantic urges but I can't tell if they are sexual as well! If I get a strong reaction to someone just based on their looks isn't that "sexual attraction" or it that just "romantic attraction?" I would love some imput. Is this a typical asexual/romatic experience?

[Yuneek]

".."

[Member54880]

Romantic attraction could still be based off of looks. Sexual attraction is specifically finding someone sexually attractive, and desiring sex with that person. Some asexuals didn't realize they were asexual at first though, because they mistook romantic attraction for sexual attraction.

[bicoastal]

I know what you mean, a little bit. It's different for me (of course) but I get what you're talking about. I like to think of it as aesthetic attraction (personally, anyways) because most of the time I won't have the desire to do anything romantic or sexual with them -- I just think they're pretty (or hot or attractive or whichever adjective describes the situation). I like to simplify it in that I know I don't want sex with them - so it's not sexual attraction. And just from meeting someone or seeing them without having talked to them yet, I won't have a romantic attraction to them, so my next best idea of what it is, is aesthetic.

[*a*rteest]

I know what you mean, a little bit. It's different for me (of course) but I get what you're talking about. I like to think of it as aesthetic attraction (personally, anyways) because most of the time I won't have the desire to do anything romantic or sexual with them -- I just think they're pretty (or hot or attractive or whichever adjective describes the situation). I like to simplify it in that I know I don't want sex with them - so it's not sexual attraction. And just from meeting someone or seeing them without having talked to them yet, I won't have a romantic attraction to them, so my next best idea of what it is, is aesthetic.

I also sort of know what you mean. I get flustered like that with someone maybe once in a blue moon but it's definitely not sexual attraction. It's not romantic attraction either because I do NOT want to date anyone, I have no desire to have a dedicated, elevated romantic relationship with anyone, it's purely aesthetic and I have no desire to approach and talk or be their friend, I just look and stay flustered.

[Star Bit]

That would be aesthetic attraction (the pull to look at someone due to their looks and or mannerisms) and or romantic attraction (soft/fuzzy/warm feelings with some degree of fixation). Sexual attraction is the impulse/urge to have sex with a specific person; to do sexual things to their body. In sexual people this desire is triggered by someones presence being sexually arousing. (So it has two parts really, but if i phrased them together then it would look like sexual arousal was the core of sexual attraction because it would be mentioned first.)

[knout]

Aesthetically attractive people are nervewrecking, in one way they are really great to look at but then you don't want them to feel like you look at them like that

[Unlabeled]

Asexuality is still being defined. As a possible sexual orientation I think many are confusing it with other things. Low-libido and sex drive, social anxiety, and other things. Someone who's never had sex but noticing sexual interest sounds less asexual to me and more simply inexperienced. Everyone who's never done something will feel ill-at-ease about it. But by virtue of simply never having done something doesn't make you anti-whatever it is.

Think some of the issue we're having with asexuality is we're a very 'sex is okay' culture. And it is certainly, but for many the ease with which some engage in sexual behaviours clashes with how they were brought up. They're still more like how society used to be a genration or two ago and people "dated" not "hooked up and had sex" as now. So they may grab on to new terms like asexuality when in fact they may simply be 'old school.' :) They want to court and date and enjoy interpersonal relationships the way people used to. Not go right to bed with somoene you don't know the last name of.

Whatever asexuality comes to mean, as with everything else it's on a spectrum with perhaps an infinite number of gradations of how asexual we are. But to be regarded as a sexual orientation by the people who make those decisions (APA for example,) it'll be something innate we have from birth. If as in my case it's simply I've had enough sex I'm not interested in more, I wouldn't meet the definition of asexuality. I may have things in common with it, but I'd be more accurately described as other things.

Before volunteering to wear a bumpersticker on our foreheads, we should conceed that people are always different than other people, and rather than that being bad, it's actually good. Variety is the spice of life as they say. If we were all alike, that'd be incredibly dull. :) Lesson I learned from my time in religious Judaism is how we define God varies and can't, nor should it, ever become fixed. If we define God in some fixed way we limit God. God cannot be placed in a box or labelled, while He may let you do so, it's only to remove Himself from that box to teach you humility. :)

We're all whatever we are. BUt instead of eagerly volunteering to box ourselves up should try and simply enjoy being outside the boxes others put themselves in. Big universe out there, if you're inside a box you're gonna miss it. :)

[idkwhatami]

Asexuality is still being defined. As a possible sexual orientation I think many are confusing it with other things. Low-libido and sex drive, social anxiety, and other things. Someone who's never had sex but noticing sexual interest sounds less asexual to me and more simply inexperienced. Everyone who's never done something will feel ill-at-ease about it. But by virtue of simply never having done something doesn't make you anti-whatever it is.

People can take on labels if they want to and not take them if they don't. The biggest thing I've noticed here on Aven (and which frustrates me, personally) is that nobody ever says "you are this label. you can't be anything else." Everybody is encouraged to do whatever makes them most happy and comfortable and it is repeatedly iterated that only you can know yourself. And as you say, not having experience doesn't invalidate how you feel about something--whether that is pro- anti- or neutral whateveritis.

Think some of the issue we're having with asexuality is we're a very 'sex is okay' culture. And it is certainly, but for many the ease with which some engage in sexual behaviours clashes with how they were brought up. They're still more like how society used to be a genration or two ago and people "dated" not "hooked up and had sex" as now. So they may grab on to new terms like asexuality when in fact they may simply be 'old school.' :) They want to court and date and enjoy interpersonal relationships the way people used to. Not go right to bed with somoene you don't know the last name of.

In the past it was often a societal expectation that a woman be courted by a man before anything happened. Whether you believed in dating, courting, all that jazz or not, it didn't and doesn't stop you from having a sexual attraction or sexual urges. This is why somebody who is celibate until marriage is not necessarily ace. They may still feel it, they just make a conscious effort not to act on it. Aces simply don't feel it.

Whatever asexuality comes to mean, as with everything else it's on a spectrum with perhaps an infinite number of gradations of how asexual we are. But to be regarded as a sexual orientation by the people who make those decisions (APA for example,) it'll be something innate we have from birth. If as in my case it's simply I've had enough sex I'm not interested in more, I wouldn't meet the definition of asexuality. I may have things in common with it, but I'd be more accurately described as other things.

Before volunteering to wear a bumpersticker on our foreheads, we should conceed that people are always different than other people, and rather than that being bad, it's actually good. Variety is the spice of life as they say. If we were all alike, that'd be incredibly dull. :) Lesson I learned from my time in religious Judaism is how we define God varies and can't, nor should it, ever become fixed. If we define God in some fixed way we limit God. God cannot be placed in a box or labelled, while He may let you do so, it's only to remove Himself from that box to teach you humility. :)

We're all whatever we are. BUt instead of eagerly volunteering to box ourselves up should try and simply enjoy being outside the boxes others put themselves in. Big universe out there, if you're inside a box you're gonna miss it. :)

If you don't want to take on a label because you feel it doesn't fit you, then feel free. But to be clear, APA doesn't define an orientation and they do recognize it's a gradient. Asexuality is defined broadly by the community and personally by each individual, not the APA. I know I like the label because it means others like me exist and makes it easier for me to find them. Personally I think of it as rather than jumping into a labelled box with other people, I have my box with a label consisting of everything that I think makes up me and I would like to put the correct addition on it and find other people with a similar things on their label. As you say, everybody's different, and everybody in Aven is aware of that which is why community definitions are so broad and personal definitions vary for everyone. So you can take on a label if you want to or don't if you don't want to, but please don't take my label away from me or from other people.

[Losange]

I would say what you feel is aesthetical attraction.

it'll be something innate we have from birth. If as in my case it's simply I've had enough sex I'm not interested in more, I wouldn't meet the definition of asexuality.

Sexuality can fluctuate over time. Some heterosexuals can become bi etc. It's not necessarily something you're born with. If you were allosexual before but now you don't experience sexual attraction anymore, you could define yourself as asexual if you wanted to, no matter what you felt in the past (though you don't seem fond of label...)

Before volunteering to wear a bumpersticker on our foreheads, we should conceed that people are always different than other people, and rather than that being bad, it's actually good. Variety is the spice of life as they say. If we were all alike, that'd be incredibly dull. Lesson I learned from my time in religious Judaism is how we define God varies and can't, nor should it, ever become fixed. If we define God in some fixed way we limit God. God cannot be placed in a box or labelled, while He may let you do so, it's only to remove Himself from that box to teach you humility.

I don't know what God has to do with any of this. Also, there's absolutely nothing wrong with labelling ourselves if it makes us feel better. It doesn't mean we're all the same, I don't know what you're talking about. I find you pretty patronizing.

[WünderBâhr]

Labels are useful to those who find meaning in them. However, it is also important to recognize that not everyone will agree with those labels or find them useful or meaningful. Perspectives vary, and that's okay. Let's try not to invalidate each other or make things personal. :) And as always, if you feel content is inappropriate for the forum, please contact an Admod or utilize the report function. Thank you for understanding.

Bipolar Bear

Asexual Q&A CoMod

[Ficulnean]

To OP, I was about to make post on this exact topic, even though I also addressed it in my first post here, and many times thereafter have seen it affirmed that sensual, romantic, and aesthetic attraction are the extent of my feelings. I joined over a year ago now, I think? Also, I think that the issue is that we still have no experience as to sexual attraction, in a world where the people who do experience it also experience the other attractions mentioned and don't distinguish them, and further don't want to talk about the sexual attraction so much as the others and assume sexual as a given from what they do talk about. So, I think this is going to keep coming up, but simply because it's an issue in how sexuality is being communicated.

[whocaresthough]

That would literally be me if I saw some of my favorite people/celebrities. Currently, my only real "crushes" are Tyler Oakley, Dan Howell, and Phil Lester. (Yeah, I'm trash, don't judge.) I'd fangirl and die, probably 20% for aesthetics and 80% because of personality. Yeah. Trash.

[Member 92789]

One this I am really struggling with when I see myself as asexual is that I deffinitely still get gut reactions to people. I see someone walk into class and I'm thinking "Sit next to me! OH GOD! He sat next to me! Do I look at him? NO! Just stare at the blackboard for no reason until he's not looking." That's only a slight exageration. I have never had sex and can never see myself engaging in sexy situations. (The steamiest thing I can think of is cuddling while watching GoT or arguing over the next DC movie.) No matter what I deffinitely have strong romantic urges but I can't tell if they are sexual as well! If I get a strong reaction to someone just based on their looks isn't that "sexual attraction" or it that just "romantic attraction?" I would love some imput. Is this a typical asexual/romatic experience?

I experience the exact same thing as you!! Finally someone understands! lol

Romantic attraction could still be based off of looks. Sexual attraction is specifically finding someone sexually attractive, and desiring sex with that person. Some asexuals didn't realize they were asexual at first though, because they mistook romantic attraction for sexual attraction.

Im still not sure if im asexual, but I believe so. What you just said described me. I find people attractive, but want a romantic deep emotional connection and relationship with them. Im a very emotional and romantic person.

[Roms47159]

Romantic attraction could still be based off of looks. Sexual attraction is specifically finding someone sexually attractive, and desiring sex with that person. Some asexuals didn't realize they were asexual at first though, because they mistook romantic attraction for sexual attraction.

^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ Thank you for your information.

[Sally]

Romantic attraction could still be based off of looks. Sexual attraction is specifically finding someone sexually attractive, and desiring sex with that person. Some asexuals didn't realize they were asexual at first though, because they mistook romantic attraction for sexual attraction.

Ohhhhhhh yes. I thought that for decades, about my partner. He was wonderful and gorgeous. I couldn't figure out why I didn't want sex with him.

[R_1]

Aesthetically attractive people are nervewrecking, in one way they are really great to look at but then you don't want them to feel like you look at them like that

For me, I do look at them that way, but I do not want her to think I'm into her. Probably why I'm into butts.

[crazyllama]

That would literally be me if I saw some of my favorite people/celebrities. Currently, my only real "crushes" are Tyler Oakley, Dan Howell, and Phil Lester. (Yeah, I'm trash, don't judge.) I'd fangirl and die, probably 20% for aesthetics and 80% because of personality. Yeah. Trash.

I'm laughing cuz literally same minus Tyler.Something bout those 2 they are so pretty.Ahem I'm around Phil's age so I'm an older fan and many people don't understand but ya,they are gorgeous.