Jump to content

I think attraction is not the same as desire


binary suns

Recommended Posts

my opinions posted in this post may be controversial.

I think that there is something that is called sexual attraction that doesn't necessarily require sexual desire.

and I think that someone who experiences sexual desire but not attraction, and someone who experiences sexual attraction but not desire, would both be grey and not ace.

and I don't think that it makes sense to say in full that it is up to a person how they are oriented. I mean nobody can say "you you are gay even if you think otherwise" that's just nonsense. but the thing is, that anyone only knows how they feel, and no one else feels their feelings but them. that is the essential reason it is up to the individual how to identify - but if someone describes their experience in a questionable way, it's entirely fair for someone to speak up and say "your description sounds contrary to the definition"

it's never made sense to me to say that sexual attraction is seeking the end goal, sex. because I do feel attraction, and I am sure my attraction is neither romantic nor sexual. and I don't know what the end goal of my attraction is. just to be able to observe the person I'm attracted to really. maybe to be able to interact with them, like a conversation or a simple smile. I don't really know. but the point is, that it feels a certain way to me, and doesn't seem very logical. and being defined by the end goal is something that is inherently logical. and being described by the end goal, sounds an awful lot like desire, and we say that desire is certainly not attraction.

perhaps there is a "complete picture" of an orientation that has both attraction and desire. and lith~ is what happens when you are attracted but do not desire. and then sapio~ is what happens when you have desire but not attraction. and a~ is what happens when you have neither attraction nor desire. or maybe it is and/or. or maybe it is one but not the other..... :unsure:

but really what it is is, lith~ and sapio~ and a~ are all "on the spectrum". but if you ignore the words and just hold the ideas, there is a distinction between only attraction (lith~), something that is only desire (sapio~), something that is neither, and something that is both. the words that we use to describe these orientations? it is arbitrary is it not? the point is to represent the concepts.

and I believe that lith~ and sapio~ are both grey. this is not the belief of the community, which is that lith~ is grey and sapio~ is ace. but the point of my posting is, that a lot of the arguments I've seen in the past, and the confusion some posters have, get the wording all confused about the difference between desire and attraction. because it really is difficult to describe what attraction is, and is a feeling that you kind of have to feel to understand. and it's a feeling that can (and more often than not) causes desires to emerge.

maybe the conversation on the forums has moved past this dilemma of "what is attraction" (I've hid myself in JFF for quite some time now) but these are my thoughts. :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attraction is just attraction, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There is romantic attraction, physical attraction, emotional attraction, aesthetic attraction, you can lack one or all of these and still be fully sexual if you innately desire partnered sex for your own (emotional and/or physical) pleasure (you can also experience all of these and still be A-sexual, if you have no innate desire to connect sexually with the person/people you are romantically/physically/emotionally/aesthetically attracted to)

''Sexual attraction'' is an iffy term and no one here can agree on what it is, and there are sexual people here who say that for them it often means nothing, soooo.. I say we chuck that term. If we have to define it, I say it is getting aroused by aspects of a person's appearance leading to a desire to have sex with them (that seems to be the most generally accepted definition) HOWEVER, this is not a trait that all sexual people have in common. In fact, I would say it's a minority that actually experience this. So it is useless as a defining factor for sexuality. It is only an EXPRESSION of sexuality that some sexual people experience.

The innate desire to have partnered sex for your own sexual and/or emotional pleasure? .. Now that, all sexual people have to some extent or another, under certain circumstances throughout their lives. If you do not experience this, ever, then you are asexual.

(EDIT: if we feel we must cling to the sexual attraction definition of asexuality, then sexual attraction must be completely redefined to encompass the entire sexual side of the spectrum. AVEN's definition of sexual attraction does this adequately, in my opinion: ''The desire for sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them''. This definition needs to be put somewhere where everyone can see it (instead of hidden away in the FAQ that no one knows about) so that people can have a better understanding of what asexuality actually is in reference to the definition in the AVEN banner.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attraction is just attraction, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There is romantic attraction, physical attraction, emotional attraction, aesthetic attraction, you can lack one or all of these and still be fully sexual if you desire partnered sex for your own pleasure.

Sexual attraction is iffy and no one can agree on what it is, and sexual people here say that for them it often means nothing, soooo.. I say we chuck that term. If we have to define it, I say it is desiring partnered sexual contact with a specific person based on aspects of their appearance, and/or getting aroused by aspects of their appearance leading to a desire to have sex with them. HOWEVER, this is not a trait that all sexual people have in common. In fact, I would say it's a minority that actually experience this. So it is useless as a defining factor for sexuality. It is only an EXPRESSION of sexuality that some sexual people experience.

The innate desire to have partnered sexual contact for sexual and/or emotional pleasure? .. Now that, all sexual people have to some extent or another, under certain circumstances, throughout their lives. If you do not experience this, you are asexual.

I'm not sure I am understanding your post correctly, so I'm going to ask:

Are you saying that only a minority of sexual people experience sexual desire/arousal based on the appearance of the object (person) of their desire/arousal? Or are you saying that your definition of "sexual attraction" doesn't apply to most people regardless of sexuality? Or is it something else?

Link to post
Share on other sites

more thoughts that reading pan's post brought about, but I don't think they are a response to her post.

I find that trying to define a community is not the same as trying to communicate a person's orientation. you cannot define a community without specifying all the uniqueness and exceptions that exist in the community.

I think that a person expressing themselves, desires to communicate a concept and not a definition. but we only can use words similarly to a definition in order to communicate our concepts. maybe sometimes a example, a comparison, or anecdote help. but to say "i am asexual" is not the same as saying "I do not experience sexual attraction" and never will be. even if in the moment the seem to describe the same thing, the thing is that there is context one has the other lacks and vice versa. that is the nature of language.

(the following is an auto-merged post)


Attraction is just attraction, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There is romantic attraction, physical attraction, emotional attraction, aesthetic attraction, you can lack one or all of these and still be fully sexual if you desire partnered sex for your own pleasure.

Sexual attraction is iffy and no one can agree on what it is, and sexual people here say that for them it often means nothing, soooo.. I say we chuck that term. If we have to define it, I say it is desiring partnered sexual contact with a specific person based on aspects of their appearance, and/or getting aroused by aspects of their appearance leading to a desire to have sex with them. HOWEVER, this is not a trait that all sexual people have in common. In fact, I would say it's a minority that actually experience this. So it is useless as a defining factor for sexuality. It is only an EXPRESSION of sexuality that some sexual people experience.

The innate desire to have partnered sexual contact for sexual and/or emotional pleasure? .. Now that, all sexual people have to some extent or another, under certain circumstances, throughout their lives. If you do not experience this, you are asexual.

I'm not sure I am understanding your post correctly, so I'm going to ask:

Are you saying that only a minority of sexual people experience sexual desire/arousal based on the appearance of the object (person) of their desire/arousal? Or are you saying that your definition of "sexual attraction" doesn't apply to most people regardless of sexuality? Or is it something else?

I believe the point is, that each individual feels certain things in certain ways, and sometimes these feelings overlap completely and other times only partially. two individuals can both be heterosexual, but depending on which individuals you select, you may find that their experiences are anywhere from identical to radically different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

''The desire for sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them''.

does this make more sense if said instead, "the desire to share our sexuality with someone else through sexual contact"

it makes more sense to me but maybe I am missing something subtle that is in the first definition?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attraction is just attraction, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There is romantic attraction, physical attraction, emotional attraction, aesthetic attraction, you can lack one or all of these and still be fully sexual if you innately desire partnered sex for your own (emotional and/or physical) pleasure (you can also experience all of these and still be A-sexual, if you have no innate desire to connect sexually with the person/people you are romantically/physically/emotionally/aesthetically attracted to)

''Sexual attraction'' is an iffy term and no one here can agree on what it is, and there are sexual people here who say that for them it often means nothing, soooo.. I say we chuck that term. If we have to define it, I say it is getting aroused by aspects of a person's appearance leading to a desire to have sex with them (that seems to be the most generally accepted definition) HOWEVER, this is not a trait that all sexual people have in common. In fact, I would say it's a minority that actually experience this. So it is useless as a defining factor for sexuality. It is only an EXPRESSION of sexuality that some sexual people experience.

The innate desire to have partnered sex for your own sexual and/or emotional pleasure? .. Now that, all sexual people have to some extent or another, under certain circumstances throughout their lives. If you do not experience this, ever, then you are asexual.

(EDIT: if we feel we must cling to the sexual attraction definition of asexuality, then sexual attraction must be completely redefined to encompass the entire sexual side of the spectrum. AVEN's definition of sexual attraction does this adequately, in my opinion: ''The desire for sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them''. This definition needs to be put somewhere where everyone can see it (instead of hidden away in the FAQ that no one knows about) so that people can have a better understanding of what asexuality actually is in reference to the definition in the AVEN banner.)

Like Pan Ficto was explaining, attraction is a tricky thing to define. And I think it can be different for different people. And you can be "attracted" to non-human items - a painting, a car etc. So attraction shouldn't be the measure of anything, it's too vague and confusing. Desire for the activity of partnered sex on the other hand, is not vague or unclear. For Gray-Aces it may be different some days than others, but the definition of what desire is, is always the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attraction is just attraction, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation

this is certainly what I believe :) no wait! this actually adds and reforms what I was thinking. attraction is attraction, orientation is something else. since for example, I do not desire sex, my orientation is asexual. but that does not make any commentary on whether or not I feel attraction, and if I do in fact feel attraction whether or not my attraction has any sort of nature to it, sexual or otherwise.

hm. perhaps this post doesn't make sense in the right way tho...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attraction is just attraction, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. There is romantic attraction, physical attraction, emotional attraction, aesthetic attraction, you can lack one or all of these and still be fully sexual if you desire partnered sex for your own pleasure.

Sexual attraction is iffy and no one can agree on what it is, and sexual people here say that for them it often means nothing, soooo.. I say we chuck that term. If we have to define it, I say it is desiring partnered sexual contact with a specific person based on aspects of their appearance, and/or getting aroused by aspects of their appearance leading to a desire to have sex with them. HOWEVER, this is not a trait that all sexual people have in common. In fact, I would say it's a minority that actually experience this. So it is useless as a defining factor for sexuality. It is only an EXPRESSION of sexuality that some sexual people experience.

The innate desire to have partnered sexual contact for sexual and/or emotional pleasure? .. Now that, all sexual people have to some extent or another, under certain circumstances, throughout their lives. If you do not experience this, you are asexual.

I'm not sure I am understanding your post correctly, so I'm going to ask:

Are you saying that only a minority of sexual people experience sexual desire/arousal based on the appearance of the object (person) of their desire/arousal? Or are you saying that your definition of "sexual attraction" doesn't apply to most people regardless of sexuality? Or is it something else?

I am cooking food now and I'm on my phone, both of which make replying difficult.

I was saying that desiring partnered sex with other people based on their appearance is certainly not something all Sexual people experience.. The spectrum of what makes someone sexual is huge but the one thing all Sexual people *do* have in common is that under some circumstances they innately desire partnered sex with other people (and this can often be nothing to do with appearnce, it may be based on personality, on the fact that they love the person, or even just because partnered sex feels better than masturbation to them. All sorts of reasons.)

Therefore any definition of sexual attraction does not adequately define sexuality UNLESS you go with AVEN's definition (desiring sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them) .. it's not worded as well as it could be, but it sums up the fact that being sexual is about innately desiring partnered sex with others, and has nothing to do with how you feel about the appearance of other people (it is a massive misconception in the asexual community that all Sexual people desire sex with other people based on their appearance and if you don't experience that you are asexual. This is a huge misunderstanding of sexuality that is perpetuated throughout much of the asexual community - not just AVEN)

Link to post
Share on other sites

''Sexual attraction'' is an iffy term and no one here can agree on what it is, and there are sexual people here who say that for them it often means nothing,

this is not a trait that all sexual people have in common.

sorry that i snipped some content out.

I find these thoughts to be very important. I believe that there are people who identify by a non-ace sexuality, such as heterosexuality, that do not even feel sexual attraction! and so I believe that to try to define orientation based off of attraction, or likewise desire, does not really make sense. I believe that orientation is a concept that can be uniquely individual. I believe that orientation is a discussion of all the things within a person, attraction, desire, and anything else. I think that words we use to discuss our individual orientation are not sufficient to describe "an orientation" as "gay straight bi ace" or otherwise. those words are only signposts that guide, and not uniform definitions that encapture who an individual is. they can only hold together a group of people who are similar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, my head hurts! There are too many unknowns and not enough to hold them together. Does anyone know what models of attraction/desire/ways sexuality manifests are currently used in the research field? If anything?

This is such a bucket of worms and I find myself without a framework to organize them by. :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, my head hurts! There are too many unknowns and not enough to hold them together.

This is such a bucket of worms and I find myself without a framework to organize them by. :wacko:

:) very well said. I find that what is important is the ideas, or concepts, the "thing" we are trying to discuss, and that it is too easy for words and definitions to get the better of us and we forget what experiencing and understanding are. we can't experience a definition, and understanding a definition does not necessarily mean we understand the actual 'thing' that the definition describes.

words and definitions are only attempts to contain an experience in a packet we can pass to eachother verbally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am cooking food now and I'm on my phone, both of which make replying difficult.

I was saying that desiring partnered sex with other people based on their appearance is certainly not something all Sexual people experience.. The spectrum of what makes someone sexual is huge but the one thing all Sexual people *do* have in common is that under some circumstances they innately desire partnered sex with other people (and this can often be nothing to do with appearnce, it may be based on personality, on the fact that they love the person, or even just because partnered sex feels better than masturbation to them. All sorts of reasons.)

Therefore any definition of sexual attraction does not adequately define sexuality UNLESS you go with AVEN's definition (desiring sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them) .. it's not worded as well as it could be, but it sums up the fact that being sexual is about innately desiring partnered sex with others, and has nothing to do with how you feel about the appearance of other people (it is a massive misconception in the asexual community that all Sexual people desire sex with other people based on their appearance and if you don't experience that you are asexual. This is a huge misunderstanding of sexuality that is perpetuated throughout much of the asexual community - not just AVEN)

Okay. Another "stupid" question:

So is the only way to be asexual to never want sex for any reason?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am cooking food now and I'm on my phone, both of which make replying difficult.

I was saying that desiring partnered sex with other people based on their appearance is certainly not something all Sexual people experience.. The spectrum of what makes someone sexual is huge but the one thing all Sexual people *do* have in common is that under some circumstances they innately desire partnered sex with other people (and this can often be nothing to do with appearnce, it may be based on personality, on the fact that they love the person, or even just because partnered sex feels better than masturbation to them. All sorts of reasons.)

Therefore any definition of sexual attraction does not adequately define sexuality UNLESS you go with AVEN's definition (desiring sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them) .. it's not worded as well as it could be, but it sums up the fact that being sexual is about innately desiring partnered sex with others, and has nothing to do with how you feel about the appearance of other people (it is a massive misconception in the asexual community that all Sexual people desire sex with other people based on their appearance and if you don't experience that you are asexual. This is a huge misunderstanding of sexuality that is perpetuated throughout much of the asexual community - not just AVEN)

Okay. Another "stupid" question:

So is the only way to be asexual to never want sex for any reason?

The community I've found usually answers that asexuals can want sex.

I think, that asexuality is a general concept. a person will answer for themselves individually, but the question of "can an asexual be this or that or the other thing" ends up in the end, to be a question without a real answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is about PanFicto's definition. Although still somewhat new I've spent enough time on AVEN to know that most people will say asexuals can still want sex. But I am confused on if PanFicto's definition allows for that or not.

the one thing all Sexual people *do* have in common is that under some circumstances they innately desire partnered sex with other people

I guess part of this depends on what "innate" means and what "partnered sex" means and why the "partnered" part of sex is relevant. A big part of my question is what "desiring" qualifies as and how encompassing "under some circumstances" is. If some asexuals can still want sex, then by this definition isn't it saying that they have to be considered sexual? This is where I'm confused and probably not understanding correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there is something that is called sexual attraction that doesn't necessarily require sexual desire.

and I think that someone who experiences sexual desire but not attraction, and someone who experiences sexual attraction but not desire, would both be grey and not ace.

Correct.

But sexual attraction is and isn't a desire. Desire is normally taken as a choice/(positive)reason for desiring/consensual with the person, but that's not always the case. It's an impulse; which is a desire but an unchosen one that's abrupt. To some an attraction can be as strong as a compulsion. Sexual attraction, sexual desire, and sexual arousal don't even always match up for sexual people. Also, someones orientation isn't up to them, but it is their choice what title to go by.

Are you saying that only a minority of sexual people experience sexual desire/arousal based on the appearance of the object (person) of their desire/arousal? Or are you saying that your definition of "sexual attraction" doesn't apply to most people regardless of sexuality? Or is it something else?

To the first question, 90% of sexual men and 10% of sexual women desire sex first and then experience arousal, while the reverse amount experience arousal which then triggers their desire for sex. But if what you're saying in this question is implied to be the meaning of sexual attraction, then no, that's not the meaning of the phrase. Sexual attraction is the (mental) impulse/compulsion to have sex with a specific person; the desire to act IRL can be separate. Sexual arousal is also completely separate from that (though typically together). For the second question, it's not that the definition of sexual attraction doesn't fit most sexual people, but that there are alot of people who do have sex because they desire sex and not always because they find the person sexually attractive, if they ever have felt sexually attracted to anyone in the first place.

For the people who say sexual attraction can't be defined, that's false. The phrase has existed for over 100 years (since the late 1800s) and has had its definition, but only did it become this unexplainable thing once AVEN got a hold of it.

So is the only way to be asexual to never want sex for any reason?

Basically yes. An asexual can still "want" sex to make their partner happy, but what they actually want is to make their partner happy, not sex. They can also "want" sex to have a child, but what they actually want is a child and not sex. That's why PanFicto defined asexuality as "the innate desire to have partnered sex for your own sexual and or emotional pleasure."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there is something that is called sexual attraction that doesn't necessarily require sexual desire.

and I think that someone who experiences sexual desire but not attraction, and someone who experiences sexual attraction but not desire, would both be grey and not ace.

Correct.

But sexual attraction is and isn't a desire. Desire is normally taken as a choice/(positive)reason for desiring/consensual with the person, but that's not always the case. It's an impulse; which is a desire but an unchosen one that's abrupt. To some an attraction can be as strong as a compulsion. Sexual attraction, sexual desire, and sexual arousal don't even always match up for sexual people. Also, someones orientation isn't up to them, but it is their choice what title to go by.

maybe there is some sort of "need" to attraction?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the point is, that each individual feels certain things in certain ways, and sometimes these feelings overlap completely and other times only partially. two individuals can both be heterosexual, but depending on which individuals you select, you may find that their experiences are anywhere from identical to radically different.

Yes, that's why I've said that it doesn't really matter what label people use ("asexual" vs. "sexual") and that it's where those people are on the Sexuality spectrum that matters (in regards to relationships). Just because the people involved are "asexual" doesn't mean they're necessarily compatible (and likewise for "sexual" people).

Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe there is some sort of "need" to attraction?

In the same way there's a 'need' involved in loving someone, yes. But the need in sexual attraction is more visceral, not psychological (although it's psychological too - it's all entwined together, for sexuals).

Link to post
Share on other sites

more thoughts.

orientation, is something that is not definitive. it is something that is open, permeable, intangible. something that gains meaning by our individual experience, and while it is something inherent that we "cannot choose" it is still something that we cannot fully understand simply because it reveals new facets as time passes for us. and in this way that it develops - it does change - and no set of words is sufficient to categorize humans by their "orientation"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it? People always say it's fluid, but do people actually change their orientation, as opposed to realise their true orientation, or at least decide to do something about it rather than trying to suppress it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it? People always say it's fluid, but do people actually change their orientation, as opposed to realise their true orientation, or at least decide to do something about it rather than trying to suppress it?

I think that humans change in many ways over time, sometime minutely sometimes on a grand scale. humans also stay the same in many ways despite the flow of time.

I think that more often than not someone discussing a change in their orientation, is to a large extent discussing a change in knowledge about themselves. but when we perceive ourselves, and we are what we perceive, is that so different?

and I think that it does happen that something about our "orientation" can change, and does change. I think that parts of what make up our "orientation IS a "lifestyle" and "choice" as opposed to "inherent" and I definitely find that some of the things that feel "inherent" are actually responsive to my environment. I think that when someone thinks about an orientation the majority of what they think about is the unchanging forces that have been with us as long as remember, but that there are other aspects that have been "learned" in our life and we might remember those moments. and also, there are aspects that we do choose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that parts of what make up our "orientation IS a "lifestyle" and "choice" as opposed to "inherent" and I definitely find that some of the things that feel "inherent" are actually responsive to my environment. I think that when someone thinks about an orientation the majority of what they think about is the unchanging forces that have been with us as long as remember, but that there are other aspects that have been "learned" in our life and we might remember those moments. and also, there are aspects that we do choose.

Yes, the behaviors are the choices. Of course, feelings influence behavior (and even vice versa), however, sexual orientation is a subjective experience based on the feelings behind the behavior and choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that parts of what make up our "orientation IS a "lifestyle" and "choice" as opposed to "inherent" and I definitely find that some of the things that feel "inherent" are actually responsive to my environment. I think that when someone thinks about an orientation the majority of what they think about is the unchanging forces that have been with us as long as remember, but that there are other aspects that have been "learned" in our life and we might remember those moments. and also, there are aspects that we do choose.

Yes, the behaviors are the choices. Of course, feelings influence behavior (and even vice versa), however, sexual orientation is a subjective experience based on the feelings behind the behavior and choices.

my eyes blink and that is behavior, my heart beats and that is behavior.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that parts of what make up our "orientation IS a "lifestyle" and "choice" as opposed to "inherent" and I definitely find that some of the things that feel "inherent" are actually responsive to my environment. I think that when someone thinks about an orientation the majority of what they think about is the unchanging forces that have been with us as long as remember, but that there are other aspects that have been "learned" in our life and we might remember those moments. and also, there are aspects that we do choose.

Yes, the behaviors are the choices. Of course, feelings influence behavior (and even vice versa), however, sexual orientation is a subjective experience based on the feelings behind the behavior and choices.

my eyes blink and that is behavior, my heart beats and that is behavior.

I think you know what I mean (that I'm not talking about heart beats and breathing lungs or erections and vaginal lubrication for that matter) and I'm not going to go down this line of thought with you. If someone desires sex with someone, then they can certainly control whether or not they act on that (consent or no consent). People are in control of their actions and they do have choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that parts of what make up our "orientation IS a "lifestyle" and "choice" as opposed to "inherent" and I definitely find that some of the things that feel "inherent" are actually responsive to my environment. I think that when someone thinks about an orientation the majority of what they think about is the unchanging forces that have been with us as long as remember, but that there are other aspects that have been "learned" in our life and we might remember those moments. and also, there are aspects that we do choose.

Yes, the behaviors are the choices. Of course, feelings influence behavior (and even vice versa), however, sexual orientation is a subjective experience based on the feelings behind the behavior and choices.

my eyes blink and that is behavior, my heart beats and that is behavior.

I think you know what I mean (that I'm not talking about heart beats and breathing lungs or erections and vaginal lubrication for that matter) and I'm not going to go down this line of thought with you. If someone desires sex with someone, then they can certainly control whether or not they act on that (consent or no consent). People are in control of their actions and they do have choices.

I don't know what to say. my thoughts aren't as clear as they were yesterday. but like. I don't think that it is so cut and dry as "behaviors are choices and emotions are not" I mean really, I think that there are things that respond to our environment that someone who is knowledgeable can manipulate and that knowledgeable person could even be ourselves. I guess, we are in certain regards pavlovian. and that, there are things that are a part of orientation that ARE pavlovian, and as such are neither choice nor not-choice but somewhere in between.

I think that any way you look at it orientation is predominantly not something we can change or manipulate, and is predominantly something that is always the same whether we know all the details about it or not. but I think that there can be parts to it that do change over the years, and that in our lack of knowing leads us to believe we just didn't know before. not that it's a problem of course, I mean anything can be a problem lol but now I am turning my thtought into a run-on...

Link to post
Share on other sites
my eyes blink and that is behavior, my heart beats and that is behavior.

You can choose to blink your eyes, or they can blink unconsciously. Your heart always beats without a decision for you.

If you're not choosing it - on some level - how is it meaningful to call it behaviour?

Link to post
Share on other sites

not behavior no. but, we react to our heart beating, and there are things that we can do that will increase or decrease its rate. and while we don't "choose" to beat or not, we can still influence it. not in a way that is behavior, but then, it's still a way we can influence it.

and like i said, I'm not saying that orientation is a choice. but I am saying that parts of what we call orientation may change if influenced in the right way. or change without us intending to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not behavior no. but, we react to our heart beating, and there are things that we can do that will increase or decrease its rate. and while we don't "choose" to beat or not, we can still influence it. not in a way that is behavior, but then, it's still a way we can influence it.

and like i said, I'm not saying that orientation is a choice. but I am saying that parts of what we call orientation may change if influenced in the right way. or change without us intending to.

I'm talking about partnered sex as a behavior and whether or not we choose to act on a desire for partnered sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm talking about attraction and desire for meaningful relationships of any intimate nature

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, an attraction is when someone causes sexual foughts or feelings in another person, and desire is just when someone wants to make any sexual activity (not nesessary partnered).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...