What is sexual attraction?

[Guest]

Sexual attraction: the desire for partnered sexual contact with a specific person for physical and/or emotional pleasure (and it's not always based on appearance. You may feel it because you are emotionally connected to them or are attracted to their personality) Some sexual people don't experience this however and just enjoy sex for the sake of sex, regardless of who it's with (Some people in the ace community have coined the term Cupiosexual to define this experience, though sexual people have been doing it for millennia and never felt the need to come up with a specific label for it. And no it's not an ace-spectrum identity)

Sexual attraction is only an expression of the underlying factor of sexuality, which is the desire for partnered sexual contact with other people. All sexual people have an innate desire to connect sexually with other people for physical and/or emotional (ie intimacy) pleasure (This is primarily what sets sexuals and asexuals apart) The gender/s they desire to connect sexually with defines their sexual orientation. Sexual attraction is an expression of sexuality (not the defining factor *of* sexuality) in that it's what directs many sexual people to a *specific* sexual partner maybe based on personality, having a deep emotional bond with them, maybe based on appearance, depends on the sexual. It's directed desire, instead of just wanting to have sex with anyone for the sake of sex (as I said, some sexual people do just desire sex for the sake of sex and do not experience sexual attraction)

Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction and the lack of the general desire to have partnered sexual contact for sexual and/or emotional pleasure (just to reiterate, sexual attraction is only a type of expression *of* that underlying desire for partnered sex, it's not the factor that defines that desire, or the only expression of that desire. It's the underlying desire for partnered sex that primarily separates sexuality from asexuality.)

So pretty much what you're saying is you desire sex with a specific person for emotional pleasure (ie intimacy, bonding) as opposed to for desiring it for physical pleasure .. Many sexual people feel this way (desire sex with their romantic partner for intimacy and bonding, the physical pleasure is only secondary and nowhere near as important as the emotional benefits for them)

I would at that yes, you are experiencing sexual attraction as you are desiring sex with a specific person for emotional pleasure, though you could be demisexual if you've only ever felt that for this one person and could never imagine it with anyone else.

So. Hope that answers the question.

(And no, I am not referring to asexuals who give their partner sex to keep them happy/please their partner, but would happily live in celibacy if given the choice. I'm referring to people who desire partnered sex specifically for the physical and/or emotional benefits they themselves receive from partnered sex. Or in other words, people who, of their own volition, innately prefer partnered sex to celibacy under certain circumstances ie when in a romantic relationship)

[Lazo]

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.

Taken from the AVEN wiki on sexual attraction:

"Sexual attraction can be experienced towards any person and any gender, or even any thing/concept."

The wiki itself notes by way of disclaimer that 'not everyone may agree on this definition'. We're free to hold different views on the definition of the term.

Concerning the examples you gave in your post, you give examples of how sexual arousal can manifest even in cases where no attraction is present. I never claimed otherwise. Proving that a sexual response can occur independent of sexual attraction does nothing to disprove my claim that sexual attraction must involve some type of sexual response. If I say to you that green tea (sexual attraction) wouldn't be green tea without the presence of caffeine (broad sexual response), it doesn't matter how many examples you conjure up proving that caffeine (sexual response) can be found even when green tea (sexual attraction) cannot, because this is unrelated to my claim.

To reiterate, I believe that when an individual finds himself experiencing sexual attraction, there must necessarily be a first instance of a physiological response triggered by this attraction. That might be physical (e.g. erection), mental (e.g. sexual fantasies), or emotional (e.g. lust, excitement). Once again, it's important to realise that the existence of any of these responses independent of attraction does not undermine the validity of the point of view I have put forward.

[nanogretchen4]

If you are changing your definition to include mental and emotional responses rather than requiring a physical one, you have moved much closer to my own definition. I think the mental and emotional response is a necessary part of the definition while the physical response is likely but optional.

I claim that not only do many other caffeinated beverages exist besides green tea, but also decaffeinated green tea is green tea.

[Lazo]

You're right that I initially worded things in a way that suggested that I viewed sexual attraction as dependent on somebody becoming physically aroused. Which is my mistake and a pity really, since I didn't hold that view at any point. However, please don't treat my last response as an indication of a sudden change of definition, since in an earlier response I had already clarified my position on the matter. At one point I said:

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.

As for the second thing,

I claim that not only do many other caffeinated beverages exist besides green tea, but also decaffeinated green tea is green tea.

Hahah, green tea was a poor choice for an example. But it's kind of lame to be opportunistic and use this as a way to avoid addressing the actual point I made, which is that it's faulty logic to try and disprove the statement that sexual response is a necessary component of sexual attraction by offering up examples of sexual response without sexual attraction.

[nanogretchen4]

Fine, truce, Lazo, but I offered up those examples to show why arousal is not a valid litmus test for sexual attraction. I feel like including measurable arousal in the definition of attraction is probably a prelude to trying to measure attraction, and by extension sexual orientation. Dodgy studies have already been published where scientists tried to diagnose sexual orientation with porn and a plethysmograph. I think pointing out some obvious ways this set up could be measuring something different than it claims to be measuring is very relevant if someone is contemplating more poorly designed studies. If that was not where you were going with your definition, we're good.

[Torquil]

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.

I agree with this point. It's possible to be "attracted" to a person in a sense of deriving pleasure from their sexuality-linked characteristics, but not desiring to have actual sex with them.

That's why some people don't consider lack of sexual attraction as the defining feature of asexuality. Or if they do, like AVEN, they include the caveat that sexual attraction is defined as a concrete desire for actual sexual contact: "Desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them".

[Guest]

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.

I agree with this point. It's possible to be "attracted" to a person in a sense of deriving pleasure from their sexuality-linked characteristics, but not desiring to have actual sex with them.

That's why some people don't consider lack of sexual attraction as the defining feature of asexuality. Or if they do, like AVEN, they include the caveat that sexual attraction is defined as a concrete desire for actual sexual contact: "Desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them".

I agree. I define sexual attraction as an actual drive to connect sexually with another person for physical and/or emotional pleasure.

If someone is attracted to a person, or even derives pleasure from say, looking at a womans breasts, I say that's still just physical and/or aesthetic and/or sensual attraction if the person literally has no desire to connect sexually with the other person.

I was one of the people confused when I first came to AVEN because although I knew for a fact I was asexual (no desire for partnered sex) but I thought ''well I do experience sexual attraction, in that I ''like'' men and I ''like'' woman, based on physical and emotion characteristics that person has... soooo'' but I know now I don't experience sexual attraction, despite definitely finding people ''hot'' and ''sexy'' ... that's just a strong form of physical and aesthetic attraction. Sexual attraction is the desire to connect sexually with another person, and that can be for any reason, not just based on aspects of their appearance (for example maybe they love that persons personality and so develop a desire to connect sexually with them, even if that person is not their idea of aesthetically attractive)

[30minuteslong]

I suppose it depends on how you personally define the term based on your own experiences and feelings towards sexuality and ace.

I've felt the desire to kiss and caress a person, but the idea of sex has almost never entered the equation. I've never fantasized about actual sex or nudity but have fantasized about foreplay and closeness.

I would say that means I have never experienced proper sexual attraction, whereas others would argue I have. It's a bit like the whole vegetarians/vegans/"it's ok to eat fish" shtick.

[Guest]

I suppose it depends on how you personally define the term based on your own experiences and feelings towards sexuality and ace.

I've felt the desire to kiss and caress a person, but the idea of sex has almost never entered the equation. I've never fantasized about actual sex or nudity but have fantasized about foreplay and closeness.

I would say that means I have never experienced proper sexual attraction, whereas others would argue I have. It's a bit like the whole vegetarians/vegans/"it's ok to eat fish" shtick.

Anyone who argues with you wouldn't be correct, regardless of their personal experiences and definitions. What you felt was sensual attraction, not sexual attraction. Its not sexual attraction unless the desire for actual sex (partnered genital stimulatuon for sexual pleasure and/or climax) with that person is present.

[Torquil]

I was one of the people confused when I first came to AVEN because although I knew for a fact I was asexual (no desire for partnered sex) but I thought ''well I do experience sexual attraction, in that I ''like'' men and I ''like'' woman, based on physical and emotion characteristics that person has... soooo'' but I know now I don't experience sexual attraction, despite definitely finding people ''hot'' and ''sexy'' ... that's just a strong form of physical and aesthetic attraction. Sexual attraction is the desire to connect sexually with another person, and that can be for any reason, not just based on aspects of their appearance (for example maybe they love that persons personality and so develop a desire to connect sexually with them, even if that person is not their idea of aesthetically attractive)

Really great explanation here.

This is sort of off topic, but it brings up one of my gripes with the posts on AVEN saying things like "I never understood sexual innuendo" or "I don't get what others mean by sexy", in a way where it's implied this is a universal experience of asexual people.

Personally, and I don't think I'm alone in this here, I understand sexual attraction/appeal quite well. I'm not sex-blind; I just don't experience the desire to have sex with other people.

[Semtex in August]

What is sexual attraction? Everyone has a different definition, but here goes mine

It is a monkey keeping me from evolving in other areas of my life.

It is what keep us from becoming like gods instead we stay closer to apes

It is a torment and a vice

It is a storm that attacks our prefrontal cortex and rapes our rationality and murders our better judgement.

It is so many things.

[Lazo]

Fine, truce, Lazo, but I offered up those examples to show why arousal is not a valid litmus test for sexual attraction. I feel like including measurable arousal in the definition of attraction is probably a prelude to trying to measure attraction, and by extension sexual orientation. Dodgy studies have already been published where scientists tried to diagnose sexual orientation with porn and a plethysmograph. I think pointing out some obvious ways this set up could be measuring something different than it claims to be measuring is very relevant if someone is contemplating more poorly designed studies. If that was not where you were going with your definition, we're good.

I hope that with 'truce' you're not suggesting that there was ever a war going on! Maybe the discussion came across as heated at some point, it's never easy to gauge tone online I guess. Anyway, the way I see it, it's never been about getting our opinions to converge; I just thought the discussion was stimulating and found it revelatory how tricky it can be to try and pinpoint one's definition of sexual attraction.

Regarding your point about the dodgy studies, I see how that would make you particularly weary of the point of view it seemed I was essaying. Although it's a bit tangential, I do feel similarly, although on the other side of it. In the sense that I worry that if you consider mental/emotional reactions to be at the heart of attraction, then people who subjectively experience attraction as a largely physical thing might feel that their experience is being poorly represented if one suggests that the physical response is only a minor, indirect aspect of sexual attraction. Can attraction exist with almost no physical attraction? I suspect so. But, can attraction exist with almost no mental/emotional involvement in the person you are attracted to? I think many people could relate to this as well.

(By the way, I realize I added some questions in there, they're definitely rhetorical [in case it comes across as if I wish to continue the back and forth, I don't, since I think any more would just serve to derail the thread]. I just didn't want to leave your last comment without response.)