arousal sexual vs asexual

[Dudette]

I have one good question which has been bothering me.

so the asexual community says that arousal does not really represent the sexual attraction 

while sexual community says that arousal does represent the sexual attraction

 

What I am trying to say "is sexual attraction both mental and physical or just physical or just mental"?

 

I mean what would you call these people

1) person gets aroused and has sexual attraction

2) person gets aroused and has no sexual attraction

3) person does not get aroused and has sexual attraction

4) person does not get aroused and has no sexual attraction

 

I met and heard of 4 types of these people, so I know they exist  

 

[patronusmagic]

Im certanly no expert but I think that for sexual people attraction and arousal goes hand in hand, whilst for asexual people it does not.

 

[Guest]

Forget sexual attraction, it's a stupid term that just complicates things.

 

The difference is that in sexuals, arousal can (and very often does) lead to desire for partnered sex with the person who caused the arousal, while that never happens with asexuals (who never desire partnered sex, period).

[Dudette]

6 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Forget sexual attraction, it's a stupid term that just complicates things.

 

The difference is that in sexuals, arousal can (and very often does) lead to desire for partnered sex with the person who caused the arousal, while that never happens with asexuals (who never desire partnered sex, period).

sorry, I know it is, but now I just use sexual attraction alternatively to sexual desire.

But still what would you say about a person who cannot get aroused and desires sexual partner?

[Guest]

To me that sounds like something a medical doctor should look into (e.g. erectile dysfunction?) before anything else. Either way, if they do desire sex, I don't see how that can be called asexual.

[Sotapanna]

then what purpose the word cupiosexual?

 

[PixieCat]

There's a lot of controversy over the term cupiosexual. I personally don't know enough about it to make an argument one way or the other, but I always found it strange - definitely not unheard of, and possibly more common than people think, but strange in terms of the label.

[Sotapanna]

I've had significant others I wished I could have sex with.
It would be nice, to not be so limited in ability....

I've found, through experience,  I can if it's a seriously masochistic event..
(odaxelagnia is why I have children, seriously)
 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, strangeman said:

then what purpose the word cupiosexual?

That's not a thing I believe in. (And anything more I could say on that topic would become a rant, fast. )

[Dudette]

6 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

That's not a thing I believe in. (And anything more I could say on that topic would become a rant, fast. )

 

13 minutes ago, strangeman said:

I've had significant others I wished I could have sex with.
It would be nice, to not be so limited in ability....

I've found, through experience,  I can if it's a seriously masochistic event..
(odaxelagnia is why I have children, seriously)
 

 

22 minutes ago, PixieCat said:

There's a lot of controversy over the term cupiosexual. I personally don't know enough about it to make an argument one way or the other, but I always found it strange - definitely not unheard of, and possibly more common than people think, but strange in terms of the label.

How about this?

sexual attraction/desire is mental and physical.

some asexuals can get arouse (demi or grey), but asexuals do not experience sexual desire; However, grey/demi asexual can say I want to have sex for this or that reason and still not desire like sexual can say I do not want to have sex for this or that reason and still desire.

(I am not sure about demisexual to be honest if they desire or if they are physically able when the emotional bond is made)

 

Does this make sense?

 

 

[Chieftain-Drake]

I personally believe that sexual attraction and arousal are two very different things.

 

Sexual attraction, as far as I know, is simply the desire to participate in sexual intercourse with another being. This attraction almost always comes around with arousal, leading to the confusion surrounding the two terms. Basically, I think sexual attraction is usually purely physical (although sometimes mental) and always involves another being.

 

Arousal, on the other hand, I believe is more mental than anything. Although it results in physical reactions, it is lead by your conscience thought. It might be triggered by another person, but that's usually because of a single (or several) aspect(s) about them that you consciously find attractive in some way or another. It doesn't really mean you want to have sex with the person, it just means that there's something about them that triggers... things. In this way another being isn't needed, as a kink or fetish towards anything can result in the same feelings.

 

The main difference between the two is that sexual attraction requires another organism while arousal doesn't.

 

But I'm no doctor.

[Star Bit]

Alot of sexual people have the misconception that arousal reflects desire/attraction because that's how it works for them, but that's not how it is for alot of other people. Many think your taste in erotica reflects your orientation (e.g. a guy using two men having sex to fap then he's bi/gay), but a majority of women and a minority of men (gay and straight) prove that wrong because they still don't desire those things for themselves. According to that incorrect logic alot of people (sexual and asexual) are sexually attracted to erotica lol. And according to this same "everything's together" logic there are no cross-orientations, or sexual desire without romantic desire, or sensual desire without sexual/romantic desire, or women who during sex get aroused by things they don't want that person to continue doing. Just like butterflies in one's stomach don't automatically equate to romantic attraction, sexual arousal doesn't mean sexual attraction.

 

So using primary and secondary correctly (i.e. compared to how they're used on AVEN wiki, eventhough these terms aren't popular) you could say sexual arousal is secondary sexual attraction/that butterflies are secondary romantic attraction, but then it makes those things sound like actual indicators of those things when they're not; just like secondary sex characteristics (breasts/pecs) don't always reflect one's biological sex. Attraction, by definition, is having something about someone evoke interest. Sexual arousal alone is clearly not having personal interest in someone. As made explicit by this, any attraction is only mental, but it can include physical symptoms. Butterflies just mean someone's nervous, sexual arousal just means a part of your brain interpreted something sexually and is preparing for sex/masturbation (which again has nothing to do with personal interest). Specifically, arousal and desire not matching up is called arousal non-concordance by sexologists and is common among sexual women. So an asexual with this is still asexual. According to the combinations listed in the OP, #s 2&4 are asexual, #s 1&3 are sexual (assuming these people don't desire sex for other reasons than sexual attraction/feel attraction but no desire to act).

[borkfork]

Sexual arousal isn't only type of arousal. The word basically means "strong response." Salivating when you see some particularly tasty looking food, being jerked awake by a bad dream. These are also strong involuntary responses to stimuli just like sexual arousal. Why bother dissecting it any further?

[straightouttamordor]

A question better answered by sexuals. 

[200 Ponies]

Arousal is purely physical. It's just the body doing its thing. It, of course, can be in response to stimuli, but it doesn't mean the person wants to have sex with whatever got them aroused. Sometimes arousal just happens randomly on its own, and I'll sit there like, "WTF, why am I aroused right now?"

 

Attraction/desire, I think, is more of a mental thing and is directed at a specific person, but I've never experienced it so I'm not sure.

[Nea Rose Symphony]

For asexuals, arousal is possible. For me, if I'm in the right situation like making out with my bf it's possible for me to notice physical arousal, ie. my genitals "waking up" I guess. But it's not connected to any burning desire at all. Often I don't even realize that I'm having physical arousal. So it can definitely happen without sexual attraction. I'm guessing attraction would be the conscious feeling of a need for sex with certain people right then and there while arousal would be the body preparing for possible sex

[Evergreen Strauss]

I think sexual attraction is always directed at a person, whilst arousal isn't always directed at someone.

So sexual attraction is caused by a person, but arousal can be caused by anything (depends on the individual)

[bae_yeonwoo]

I feel attraction(not necessarily to be 'sexual' attraction) to some hard-workers, but I don't get aroused. 

So I think it's possible to be sexually attracted without arousal.

[RoseGoesToYale]

I always thought of arousal as just the body preparing itself for something that may or may not happen. Sort of like if:

-Your stomach growls/mouth waters when you look at a banana splitm, but you may not necessarily want to eat it, though.

-You get an adrenaline rush/heart racing when you hear a sudden loud noise (fight-or-flight response), but you may not want to run away or "fight".

The body does a lot of involuntary things. I think it comes down to what the individual desires to do with them.

[Xenobot]

I'm just gonna leave this here...

 

http://www.thedirtynormal.com/blog/2015/01/30/arousal-nonconcordance-in-two-minutes/

[Star Bit]

On 3/28/2017 at 8:14 PM, prib23 said:

A question better answered by sexuals. 

No, because, as I mentioned, they'd wrongfully say it is sexual attraction because they already wrongfully say other things are indicators of it (and that includes alot of sexologists too).

[Puck]

As far as sexual attraction vs arousal, I think it's more obvious they aren't connected necessarily connected in asexuals over sexuals because one is lacking.

 

Sexuals experience sexual arousal without attraction all the time, they just never need to think of it as separate. It may be that time of the month or there are plenty of times where boys find their members excited without direct attraction. It happens plenty, but sexuals simply have no reason to distinguish it from attraction because for the majority of the world, there seems to be no reason to.

 

For asexuals, it's more obvious as one of these (attraction) is lacking. So an ace person only feels the arousal, though it may lack a direction or source or the source may be experienced different from sexuals as in the case of demi's

[BlueSaint]

This probably completely reductive but I see it as such: arousal is something that happens while desire is something you want. I think for some arousal and desire is linked feeding into one another like a Möbius strip. At least for me the arousal doesn't feed into anything, I either handle or ignore it which means it just ends.