Jump to content

Here to learn more


whopper

Recommended Posts

I hope this is the right place to insert this.

My friend is asexual and he tried to explain to me what it was exactly and when he got done I think we were both more confused. I am a very sexual person and I know that there are different sexualities in the world and to be completely honest in reading over some of the topics being asexual had to be the hardest because of all the terms and different flavors.

I knew that he was different than me since we were in elementary. I accepted it because he was a friend. Over the years he has been put through a lot by bullies in school, calling him a fa**ot and queer and stuff because he never seemed interested in girls.

I have seen first hand the struggles that he has faced, and how its really made him a better man. I just cant wrap my brain around not wanting sex. Could someone maybe enlighten me in simple terms what it amounts too because I am sure that its more than just not wanting sex

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just cant wrap my brain around not wanting sex. Could someone maybe enlighten me in simple terms what it amounts too because I am sure that its more than just not wanting sex

I'm assuming, since you identify yourself as "a very sexual person," that you personally know what it's like to be "interested in girls" (or guys, or whatever your "type" is) --- there's something you feel about particular people that attracts you to them, related to what you identify as your "very sexual" nature. On the other hand, there are probably lots of people you never feel that way about, and would have a hard time even imagining such a thing. Suppose you felt that same sexual indifference about everyone, guys or girls or anything else. Perhaps this could be what it's like for your friend? You'll have to ask him for the details, particularly since some asexual people still feel attracted to others for "romantic" or "aesthetic" reasons, while still not being interested in the sex part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really about wanting or not wanting sex. It's about sexual attraction. Asexual just means not experiencing sexual attraction. Some asexuals still have romantic attraction; others don't. Some have libidos; others don't. Some want/like sex; others don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AgentSkyHawk

The most basic way I can think to explain it is like this - imagine someone you aren't sexually attracted to and how that feels. That's how an asexual feels about everyone. An asexual can enjoy sex (or not) and fall in love (or not), but they don't experience that attraction that you are used to feeling.

It's obviously a lot more complicated than that in real life. A good thing to get your head around is that there's two main spectrum's with sexuality: the sexual spectrum and the romantic spectrum. The sexual spectrum you'll know about - heterosexual, homosexual, asexual and everything in between. This spectrum refers to who a person feels sexual attraction towards. The romantic spectrum refers to who a person is romantically attracted to - so a heterosexual who falls in love with the opposite gender is heterosexual heteromantic. An asexual can experience romantic attraction as well - for example, an ace who falls in love with any gender is asexual panromantic. Sexuals and asexuals can also be aromantic (i.e. not fall in love), and this has a whole spectrum too, and if you'd like me to explain that more I can :)

Maybe you can help me too, since you're sexual and I think I'm as confused about sexuality as you are about asexuality. I don't quite understand how sexual attraction works - do you just see people in the street and feel sexually attracted to them? Or do you get to know them first? Because I thought it was the latter but that's what demisexual is, so I'm confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
somethingrandom

It's different for everyone but it basically comes down to a lack of sexual attraction - it's like if someone said to an asexual person 'you can never have sex again' then they probably wouldn't be bothered, at least I wouldn't. It's just not something that an asexual person really needs, like we can go with or without it doesn't really bother us. Again, this may be different for other people - there are some asexual people who enjoy sex but don't have any desire for it and then some who absolutely hate it and would never want it.

Hope this helps :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just cant wrap my brain around not wanting sex. Could someone maybe enlighten me in simple terms what it amounts too because I am sure that its more than just not wanting sex

Heh, not really. That's all it does amount to. It's as simple as saying "i don't love eating potatos" --You Don't Love Potatos?!? "Yes, it's as simple as that. I don't like them the way everyone else does."

--Asexuals can sexually compromise, it just depends on the person. People can react to the expression of what they don't reciprocate in different ways; some people are indifferent, some are averse or repulsed, and others can enjoy it (whether it be morally by making their partner happy, simply orgasming, etc.) but just don't have the urge to do that to anyone.

Know that it's just as difficult for a sexual person to fully relate to an asexual as it is for an asexual to relate to someone sexual. Many sexual people can't imagine, or even remember what it was like without their sexual urges toward other people. It's a common wall we face. And you may not be able to understand it; some people do, some people don't. That's what happens when you can't actually feel those kinds of things; you can't relate and when you try it's hardly accurate. (Though luckily we have something to describe it by and aren't having to define something as complex as personal emotions/colors to a blind person.) Yah, people can word it as X, etc., and you most likely know what words mean, but it just is't fully/emotionally comprehensible toward the subject matter. It feels like an overreaction or exaggeration. Kind of like someone who doesn't understand people with OCDs or phobias; they can understand you can't do/have X, but they can't emotionally relate to an extreme feeling like that under those conditions. Or like someone who's never been bullied before hearing about it and just thinking "oh, they said rude things to you, that's not that bad" when they just don't get the true feeling of what that is. But even if you're aren't able to understand, the key is to respect what someone tells you they don't (or do) want.

Sexual attraction is the impulse/urge/compulsion to have sex with a specific person; to do genital involving things to their body. In sexual people this desire is typically triggered by someone’s presence being sexually arousing. The orientation strictly pertains to sex, an asexual can still have a romantic orientation. --Just as gay people aren't sexually attracted to the opposite sex and straight people aren't sexually attracted to the same sex, asexuals aren't sexually attracted to anyone; it's just not there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most has been said above and it has been explained very well.

When you don't feel sexual attraction, you can appreciate the aesthetic of the person (aesthetic attraction) but you don't understand how "desirable" applies to you. You learn from sexuals around you that this body type is more "desirable" than others but if you never were around sexuals you probably would have no idea about that concept.

I think the phrase that sums it up the most is: "yes, I agree that she/he/they is/are easy on the eyes. Am I supposed to feel something about it?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
do you just see people in the street and feel sexually attracted to them? Or do you get to know them first? Because I thought it was the latter but that's what demisexual is, so I'm confused.

I'm not the OP but I am sexual.

It can be seeing someone in the street and thinking 'mmm they're hot', and it's not just their physical shape, but maybe something about them - confidence, body language, the kind of person they seem to be. It's a visceral, instinctive thing. But that doesn't mean you would want to have sex with them, more they'd look great naked, and be thrilling to touch, and seeing them turned on would be arousing. Mostly, it passes - you have to cross the road, your phone rings, whatever. Depending on your preferences, it may happen dozens of times a day, it's not a big deal at all, generally, more like a background awareness. Maybe, if it's a strong attraction, you'll talk to them if there's an opportunity, and maybe there's more of a connection (I guess what asexuals would call romantic), with undertones of wanting it to go further. Both people will be sounding each other out subtly: flirting, finding out if they're interested in you too.

From what I've read about demi, this isn't quite the same thing. The sexual element is parallel with the romantic, each pushing the other along, whereas demis only get to the sexual attraction after the romantic or friendship part.

"yes, I agree that she/he/they is/are easy on the eyes. Am I supposed to feel something about it?"

It's more than being easy on the eyes. Something about them inspires a compulsion to get closer, to know them better, and if the feeling's reciprocated, you'd love it to build to a sexual relationship. And easy on the eye doesn't have to be the mainstream 'attractive person' version; it can be something about their attitude, wit, intelligence, confidence, all that stuff you can infer from looking at someone.

That's one version. At the other end of the continuum is definitely a straightforward instinctive 'f*** they're hot', and you can't take your eyes off them, mentally undressing them, imagining how they'd feel, how they'd behave in bed, what it would be like to have sex with them. Doesn't happen much though, at least for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Telecaster68: I think what you're describing has more to do with personality than with orientation. The orientation stuff is very low level, instinctive. It's basically like when you perceive the smell of some food, you get some subconscious reactions in your brain that allow you to identify that food.

"Sexual attraction" (for the lack of a better word) is much the same, you perceive an attractive person and it subconsciously triggers a range of reactions (this can include physical reactions like an erection). However, once the chain reaches the conscious, it comes down to personality related mechanisms what happens next. As an example, it's easily possible to experience "attraction" for someone that will actually trigger disgust once it escalates to the conscious level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
As an example, it's easily possible to experience "attraction" for someone that will actually trigger disgust once it escalates to the conscious level.

I know exactly what you mean - for a lot of men, an example is the cleavage thing. There's just an instinctive, all but unstoppable reaction to look at cleavage. It's pretty much at the same level as recoiling from a flame. Those of us who at least aspire to better manners fight it, but it's there. You could argue that level of attraction is aesthetic as much as sexual - I think there's been studies showing for instance that ratio of waist to hip in art nudes has been fairly consistent, whether they're Rubenesque or stick thin Modiglianis, which they concluded said something about healthy child bearing proportions. Our over engineered brains have parlayed this into aesthetics, over the years.

And isn't attraction as much about personality as lizard-brain stuff, in the real world, which is after all the context of the OP's question? If primitive instinct was all that was going on, we would be jumping on any passing sexually attractive person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And isn't attraction as much about personality as lizard-brain stuff, in the real world, which is after all the context of the OP's question? If primitive instinct was all that was going on, we would be jumping on any passing sexually attractive person.

Sexual attraction can be influenced by personality-level brain functions, but it can not be caused by them. You would find someone sexually attractive first, and then your consciousness would invent reasons why you find them attractive, reinforcing that attraction and duplicating it on a personality level. But you can also feel attraction on the personality level without feeling instinctive, sexual attraction. They're different aspects to consider, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
They're different aspects to consider, really.

They are, but inseparable for practical purposes. Getting to know people affects sexual attraction, even if it's only superficially. For instance, I might get that initial spasm of 'cleavage' level attraction towards a woman, and then the second she opens her mouth I realise she's witless, stupid and bigoted, and the lizard brain stuff just doesn't matter - I know this from experience. I'm not in the least attracted to her.

The original question was

do you just see people in the street and feel sexually attracted to them? Or do you get to know them first? Because I thought it was the latter but that's what demisexual is, so I'm confused.

... and since a common confusion amongst asexuals seems to be about why sexuals don't just shag anyone they feel a passing attraction for, I thought it was worth getting into based on actual experience as a sexual, rather than the theory-based guesswork which is all that's available to asexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If primitive instinct was all that was going on, we would be jumping on any passing sexually attractive person"

Actually not quite; sexual attraction and sex-drive are different. Any attraction is a pull. For a lack of a better word, a compulsive idea. The drive to act on it is separate from it (but often together). So it seems you have immediate sexual attraction but only have the drive to act on it once you verify a good personality. Which may be equally instinctive out of mental capacity genetics (which can also be impaired by parasites) and creating a lasting relationship which would instinctively result in more ofspring.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Thanks. As an allosexual, I always find it useful to have sexual attraction explained to me by someone who's never felt it.

You're being gobsmackingly presumptuous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. As an allosexual, I always find it useful to have sexual attraction explained to me by someone who's never felt it.

You're being gobsmackingly presumptuous.

I don't think that was the intent. The problem is that, often, various forms of attraction are combined confusingly, which is one of the reasons that asexuals are generally misunderstood.

No one is claiming that all sexual desire stems from a gut level sexual attraction alone. What is being said is that there IS a gut level attraction that happens. Emotional attraction, intellectual attraction, and all the rest are probably a part of most people's experience of sexual desire.

Since asexuals can and often do experience those other types of attraction, it really is important to make the distinction. Lack of that distinction is what makes us unaware of our difference, and lands us in relationships where our partners are unfulfilled (not a broad indictment of mixed relationships, just something that can and does happen).

Attraction is generally used to refer to that first order, gut level reaction. Desire is used to refer to the second order actual interest in the act itself. So maybe you find someone attractive, but then you talk to them and they grate on you enough to just kill any desire you feel. Alternately, you might not find someone particularly attractive at first, but find them so engaging and wonderful that it kindles into actual desire.

We often do better with food analogies! I might smell fried food and think, mmmmmmm, but then see that they've desecrated the sandwich with thousand island dressing and feel my stomach turn at the thought of eating it. Olfactory attraction trumped by gastronomic repulsion, resulting in no desire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
I don't think that was the intent.

In retrospect, you're right. I kicked off a bit precipitately. Sorry, Star Bit.

The problem is that, often, various forms of attraction are combined confusingly, which is one of the reasons that asexuals are generally misunderstood.

And the metaconfusion is that to us allosexuals, it's just not confusing, and the act of picking it all apart seems like an epic missing of the point, though I can completely see that if you start from sex being baffling rather than innately enjoyable, picking it apart would seem a good way to try to figure it out.

Incoming analogy: I love music, I play music, music provides me with some of my most profound joys. I also know, in a fair amount of technical detail, how it works - structure, history, audio processing, neurology (as far as the research will take us anyhow). To an extent, that knowledge helps me create better music; it helps me understand why I enjoy what I enjoy. But it's not why I enjoy it - I just do, and it would move me just as much if I had no clue about any theory, at all. Understanding how it works will never give me any kind of real insight into the joy of music. Similarly, slicing how sexual experience sexuality into desire, attraction etc. only gives a very dry, academic version of what it's like. It doesn't get to the real essence of it.

On the other hand, I don't get visual art, painting especially. I've read about aesthetics, technique, history, but I have never had the kind of feelings from paintings that I do from music, even though I know some people do. I'm some how missing the point of it.

So to get back to the original question of how sexual attraction works - it doesn't, in practice, involve conscious experience of its components. Differentiating desire and attraction doesn't describe the experience any more than describing fugue form and harmonies communicates the deep pleasure the St Matthew Passion brings me. Only someone who had never experienced it would think otherwise, and focusing on the mechanics seems to me to be a good way to continue not 'getting' what it is that allosexuals love about sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Picking it apart isn't exactly why the two words exist. In the most basic (and obvious) way, sex-drive means a desire for sexual relations. Allosexuals can definitely have a sex-drive without finding anyone sexually attractive at the time (e.g. soliciting prostitutes, maybe friends with benefits too?), as well as people using the phrase to refer to how much of it they want in a relationship. Some allosexuals have no sex-drive (sex indifferent) in the sense that they have the impulse in their mind but are indifferent to it being satisfied. Some are hyposexual in the sense that they have sexual attraction but infrequently feel the need to act on it with their partner (--though it can also refer to sexual attraction being sparatic and having a normal drive when it appears). Some are hypersexual, heh, do i need to explain that? And Lithsexuals aka Aposexuals have/develope, for a lack of a better word, a negative sex-drive (though indifference is included in the orientation, 2/3rds of it is negative; it's an umbrella term). Sometimes sex-drive and sexual attraction can influence eachother. It seems people understand it better if you explain its romantic equivalent. Like people can have a drive to have a romantic relationship with no crush present.

Link to post
Share on other sites
butterscotchwm

One of my best friends really couldn't wrap his head around the idea of me being asexual either. He kept telling me things like "You should at least try masturbating - it's the only way you'll know for sure if you'll like sex." Or, "The best thing about sex is the orgasm, and how close you are with your partner!" When I told him I wasn't interested in any of that, he felt like I must have had intimacy issues. Of course, he kind of thought he was just helping me out or whatever, but it really was just making me feel like crap.

Just a tip: It's ok to not fully understand your friend's asexuality. As long as you know it! So stay in your lane, and don't make any assumptions. If he says he's asexual, all you really need to do is listen and accept him for who he is, and you've probably already done that! So keep doing it! :)

As an asexual person, I like the feeling of an orgasm and sexual pleasure, but I really can just achieve that on my own. It's not something I feel like bringing into a relationship. (It's kind of just like "cleaning out the pluming" which is a popular asexual libidoist phrase... ) I really love my boyfriend and I love being intimate with him, but I just don't see sex as a part of intimacy. It literally just doesn't make any sense to my body. I see intimacy as hugging, cuddling, kissing, and sharing personal interests. Having sex with my boyfriend I feel like wouldn't do anything significant for me... It's not that I'm waiting until marriage, or I'm trying to be "pure" or whatever. I just have no intrinsic interest.

Seriously, you can find a lot of great videos talking about asexuality, like Swank Ivy's channel on youtube, or this short documentary:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Picking it apart isn't exactly why the two words exist. It seems a common allosexual misconception (no offence) that everyone experiences it the same way thay do, when sex-drive actually differs from allosexual to allosexual. Some even have an indifferent sex-drive (sex indifferent) in the sence that they have the impulse in their mind but are indifferent to it being satisfied. Some are hyposexual in the sence that they have sexual attraction but infrequently feel the need to act on it with their partner--though it can also refer to sexual attraction being sparatic and having a normal drive when it appears. Some are hypersexual, heh, do i need to explain that? And Lithsexuals aka Aposexuals have/develope, for a lack of a better word, a negative sex-drive (though indifference is included in the orientation, 2/3ds of it is negative). Sometimes sex-drive and sexual attraction can influence eachother. It seems people understand it better if you explain its romantic equivalent.

With all due respect, asexuals are miserable at understanding sexuals. Really quite miserable. You guys pick these things apart as if they exist and can be analyzed seperately, but as Tar and Tele have both stated quite clearly, only the basic attraction is subconscious... the rest is personality, and it all feeds into each other... sexual and romantic attraction tend to build on each other and are more or less indistinguishable. And I know for me that without any sexual activity, my romantic attraction does legitimately fade, which is an experience that's very common for sexuals. So, they really aren't particularly separate.

Another analogy. You love the taste of chocolate cake. If someone asked you what chocolate cake tasted like, would you say "flour is a dense, dry powder with little flavor. Eggs are viscous and musky. Vanilla extract is sweet and pungent." No! Because that tells you nothing at all about what chocolate cake tastes like. Same with picking apart attraction.

Star, you're using the phrase "sex drive" in a really weird way that I can't make sense of. Sex drive can't be "sex indifferent". That makes no sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incoming analogy: I love music, I play music, music provides me with some of my most profound joys. I also know, in a fair amount of technical detail, how it works - structure, history, audio processing, neurology (as far as the research will take us anyhow). To an extent, that knowledge helps me create better music; it helps me understand why I enjoy what I enjoy. But it's not why I enjoy it - I just do, and it would move me just as much if I had no clue about any theory, at all. Understanding how it works will never give me any kind of real insight into the joy of music. Similarly, slicing how sexual experience sexuality into desire, attraction etc. only gives a very dry, academic version of what it's like. It doesn't get to the real essence of it.

Telecaster... :wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, i agree sex indifferent can't be a drive, and it would simply be "having no sex-drive", but phrasing it like that has two interpretations; indifference and fully unwanting it. So to clarify that i put it that way, but i also clarified it after that and should've just put it correctly and left it at what i gave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the chocolate cake analogy.

The reason we are like: This is apparently the recipe for chocolate cake, and from our understanding these are the different tastes and textures of it.
Is because we can't taste the chocolate cake ourselves. The only way for us to at least somewhat get what a chocolate cake IS is to look at the recipe and textures and try to piece together the whole it is all hinting at.
And then everyone else around us is like: But why do you look at the recipe? Just go out and eat the cake.

And maybe we try to go out and we look around for ages and we go: ... but there is no cake here for us.
And someone tells us to MAKE the cake for ourselves so we try to bake by ourselves and it all fails, so then someone says we should get a friend to make it for us and we still don't have any cake. So in the end we just go: Okay, but I like eggs and I like vanilla so I'm sure those parts of a chocolate cake are fun, so at least I can experience that.

And we don't really miss the cake even though we never taste it because not everything in life is about chocolate cake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

not everything in life is about chocolate cake.

Careful, that kind of talk will get your asexual card rescinded. ☺

Seriously though, you're absolutely right, and that's why us allosexuals get frustrated when you try to explain chocolate cake to us...

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, asexuals are miserable at understanding sexuals. Really quite miserable. You guys pick these things apart as if they exist and can be analyzed seperately, but as Tar and Tele have both stated quite clearly, only the basic attraction is subconscious... the rest is personality, and it all feeds into each other... sexual and romantic attraction tend to build on each other and are more or less indistinguishable. And I know for me that without any sexual activity, my romantic attraction does legitimately fade, which is an experience that's very common for sexuals. So, they really aren't particularly separate.

I don't really disagree with what I see as the intent here, but I want to clarify something.

The thread was originally created to help the OP understand what it meant to be asexual. In order to understand that, sexual and romantic attraction DO have to be picked apart, because many experience one of those but not the other. I completely understand that for sexuals, they're hard, if not impossible, to separate in practice, but it's a little weird to say they aren't different things, because for some of us, the distinction is painfully clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

And we were explaining that division isn't how it works in practice, that for sexuals it's pretty much meaningless, so insisting on it won't help asexuals understand it. Your mental model doesn't apply to people who actually experience sexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And we were explaining that division isn't how it works in practice, that for sexuals it's pretty much meaningless, so insisting on it won't help asexuals understand it. Your mental model doesn't apply to people who actually experience sexuality.

Except the division is how it works in practice with some people. Once again, the OP here was about a sexual person trying to understand an asexual person.

Insisting there is no division at all is what gets us into trouble. It suggests that asexuals are incapable of romantic love, which in turn implies experiencing romantic love means you're sexual. This misunderstanding can lead to some bad outcomes, as I'm sure you're aware.

Being a romantic asexual can be incredibly confusing and painful in a world where everyone insists that romantic and sexual attraction are so intertwined that they cannot be separated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to understand that, sexual and romantic attraction DO have to be picked apart, because many experience one of those but not the other.

Insisting there is no division at all is what gets us into trouble. It suggests that asexuals are incapable of romantic love, which in turn implies experiencing romantic love means you're sexual. This misunderstanding can lead to some bad outcomes, as I'm sure you're aware.

The concept of romantic attraction is meaningless. There's no such thing that could be uniformly described, just as there's no "friendship attraction" that could be uniformly described. It doesn't work that way.

There is actually just one answer for the OP, but it's not a satisfying one. Every person is different. Even as a "sexual", I have no idea why other sexuals desire sex, much less why asexuals do not. There is a mind there that I'm not part of, there are reasons there that I can not grasp.

With all due respect, asexuals are miserable at understanding sexuals. Really quite miserable. You guys pick these things apart as if they exist and can be analyzed seperately, but as Tar and Tele have both stated quite clearly, only the basic attraction is subconscious... the rest is personality, and it all feeds into each other...

Didn't Star already summarize this? "Asexuals don't want sex, it's that simple". All these complex feedback loops of personality and attraction, those can and do exist for many asexuals as well. In other words, while all of us are individually very different, the difference between sexuals and asexuals isn't really all that significant. And yet, isn't it us, the sexuals, who keep insisting that without sex there's something very important missing? Isn't it us who fail to realize that sex is merely an insignificant component in something much larger and more meaningful? Isn't it our misguided insistence on that distinction that leads asexuals to believe that our "sexual attraction" is something completely alien and inexplicable that could not possibly tie in with their understanding of "love"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross

I think the simplicity of the matter is complex at the same time. There doesnt seem to be a clear cut answer which is why all the questions arise out of one single question. Its like having one mathematical result but having infinite amounts of getting to that result. If we gave a number (1) to answer, we could arive at it by (.50 + .50), (2-1) (9-8) (-3+4) and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

sex is merely an insignificant component in something much larger and more meaningful

*loses power of speech*

Link to post
Share on other sites

sex is merely an insignificant component in something much larger and more meaningful

*loses power of speech*

I feel sorry for your partner..

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...