What does sexual attraction feel like?

[chromanebula]

Okay, so I'm REALLY confused about my experiences. I'm not sure whether I'm sexually attracted or not. One time I got...uh...physical feelings about a guy, and a make-out fantasy that was impossible to ignore, but it didn't go into sex and I don't desire it. And sometimes I get lightheaded around this girl I like. In general, how do you distinguish sexual attraction, and is this it?

[SkyWorld]

Hmmm... maybe this thread would be of help. :) There's also other types of attraction: romantic, sensual, emotional, aesthetic. Sometimes they intertwine with each other and sometimes they don't. This pic may also help.

[Star Bit]

There are 6 types of attraction. They're all typically felt with romantic attraction (and why there can be confusion between attractions) but aren't needed to make it valid. Other than romantic attraction, obviously, they can all be felt platonically, separately and in different combinations.

· Sexual attraction - the impulse/urge/compulsion to have sex with a specific person; to do genital involving things to their body.

· 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 [though those are also symptoms of platonic nervousness], dreamy mindset, anxious euphoria, infatuation, etc.).

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

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

· Sensual attraction - the urge to have non-genital physical contact. Platonically displaying this above the norm qualifies as a type of queerplatonic relationship (QPR). I would compare it to how many people have the urge to act toward their pets. Though this term is typically applied to other humans. There are 3 forms of sensual attraction; platonic, romantic (which only differ by chaste kissing), and sexual (in the sense that it’s done for sexual arousal, not because it includes sex/genital contact --and it’s still under asexuality as a kink).

· Platonic attraction (aka a squish; a play on the romantic word crush) - the strong urge to know or befriend someone.

· And it's possible to find someone charming without romantic attraction. (look up charming's definition/synonyms for further clarification)

· It's also possible to have queerplatonic feelings for someone; to emotionally feel platonic but have the characteristic(s) associated with a romantic relationship. It can be an importance/closeness stronger than the best friend norm, displaying platonic sensual attraction above the norm (only differing from romantic sensual attraction with chaste kissing, although preferring chaste kissing or no kissing does not make one’s feelings unromantic), friends with sexual benefits, romantically pleasing someone they platonically love (QP to one and romantic to the other, although it's their decision on what they call the relationship), or any combination of those. They may or may not have monogamy, live together, have kids, or look like a couple to the public. Romantics and Aromantics can have QPRs.

[El-not-so-ace]

I used to wonder that too. My friend told me it's like wanting some kind of food... But even though I love food in general, I've only recently really had a desire in my heart for a Strawberry Bubble Tea. It was weird but I just thought about it so much and really wanted to get it so much that I went out of my way to buy one after work. I'm trying to see if that's similar to what my friend meant.

I thought that I was an ace before and had, in my faulty logic, thought that there was some sort of actual drive for sexual people. Something like, if they see a hot person, they almost have some urge to grab at them or make out with them... A bit of an immature assumption once I realized how it sounded and when I was discussing with my friend... That's what made me question myself after, since I then thought... Alright, so I don't have an urge to grab at people but that's apparently a normal thing. :lol:

I'm now wondering if I could just be a demi or just average, yet very anxious, person, but that would start getting off topic.

[I_Will_Dare]

I'm demisexual, and for the longest time thought I was all-out asexual....until I met a guy and started experiencing sexual attraction. You know it when you feel it. For me, it was a physical feeling, a tug in the lower abdomen, like someone had attached a string there and was pulling on it. That's the basic physical feeling. But you also get urges to touch them, to be physically close to them and maybe do sexy things together. I don't know how to explain it except sometimes I'd look at him and just get that *feeling*. It could be different for other people.

What's weird, and I'm pretty sure this is a demi thing? I had developed an emotional bond with him first, and then I experienced sexual attraction. So love came first, and then the sexual attraction isn't like....weird animalistic urges. It's definitely tied to my feelings for him when I experience it. I don't think that's the case all the time at all.

You can experience sexual attraction without desiring the sex in reality, though. You can feel that urge without wanting it for real.

[chromanebula]

I know, objectively, what sexual attraction IS and how it is different from other types of attraction. But I'm not sure if I, personally, have felt it. That time I may have, all the physical feelings were right...but my desire was just for making out, NOT sex. My mind didn't even go there. It's so confusing!

[roflysst]

People always seem to make wierd growling sounds & hip thrusting movements when talking about how sexually attractive someone is.

Makes me pretty happy I don't know the feels.

[EggplantWitch]

This is purely what I've observed around AVEN, but from the dozens of 'what is sexual attraction?' threads I've seen it seems that if you've felt sexual attraction you would definitely know it. This is probably not very helpful, and for that I apologise, but it's just what I've noticed!

[chromanebula]

I could have sworn it was at the time, because the feelings seemed all correct...but at the same time I would not have wanted to engage in sex. I'm trying to figure out what those feelings are, and what that desire is, so I can better understand.

[confusedbat]

Aesthetic attraction!!! Omg that's me!!!!

[Mr.Pokeylope]

Couldn't tell you. The frustrating thig is, all the descriptions I've heard from sexual people seemed so hyperbolic they might have just been playing for laughs...

[Guest]

That's sexual attraction. Whether or not you want to have sex is a separate issue. Believe it or not, guys, there isn't some big flashy sign that lights up in your head that says "MUST FUCK NOW". You feel compelled toward them physically. That's as specific as it gets. What you choose to do once you get close... well there are tons of options.

Particularly if you've never had sex before, you're really not going to get that I MUST HAVE SEX feeling. That comes over time of associating feeling A with action X. If you're inexperienced you have no associations made yet.

People always seem to make wierd growling sounds & hip thrusting movements when talking about how sexually attractive someone is.

Makes me pretty happy I don't know the feels.

Really? Always? I've never even witnessed what you're talking about outside of a british comedy show.

[Frigid Pink]

I'm confused by the phrase "sexual attraction" and don't know what it means (many different definitions out there) or whether or not I experience it (pretty sure I don't based on the definitions out there), therefore, I don't use it to define "asexuality."

I define "asexuality" as "no innate desire for partnered sex," however, there's no agreed upon definition of asexuality at this time other than "no sexual attraction" (which has numerous meanings and therefore is an unclear and difficult to understand definition) and "whoever says they're asexual" (which makes it pointless to even use a label if it just means anyone who wants to use the label).
Basically, from the current definitions, anyone can be "asexual" (if they want to be or say they are or define the nebulous "sexual attraction" in a way that fits them even if it's different from the way others define it) and, essentially, "asexuality" (as the current definition stands) doesn't really mean or explain or say anything about a person at all, except that they identify with the label and choose to use it.
Overall, the current "official" definition for "asexuality" isn't really useful or helpful for visibility or education efforts, for being taken seriously by the public at large, or for helping people understand themselves and their own sexuality.
"Asexuality"- what it is, exactly, and how to define it better and more clearly has been discussed at length before and this was one proposed outcome (a poll):

POLL 1 : Do you think the definition of asexuality given by AVEN ought to describe asexuality in a way that is both concise and easy to understand?
- Yes
- No (please do elaborate if this is what you vote for)
- Abstain/other

POLL 2 : Do you think AVEN'S current definition ("no sexual attraction") fulfills these criteria?
- Yes, it fulfills them well
- Somewhat, but could do with improvement
- No, it does not fulfill them at all
- Abstain/other

POLL 3 : Which of these proposed definitions do you think fulfills the criteria best? "An asexual person is somebody...
- who does not experience sexual attraction." (current AVEN definition)
- who does not innately desire partnered sex with anyone."
- who does not innately desire partnered sex with anyone and/or does not experience sexual attraction".
- who does not not innately desire partnered sex with anyone and does not experience sexual attraction".
- none of the above fulfills the criteria adequately

- - -
- Main thread text -
- - -
If you have been following the long thread about defining asexuality, you will already be aware of the problems that have been raised about AVEN's current definition ("no sexual attraction"):
"sexual attraction" is a vague, ambiguous, and ill-defined concept, that is probably not used outside of AVEN in the same way as it is on here (cf. this poll thread made last year). The multitudes of "What is sexual attraction?" threads/questions on AVEN just confirm this.
despite claims to the contrary, attraction is not universally agreed upon as the basis for orientations (cf. German and Dutch Wikipedia, German AVEN)
the preference for the term "sexual attraction" in US English is culturally dependent and requires sociological and political background knowledge; since English is the internet language, this site will have readers and members from other countries who speak English as a second language and do not have this background knowledge. If they do not have access to a more understandable definition in their native language, this will hinder their capability to understand the definition.
all other sexual orientations do have a strong basis in describing the innate desire for sex with partners of sex/gender X, even in cultures/languages where this is worded as "sexual attraction". To bring asexuality closer to the definition of other orientations, "no innate desire for partnered sex" must become a concept reflected by the definition of asexuality
attraction implies that external factors are involved and implies strong situational factors; defining asexuality this way directly provokes the perfectly justified reply "you just haven't met the right person yet". In contrast, the innate desire for sex is a completely internal factor, that is far harder to invalidate as an inherent trait of personality/identity.
as a further problem with the previous point, the translations of "sexual attraction" offered by Wikipedia in languages such as German and Dutch - yet again - describe sex appeal and attractivity, traits of people who evoke sexual feelings and flirtatiousness in others. If this is the best translation some languages have to offer, we risk sending the signal that asexuals are mousy geeks who "can't get any".
AVEN's main FAQ currently defines sexual attraction as the desire for partnered sex. While this has been a long overdue step forward for clarity of what "sexual attraction" in the main definition is supposed to mean, there have been people who complained right from the start that a blanket equation between these two concepts is incorrect.

Due to these problems, we - the folks who have been regularly active in the thread mentioned above - consider it due time to put the validity of AVEN's definition up for debate on a more official level, to see if a move for a change of AVEN's definition of asexuality is mandated by the community.

Please vote and discuss.