MissLissa Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 In my head it's like if you see of smell food and then your like that is what I need, that's what I want. You can picture yourself eating the food or preparing the food. I imagine it would come in varying degrees of intensity like PMS cravings for chocolate on one end of the spectrum (I will kill you if you don't give me that candy bar!) to like the thought of wanting it pops into your head but it leaves as quickly as it came. I also imagine it wouldn't always be consciously registered. It's the best analogy I can come up with. Hunger is like arousal You can be hungry but there is nothing you want to eat (asexuality) You can be hungry and know want you want to eat (sexuality) Hunger + need/want = attraction Does this sound correct? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rising Sun Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 I'd rather say : hunger + need / want = desire. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
verily-forsooth-egads Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Or you can be magically self-sustaining and never need to eat (nonlibidoist asexuality). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MissLissa Posted December 27, 2015 Author Share Posted December 27, 2015 Or you can be magically self-sustaining and never need to eat (nonlibidoist asexuality). lol Yah that's why I'm not 100% happy with the analogy it leaves people out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Star Bit Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Arousal isn't mandatory in sexual attraction; sexual arousal can happen before or after the desire for sex or not at all. But having sexual arousal without desire (or visa versa) does not mean there's anything wrong with the person/they have disassociation or anything. The word "desire" makes it sound like a consensual choice to want something, but sexual attraction (or any attraction) isn't always consensual with the person feeling it. This can happen to allosexuals too. Not everyone consents to what sexually arouses them either. So a better word would be impulse; "sexual attraction is the impulse to have sex with someone specific" or "finding someone sexually alluring/tempting/enticing" (but that's far less precise of a definition, and definitions should be fully spelled out). I suggest the "synonym discussion of allure" section on this link. None of which make it sound like a choice. Sexual desire (which normally means desire for sex, but occasionally can be interpreted as including masturbation, which isn't my use of the word) is different because its just the desire for sex in general and not a triggered desire/impulse by an individual. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MissLissa Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 Arousal isn't mandatory in sexual attraction. Sexual arousal can happen before or after the desire for sex, but having sexual arousal without desire (or visa versa) does not mean there's anything wrong with the person/they have disassociation or anything. The word "desire" makes it sound like a consensual choice to want something, but sexual attraction (or any attraction) isn't always consensual with the person feeling it, so a better word would be impulse; "sexual attraction is the impulse to have sex with someone specific" or "finding someone sexually alluring." I suggest the "synonym discussion of allure" section on this link. None of which make it sound like a choice. Sexual desire is different (excluding the possible masturbation including interpretation of that phrase) because its just the desire for sex in general and not a triggered desire by an individual. Yes! Impulse is another great way of saying it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Torquil Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 I think the food analogy does work pretty well. I would phrase it like this: Imagine you are hungry and walk by a bakery and smell the aroma of fresh-baked cookies. hunger in general = libido finding pleasure in the smell, but not having a desire to eat the cookies = attraction wanting to go into the bakery to buy and eat the cookies = desire Being asexual is analogous to lacking desire. Nonlibidoist asexuals will also lack the first two. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tarfeather Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Whatever you're talking about right now, it has very little to do with what makes a sexual person sexual. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MissLissa Posted December 28, 2015 Author Share Posted December 28, 2015 Whatever you're talking about right now, it has very little to do with what makes a sexual person sexual. Would you mind clarifying/adding to your statement. :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hardly any Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Tar, we're not looking for "What makes a sexual person sexual" but we're looking for a way to explain a lack of desire in a context that normals would understand. Also, conveniently, a way to understand sexual desire. It's hard to comprehend the magnitude, exactly, of sexual desire, anymore than a sexual person can understand our overwhelming ignorance for the lack of it. If you use something like hunger, then it's easier to say ok, there's an actual need to satisfy, not simply arousal and/or the delight of sexual interaction. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Telecaster68 Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 The hunger analogy works in a really broad, back of an envelope way, as long as you remember it doesn't really included the way those feelings are intertwined, or the power of the feelings, or the way they're affected by non-sexual aspects of a relationship, or an individual's moods, or cultural influences, or how people and relationships can change over time, or how they're affected by neuro chemistry. As soon as you take those into account, the analogy just gets too complicated to help and confusion ensues. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aching Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Overall, I think the hunger analogy works pretty darned well, in a way of understanding it for someone who hasn't experienced it. I can't imagine another group of feelings that can start to get at the experience. I mean, think of the best chocolate you've ever had, and it's possible you can imagine the feeling of it on your tongue, the smell of it as you bring it to your mouth. Man, now I think I'm getting just a little turned on talking about chocolate! As for desire, Star, I'd have to disagree that there is a choice there to experience it. I can assure you that if I ever had the thought, "I would like to entangle my body with that person," it would have been preceded by, and accompanied by, feelings of, well, attraction, I suppose. I wonder, as I'm thinking about it, if sexual attraction, then, is the impulse to share mutually reciprocal physical affection. This is certainly what I experience, and I suppose that is all I can report on, for sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Torquil Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 What do people think of this one? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SchrodingersCat Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 That's very much how I see it. I break it into three parts: attraction is like cravings, arousal is like hunger, and desire is the biochemical response that makes your brain seek food. Cravings are specific kinds of thoughts about foods you'd like to eat. You might crave them even when you're not hungry. Sexual attraction is specific kinds of thoughts about particular people you'd like to bang. When you are hungry, you get an uncomfortable feeling in your belly. It may or may not be related to whether you actually want to eat. Arousal is the mildly uncomfortable feeling, primarily in your genitals, that signals your body is physically prepared for sex. It may or may not be related to whether you actually want to have sex. Ghrelin is the hormone that tells your brain to seek food. It's what connects the physical sensation in your stomach to the though "I need to eat." The sexual equivalent is primarily testosterone. For simplicity, I'll lump desire and arousal because they're both physiological responses. There are 4 combinations of attraction (craving) and desire (hunger): 1. Most people will feel hungry (desire) and go through a mental list of foods they like (attractions) and choose one that's available (consent). 2. Alternatively, you can be hungry and not give a hoot what you eat, you just want to be not-hungry. This is like desire without attraction, and is not uncommon among aces. 3. Or you can crave a food without being hungry, which is like having an attraction to someone but not feeling any particular desire to act on it. In this case, it's entirely possible to eat the food (act on the attraction) and receive the gratification of having something you enjoy. Or you might eat the food and feel remorse because you really didn't need it, and now you're stuck with the calories (emotional baggage). 4. And bringing it home: You can be neither hungry nor have cravings. Many aces experience neither attraction nor desire. Just like sex, if you're hungry and you eat, you're likely to feel endorphins (oxytocin for sex, dopamine for food... among others, it's complicated). If you're hungry and you don't eat, the sensation usually does go away for a while, but eventually comes back and stronger. Aces are like people who don't get cravings even when they're hungry. This is where the analogy breaks down on an individual level, because you can't survive without eating. But on a species level, the analogy holds: if no one has sex, we all die out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chromanebula Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 What do people think of this one? "Celibates are on diets." HA! I love it! Seriously, though, great analogy. Did you come up with it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Telecaster68 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 And sexuals will sometimes have the urge to eat the doughnut but control themselves, or are just not hungry. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Thranduil Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 That donut analogy is perfect. :lol: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
El-not-so-ace Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Definitely! And to address what Tar mentioned, if I understood correctly, we can add the emotional components. Ex: You may desire donuts but if yiu recently bit into a spoiled one (like if you've broken up or something), then even if you'd desire it on normal days, you just don't want it right away. You cam also have a certain donut flavor that actually grows on you as you pass by the bakery every day. :P I'm hungry now! Haha Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Somewhere Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 This seems helpful but also slightly confusing. What would it be if someone had a sudden physical response toward a person touching them that then dissipated immediately and never returned? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lost247365 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Related: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SchrodingersCat Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I'm sorry if this is being critical, but I'm asexual, and that's not what having sex feels like for me at all... I'm confused why you have "A List of Activities that do NOT invalidate you as an asexual" post in your tagline, but then post a picture that seems to contradict the post... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lost247365 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I'm sorry if this is being critical, but I'm asexual, and that's not what having sex feels like for me at all... I'm confused why you have "A List of Activities that do NOT invalidate you as an asexual" post in your tagline, but then post a picture that seems to contradict the post... The picture was a joke..... And that is a link to a thread I made. It is in all my posts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SchrodingersCat Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I know, but when the OP is trying to get clarification on the difference between sexual attraction and desire, I think jokes like that obfuscate the issue. Or maybe I've just been overly sensitive lately to jokes that confuse issues I'm trying to get clarity on myself. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Torquil Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 "Celibates are on diets." HA! I love it! Seriously, though, great analogy. Did you come up with it? It's not mine. The origin is this Reddit post. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I think the food analogy does work pretty well. I would phrase it like this: Imagine you are hungry and walk by a bakery and smell the aroma of fresh-baked cookies. hunger in general = libido finding pleasure in the smell, but not having a desire to eat the cookies = attraction wanting to go into the bakery to buy and eat the cookies = desire Being asexual is analogous to lacking desire. Nonlibidoist asexuals will also lack the first two. This one gets my vote. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Halffull Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 Donuts!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Torquil Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I think the food analogy does work pretty well. I would phrase it like this: Imagine you are hungry and walk by a bakery and smell the aroma of fresh-baked cookies. hunger in general = libido finding pleasure in the smell, but not having a desire to eat the cookies = attraction wanting to go into the bakery to buy and eat the cookies = desire Being asexual is analogous to lacking desire. Nonlibidoist asexuals will also lack the first two. This one gets my vote. Thanks. I was influenced by the donut analogy. Here's how I think they line up: Hunger for food like donuts = libido. "Liking the donut" = attraction/allure. The urge to walk over and eat the donut = desire/urge for partnered sex. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tarfeather Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 It's an okay analogy, but it still fails because you very rarely get food without the intention to eat it. :) Sex is most often a result of one thing leading to another, food is something that you get for the express purpose of eating. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Halffull Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 I think the food analogy does work pretty well. I would phrase it like this: Imagine you are hungry and walk by a bakery and smell the aroma of fresh-baked cookies. hunger in general = libido finding pleasure in the smell, but not having a desire to eat the cookies = attraction wanting to go into the bakery to buy and eat the cookies = desire Being asexual is analogous to lacking desire. Nonlibidoist asexuals will also lack the first two. This one gets my vote. Thanks. I was influenced by the donut analogy. Here's how I think they line up: Hunger for food like donuts = libido. "Liking the donut" = attraction/allure. The urge to walk over and eat the donut = desire for partnered sex. What an over complicated way of thinking. See donut, eat donut. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Telecaster68 Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 See donut, eat donut. Classic donuttist thinking in our hyperpatisseried culture. Adonuttists experience a more nuanced relationship with their baking products. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.