What is sexual attraction?

[plaidclash]

Hey guys!

It seems to me like there's a bit of confusion with what sexual attraction might be, exactly. I know the dictionary answer is, "the desire for sexual contact with someone," but what does that mean? I've definitely felt a mental or emotional desire for sexual intimacy, but I've never felt a physical need or desire for it. I don't feel any sort of arousal and I never feel horny, and I've never looked at someone and thought of them as "bangable".

I do fantasize about giving and receiving sexual pleasure, I like the idea of feeling someone up but again all of that seems more emotionally driven rather than physically. I've never gotten the hots for someone based on appearance, but that doesn't mean I lack the desire for sex with them.

People say I might be demisexual because I desire a sexual relationship with a partner who I know and love, but just because I desire that intimacy does not mean that I feel sexual attraction.

Sometimes I'm asked if I'm cupiosexual because I desire a sexual relationship but don't feel sexual attraction, but then I think, "DO I feel sexual attraction? What even IS sexual attraction?"

I need some help, can anyone contribute? I'm super confused about romantic and sexual orientations and it's really consuming a lot of my time and energy.

[RK800]

To my knowledge it is the desire to have sex with someone based on various stimuli, i.e. smell, appearance, voice, etc.

Otherwise I have no idea.

[plaidclash]

Ah, the age-old AVEN question.

I'm not sure anyone here knows the answer, tbh.

Exactly... it's been circulating for a while. Maybe it changes depending on the person, but I'm here to seek out a more logical answer.

[dissolved]

It's certainly not looking at someone and wanting to sleep with them on the basis of physical appearance.

An emotional connection is a big part of it for the majority of people, regardless of sexuality. When you get close to someone, both emotionally and physically, the desire for it to become sexual can appear.

[Asthoer]

I think sexual attraction is like feeling hungry, the feeling more than anything..it is like I see a cake and I have an strong desire for eat it! mmm..ñamy haha..but when you don't have sexual attraction you can pass by an see the cake and nothing happens inside you, no strongly reactions, yes, you can eat, you have the hability of eating, you cand o it, but there is not strong desires..Sigmung Freud said, when someone (male) feels that sexual desire and touch a woman's breat the arousal increase, when the two people have sex, after it the man can touch the woman breast and do not feel absolutly anything, just like touching any skin I suposse.

However, for me, sexual attraction is any attraccion to other person that involves relationship..

But it's my point of view just.

Good Luck!

[Philip027]

It's certainly not looking at someone and wanting to sleep with them on the basis of physical appearance.

Why not? To me that's one of the biggest differences separating aces from sexuals. If someone experienced that, I would not call them asexual.

[Guest]

It's certainly not looking at someone and wanting to sleep with them on the basis of physical appearance.

Why not? To me that's one of the biggest differences separating aces from sexuals. If someone experienced that, I would not call them asexual.

Because not experiencing that doesn't make them asexual.

[dissolved]

It's certainly not looking at someone and wanting to sleep with them on the basis of physical appearance.

Why not? To me that's one of the biggest differences separating aces from sexuals. If someone experienced that, I would not call them asexual.

Not all sexual folk experience it, so it'd be daft to use that as the deciding factor.

[scarletlatitude]

This is a tricky question because "sexual attraction" can mean different things to different people. But I guess, if you boil it down, it means that you want to do sexual things with that person. You can define "sexual things" however you want too -- some people will want to do more than other people.

[Philip027]

Because not experiencing that doesn't make them asexual.

Never said it would. I just said that if they did experience that, I'd not call them asexual. That doesn't necessarily mean that the inverse is also true, or that there aren't potentially other ways of being considered "not asexual"

Not all sexual folk experience it, so it'd be daft to use that as the deciding factor.

Who said anything about there only being one potential factor?

People can call themselves "gay" for many reasons and it isn't always "I wanna screw people of my own sex"

[Guest]

This is a tricky question because "sexual attraction" can mean different things to different people. But I guess, if you boil it down, it means that you want to do sexual things with that person. You can define "sexual things" however you want too -- some people will want to do more than other people.

Agree with this definition more than most. :P

[Guest]

Because not experiencing that doesn't make them asexual.

Never said it would. I just said that if they did experience that, I'd not call them asexual. That doesn't necessarily mean that the inverse is also true, or that there aren't potentially other ways of being considered "not asexual"

Which makes it a useless and incomplete definition of sexual attraction. Sexual attraction isn't simply wanting to fuck a hot stranger. That may be one single expression of sexual attraction, but to use that as the definition is just as incorrect as saying that to be human is to be female, and then bitching when people say "hey nope, you're excluding at least half of all humans from your definition".

This is a tricky question because "sexual attraction" can mean different things to different people. But I guess, if you boil it down, it means that you want to do sexual things with that person. You can define "sexual things" however you want too -- some people will want to do more than other people.

Agree with this definition more than most. :P

Also agree, but with a ton of caveats that it's still sexual attraction if it's based on sense of humor or personality or intelligence or being trustworthy or for any other quality you value in on or about them, and it's still sexual attraction if it doesn't happen immediately, etc.

[Philip027]

Sexual attraction isn't simply wanting to fuck a hot stranger.

But it potentially can be, and that someone who did fall under that umbrella is not someone I would call asexual. (I would say that a significant enough amount of people exist under this umbrella, too, as well as people that need that more emotional component.)

That was all I was trying to get at. I wasn't necessarily saying the definition of it should revolve around that, just that to me, there is some connection there, because to me that's an example (one of many) of something that would exclude someone from being ace (and excluding them from something such as demisexuality, too)

[Flyaway4me]

I've always wrestled with this question, as I believe there is a difference between being attracted to someone and then also having the drive to execute having sex with them.

[El-not-so-ace]

After discussing with many of my close friends, most would not rather sleep with an attractive person until they know more about them. They're all women though, so it might be a bit different for guys. But yeah, this was something that definitely doesn't define sexual attraction by itself...

[Znkyou]

It's certainly not looking at someone and wanting to sleep with them on the basis of physical appearance.

An emotional connection is a big part of it for the majority of people, regardless of sexuality. When you get close to someone, both emotionally and physically, the desire for it to become sexual can appear.

This doesn't happen for an asexual inherently. We may 'desire' it simply because it's what we believe and/or are told that's what our partner wants, but that's a secondary desire. To me, the difference lies in our primary desire. An asexual does not have a desire for sex with a particular person/thing, stemming from their primary wants/desires. That's my basic definition of what an asexual is, but it could probably be said better.

As for sexual attraction, that'd be something that triggers a sexual primary desire. That can be a physical trait, or not. (i.e. sapiosexuals whose primary sexual desire is activated by intelligence, I suppose.)

The last thing to be defined is sexual desire, and that I consider the desire to do genital involving things to/with someone/something for pleasure.

As for you op, I don't know what to consider you any more than you do - but, the above are my personal definitions, see where you fit maybe?

[dissolved]

It's certainly not looking at someone and wanting to sleep with them on the basis of physical appearance.

An emotional connection is a big part of it for the majority of people, regardless of sexuality. When you get close to someone, both emotionally and physically, the desire for it to become sexual can appear.

This doesn't happen for an asexual inherently. We may 'desire' it simply because it's what we believe and/or are told that's what our partner wants, but that's a secondary desire. To me, the difference lies in our primary desire. An asexual does not have a desire for sex with a particular person/thing, stemming from their primary wants/desires. That's my basic definition of what an asexual is, but it could probably be said better.

As for sexual attraction, that'd be something that triggers a sexual primary desire. That can be a physical trait, or not. (i.e. sapiosexuals whose primary sexual desire is activated by intelligence, I suppose.)

The last thing to be defined is sexual desire, and that I consider the desire to do genital involving things to/with someone/something for pleasure.

You clearly misunderstood me.

I'm talking about sexual attraction, as that is indeed what the thread is about. I'm not on about having sex for the sake of a partner or because it's expected of you.

I'm saying that sexual attraction is not looking at someone and instantly thinking about fucking them. It can stem from spending time with someone, their personality, etc etc, not the way they look. The desire for a sexual component to a relationship is not always instant. It can be for some folk, but most will say it develops or suddenly appears later.

Also. Sapio isn't an orientation, it's a preference. Otherwise I'm anything-but-blond-sexual.

[Znkyou]

It's certainly not looking at someone and wanting to sleep with them on the basis of physical appearance.

An emotional connection is a big part of it for the majority of people, regardless of sexuality. When you get close to someone, both emotionally and physically, the desire for it to become sexual can appear.

This doesn't happen for an asexual inherently. We may 'desire' it simply because it's what we believe and/or are told that's what our partner wants, but that's a secondary desire. To me, the difference lies in our primary desire. An asexual does not have a desire for sex with a particular person/thing, stemming from their primary wants/desires. That's my basic definition of what an asexual is, but it could probably be said better.

As for sexual attraction, that'd be something that triggers a sexual primary desire. That can be a physical trait, or not. (i.e. sapiosexuals whose primary sexual desire is activated by intelligence, I suppose.)

The last thing to be defined is sexual desire, and that I consider the desire to do genital involving things to/with someone/something for pleasure.

You clearly misunderstood me.

I'm talking about sexual attraction, as that is indeed what the thread is about. I'm not on about having sex for the sake of a partner or because it's expected of you.

I'm saying that sexual attraction is not looking at someone and instantly thinking about fucking them. It can stem from spending time with someone, their personality, etc etc, not the way they look. The desire for a sexual component to a relationship is not always instant. It can be for some folk, but most will say it develops or suddenly appears later.

Also. Sapio isn't an orientation, it's a preference. Otherwise I'm anything-but-blond-sexual.

Ah, excuse me then. Somehow I read into the OP's post that they were being questioned about being Asexual rather than Demisexual - which, in the case of the former would not magically appear just because they have an emotional/physical closeness. When you said 'regardless of sexuality', it seemed you were saying that it is possible for an asexual to feel sexually attracted under certain circumstances.

Sapiosexual "A person sexually attracted to intelligence or the human mind." source: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sapiosexual- If you're specifically sexually attracted to a certain hair color or lack thereof, be my guest. ;)

[scarletlatitude]

Remember to stay on topic. The OP asked about sexual attraction, not the validity of sexual terms. Thanks. :)

[Autumn Season]

Actually I like Znkyou's theory. Of course I'm very likely to be wrong, since I'm not sexual. But when I look at "sexual attraction" as something similar to the attractions I experience, it makes me think that it's something rather immediate. And this is also why I like the differentiation between "sexual attraction" and "desire for partnered sex". The desire to carry out the act of sex might appear very late in the relationship, but the attraction (except if you're demi) can be there very early. In other words I don't see "sexual attraction" as "Want to have sex". I see it as "There's potential and I already know it".

[Guest]

In other words I don't see "sexual attraction" as "Want to have sex". I see it as "There's potential and I already know it".

This works for me.

[Lost247365]

Ask 3 different people and you can get 3 different answers.

With regards to cupiosexuals, I believe they simply mean you feel a pull toward people based upon their appearance. I say this because Cupiosexuals are supposed to be people who like, want and desire sex but don't find anyone attractive. But, I am not a cupiosexual, so you should probably ask an actual self-identifying cupio about that.

For many here, I think what they mean by sexual attraction is an inherent potential for desiring to have partnered sex.

[plaidclash]

Actually I like Znkyou's theory. Of course I'm very likely to be wrong, since I'm not sexual. But when I look at "sexual attraction" as something similar to the attractions I experience, it makes me think that it's something rather immediate. And this is also why I like the differentiation between "sexual attraction" and "desire for partnered sex". The desire to carry out the act of sex might appear very late in the relationship, but the attraction (except if you're demi) can be there very early. In other words I don't see "sexual attraction" as "Want to have sex". I see it as "There's potential and I already know it".

oooh.... I like the way you put that

[Lazo]

I think the best way to look at sexual attraction is that it is when something (be it a person, part of a person, object, etc) arouses sexual interest in another person. The thing is that that interest is on a sliding scale, somebody can have a very strong sexual response in one situation, while they can also be only very mildly attracted in which case the response might be very subtle. Generally, the stronger the response, the stronger the interest in acting on those feelings as soon as possible. But no matter how strong or subtle the response to the stimulus may be (i.e. the level of sexual attraction), I think there has to be a response that is tangible in the sense that if you were to measure their pulse or other markers of sexual arousal, they would be elevated at least a little bit relative to base levels.

In terms of the issue mentioned earlier about being able to be sexually attracted while uninterested in having sex, I don't think that this is difficult to reconcile. People consider many different factors when deciding whether they wish to make the jump from attraction to action, and completely non-sexual considerations can overpower that instinct, especially in the case of those who tend to experience only the milder forms of attraction. Some people may also find themselves attracted to someone initially on a physical level, but may find that their attraction to another person on a purely physical level isn't strong enough to feel compelled to act upon it. They might find that waiting and strengthening the emotional connection allows them to deepen their attraction towards their partner, because for them sexual attraction and emotion/personality is very deeply intertwined. You can be sexually attracted to a person's character. For instance, many people find themselves attracted to someone because they're smart, funny, bossy, etc.

[nanogretchen4]

I mostly agree except that I think the attraction is still there even when there is no arousal or desire right that very moment. Attraction is more like the awareness that you are likely to desire sec with someone in the foreseeable future. In my case the attraction switch is either on or off. It takes years to switch on and years to switch off again, so in my case attraction is a very longterm thing. Probably desire and/or arousal were present the first time I noticed that I'm attracted to a certain person. However, once I have felt desire for a person once, I can confidently predict that I will feel it again even if I don't right this second. Measurable arousal is a right this second phenomenon having a fairly weak and indirect relationship to attraction in my opinion.

[Lazo]

I mostly agree except that I think the attraction is still there even when there is no arousal or desire right that very moment. Attraction is more like the awareness that you are likely to desire sec with someone in the foreseeable future. In my case the attraction switch is either on or off. It takes years to switch on and years to switch off again, so in my case attraction is a very longterm thing. Probably desire and/or arousal were present the first time I noticed that I'm attracted to a certain person. However, once I have felt desire for a person once, I can confidently predict that I will feel it again even if I don't right this second. Measurable arousal is a right this second phenomenon having a fairly weak and indirect relationship to attraction in my opinion.

You're right, attraction is still there even when no arousal/desire is being felt at that very moment. But I do think that for sexual attraction to exist between two people, there has to have been at least one instance where that person's sexual interest was piqued by the other. That's the starting point, and I can't imagine a situation where the claim could be made that two people are attracted to each other, if there hasn't been that first moment where they experienced some degree of arousal. That sexual response may vary in intensity, but it's real and measurable on a physical level.

After that, you might be said to find someone attractive even if you only experience a direct sexual response on an infrequent basis. But the response must have been felt at some point, even if it's only once or twice. Without this, you might argue that you find them attractive in other ways, like aesthetic attraction, but sexual attraction towards another is necessarily predicated on the sexual response.

It's because of this that I can't agree with your comments that "measurable arousal...[has] a fairly weak and indirect relationship to attraction". I think that identifying at least one instance of arousal is the sexual attraction litmus test, so to speak. In this context, I don't see how it can be viewed as having a weak or an indirect relationship. Measurable moments of sexual arousal may only be a minor part of a couple's time spent together, but the existence of these relatively short-lived moments are needed to make the claim that they are attracted to each other.

Another thing worth mentioning is that looking at sexual attraction as "the awareness that you are likely to desire sex with someone in the foreseeable future" is dangerous on a couple of grounds.

The first is that 'sex' needs to be reframed as meaning any type of sexual expression. It's possible that two people find each other attractive but do not want to have sex with each other. It's obviously a rare dynamic, but it happens. It's the sexual response that is key to defining sexual attraction, not the desire to engage in sexual acts themselves. Somebody may even avoid choosing any form of expression, but may feel sexual attraction. Celibates, monks, etc may fit this category.

The second danger of framing attraction in this way is that it is possible to satisfy this definition without actually finding someone sexually attractive. In other words, it is possible to think up a situation where someone is aware that they are likely to desire sex with someone else in the foreseeable future, without finding them sexually attractive. An example of this might be someone who craves frequent sex, and who has just met someone who he/she views as good looking. This new person they've just met is a friend of a friend, and they'll all be going out for a few drinks together later on. In this hypothetical example, one person might very well be aware that they'll be likely to desire sex later on in the night, even though they've just met this person and have yet to experience a sexual response towards them. The reason for this is that, in spite of the absence of sexual attraction at present, they know that the combination of their having a need for frequent sexual expression, coupled with the aesthetic attraction of the person they just met, and the fact that they're going to be putting themselves in a highly sexed environment (say, a nightclub) and consuming a drug (alcohol) that tends to heighten sexual desire makes it possible for them to be aware that they are indeed very likely to respond sexually to that person in the immediate future.

I hope what I wrote didn't come across as pedantic or anything along those lines. I do see where you're coming from, and I suspect that we do intuitively look at sexual attraction in a similar way. But as this is a thread that looks to pin down what exactly sexual attraction may be said to be, I think it's worth examining any proposed definition in depth.

[nanogretchen4]

I agree that it is important to examine the proposed definition in depth, however I have a few more points. First, desiring sex and choosing sex are clearly not the same thing. A person may be well aware that they desire something and yet choose not to act on that desire. For example, if I see a chocolate cupcake, I may really be craving that cupcake, but I won't eat it if I am on a diet or if the cupcake does not belong to me.

Also, measurable arousal is a bad litmus test for attraction. It takes me an average of two or three years to become attracted to someone I already know as a friend. Will scientists keep me hooked up to a monitor for two or three years just in hopes of capturing the first time I become aroused while thinking of that person? Even if they went to all that trouble, how could they prove what had caused the arousal in that specific instance? In the same two or three years I would probably become aroused many times for reasons having nothing to do with attraction.

The definition of attraction is important since many sexual orientations are defined by attraction. For example, heterosexuals are attracted to people of the opposite sex. They are not normally required to prove in a lab that their sexual orientation exists, by the way. If an experiment seems to disprove the existence of heterosexuality everyone goes back to the drawing board. If an experiment seems to prove the nonexistence of bisexuality or asexuality, those results get published. But returning to heterosexuals, they have a long term tendency to desire sex with the opposite sex that defines their orientation. They are considered heterosexual all the time, whether or not they are aroused at a particular moment and whether or not they choose to act on their recurring heterosexual desires.

Another big problem with trying to use measurable arousal as a litmus test for attraction is that scientists can trigger arousal in a lab with visual stimuli unrelated to attraction. For example, apparently footage of animals mating will do the trick for almost every member of the general population the experiment was performed on. So, do we think almost everyone is a secret zoophile? Or do we believe the subjects when they say that they are not sexually attracted to animals and have never desired sex with animals? Well, the first interpretation would prove the nonexistence of heterosexuality. Ridiculous! Back to the drawing board! No, it must be that visual stimuli can trigger a primitive sexual response that is different from attraction.

Since we like cake analogies here, attraction is liking chocolate cupcakes, desire is craving a chocolate cupcake, and arousal is salivation. It is easy to measure salivation but hard to prove what caused it.

[Earth Sprite]

We need no analogies, but exact description of the experiences.

[Lazo]

Actually, I think a big part of our disagreement has to do with how we are looking at sexual attraction. Based on what you said about defining sexuality, it seems to me that you are in part viewing sexual attraction in the general sense. In the way that a heterosexual woman might be said to be sexually attracted to men, on the whole. In this case, of course there's no need for arousal / sexual response to all men she's ever laid eyes on. Simply the potential for sexual desire to be activated at some point is enough. In other words, I could say that my friend Lucy is sexually attracted to women, because she's homosexual. And this is a very common use of the words, but with a different meaning than when applied to individual cases.

I was approaching the question from an individual perspective. When two people are said to be sexually attracted to each other, or when someone is attracted to a specific object or activity. I was trying to define this, and here is where I find your definition challenging. Because, if I'm understanding you correctly, you say that sexual attraction hinges on whether you desire someone at present, or are likely to desire them in the future. But desire is removed from sexual arousal. The issue with this is that, when you're analysing the particular dynamic between two people, it strikes me as impossible to conceive of a situation where one party can sexually desire the other, without there being any sort of measurable response. And what I mean by measurable response is both sexual arousal in the narrow sense of the definition, or, more broadly, any other physiological marker of sexual desire (e.g. touching lips, protruding tongue, change in pulse, slightly more sweating, a type of nervousness, etc). You yourself view sexual desire as a type of craving, and distinguish it from salivation, which may not necessarily be present and which can be activated in different ways in a lab setting if one chose to do so. And this may be true, but my doubt is not whether you can avoid such an overt response as salivating, my doubt is that if you go from being in your normal resting state to a state where you are craving something, my doubt is the claim that no physiological changes occur in your system. In the case of general cravings, it is known that when somebody experiences a craving, certain specific areas of the brain are activated. In other words, there's a measurable reaction to the stimulus. This is really at the heart of the point I was making: that I cannot envisage a situation where somebody can experience sexual desire without there being some kind of physiological reaction. Much like someone cannot crave a cookie, without there being some kind of reaction either physical, mental, emotional, or a combination of all three. To reiterate, you're completely right that sexual arousal if narrowly defined is not a good marker for sexual desire. Over the years, many women have wrongly interpreted their man's inability to get an erection after a night's drinking as a sign that the man doesn't desire them, and this is quite clearly not the case. The physical response is just not happening, in this particular case because of alcohol. But still, while that man may not have experienced sexual arousal, it is for me impossible to conceive that at no point was he showing other signs of a sexual response, be they the activation of distinct brain regions, palpitations, nervousness, or whatever other physiological processes we tend to undergo when we experience sexual desire.

To summarise, the view that I offered initially was that sexual attraction towards someone or something can be said to have its inception from the first time that that person or object provokes a sexual response within them. You objected to this, saying that attraction may exist before any instance of a sexual response occurs. With this, I would agree, if sexual response is being narrowly defined as only certain physical changes. But sexual response, or even the more constraining term of sexual arousal, has mental and emotional components to it and can induce a broad range of physiological changes. I believe that if any of these changes have taken place when the source of the stimulus has been another person or object, then one can state that attraction exists. Ultimately, my argument is very similar to yours. I believe in almost all cases sexual attraction is rooted in sexual desire and an associated response. If so, to define sexual attraction as being about sexual desire is sufficient.

The problem I see with viewing sexual desire as the key behind sexual attraction lies in its definition. Sexual desire is viewed as an interest in “sexual objects or activities, or as a wish, need, or drive to seek out sexual objects or to engage in sexual activities.". It's considered to be a motivational state, it influences people's behaviour. So, what happens if one person gets turned on by another person, yet experiences no desire to have sexual contact with them? I guess you could argue that in this case, person A elicits a sexual response in person B, but that since person B has no actual desire for sex then person B can be said to be aroused by person A, without being attracted to person A. This point of view strikes me as an interesting one, but ultimately I feel more comfortable framing sexual attraction in terms of sexual response rather than in terms of sexual desire. Attraction itself is said to be "the action or power of evoking interest in or liking for someone or something". This would suggest to me that sexual attraction can be present so long as an interest or liking has been been evoked (i.e. a sexual response has been elicited), even when sexual desire (i.e. a craving for sexual contact) is never generated.

[nanogretchen4]

I do not think the term sexual attraction should be applied to arousal caused by an object or activity. I think sexual attraction is only to people. Also, to say that someone is attracted to another person, there has to be something specific to that person that makes them seem like a more desirable partner than other available options.

Here are some things that I think could be confused with sexual attraction in a lab setting, especially if you measure blood flow instead of brain activity. First, it could be that almost everyone tested has a very broad hardwired arousal response to the same stimulus. For example, most people get aroused watching actual sex acts. That is not attraction to the people in the video. Many people get aroused by photographs of breasts or sex organs. That is not attraction to the person in the photograph unless maybe someone develops a more enduring fixation on photographs of a specific person. I think these types of instant hardwired responses will turn out to look different in the brain than attraction to a specific person.

Another thing that could go wrong in the lab is that the stimulus could trigger a conditioned response. For example, let's say a particular heterosexual woman doesn't have strong visual hardwiring, so as a virgin she would not have been aroused by a photo of a penis. However, she attracted to her husband and has become conditioned to become aroused when she sees him naked. If you show her a picture of another naked man and she becomes aroused, that doesn't imply sexual attraction to the man in the picture. The stimulus is just "close enough" to trigger a conditioned response.

In the blind date scenario you described, I'm not sure it's a problem to say that person is sexually attracted to their date even before arousal occurs. They are aesthetically attracted to their date, and they seem to consider them an acceptable sex partner. While still sober they plan in advance to set up a scenario that they know will probably lead to sex with that specific person. It is my belief in that case that they already desire sex with that person. However, this example is in strong contrast to how slowly I develop attraction. Maybe you should ask someone who has the faintest interest in casual sex whether they consider that sexual attraction or not.