Jump to content

Fraysexuality


likeappletrees

Recommended Posts

likeappletrees

I wanted to start a discussion about a relatively unheard of/"unofficial" branch of asexuality: fraysexuality (I identify as such). I came across this term on tumblr while I was looking for a word that meant the opposite of demisexuality.

Fraysexual (and also frayromantic; also called reverse-demisexual/romantic) people feel attraction only initially upon meeting or seeing someone. These feelings weaken or disappear once a bond is formed. We even have a flag! Here’s what the colors mean:

"Blue & Cyan: "Represents a less familiar relationship with other people (strangers/ acquaintanceship) Complementary colors to red and yellow (colors symbolising romantic and platonic love). Complements were chosen instead of opposites because the opposites (green and purple) would have this flag looking too similar to other flags.
White: Lack of attraction.
Grey: Grey-area/confusion when confronted with fraysexual/romantic feelings."

tumblr_inline_n9dz64gNam1sk6dye.png

Your thoughts? I couldn't find anything related to fraysexuality on the AVEN wiki. Have you ever heard of this? Should it be recognized as a valid expression of sexuality, or are people just making things up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it once and I'll say it again, this just seems like being a regular person to me. Not knocking you or anything, you can identify as a purple fluffy banana if you wish lol it's up to you to identify with what you feel fits you, I'm just saying that many sexual and romantic people experience that attraction (sexual and/or romantic) to someone initially, but it fades pretty fast once they get to know that person better, which is one of the main reasons why so many people have multiple relationships behind them that only lasted a few months: They ''fall in love'' or get a ''hardcore desire to fuck each other'' .. but either of these can fade really fast - in as little as a month, once you get to know the person better.

I don't know, not saying Fraysexuality or Frayromanticism aren't a thing, just saying that probably like 40% of the population would fall under this category.

Link to post
Share on other sites
likeappletrees
I initially thought that this was just tumblr making things up to get in with the queer crowd (and this is probably going to sound awful), but if gray-a and demi are considered part of the asexual spectrum (even through they do experience sexual attraction under certain circumstances or are uncertain) why can't the opposite be considered equally valid?


I've never fallen in love or felt romantic attraction, so I identify as aromantic. The two might be closely related. I've experienced sexual attraction on very rare occassion, and never directed towards anyone I've had any ties with. The idea of having sex with someone I know personally squicks me out (TMI, sorry), although there might be some other underlying cause I'm not aware of. Fraysexual seemed to fit my description.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love and romantic attraction are two different things.

That definition of Fraysexual/romantic discredits Demi-Fraysexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sleepy Skeleton

I've said it once and I'll say it again, this just seems like being a regular person to me. Not knocking you or anything, you can identify as a purple fluffy banana if you wish lol it's up to you to identify with what you feel fits you, I'm just saying that many sexual and romantic people experience that attraction (sexual and/or romantic) to someone initially, but it fades pretty fast once they get to know that person better, which is one of the main reasons why so many people have multiple relationships behind them that only lasted a few months: They ''fall in love'' or get a ''hardcore desire to fuck each other'' .. but either of these can fade really fast - in as little as a month, once you get to know the person better.

I don't know, not saying Fraysexuality or Frayromanticism aren't a thing, just saying that probably like 40% of the population would fall under this category.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

People don't get into new relationships because their sexual attraction fades. They do it because either their current relationship isn't working out (for personal reasons) or they want to try something different. It's not because they get turned off after getting to know a person better.

Here's an analogy:

Let's say you find a brand of cereal that you really love. You think it's so delicious that you eat a bowl of it everyday. After a while, you start to want to eat something else for breakfast, like another cereal or maybe some oatmeal. But does the cereal start to taste gross to you? Not really, you're tired of eating it. And maybe later after obsessively eat another food for a while, you'll want to go back to that cereal. This is what most people are like.

If I understand correctly, fraysexuals are the kind of people who think the cereal does start to taste unpleasant after a while. The only difference is that it's not just a phase for them. Okay, that analogy might be pretty bad but I really want some cereal right now. :P

To get more on topic:

As an aro ace, I don't really understand how fraysexuality works. But if people really think they need a world for the way they feel, I'll support them. If demisexuality is accepted, fraysexuality should be, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
likeappletrees

I'm sorry I expressed myself wrong. I understand that love and romantic attraction are unrelated (turns out I've never felt either). I was just speculating that my aromanticism and fraysexuality might be related, but thank you for the correction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if that's what you meant, but on the off chance you meant the other i wanted to clarify that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

People don't get into new relationships because their sexual attraction fades. They do it because either their current relationship isn't working out (for personal reasons) or they want to try something different. It's not because they get turned off after getting to know a person better.

Here's an analogy:

Let's say you find a brand of cereal that you really love. You think it's so delicious that you eat a bowl of it everyday. After a while, you start to want to eat something else for breakfast, like another cereal or maybe some oatmeal. But does the cereal start to taste gross to you? Not really, you're tired of eating it. And maybe later after obsessively eat another food for a while, you'll want to go back to that cereal. This is what most people are like.

If I understand correctly, fraysexuals are the kind of people who think the cereal does start to taste unpleasant after a while. The only difference is that it's not just a phase for them. Okay, that analogy might be pretty bad but I really want some cereal right now. :P

To get more on topic:

As an aro ace, I don't really understand how fraysexuality works. But if people really think they need a world for the way they feel, I'll support them. If demisexuality is accepted, fraysexuality should be, too.

You can be pretty sure it doesn't work like that if you wish, that's fine. But I know for a fact that in many cases it does work like that, and there are sexual people on AVEN who can back me up on that fact (and have done so in the past).

For many people (certainly not all, no, but many) sexual attraction (the desire to fuck someone) can and often does fade once you get to know that person better. Same with romantic attraction. You are attracted to who you perceive them as, an idealized version of them, not as who they really are (a shitting, farting, snoring human) and once you get to know the real them, not just the more human aspects of them like bowel movements, but also aspects of their personality you were not aware of to begin with, the attraction fades. It's common. Some people go their entire lives getting into relationships with people they have an epic 'spark' with in the beginning, and having their sexual and/or romantic attraction fade once they get to know the person better.. then they move onto the next person and the next. They just can't keep that ''spark'' alive once they get to know another person as the human being, not the romanticized person they viewed that human as before they knew them better.

I don't care if people want to come up with a word to define that experience, just saying it's really not that uncommon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
likeappletrees

In my experience, my waning sexual attraction has not come with the realization that they are a "shitting, farting, snoring human", it's because I've formed a bond with them and that I no longer want to bring sex into the equation (the same way demisexuals are only sexually attracted to someone after that bond has been).

The same argument can be made against demisexuality, that it's a sexual behavior that conforms to the idea that ~you should only have sex with people you know and love~, as opposed to part of the asexual spectrum, that many people adhere to because it's part of the culture they were raised in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sleepy Skeleton

You can be pretty sure it doesn't work like that if you wish, that's fine. But I know for a fact that in many cases it does work like that, and there are sexual people on AVEN who can back me up on that fact (and have done so in the past).

For many people (certainly not all, no, but many) sexual attraction (the desire to fuck someone) can and often does fade once you get to know that person better. Same with romantic attraction. You are attracted to who you perceive them as, an idealized version of them, not as who they really are (a shitting, farting, snoring human) and once you get to know the real them, not just the more human aspects of them like bowel movements, but also aspects of their personality you were not aware of to begin with, the attraction fades. It's common. Some people go their entire lives getting into relationships with people they have an epic 'spark' with in the beginning, and having their sexual and/or romantic attraction fade once they get to know the person better.. then they move onto the next person and the next. They just can't keep that ''spark'' alive once they get to know another person as the human being, not the romanticized person they viewed that human as before they knew them better.

I don't care if people want to come up with a word to define that experience, just saying it's really not that uncommon.

That's still not the same as fraysexuality, though.

What you described is being attracted to someone, and then losing that attraction after getting to know them and realizing they weren't as great as you thought they were.

Fraysexuality is losing that attraction specifically because you got to know them well enough to form a bond with them. (Fraysexuals, correct me if I'm wrong)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox
Sounds like something that happens to the majority of sexuals in one way or another. Since a bond simply dosent happen to every person that another meets. That initinal attraction everyone have, but most come to the realization a long term relationship, feelings and attractions simply dissipate as time goes on and the people in question simply split and look elsewhere for what they want. For maybe, this sexuality could be pretty common amongst longer term partners, marriages etc, as that bond could be still strong, yet the attraction could be long gone but stay together in a bonded emotional connection.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I identify as frayromantic. (Sort of, I mainly just call myself heteroromantic because that's what I experience towards the specific set of personality traits that I actually pursue now, but to another set I'm bi-fray-grayromantic, however I no longer persue those relationships since those feelings fade) It is most definitely a thing.

My experience differs a little from what you are describing though. When I first was trying to figure out what the hell was happening, why my feelings for these people would just up and fade away, I started putting off dating them. I'd meet someone (with that set of personality traits) and just be friends. My crush would stay, I'd like them, even months later I'd still want to be with them and date them. In one case in particular it lasted years. Then I would begin dating them, and bam, right around three months later my feelings would be gone and I'd grow annoyed and resentful towards the person. It's hard, because I genuinely liked them, I really wanted to be with them. But then when I acted on my feelings, they faded.

It most definetly was not just a case of getting to know the real them. Like I said, some I knew for quiet well and for a quiet awhile before I'd try and make our relationship romantic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
scarletlatitude

There are many labels that you can argue are just the "normal". The reason why so many people chose them as labels is because, although the description sounds normal, the attraction is not quite the same.

I am not fraysexual so I'll have to pull in another example. (Forgive me for going off topic.) I identify as sapiosexual, or sexual attraction to someone's intelligence. For me, I am not sexually attracted to someone until I perceive them as intelligent. I realize that "intelligence" is subjective and yada yada. I'm not getting into that argument. However, if I perceive someone to be unintelligent, I have 0 sexual attraction for them. They can be the most beautiful person in the world with every other trait that I would want in a sex partner... BUT if they are not my kind of intelligent, the sexual attraction is gone. Poof. Not there at all. It's not like it may return later, or it may return if they say something different. It's 100% gone. On the other side, if there is a person who I don't necessarily find attractive, but they turn out to be intelligent, I am 100% sexually interested. The difference is that the intelligence is like the master switch for me. It's either on or off. If it's turned off, every other sexual switch is gone too. If it's on, all of the lights start blinking together.

For me, that's different than what other people call attraction. From what I have seen, when people list "intelligence" in their list of attractions, it's also listed along with other traits like height, weight, hair color, age, etc, etc. No. For me intelligence is THE factor. Singular. The only one. If the intelligence is there, then the rest of the list doesn't matter as much.

Now for fraysexual people, I imagine it's kind of the same way. The more they get to know the person, the more their sexual switches get turned off (to keep the metaphor going). At the beginning all of the lights are on, but once the relationship hits a certain point the lights turn off. That is different from saying "interest fades over time". It's not a fade. It's an on/off moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What you described is being attracted to someone, and then losing that attraction after getting to know them and realizing they weren't as great as you thought they were.

Fraysexuality is losing that attraction specifically because you got to know them well enough to form a bond with them. (Fraysexuals, correct me if I'm wrong)

1. Acting like you can tell the difference between these two things in practice is self-delusion

2. Attraction fades. Attraction fades even if companionable love grows.

3. It's exceptionally common... exceptionally... for sexuals to date someone for awhile, be stoked on them, form an emotional connection and lose the attraction. It's so common that I'd wager a good 25% of songs are about that specific occurrence.

4. It's common sense that this is what happens, given that people frequently use phrases like "lost that lovin' feeling"... not to mention that you can, with some quick observation, see that people constantly, constantly, get close to people and then lose interest. It's so rare when that doesn't happen that we celebrate it with anniversaries, marriages, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, that's different than what other people call attraction. From what I have seen, when people list "intelligence" in their list of attractions, it's also listed along with other traits like height, weight, hair color, age, etc, etc. No. For me intelligence is THE factor. Singular. The only one. If the intelligence is there, then the rest of the list doesn't matter as much.

See, but right here... RIGHT HERE... you contradict yourself. Of course intelligence isn't the only factor for you... sure, the other stuff may not matter as much, but it still matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
butterflydreams

[...] phrases like "lost that lovin' feeling" [...]

Really great song though ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
scarletlatitude

For me, that's different than what other people call attraction. From what I have seen, when people list "intelligence" in their list of attractions, it's also listed along with other traits like height, weight, hair color, age, etc, etc. No. For me intelligence is THE factor. Singular. The only one. If the intelligence is there, then the rest of the list doesn't matter as much.

See, but right here... RIGHT HERE... you contradict yourself. Of course intelligence isn't the only factor for you... sure, the other stuff may not matter as much, but it still matters.

Ah yeah you got me there. Poor choice of wording on my part. The beginning of that bold-ness is true. Should have phrased it better at the end. :) This is why you should not engage in arguments before sufficient caffeine has been consumed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sleepy Skeleton

1. Acting like you can tell the difference between these two things in practice is self-delusion

"Delusion" is kind of strong word, don't you think? There are plenty of other words you could have used, and the fact that you used that one bothers me a lot.

No one could possibly understand everything that another feels. That's why I have a big problem with people who say "everyone is like that!" when others use new words to describe themselves. Who cares if it's common? If someone needs a word, they should be allowed to use it. Insisting it isn't necessary is just rude.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No one could possibly understand everything that another feels. That's why I have a big problem with people who say "everyone is like that!" when others use new words to describe themselves. Who cares if it's common? If someone needs a word, they should be allowed to use it. Insisting it isn't necessary is just rude.

Exactly. When I first heard the term demisexual, I thought it was odd that they created a term for something I saw as fairly common. I know a lot of people who don't like to have sex until they develop an emotional bond. Then I really took a step back and tried to see it. It took me a while, but I finally got the idea that "not wanting to have sex until a bond is formed" and "not having any sexual attraction until a bond is formed" is not the same thing. Just because someone experiences something in a way you think falls under the category of "traditional," does not mean you can automatically claim it's not a thing/doesn't deserve a title, or that you even truly understand what it is they are experiencing. You may just not be able to see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...