What Is Sexual Attraction?

[Sally]

28 minutes ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

I don't exactly disagree with you about what you are saying, but when you use the gay angle it's only confusing the discussion, not helping it. 

It's called an analogy.  

[binary suns]

how does that invalidate the fact that the analogy in question is confusing to me and not helping me better understand the discussion? you are essentially calling me daft by posting that post. 

 

I am trying to work towards ceasing use of analogy in discussions, because in my experience with them on this forum, they always both fail to work for at least one active discussing member, as well as their usage always derails the discussion almost immediately. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

oh, that makes more sense. but then, how is choosing words that has not been said prove anything about words that have been said? 

 

I don't exactly disagree with you about what you are saying, but when you use the gay angle it's only confusing the discussion, not helping it. I have a hard time understanding that angle, and like I've said, it feels like you're throwing homosexuality in front of the bus..

I'm not specifically targeting homosexuality here. I've used this illustration many times before and it can be used in exactly the same way in regards to heterosexuality: "I'm a heterosexual woman, I have absolutely no desire to have sex with men and just am not interested in them sexually at all, but absolutely love and deeply desire sexual intimacy with women.. sex with women is amazing, I have no interest in having sex with men so i'm heterosexual" ....The only people being thrown under the bus here are the people who say you can be asexual and still desire partnered sex.

 

3 hours ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

I don't think that there really is a split. maybe I misunderstand the whole debate, but my belief is that sexual desire is a subset of attraction - A definition that would use desire is doing nothing more than accepting that attraction is part of the deal, but making the declaration of that more precise. the idea is that there are ways in which a person can feel attraction without being sexual, and ways in which attraction is felt that isn't necessary to be sexual. 

 

but all sexuals do feel attraction in some way - which is why the "feel sexual attraction for X gender" is what has been used. it was transferred to asexuality - but because it isn't the most precise story, fails to grok for everyone. 

 

Quote

all sexuals do feel attraction in some way

 

Asexuals feel "attraction" in *some way* too (be that platonic, aesthetic, romantic, emotional, whatever.. attraction manifests in many, many ways) So it comes down to which "form" of attraction you mean. The only way to define "sexual attraction" to truly represent asexuality is "desire for partnered sexual contact" the way AVEN does.. but many sexual people disagree with that defintion because desire for partnered sex can be and often is separate from many forms of attraction. Someone can desire sexual intimacy with a burn victim (for example) if they fall in love with that person, despite having no innate attraction to that person's appearance. That doesn't make them asexual just because no attraction to that person's appearance is present. They are desiring sex as a result of an emotional connection, which is very common. Then there are people who just love sex and will happily have it with any willing person regardless if appearance or if they even know that person, because it's just the sex they desire. That doesn't make them asexual either. Again, it comes down to whether or not you desire to connect sexually with others, not which attraction you may or may not feel.

 

Quote

 which is why the "feel sexual attraction for X gender" is what has been used.

 

Only in English. There are other languages (ie German) where orientation is determined by the direction of your desire for partnered sex, not which "attractions" you feel.

 

Quote

I don't think that there really is a split. maybe I misunderstand the whole debate

 

You must have misunderstood the debate, yes. There is a MASSIVE split.

 

Attractionists: Asexuals can love and desire sexual intimacy with other people and be unhappy without partnered sex in their lives as long as they don't experience sexual attraction. It has nothing to do with whether or not you desire sex with others for pleasure, and everything to do with your feelings of attraction. (They then go on to utterly fail to define "sexual attraction" in a way that applies to all sexuals). According to attractionists if you have no desire for partnered sexual intimacy you're celibate, not asexual. And if you desire partnered sex with 10 people a day you're still asexual as long as you don't find any of them attractive and don't desire the sex based on their appearance. Asexuals desire sex for the pleasure of sex, they do not desire people, according to attractionists (completely failing to recognize that there are many, many sexual people who have sex for reasons other than appearance)

 

Desirists: Asexuals have no desire to connect sexually with other people for sexual and/or emotional pleasure, ever, regardless of what types of attraction they feel.

 

See what I mean when I say split? Massive, gaping, chasm of a split.

 

Then you get the people who try to please everyone saying: you can be asexual and love having sex and desire sex deeply and still be asexual as long as you don't experience sexual attraction, you can also be asexual if you have no desire to connect sexually with others despite what attractions you feel. The only way to *not* be asexual is if you look at others and get aroused by their appearance AND desire sex as a result of that. Anyone who doesn't experience that is asexual (so now at least 40% of the entire population, probably a lot more, is asexual). This comes from the innately antisexual perspective that to be sexual, you have be a drooling Neanderthal that looks at things you think are hot, gets wet between the legs as a result of their appearance, and must have sex with that person as a result of that wetness (pretty much, anyway.. No offence to Neanderthals lol)

 

Then there are those who say to be asexual you can't have any innate desire for partnered sex OR feel sexual atttaction (both things must be lacking at the same ttime, consistently) which is cool, but the sexual attraction part really isn't necessary at all as 1) it still can't be accurately defined and 2) if that person has absolutely no desire to connect sexually with others then what "types of attraction" they feel really don't matter (unless you're an attractionist, in which case that person is 100% normal sexual if they feel certain strong forms of attraction to appearance) lol.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

I am trying to work towards ceasing use of analogy in discussions, because in my experience with them on this forum, they always both fail to work for at least one active discussing member, as well as their usage always derails the discussion almost immediately. 

There is always at least one memeber who will consistently misunderstand literally everything another member says, regardless of the use of analogies. That's just how discussions work here.

 

And my example here of a homosexual man ONLY desiring sex with women was in direct relation to this discussion, not something random or off topic. I was directly illustrating how bizarre it is to say "an asexual can desire partnered sex" while at the same time saying "it's impossible for a heterosexual man to only ever desire sex with other men and never desire sex with women, that man would be homosexual, not heterosexual" ..How come an entirely different set of criteria exists for this seemingly magic "asexual orientation"? that doesn't exist for hetero or homosexuality? No wonder so many people don't take asexuality seriously.

[binary suns]

39 minutes ago, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

Attractionists: Asexuals can love and desire sexual intimacy with other people and be unhappy without partnered sex in their lives as long as they don't experience sexual attraction. It has nothing to do with whether or not you desire sex with others for pleasure, and everything to do with your feelings of attraction. (They then go on to utterly fail to define "sexual attraction" in a way that applies to all sexuals). According to a attractionists if you have no desire for partnered sexual intimacy you're celibate, not asexual. And if you desire partnered sex with 10 people a day you're still asexual as long as you don't find any of them attractive and don't desire the sex based on their appearance. Asexuals desire sex for the pleasure of sex, they do not desire people. (completely failing to recognize that there are many, many sexual people who have sex for reasons other than appearance)

 

Desirists: Asexuals have no desire to connect sexually with other people for sexual and/or emotional pleasure, ever, regardless of what types of attraction they feel.

then where do I sit? I don't believe either of these are accurate at all. I am not asexual, and yet I do not have desire to connect sexually with anyone. I do not find that definition to be meaningful in anyway, I literally do not understand what sexual desire could possibly be, at least not in the way that is being talked about, the only things I ever "desire" is when I crave burger king, pizza, yoghurt, or on rare occasion chinese. if I try to translate that into sexuality terms, I assume what's described must be lust, ie. primary attraction, which what is it - only 40% of sexuals feel? or is it 55%? I don't remember the stat. 

 

it's complete bogus to think that someone can "desire sexual intimacy" or "desire partnered sex with 10 people a day" and still be asexual, because that's literally describing attraction for sex. and the large majority of people are on page with this - to be honest the only time I've seen such extreme language being use it's either a thread by a person who's just discovered asexuality, and their thread is littered with posts adamantly opposing their mistaken claim, or to be frank it's someone ranting about such threads. I don't find that to be representative of asexuality in any way, and while I 100% understand your frustration, I fail to see how this is a problem because when I do see it happen the person eventually either gets too frustrated and leaves, or they learn their mistake. or the one time I think it was an actual troll and they got banned for instigation or something, lol. like, if there are constantly new people who come to the site, having barely been a part of our community, claiming they're asexual becuase of the attraction definiton, and then getting corrected by our community that they're incorrect, then that isn't a problem in anyway with our community thinking that asexual people can constantly desire sex. because that's literally random people who aren't a part of our community coming to our site asking if what they are is asexual, and getting harassed for it. 

 

 

 

most of the time when I DO see a post from a regular or two-week/two-month member, talking about how sexual attraction is all about wanting other people, the language they are using is always inaccurate and selfishly prepared, it's people who haven't felt sexual attraction talking about how sexual attraction is a certain way and not being correctly accurate because they've never experienced it. and if that's what the "Attractionists" you're talking about are, then the issue again isn't that there's this drastic divide that exists, the issue is that, a person novice to any field, is blind to some of the intricacies of the language in that field, and say stupid shit, and given time they figure it out. 

 

 

 

or is there something else that I'm missing? I know that I have generally been avoiding discussion threads, but the few times I visit one it's pretty much the same discussions - people who have had more time to think things through talking down to people who clearly are not aware of the subtle mistakes they are making. the war is one-sided, because the "attractionist" group are always people who I don't recognize. every time they are someone new to me that I've never seen before. and the "desirists" are always instigating them, or worse, downright harrassing them. the story is - either agree with the desirists, or get the hell out - and that is what I have a problem with, the literal attitude being taken. I always fail to see a divide - because the "Divide" is nothing more than the typical, expected difference between someone who has only just heard about asexuality, and someone who has had the time to really process what asexuality is. 

[m4rble]

On 12/9/2016 at 1:02 PM, Lost247365 said:

Your post prompted my reply, but it was building from many other post by other users who have stated the same thing on AVEN.

 

If someone tells me they been to the North Pole and claims it's a tropical climate with lots tigers and camals there, I would have full authority to say that person is wrong or lying despite never having been there.  If they told me it extends to the equator I have authority to say they are wrong.  Inexperienced does not equate with ignorance.  Experience does not mean competence.

 

There are romantic sexual who equate romance with sexuality, and aromantic aces who know better.  

 

Just as it is wrong for others to tell you what you think and if you are sexual (which I never claimed you did nor did I do to you), it is wrong for you to do the same to asexuals.  

 

Just because one is sexual, does not mean that one has Supreme authority to declare who is or isn't an asexual or define something with an objective definition.  It does not mean you can't be mistaken in the definition of what makes one asexual or not.

 

I reject this notion that I have no say or am incapable of debating these things with sexual.  I reject this notion that just because I am an ace I should shut my mouth and accept whatever an allosexual tells me without thought.  Especially when there are respected authorative sources on the subject.

 

Allosexuals are not always right and can be, and have been in the past, wrong about asexual issues.

Here I would like to say that's good for asexuals and sexuals to contribute to discussions so we can see what they have that's the same and what's different. However, that doesn't mean people should claim authority on something they never personally experienced. 

On 12/9/2016 at 0:45 PM, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

Imagine if you had a man saying "I'm gay. I literally only ever want and desire sex with women, I'd never have sex with a man as I have no interest in that or desire for it. I'm only sexually interested in women and have no sexual desire for men in any way"

 

Looked at like that, it's clear that it's desiring sex that defines someone's orientation because it wouldn't matter if he's "sexually attracted" to men or rainbows or elves. He's still not gay, regardless of who he's "sexually attracted" to. The desire for partnered sex (for sexual and/or emotional pleasure) is what's relevant here: Asexuals do NOT experience that innate desire for partnered sexual contact, sexual people DO experience it. "Sexual attraction" is irrelevant, even sexual people cannot agree on what that is and not all experience it.

 

It's worth noting that the AVEN website defines sexual attraction AS "the desire for sexual contact with someone else", so if you're defining it like that, then your two examples in your question are the exact tame thing. Sexual attraction IS the desire for partnered sexual contact, according to the AVEN General FAQ (though the sexuals I've talked to here strongly disagree with that defintion of sexual attraction. They say that what makes them sexual is the desire for partnered sex and sexual attraction is irrelevant regardless of how you define it)

Well, that's sort of true, but most of the time we don't treat other sexualities as strictly as we treat asexuality. People can say I'm only gay or I'm only straight for you, but if someone said I'm only sexual for you that would be a huge point of contention. 

8 hours ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

that the following are all included (but not limiting to them) in sexual attraction - 

 

1) feelings of aesthetic appreciation IF it has some kind of sexual nature to it (finding people hot in a way that you don't feel when appreciating flowers) 

2) feeling lust towards sex with a particular person

3) feeling a need or want for sex in general, despite a lack of being drawn to individuals

4) feelings of excitement during sexual activity

5) other ways in which sex has value to it that transcends the physical acts itself - ie, any emotional experience which sets sex apart from masturbation

6) anything causing a sexual response, such as cuddling leading to arousal.

7) finding sexual imagery arousing

and other things

I like this list. I disagree with the notion that sexual attraction is only desiring sex. 

[m4rble]

1 hour ago, ℃å℞t☉☧hℹĿẹ• said:

(pretty much, anyway.. No offence to Neanderthals lol)

I love this part of the post. Most people don't really use the word, "Neanderthal" correctly in the scientific sense so when you said this it caused my inner nerd to squeal. 

[Star Bit]

(venting on a relevant topic to my previous comment)

Sadly some sexual people dont even know what sex is. A video made a few days ago by a popular LGBT youtuber (on their channel that's all about it) had two bi women and one gay woman say that they all believed fingering wasn't sex. Eventhough they clarified with "some gay women do, but i dont, but sex is whatever you want it to be" i still know people are going to take their opinions as fact and say "i only desire to be fingered thus i dont desire sex and am asexual~" *faceplants desk*

(and considering her BS with not accepting non-binaries a few weeks ago I'm really considering unsubscribing; she even made a vid a year ago on cross-orientations and then later promotes them misidentifying as gay/straight/'what makes an orientation' when she still damn well remembered what it was because directly prior to that later vid said 'maybe you're sexually bi and not romantically')

 

Also, if sexual attraction doesn't matter in determining asexuality then romantic attraction shouldn't determine aromanticism. If it's only the desire for sex that determines asexuality then it's the desire for a relationship that should determine aromantic.

[binary suns]

^ yeah agreed, when talking about these sorts of things it's too easy for people to misunderstand or find excuses or something, and honestly it shouldn't be a matter of what people are willing to do in bed that determines their orientation. on the one hand I definitely understand the interest in saying asexuality is the lack of sexual desire - but on the other hand it's just a different loophole for people to f' up. 

 

 

 

generally speaking, there are various knowledge that can't really be shared with direct words - such as, for example, what colors look like, where what is talked about can be represented, or maybe words can be used to point to the knowledge, but for an individual to understand the knowledge itself, they have to deduce it on their own. there isn't some formula that will explain what it IS that is universal for everyone. 

 

and sexual attraction is one of those things - liking to finger another girl is sexual attraction, finding people hot is sexual attraction, etc - but sexual attraction isn't really those things, not specifically, it's part of it but what can we say really? It's contradictory by nature - "finding people hot" both is and isn't what sexual attraction is - and there's really no better way to say what sexual attraction is other than either making similar faulty examples, or using confusing abstract language. And, we have to be able to accept that this is the way it is, if we want to begin to understand what it is. 

[m4rble]

On 12/11/2016 at 7:52 PM, Star Bit said:

Also, if sexual attraction doesn't matter in determining asexuality then romantic attraction shouldn't determine aromanticism. If it's only the desire for sex that determines asexuality then it's the desire for a relationship that should determine aromantic.

Not necessarily, romance and sex are different, so we don't have to treat them identically. 

[Star Bit]

I think you're missing the point. Of course sex and romance are two different things, but you cant say one orientation is based on attraction and the other isn't. It would most certainly not be acceptable to go around saying "I'm aromantic but I love being in, desire to be in, and pursue romantic relationships" (which most aros agree isn't aro). That's as backwards as the asexual or aforementioned straight going by gay equivalent.

[m4rble]

5 minutes ago, Star Bit said:

I think you're missing the point. Of course they're two different things, but you cant say one orientation is based on attraction and the other isn't. It would most certainly not be acceptable to go around saying "I'm aromantic but I love being in, desire to be in, and pursue romantic relationships"; that's as backwards as the asexual or aforementioned straight going by gay equivalent.

Yeah, okay then.

[Guest]

being attracted to someone sexually

[binary suns]

oh, regarding the attraction v desire regarding sex v romance, 

 

that part I actually disagree on, that, sexual contact is not comparable to partnership. we don't have sex with people who we aren't intimate, but we ARE partners with people who we might not be intimate with - partnership is, inherently, an agreement to interact with others on some level, not an agreement to be romantic with them. you can be partners with someone you hate. 

 

as a greysexual I have no final say on whether or not asexuality should be about desire, all I know is that I do not desire sex and yet I am not asexual. 

 

butregarding someone aromantic... well I am demiromantic. when i talk about why I want a partnership, I make romantic people grimace and call me unemotional or unappreciative. but of the four people I have romantic feelings for, only one of them do I have interest in having a relationship with at all - and two of them I was never interested in partnership with them.

 

a relationship is so much more obviously a choice someone can make for logical, counterintuitive reasons, and not intrinsically a desire or sign of attraction. personally, I feel that the same can be said about sex - but as I am not asexual I do not feel any need to "decide" for asexuals what should or shouldn't label their orientation.  

 

I agree that, intuitively, an asexual wouldn't desire sex, and an aromantic wouldn't desire a relationship, however when looking at the two things as a choice - it is not so obvious to me. a person choosing to do something is rarely 100% because they like it. and people are capable of choosing to want or pursue something they do not like. they might believe it is for the best, even if it is unwanted.