Jump to content

Is sexual attraction always about sex? Possibly TMI


Recommended Posts

Ok, so I have three issues that keep coming back up during these conversations.

1) Most sexuals have said that sexual attraction is very subtle, mostly (if not entirely) mental, is easy to ignore or overlook, and is only noticeable if one is in the mood to notice it or if it happens to be particularly strong that moment. Still, I keep seeing asexuals say over and over again that we're wrong about what we experience. Now, if the reason you're arguing about it is because it doesn't fit with your definition of asexuality... ie, lots of AVENites experience sexual attraction as we characterize it, and asexuals can't feel sexual attraction, therefore we must be characterizing it wrong... what I'd suggest is to change the definition of asexuality. It is extremely frustrating to see, time and time again, the sexuals on this site by and large agreeing about what sexual attraction is only to have the asexuals disagree with us. I can only assume that you guys think we're hiding something... that we're secretly feeling something that we're not telling you about that will separate our sexual attraction from what so many asexuals feel. There's not. We're not hiding anything and we're not lying and we're not just too stupid to understand our own experiences. That thing that's missing? Internal motivation to have sex. That's it. I really see nothing else that separates you from me except that one thing. You can gather all the asexuals and all the sexuals and map out all their various traits, and I can guarantee you that the only trait that won't overlap is the internal motivation toward sex.

2) OMG the sexual attraction to porn argument. No, I wouldn't say "he's sexually attracted to his porn", but I would say "he's sexually attracted to the images in his porn". Now then. Porn has ALWAYS been used to monitor sexual attraction. You know when scientists hook people up and monitor their reaction to porn? They're testing for sexual attraction! That's the whole point! It boggles my mind that anyone would try to argue this point, but because it has come up before and because I already know what the argument is going to be... yes I'm aware of the studies showing that women respond to monkey sex, and yes I do consider that sexual attraction... but not to the monkeys. You can be sexually attracted to something in a porn without being sexually attracted to everything in the porn.

3) Random arousal isn't the same thing as sexual attraction. But you know what isn't random arousal?? Getting aroused BY something. That's no longer random, that's sexual attraction (if mental) or stimulation (if physical). If you're aroused by something you see, hear, smell, imagine, that's sexual attraction and it certainly isn't random. If you're aroused by having a hand touching your bizness, that's just a physical response. It amazes me how many asexuals get aroused by things they see or imagine and then call that "random" or "just evidence my plumbing works". It is evidence your plumbing works, but that's not ALL it is. It is a sexual response to something mental, which is undeniably sexual attraction.

This is not what we are arguing at all. Arousal does not equal sexual attraction, it is a physiological response to stimulus. Nor does having sex for external motivations, such as wanting to please a loved partner, equal being sexual. What I, and obviously some others, believe DOES equal being sexual is desiring or being motivated to have sex for primarily internal reasons, such as enjoyment of sex.

Actually, unless I got something really wrong, SkulleryMaid did argue that having a sexual response to porn constitutes as being sexually attracted to that porn. I shoud probably have quoted that part of her post before responding, though - sorry.

As for "internal motivation", I'd be interested in hearing what various asexuals and asexual activists (including those outside of AVEN) have to say about that sort of definition. I really don't think I can judge this very well, but I do think making changes to the definition is a really big deal that could end in a huge mess, and differentiating between internal and external motivations like that might or might not work for a lot of people.

Initially I was in agreement with Skullery on that point. However, this very thread has resulted in a bit of shift of opinion on my part. When the discussion came to the idea of feeling a disconnect when it came to partnered sex, that really resonated with me. I think that has to be part of the core of what it is to be asexual is that very disconnect. Thus, I have come to a new understanding in how one can experience an arousal response when watching porn and still be considered asexual because when it comes to the prospect of the actual act or even the participation in that actual act, that disconnect still exists. There is a difference, in that case, between the fantasy and the reality of the situation. In that, I suppose Skullery and I have come to a slightly different opinion.

To be specific, I don't think enjoyment of porn makes someone not asexual. That's why I dislike the "sexual attraction" definition... because I don't know how it could be anything but sexual attraction, but I don't think that has anything to do with the difference between sexuals and asexuals.

Edited by Guest
Merged posts
Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

This is not what we are arguing at all. Arousal does not equal sexual attraction, it is a physiological response to stimulus. Nor does having sex for external motivations, such as wanting to please a loved partner, equal being sexual. What I, and obviously some others, believe DOES equal being sexual is desiring or being motivated to have sex for primarily internal reasons, such as enjoyment of sex.

Actually, unless I got something really wrong, SkulleryMaid did argue that having a sexual response to porn constitutes as being sexually attracted to that porn. I shoud probably have quoted that part of her post before responding, though - sorry.

As for "internal motivation", I'd be interested in hearing what various asexuals and asexual activists (including those outside of AVEN) have to say about that sort of definition. I really don't think I can judge this very well, but I do think making changes to the definition is a really big deal that could end in a huge mess, and differentiating between internal and external motivations like that might or might not work for a lot of people.

Initially I was in agreement with Skullery on that point. However, this very thread has resulted in a bit of shift of opinion on my part. When the discussion came to the idea of feeling a disconnect when it came to partnered sex, that really resonated with me. I think that has to be part of the core of what it is to be asexual is that very disconnect. Thus, I have come to a new understanding in how one can experience an arousal response when watching porn and still be considered asexual because when it comes to the prospect of the actual act or even the participation in that actual act, that disconnect still exists. There is a difference, in that case, between the fantasy and the reality of the situation. In that, I suppose Skullery and I have come to a slightly different opinion.

To be specific, I don't think enjoyment of porn makes someone not asexual. That's why I dislike the "sexual attraction" definition... because I don't know how it could be anything but sexual attraction, but I don't think that has anything to do with the difference between sexuals and asexuals.

So if I understand correctly, you are saying that being aroused by porn is sexual attraction but its not sexual attraction that makes or does not make an asexual, but rather than internal motivation to have sex with other people. That internal motivation is the primary way in which sexuals and asexuals different rather than the lack or presence of sexual attraction. If that's what you're arguing, then I think we may just be back on the same page again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I'm saying, yes. Its sexual attraction, but its also irrelevant to asexuality. I guess the way I look at it is... if some forms of sexual attraction are relevant to asexuality and some forms of sexual attraction aren't relevant, we should probably stop using that as the definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

Arousal is not sexual attraction. Arousal, by its very definition is a bodily response to sexual stimulation. When I'm aroused, there's no mental component, it's just my parts working like they should. Or in other words: My body is aroused while my mind is elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arousal is not sexual attraction. Arousal, by its very definition is a bodily response to sexual stimulation. When I'm aroused, there's no mental component, it's just my parts working like they should. Or in other words: My body is aroused while my mind is elsewhere.

I think that's one of the things we're in unanimous agreement about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

Arousal is not sexual attraction. Arousal, by its very definition is a bodily response to sexual stimulation. When I'm aroused, there's no mental component, it's just my parts working like they should. Or in other words: My body is aroused while my mind is elsewhere.

I think that's one of the things we're in unanimous agreement about.

Really? Because you seem to be equating arousal with sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

Arousal is not sexual attraction. Arousal, by its very definition is a bodily response to sexual stimulation. When I'm aroused, there's no mental component, it's just my parts working like they should. Or in other words: My body is aroused while my mind is elsewhere.

I think that's one of the things we're in unanimous agreement about.

Really? Because you seem to be equating arousal with sexual attraction.

I think the differentiation being made was direct stimulation leading to arousal vs. watching porn leading to arousal. The first is simply a case of arousal; given that all the parts work, when touched a certain way arousal happens. The second is a mental sort of arousal based upon the images one is watching and thus it is sexual attraction to those images that is leading to arousal.

Correct me if I am mistaken of course, Skullery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

1: I've never watched porn. 2: I'm biologically female, therefore I do experience erections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1: I've never watched porn. 2: I'm biologically female, therefore I do experience erections.

i didn't mean "you" as in "aceofclubs", I meant people in general (this is why I love the word "ya'll"). Women, btw, totally experience erections.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

What? Huh, I was under the impression that only men get erections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Huh, I was under the impression that only men get erections.

Only men's are visible with clothes on. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Huh, I was under the impression that only men get erections.

yeah, we don't usually refer to it as such, but its the same thing. The clitoris is just a smaller penis, so it does get all engorged and big just like a penis. When someone's been on testosterone for some time their clit essentially turns into a small penis... I'd link to pics but i don't want to upset anyone. I have a friend who swears he can penetrate his girlfriend with his... I don't know how it'd be possible with what is, realistically, a 2 inch erect penis, but he says it is.

Personally, I just think its funny to refer to ladies getting boners. But then sometimes I'm 12.

EDIT: Damn, I reread this and I used the word "penis" too much!!

EDIT EDIT: Damn, i did it again!

Link to post
Share on other sites
5_♦♣

Funny and informative, all in one post. (Apparently, I must be 12 now as well).

Link to post
Share on other sites

What? Huh, I was under the impression that only men get erections.

yeah, we don't usually refer to it as such, but its the same thing. The clitoris is just a smaller penis, so it does get all engorged and big just like a penis. When someone's been on testosterone for some time their clit essentially turns into a small penis... I'd link to pics but i don't want to upset anyone. I have a friend who swears he can penetrate his girlfriend with his... I don't know how it'd be possible with what is, realistically, a 2 inch erect penis, but he says it is.

Personally, I just think its funny to refer to ladies getting boners. But then sometimes I'm 12.

EDIT: Damn, I reread this and I used the word "penis" too much!!

EDIT EDIT: Damn, i did it again!

I was wondering when I would see this bit of information on AVEN! :P

LOL, I counted 5 Skulls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if this does go any further, though, i'd like to state for the record that i'm very much in favour of either having a new, multi-part definition that covers a variety of asexual experience (much like a dictionary definition that shows how a word can be used in different contexts), or else some sort of addendum to the current official definition that recognizes that plurality of experience in some way.

I just wanted to say that this is an excellent idea. I'd like to see the "disconnect" part in there too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering when I would see this bit of information on AVEN! :P

LOL, I counted 5 Skulls.

Ha. I started going through Skullery's post trying to find the word "skull". :redface: Probably my not wanting to even think about penis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering when I would see this bit of information on AVEN! :P

LOL, I counted 5 Skulls.

Ha. I started going through Skullery's post trying to find the word "skull". :redface: Probably my not wanting to even think about penis.

That's some kind of law of the universe or something! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...
What if the definition was switched from sexual attraction to sexual desire? To me, sexual desire is easier to define and is still not a choice. If we're equating it with food/smell, then attraction = smelling fresh baked bread and desire = your mind saying yeah, go eat some. You can't control the desire to eat bread, but you do control whether or not you do.

For me, I can barely ever resist fresh bread. It smells so good all the time and I always want to eat it. It often takes a conscious effort to not go in and buy fresh bread. Unless I'm really full. So I don't always act on my desire, cause I have some form of self-control wink.gif

On the other hand, I think coffee smells great, but I never have the impulse to go drink some. I don't like drinking it - it's bitter and gross. But it does really smell good.

So we could say that someone who is asexual is someone who doesn't feel sexual desire. They may also not feel sexual attraction, but even if they do and don't ever feel like having sex, they still fall into the 'definition' of asexuality.

For me, that would work perfectly and so I shall use that definition if no one minds tongue.gif So do you see any inherent flaws in the 'desire' definition? Do you think desire IS a choice?

I've even felt butterflies in situations that I know aren't sexual, but are an otherwise strong sort of pull to someone. I've felt them for someone I'm related to, I've felt them for someone I view as a role model... I could even actually give you a short list of people from AVEN who, were I to meet them in real life, would evoke similar feelings. None of whom I'm sexually attracted to, that's for sure. Being grey-a, even if I'm not really too sure I experience any strong sexual attraction to anyone at all as it is, I can tell you there's a huuuuuge difference between those "butterflies" mentioned above and the ones I've felt for romantic interests, and then again between the "romantic butterflies" and those I've felt in a sexual situation (which to me are more sort of part of the arousal process and not actually sexual attraction... but I'll refrain from getting into that discussion again right now).

I'm quoting both of the above because they strike a chord with me so I want to be able to find them later, and this seemed the best way. So, while no one may read this since at least the first page of responses are nearly a year old (I haven't looked at the next page yet...), here's why I like these quotes:

I like Mordsith's analogy of the bread and coffee, and defining asexuality as desire versus attraction. And CBC.Radio.Girl's parsing of feeling butterflies is making sense to me too. Personally, I can feel sexually attracted to someone, but the thought of actually having sex with a real person, even if just in my head as a fantasy, does not appeal to me. Yet it's not an aesthetic attraction, or a romantic attraction (which actually is more powerful), or a kind of attraction I haven't seen defined which I'll call "kinship" attraction (where you feel magnetically drawn to someone, like in "bro-mances" and whatever a girl or mixed-sex version could be called, where you feel connected in a strong kinship way). Also, my sexual attraction does not involve their sexy parts, but it does involve mine (me wishing they would be drawn to my sexy parts). Hence, it's a "sexual" attraction.

Sally's objection about sexual desire when being turned on by porn is the only direct objection I've seen so far to Mordsith's quote, but I don't get it, because wouldn't that just be defined as sexual arousal, not sexual desire OR sexual attraction? I can be aroused, but I redefine that arousal as attraction when it involves someone who is arousing me by just being themselves (not acting sexy in a porn--in other words, I can imagine someone being aroused by a man in a porno while he does his sexy thing, but not being attracted to him personally, or vice versa--being attracted to his body, but not being aroused by his actions; or of course both), and I redefine that attraction as desire when I wish to do something about it (like wishing I could find that porn star and, consensually!, coupling my body with his--whether or not I'd seriously consider going through the trouble).

Since attraction has never led me to desiring to couple my body with someone else's, I feel asexual covers me, even if I am attracted to others and can get aroused. (Though maybe I should say I actually think I may be demisexual, since I think there's a possibility I may want to couple should I form an emotional bond with someone, but since I've never formed such a bond, it's just a guess from some subtle clues I've had about myself.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mostly Peaceful Ryan

Locking for Necromancy. Please do not bring threads back which are older then 6 months. Feel create a new thread on this topic if you wish

GIR,

Asexual Q&A Moderator

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...