Jump to content

Confusion about "Sexual Attraction"


AceOfShovels

Recommended Posts

AceOfShovels

Debate rages on AVEN about the definition of 'sexual attraction.' This is a vital point of Asexuality that is used as a yardstick to determine whether you're Ace or not. We can't have confusion about the the thing that defines us as a community, it will lead to chaos. 'Attraction' is a bit annoying, because it's a subjective thing, but it's still definite.

The way I see it, if you experience sexual attraction, you will look at an aesthetically pleasing person the same way you might look at a nice car. You can appreciate the aesthetics, but there's also a sense of "I'd really like to drive that"

On the flip side, if you don't experience sexual attraction, looking at an aesthetically pleasing person is like looking at a painting. There's no action associated with it, you just appreciate the beauty.

That is, unless you don't see people as aesthetically pleasing. In that case, you're super ace and probably don't care about this argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David Jay, who created this site, strongly believed in people using the label asexual as a tool. If it's useful to you, he believed that you should be able to put it on and mold it if you needed to in order for it to suit you. Thus the description at the top of AVEN is most likely deliberately ambiguous in order to facilitate this. He didn't want a rigid definition.

You could debate the pros and cons of this, but since David was the one who made the site, we can't really do anything about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dissolved

That is, unless you don't see people as aesthetically pleasing. In that case, you're super ace and probably don't care about this argument.

Slight flaw in your theory :D

I don't experience aesthetic attraction, but I do desire sex, so I'm not asexual.

AVEN defines sexual attraction in a weird way. Away from AVEN, it's widely accepted that it's a physiological response, which can often include physical arousal, and it doesn't have to be anything to do with someone's aesthetics. Besides, if you look around AVEN you'll find asexuals who have a sexual reaction (i.e. arousal) in response to someone but they have no desire to act on it. There are also sexual folk who never experience that directed arousal, but they have a general desire for sex. Sexual attraction can't be the deciding factor for asexuality, because not all sexual folk experience it and some asexual people do. It's got to be an underlying desire for sexual contact with someone or something for sexual and/or emotional enjoyment and/or satisfaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fire & Rain

Many sexuals have said here that sexuality is not that simple and sexual attraction is a flawed way of describing it. It's not always "I see person A. I find them attractive. Therefore, I want to have sex with person A."

  • There are sexuals who do experience like you said.
  • There are also sexuals who feel that sexual attraction is NOT enough to desire sexual intimacy. They need something else like emotional connection. Getting to know each other better. Finding out their interests. Etc.
  • There are also sexuals who only desire sexual intimacy in a committed relationship.
  • There are also sexuals who would screw any consenting adult whether they feel any attraction towards these people or not.
  • There are also sexuals who feel unsatisfied like something is missing in their lives when there's no sexual intimacy. They might not feel attracted to anyone at the moment but they still desire sexual intimacy with a hypothetical person.

If one experiences any of that, they are not asexual. So I also agree with the lack of innate desire for partnered sex definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
  • and pretty much all sexuals experience all those things at some time. Sexual needs aren't fixed per person.

I'm toying with another definition that doesn't go near all those problematical terms: an asexual doesn't feel their sexuality has anything to do with anyone else; a sexual person feels that involving other people is pretty much the point.

So it doesn't matter what that sexuality is, how it interacts with attraction, libido, or desire - it just doesn't need an expressing to anyone. Similarly, allosexuality can include whatever attraction, libido or desire you like, but ultimately, if you can't share it with someone, it loses much of its significance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
She believes that sexual attraction, the way AVEN sees it, doesn't exist for most sexuals.

One of AVEN's ongoing joys is reading people who've never felt it explain it to people who have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

did anyone mention yet how the concept aven coins "Sexual attraction" is, in fact NOT always felt by some sexuals, sometimes even never felt by some sexuals?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Skycaptain

O think that brain and genitals must be considered as two separate entities.

Put bluntly if someone was to grab hold of a certain part it would stand to attention, and if this continued stand and deliver.

But by the same token chances are whilst this was going on I'd be watching the football. It's a well trodden thread, the difference between sexual function and sexual attraction.

The more difficult thing to explain, especially as I've never experienced this, is the concept of being romantically attracted to someone, but not sexually attracted.

If someone else can explain this better I would be grateful.

There are people I know IRL and like, who I'd appreciate as a lifelong companion, but that doesn't mean that I feel any stirrings in the loins towards them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Debate rages on AVEN about the definition of 'sexual attraction.' This is a vital point of Asexuality that is used as a yardstick to determine whether you're Ace or not. We can't have confusion about the the thing that defines us as a community, it will lead to chaos. 'Attraction' is a bit annoying, because it's a subjective thing, but it's still definite.

The way I see it, if you experience sexual attraction, you will look at an aesthetically pleasing person the same way you might look at a nice car. You can appreciate the aesthetics, but there's also a sense of "I'd really like to drive that"

On the flip side, if you don't experience sexual attraction, looking at an aesthetically pleasing person is like looking at a painting. There's no action associated with it, you just appreciate the beauty.

That is, unless you don't see people as aesthetically pleasing. In that case, you're super ace and probably don't care about this argument.

That seems like an odd comparison. I don't feel like I want to drive cars that I look at. Also, it's not a yardstick to determine whether you're ace or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SpeedinThroughSpace

I'm toying with another definition that doesn't go near all those problematical terms: an asexual doesn't feel their sexuality has anything to do with anyone else; a sexual person feels that involving other people is pretty much the point.

</p>

That sounds pretty accurate; it actually includes quite a lot of people...

It's kind of funny that the statements of sexuals are more enlightening to me than any definitions thrown around here. Could I take it as "sharing your sexuality with someone else makes it feel special, makes you happy and emotionally satisfied, instead of being a mere physical fix for an exclusively physical need"? As in, bread and water will do to stop your stomach growling, but it's not fulfilling like a real treat in good company would be?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Absolutely. Or maybe masturbation is like going for a drink alone at a bar - it's okay, but it's all about the drink and maybe the 'me' time. Going out for a drink with friends is at least as much about the company as the alcohol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SpeedinThroughSpace

That makes sense, thanks! :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
ToffeeVanilla

I like the simple 'no directional sexual drive/desire'.

I like the simple 'no directional sexual drive/desire'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, if you experience sexual attraction, you will look at an aesthetically pleasing person the same way you might look at a nice car. You can appreciate the aesthetics, but there's also a sense of "I'd really like to drive that"

On the flip side, if you don't experience sexual attraction, looking at an aesthetically pleasing person is like looking at a painting. There's no action associated with it, you just appreciate the beauty.

Damn, I never thought of people like "cars" to drive. That's really gross!

Definitely I guess I'm the aesthetically admiring type.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rising Sun

Sexual attraction is simply getting turned on by somebody. Arousal with a mental dimension.

In the definition debate, I recently started thinking that an asexual person is somebody who can't experience feelings of sexual connection to others. It doesn't require attraction or even desire (which I find both confusing), and from all experiences I've heard, it sounds like the most consistent, to me at least.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AceOfShovels

Damn, I never thought of people like "cars" to drive. That's really gross!

I know right!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

It's like driving in the sense there's interaction. It's not like you're controlling their every movement though. Quite the reverse - you want their input as a person who desires you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

In my opinion, looking at someone and wanting to see them shirtless/naked is sexual desire regardless if you want the sex or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...