AVENguy Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 So there seems to be a growing sentiment on this foum that sexual relationships (IE relationships in which sexual activity is performed) are not intrinsically different from nonsexual relationships. In many ways this amounts to saying that there's nothing special about sexual activity, it doesn't have any "magical" properties which imbue relationships with a special status. What distinguishes sexual activity from nonsexual activity? Is there some intrinsic biological difference (I would actually argue against this) or is the difference purely social? The (apparently) common idea that "sex is everywhere" doesn't really answer the question, as most of us asexuals know there are a distinct set of activities which are required for a distinct set of relationships that recieve real social priviledge. We all know that there's a big hype around sex, where does that hype COME FROM? Link to post Share on other sites
Green Eyes Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Sexual activity in my book is the act of having sex. Defining between lust and making love is another story. I've heard too many stories to know that sex is just lust as a majority. Those far outnumber the ones I hear where the partners have a deeper connection through it. Personally, I can't see how that can lead to a deeper connection, but hey, I'm still a virgin. I've never been that intimate with anyone (come to think of it, I've never really been intimate with someone). Maybe it will be different for me, but for now, that's how I see it. So the hype comes from my peers. It's rare for me to hear them treat it with respect. I take it seriously; although I don't show it, I'm amazed at how people casually refer to "fuck buddies." I don't know, that's just the way I see it. Link to post Share on other sites
lucca Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I am a sexual person who is a virgin, not by choice. :( I imagine that sex can be a vehicle to express an intimacy better than any other physical act can. I know it's just a physical act, but hugging is also just a physical act, and nothing can compare to actually *physically* hugging someone, not even a verbally expressed sentiment of *cyber hugging* someone, for instance. I imagine it would be the same for sex. It is (in my mind) an act that expresses an intimacy like no other. However, I really have no experience, so I don't really know. I have heard on this website someone saying that they felt an intimacy through sex that they havent felt before (I think they claimed to be an asexual, too, as I recall). Link to post Share on other sites
Worthless Poster Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Sexual activities are one physical way of expressing the emotional bond between the two people... it's just not the method asexuals choose. Romantically-driven asexuals may choose other intimate (yer vastly more platonic) methods, while Type D-ers would only show that kind of affection to true FRIENDS, in the form on a hug, or good handshake (for instance). For people who are hormonally driven to do so, sex seems the obvious route to go, while others of us find ways we enjoy far more. Link to post Share on other sites
AVENguy Posted January 13, 2004 Author Share Posted January 13, 2004 Ok, more food for thought: First off I'm unclear what you all mean by "sex." "Sex" definitely seems like a socially relevant category of activity (ie if you have sex you're no longer a virgin, sex is a means of intimacy like no other.) So now we've got "nonsexual activity" which is more peripheral, "sexual activity" and "sex" itself. "Sex" is a pretty hazily defined set of activities (anything that involves orgasm? Penetration? Is oral sex "sex"? What about different forms of lesbian sex?) Lucca- you say that sex expresses intimacy like no other act. If so WHAT about sex? What do all acts labeled as "sex" have in common? (It often doesn't involve orgasm for one partner) that's so unapproachably intimate? Green Eyes- How do you define "sex" and why is it an activity which demands respect (more so than other forms of affection?) Caution certainly, with the risk of STDs and (sometimes) pregnancy, but why respect? Twice- You get the hardest question: if sexual activity is just one way of expressing an emotional bond between people then why is it treated so differently. I definitely agree with your statement that it's just another means of expressing intimacy, if so why is it considered so different? More food for thought: I've been looking, and there's actually NO evidence (that I can find) that chemicals in people's bodies drive them to specifically perform acts categorized as "sexual." While hormones have been linked to "being sexual" (or rather "feeling horny") the activities that satiate "being horny" seem to vary widely from individual to individual. (I would also argue against the idea that all sexual activities involve a unique type of "sexual arousal," ask if you want me to get more specific.) Link to post Share on other sites
mindlife Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I must confess that being sexually experienced did not make me sexual. The only intimacy I ever sensed during sex was the intimacy of being smothered, or perhaps, the intimacy of a kitten having its head forced into a dish of milk. The latter illustration is borrowed from Bram Stoker's Dracula. Link to post Share on other sites
Jayann Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 (I would also argue against the idea that all sexual activities involve a unique type of "sexual arousal," ask if you want me to get more specific.) Ooh, ooh, I'm asking! Go on, do. Link to post Share on other sites
Jayann Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I've been looking, and there's actually NO evidence (that I can find) that chemicals in people's bodies drive them to specifically perform acts categorized as "sexual." While hormones have been linked to "being sexual" (or rather "feeling horny") the activities that satiate "being horny" seem to vary widely from individual to individual. I do wonder about this. Why is it we stand apart? What are sexuals reacting to that we are not? I don't know why my desire for physical affection ends at genital contact (and saliva-swapping). I like physical contact with certain people, and I do experience some sexual responses to certain stimuli. I would even engage in some semi-sexual behavior, like (closed-mouth) smooching - but I don't know why I lack a desire to touch and by touched in ways that are generally described as "sexual." Not really heading toward a point, I guess. Just thinking aloud, in a manner of speaking. Link to post Share on other sites
bard of aven Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 What's sex got to do, got to do with it? What's sex but a second-hand sensation? (I will leave that to the more musically-literate parodists among us.) boa Link to post Share on other sites
true Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 SEX- it's hormones, really.. . at least, that's what I think. You can be in love and not want sex, you can want sex and not be in love. It's about raw, animal lust- Darwinism- trying to promote your genes- I mean, we've evolved in ways that will give us as many kids as possible. As far as "making love" goes. . . I link that with more of a "extreme hug" between friends. . it's about the intense level of intimacy trust and love between the two. My (sexual) gf describes it as "wanting to be inside the other person, surrounded by the person's essence". Sex can mean many different things. I've never really understood people's blind fasinations with each other- like, just seeing someone on the street and wanting to "get with" them because they have great legs, etc. But damn, sometimes my gf says something so beautiful, or gets this calm, knowing look in her eye, or makes me laugh so loud, that all I want is to kiss her. If she was just walking down the street I wouldn't feel attracted to her in that way. To me, it's about emotional and spiritual intimacy. . . that may or may not lead down a "sexual" (open to interpretation) road. Love and Luck!!! True Link to post Share on other sites
AVENguy Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 SEX- it's hormones, really.. . at least, that's what I think. You can be in love and not want sex, you can want sex and not be in love. It's about raw, animal lust- Darwinism- trying to promote your genes- I mean, we've evolved in ways that will give us as many kids as possible. See my earlier statement about hormones. Most sexual acticity that takes place is NOT directed towards reproduction, and most of reproducing has nothing to do with sex, and Darwins theories (which have since been debunked as an oversimplification) are way more complicated than people give them credit for, as I understand it. *cracks knuckles* Since you asked Jayann.... BOA and I have crossed sabres more than once about the idea of sexual arousal, I'll articulate my side of the argument. Let's start with arousal: fear, adrenaline, excitement, joy, tension, anything that preps your body for a state of activity. It happens in tons of different ways for tons of different activities. If we're excited about playing soccer and start warming up we get physically aroused. It's not "soccer arousal," a specific type of arousal designed for the playing of soccer, but a pretty standard preflight checklist for any fun, physical activity. The question before us is whether the arousal experienced before sexual activity differs in some signifigant way from other types of arousal. In alot of ways it's like soccer (fun, gratifying, emotional, physical). It also includes some "unique" symptoms, blood flowing to the genetalia for instance. The symptoms of sexual arousal were first recorded by Dr. William H. Masters and Virginia Johnson, who performed extensive lab research on heterosexual intercourse. They succeeded in generating a model of human sexual arousal (which still serves as the backbone of modern sexology on the topic). The problem is that all of the individual symptoms of sexual arousal occur independently in "nonsexual" situations (though orgasm is relatively rare, it also isn't as important as it's cracked up to be.) I haven't done all of the research yet to back this up, but it holds with what I know about sexuality. We all know that sex is supposed to be the endall and beall of human experience, but a closer look will reveal that ALOT OF SEX IS REALLY BORING. Even when it includes orgasm sex gets dull, and if we examine what seperates "bad sex" from "good sex" the appeal of sexuality is much more closely in line with that of a soccer game. Intimacy between players, equivalent levels of skill, physicality, creativity, something (a soccer tournament or a relationship full of powerplay) to create dynamic tension. "Nonsexual" arousal is what seperates good sex from bad sex, and bad sex, for most people, is wholly unappealing. It follows that a signifigant portion of what's termed sexual arousal is really the same 'ol nonsexual arousal in a different context. That's it for now.. Link to post Share on other sites
bard of aven Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 And I articulate mine at http://www.asexuality.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=2239 Feel free to skip to the "To begin, some definitions" paragraph. Or the whole thing. There is an entry later in the same thread of the IM conversation in which AVENguy and I most recently crossed swords. boa Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts