Jump to content

Is sexual attraction always about sex? Possibly TMI


Recommended Posts

I don't think that would work. Then you get into the "I get turned on by pornography and that's sexual desire but I don't want to have sex with other people" thing.

To me, responding to reading descriptions of sex means you have a libido. If you have never seen someone and felt that you want to USE that libido in sex with that person (or any person), you don't feel sexual attraction.

So, wouldn't getting turned on by pornography be considered expression of libido and not sexual desire, thereby not contradicting my 'desire definition'?

Arrrrgh. Some people feel that sexual desire and libido are the same. I don't see any difference. Some people take care of that by masturbation. But being able to feel that physical response doesn't mean you are going to feel sexual attraction to actual live specific people. That's sexual attraction. The "attraction" part means being attracted -- like a magnet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah, sorry, I was thinking under my assumption that desire and libido were separate things. By your definition I completely see your point. I wasn't trying to be contrary :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah, sorry, I was thinking under my assumption that desire and libido were separate things. By your definition I completely see your point. I wasn't trying to be contrary :)

You weren't, but please feel free to be contrary -- AVEN is full of contrariness! It would be quite boring if it weren't. :lol:

My "arrrgh" meant that these definitional things are always difficult, not that YOU were being difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[TMI WARNING----

I've never felt physical feelings in my bits in regards to wanting to get sexually close with another person...but I've felt physical feelings in my bits when reading descriptions of sex which have led to a desire to masturbate, so then I make a choice to either do so or not do so, I've chosen both routes...but it has never led me to a desire that I wish I could have sex with another individual, so am I sexual or asexual? Please be honest it won't hurt my feelings. Thanks.

I can't tell you what you are (we're not supposed to and we can't). But....

To me, responding to reading descriptions of sex means you have a libido. If you have never seen someone and felt that you want to USE that libido in sex with that person (or any person), you don't feel sexual attraction.

Draw your own conclusion.

I also won't draw conclusions, but I will say that that has always been a feeling many people who identify as asexual feel. That's what brings up all the masturbation threads in my opinion.

While I understand that it's difficult to describe/define that feeling that people take their libido/sexual desires to actually wanting sex with another person, it seems quite obvious that many sexuals have that "something". I would call that sexual attraction, and to me personally, that's what I feel I lack. I do have sex though and that complicates the issue such that I feel at this point it's futile to really latch on to labels but rather just agree or disagree with other people's definitions or express how I feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[TMI WARNING----

I've never felt physical feelings in my bits in regards to wanting to get sexually close with another person...but I've felt physical feelings in my bits when reading descriptions of sex which have led to a desire to masturbate, so then I make a choice to either do so or not do so, I've chosen both routes...but it has never led me to a desire that I wish I could have sex with another individual, so am I sexual or asexual? Please be honest it won't hurt my feelings. Thanks.

I can't tell you what you are (we're not supposed to and we can't). But....

To me, responding to reading descriptions of sex means you have a libido. If you have never seen someone and felt that you want to USE that libido in sex with that person (or any person), you don't feel sexual attraction.

Draw your own conclusion.

I also won't draw conclusions, but I will say that that has always been a feeling many people who identify as asexual feel. That's what brings up all the masturbation threads in my opinion.

While I understand that it's difficult to describe/define that feeling that people take their libido/sexual desires to actually wanting sex with another person, it seems quite obvious that many sexuals have that "something". I would call that sexual attraction, and to me personally, that's what I feel I lack. I do have sex though and that complicates the issue such that I feel at this point it's futile to really latch on to labels but rather just agree or disagree with other people's definitions or express how I feel.

Thank you both for your replies, I think I am starting to understand what sexual attraction is now from your replies. I am glad to finally be able to have a more clear definition or at least idea in my mind now of what it is :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feeling aroused and having automatic bodily responses are involuntary experiences. I would say that the involuntary experiences are what I think of as sexual arousal, but sexual arousal is not the same as a sexual desire, which is the desire to act on that arousal by having sex. These are my personal definitions, based on a limited perception of my own experiences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so automatic physical response (arousal) is one thing and what you link it to determines whether it's sexual attraction or not. That works for me. I think it's been sorted in my head, so this thread did what it was supposed to. Yay for results!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so automatic physical response (arousal) is one thing and what you link it to determines whether it's sexual attraction or not. That works for me. I think it's been sorted in my head, so this thread did what it was supposed to. Yay for results!

That's excellent -- the best differentiation I've seen yet! :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so automatic physical response (arousal) is one thing and what you link it to determines whether it's sexual attraction or not. That works for me. I think it's been sorted in my head, so this thread did what it was supposed to. Yay for results!

That's excellent -- the best differentiation I've seen yet! :cake:

Agreed, this is a useful way of putting it.

It ties in quite neatly with something I've been chewing on for a while while reading the recent discussions about defining asexuality and how it relates to (other) sexual orientations. For one, I'm most definitely straight, in the sense that IF (a very rare occurrence) I'm attracted to someone in a not-just-friendly way, it is always to someone of the opposite sex. I also most definitely have a libido, in that I experience physical arousal, sometimes quite easily. But there is a disconnect between these two things, which confused me for a very long time: I simply don't perceive other people sexually, have never had an interest in pursuing a sexual relationship or in having sex as a component of an interpersonal relationship (other than that short time in my twenties when I was making a conscious effort to want this in order to be normal ... or something ... my thinking was a bit muddled at that point, and it probably comes as no surprise that my attempts came to nothing). Anyway.

Based on this, I would tentatively suggest - for those who feel that the concept of sexual attraction as a criterion poses more problems than it solves - that asexuality could be thought of as not relating to other people sexually, even within a romantic relationship. I'd just leave it at that and leave mechanisms (sexual attraction, sexual desire) and causation (innate/learned aspects) to psychology. Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Several of the posts comparing sexual attraction with desiring tasty treats made me hungry, in a literally sense not a innuendo sense lol. But seriously I think sexual attraction is like watching a show you like or looking at art, you see something beautiful and attractive and you want to keep looking because it’s nice and you enjoy it. I see women that I think are beautiful and I’m sexually attracted to them but that’s the end of it and I move on.

Now for me I’m only sexually attracted to women but can be romantically attracted to anyone simply by getting to know them. Then if they allow me to be close to them and to kiss or hug it’s still all romantic not sexual, I feel a lot of people place sexual emphasis on things such as kissing or cuddling. There’s a complete disconnect for me literally unless I’m “penetrating” an orifice it’s not sex, and yes oral counts towards that. I mean when I say I’m sleeping with someone I’m really sleeping not “sleeping.”

I believe when you entertain ideas of having sex with someone that’s sexual desire which is past sexual attraction, it’s like . . . here comes an analogy . . . when you look at a painting or garden flower arrangement and think that’s beautiful you then stand there and admire its beauty but move on that’s sexual attraction. Now when you see said painting or garden arrangement and think I want to try my hand at painting/garden flower arranging that’s sexual desire.

Ok so maybe that was a horrible analogy buts that’s how I see it. You can be attracted to everyone you see on the street walking around with a 24 hour woody, but if you don’t have that desire then you’re just a history buff walking through famous civil war battle sites your learning and seeing history but you’re not reenacting it. Or a wine lover tasting small samples on a tour through Napa valley, but you’re not buying up bottles of said samples or learning how to craft your own. Lol so most of these are still kind of bad and corny but that’s how I feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
P is for...

Based on this, I would tentatively suggest - for those who feel that the concept of sexual attraction as a criterion poses more problems than it solves - that asexuality could be thought of as not relating to other people sexually, even within a romantic relationship. I'd just leave it at that and leave mechanisms (sexual attraction, sexual desire) and causation (innate/learned aspects) to psychology. Thoughts?

that actually works better for me than 'does not experience sexual attraction' (although i would rephrase it as 'does not relate to other people sexually, regardless of the nature of the relationship'). i can see myself much more in that definition, and it still covers others' experiences as well. as i've stated before, i can kiss and experience arousal, but only because to me kissing is something completely different than sex, an end in and of itself rather than a means to an end. in terms of actual sexual activity, i do not have any sense of relating to other people, no matter what type of relationship we have. there's just... nothing, whatever else i may experience in isolation (hence my identification as an autoerotic asexual). and i very much like the idea of leaving questions of mechanism and causation out of the equation entirely. this definition also has the advantage of not requiring another, more nebulous definition in conjunction (as with 'sexual attraction'); it's much easier, i would say, for a person to understand what 'relating sexually to another person' means for them than it is for them to parse whether their experience fits into a vaguely-defined pigeonhole.

i'm sure there might be other objections to this wording or conceptualization, and i'm sure it can be tweaked and improved. but it does seem to me to be moving in the right direction.

I feel a lot of people place sexual emphasis on things such as kissing or cuddling. There’s a complete disconnect for me literally unless I’m “penetrating” an orifice it’s not sex, and yes oral counts towards that. I mean when I say I’m sleeping with someone I’m really sleeping not “sleeping.”

yes, sherishade, that's how i feel as well, and i've also used the words 'complete disconnect' to describe my experience. interesting to know that there are others who share it too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say I'm glad this discussion didn't just fade away...

I feel funny contributing much to this conversation (since I am sexual). But I have wanted to say this, the definition as it stands now is sufficient to get the idea across. It only seems to be upon further consideration that it starts to become confusing. Initially, I "got it".

Link to post
Share on other sites
P is for...

I feel funny contributing much to this conversation (since I am sexual). But I have wanted to say this, the definition as it stands now is sufficient to get the idea across. It only seems to be upon further consideration that it starts to become confusing. Initially, I "got it".

yeah, i can understand that. i did too, for that matter, and it was enough to get me to identify as asexual myself. but there do appear to be a number of people for whom it breaks down pretty quickly, as evidenced by the vast quantities of 'Am I Asexual?' posts here over the years. and to be honest, i'm not sure a new definition would change that. i've just found the 'sexual attraction' bit to be problematic for a very long time, that's all, and i know i'm not the only one.

i'm glad the conversation is continuing too, regardless of what ultimately comes out of it. it's refreshing to see a polite, interesting, fruitful discussion on AVEN. more of that, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on this, I would tentatively suggest - for those who feel that the concept of sexual attraction as a criterion poses more problems than it solves - that asexuality could be thought of as not relating to other people sexually, even within a romantic relationship. I'd just leave it at that and leave mechanisms (sexual attraction, sexual desire) and causation (innate/learned aspects) to psychology. Thoughts?

that actually works better for me than 'does not experience sexual attraction' (although i would rephrase it as 'does not relate to other people sexually, regardless of the nature of the relationship'). i can see myself much more in that definition, and it still covers others' experiences as well. as i've stated before, i can kiss and experience arousal, but only because to me kissing is something completely different than sex, an end in and of itself rather than a means to an end. in terms of actual sexual activity, i do not have any sense of relating to other people, no matter what type of relationship we have. there's just... nothing, whatever else i may experience in isolation (hence my identification as an autoerotic asexual). and i very much like the idea of leaving questions of mechanism and causation out of the equation entirely. this definition also has the advantage of not requiring another, more nebulous definition in conjunction (as with 'sexual attraction'); it's much easier, i would say, for a person to understand what 'relating sexually to another person' means for them than it is for them to parse whether their experience fits into a vaguely-defined pigeonhole.

i'm sure there might be other objections to this wording or conceptualization, and i'm sure it can be tweaked and improved. but it does seem to me to be moving in the right direction.

Thanks for the feedback. I like your rewording. :)

I feel a lot of people place sexual emphasis on things such as kissing or cuddling. There’s a complete disconnect for me literally unless I’m “penetrating” an orifice it’s not sex, and yes oral counts towards that. I mean when I say I’m sleeping with someone I’m really sleeping not “sleeping.”

yes, sherishade, that's how i feel as well, and i've also used the words 'complete disconnect' to describe my experience. interesting to know that there are others who share it too.

Me three :) I've found myself using the word quite a lot when I think about asexuality and my tentative exploration of sexual interaction.

@ Lady Girl, I agree that the current definition makes a lot of sense at first, it was certainly helpful to me, including when coming out to other people. I think it works well to a certain approximation. But like a number of other people here, I have found that when you start prodding at "sexual attraction" a bit more - which you invariably do, because you want to understand yourself - you understand less and less ... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree P! And I know I said this in the other discussion on this topic, but it relates to what you said in the opposite. Sexual attraction as the primary descriptor doesn't work the best I think, because it sort of draws half of us sexuals into the grey or demi catagory.

Basically, you say that you as an asexual DO experience sexual attraction. And I pretty much feel that I (as a sexual) DO NOT experience it much at all (particularly if it means looking at someone and wanting to jump in the sack).

BUT. I do know that there is something in me that wants a sexual relationship with someone...and this something in me is absent in my husband. We both know this, but don't think sexual attraction is the right way to describe it (and as I said before... this is upon further consideration).

EDIT: LOL...you were posting while I was bookcase! That is what happened...exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
P is for...

I agree P! And I know I said this in the other discussion on this topic, but it relates to what you said in the opposite. Sexual attraction as the primary descriptor doesn't work the best I think, because it sort of draws half of us sexuals into the grey or demi catagory.

Basically, you say that you as an asexual DO experience sexual attraction. And I pretty much feel that I (as a sexual) DO NOT experience it much at all (particularly if it means looking at someone and wanting to jump in the sack).

BUT. I do know that there is something in me that wants a sexual relationship with someone...and this something in me is absent in my husband. We both know this, but don't think sexual attraction is the right way to describe it (and as I said before... this is upon further consideration).

EDIT: LOL...you were posting while I was bookcase! That is what happened...exactly.

yes, Lady Girl, all of that makes a lot of sense to me. and to be quite honest, it's one of the reasons i haven't generally been very open here about my experiences in the past; i've always gotten a strong sense that were i to describe them, i'd be met with, 'but you say you experience sexual attraction; and the definition of asexuality is "does not experience sexual attraction"; ipso facto, you are not asexual.' but i have a strong enough sense of self and enough personal conviction to know that i am asexual, when you get right down to what's most important. and the disconnect (i wonder how many people come up with that word independently?) between what i think i want and what i actually experience when i get it is, for me, what defines my asexuality. that simply isn't covered under the current definition, in the same way that the definition potentially does cover, as you say, the experience of a sexual person who rarely or never experiences what they consider sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

P, I can see what you are saying too, I think I can almost recall him experiencing what you call the disconnect. I'm not sure if it was in the yawn or the sudden itch he had while kissing me. At any rate, I think I get it. It seems to be part of what we're trying to get at here...not sure in what way though.

I can definitely see why you would not want to be talking about it as you've been able to in these discussions. I think it's important to address this issue for a better all around understanding. And totally agree that maybe so many wouldn't be asking if they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
P is for...

P, I can see what you are saying too, I think I can almost recall him experiencing what you call the disconnect. I'm not sure if it was in the yawn or the sudden itch he had while kissing me. At any rate, I think I get it. It seems to be part of what we're trying to get at here...not sure in what way though.

I can definitely see why you would not want to be talking about it as you've been able to in these discussions. I think it's important to address this issue for a better all around understanding. And totally agree that maybe so many wouldn't be asking if they are.

well, i figure if i-- who am open and transparent about myself to an almost absurd degree-- have been reluctant to talk about it for that reason, there are probably quite a few others more restrained in their disclosure style who would never think to mention it at all. which leads me to suspect it's more widespread than anyone has previously suspected; as i mentioned elsewhere, i've talked about this with a number of asexual friends who understand exactly what i mean and who were relieved to hear someone else articulate it, as it's an aspect of asexuality they'd never heard properly discussed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, Lady Girl, all of that makes a lot of sense to me. and to be quite honest, it's one of the reasons i haven't generally been very open here about my experiences in the past; i've always gotten a strong sense that were i to describe them, i'd be met with, 'but you say you experience sexual attraction; and the definition of asexuality is "does not experience sexual attraction"; ipso facto, you are not asexual.' but i have a strong enough sense of self and enough personal conviction to know that i am asexual, when you get right down to what's most important. and the disconnect (i wonder how many people come up with that word independently?) between what i think i want and what i actually experience when i get it is, for me, what defines my asexuality. that simply isn't covered under the current definition, in the same way that the definition potentially does cover, as you say, the experience of a sexual person who rarely or never experiences what they consider sexual attraction.

It's funny because I feel I'm asexual based only on the fact I don't feel desire I feel attraction but can't help it. For me the key point of separation is romantic/sexual, sexual desire ie. I want to have sex with someone is where sexuality falls. While the "hey I think he/she/they is cute" is the sexual attraction/romantic part. So because I identify with pan-romantic asexual, I feel attraction to pretty much anyone with no desire. Likewise if I had no desire or attraction I'd call my self aromantic asexual, its that separation to me that's important.

I actually like the idea of having both Romantic/Sexual parts to orientation, I know a few gayromantic heterosexual females if you catch my meaning ^.-

Link to post
Share on other sites

P, I have to say, I'm very happy to hear you articulate it on here. It really helps me understand my husband better...some things about him/asexuality were still confusing me and I knew they shouldn't. Now I know why...again!

I'm hoping this conversation gets us all a little closer to some more clarity about it. I hope some more folks see this and can contribute.

Are you under the same impression I am, that the primary descriptor could be replaced with a more accurate term? If we knew what it was?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

I agree P! And I know I said this in the other discussion on this topic, but it relates to what you said in the opposite. Sexual attraction as the primary descriptor doesn't work the best I think, because it sort of draws half of us sexuals into the grey or demi catagory.

Basically, you say that you as an asexual DO experience sexual attraction. And I pretty much feel that I (as a sexual) DO NOT experience it much at all (particularly if it means looking at someone and wanting to jump in the sack).

BUT. I do know that there is something in me that wants a sexual relationship with someone...and this something in me is absent in my husband. We both know this, but don't think sexual attraction is the right way to describe it (and as I said before... this is upon further consideration).

EDIT: LOL...you were posting while I was bookcase! That is what happened...exactly.

yes, Lady Girl, all of that makes a lot of sense to me. and to be quite honest, it's one of the reasons i haven't generally been very open here about my experiences in the past; i've always gotten a strong sense that were i to describe them, i'd be met with, 'but you say you experience sexual attraction; and the definition of asexuality is "does not experience sexual attraction"; ipso facto, you are not asexual.' but i have a strong enough sense of self and enough personal conviction to know that i am asexual, when you get right down to what's most important. and the disconnect (i wonder how many people come up with that word independently?) between what i think i want and what i actually experience when i get it is, for me, what defines my asexuality. that simply isn't covered under the current definition, in the same way that the definition potentially does cover, as you say, the experience of a sexual person who rarely or never experiences what they consider sexual attraction.

I want to comment about both of the above posts. First, speaking of that disconnect makes perfect sense to me. As someone who is asexual, very sex posative and experienced sexually, that word resonates very strongly with me. Before realizing I was asexual, I had no reason not to desire sex, no reason to shy away from it and, in my mind at least, I had every reason to enjoy it. I grew up with the understanding that sex was a wonderful thing, among the best things an individual could experience, so why wouldn't I enjoy it? The problem was that I felt no internal motivation or drive towards it, only engaging in it when my partner desired to, and I only got limited enjoyment from the act. It wasn't the physical aspect that I felt disconnected from, but rather the emotional aspect. Physically all my parts worked, but I just never connectd with the act; it never felt natural and I never felt any of the emotions or connections I believed I was supposed to feel.

As far as sexual attraction goes, I think when speaking of such things it is impossible to seperate from the idea of having an internal motivation to have sex with other people. That motivation surely must be a part of sexual attraction? I believe it is possible to experience sexual attraction seperate from that internal motivation, but I do not believe it is possible to experience that internal motivation without sexual attraction. When thinking about my own asexuality, I am inclined to state that the lack of that internal motivation is more important than my lack of sexual attraction. it is not so much the lack of attraction that causes the disconnect when it comes to sexual activity with other people, because I don't think sexual and aesthetic attraction is all that different minus that motivation, but rather the lack of that innate internal motivation to have sex. It simply doesn't feel natural and I'm never driven to have it. If given the choice I won't have it and that stems from no real repulsion, inexperience, ect. I simply lack that internal drive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you wrote that Vamp...you always make so much sense! I agree, it's in the internal motivation/drive. And I'm pretty sure my asexual husband would agree completely. That is how I feel as well...I have the internal drive, but have a weak attraction I think (I'm not easily turned on).

So do you think it's kind of like having a sex motor (the internal drive/motivation)...and a sex magnet (sexual attraction) inside us? I know this is weird, but there are motors that work with magnets. I don't mean to be confusing, just wondering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
P is for...

As far as sexual attraction goes, I think when speaking of such things it is impossible to seperate from the idea of having an internal motivation to have sex with other people. That motivation surely must be a part of sexual attraction? I believe it is possible to experience sexual attraction seperate from that internal motivation, but I do not believe it is possible to experience that internal motivation without sexual attraction. When thinking about my own asexuality, I am inclined to state that the lack of that internal motivation is more important than my lack of sexual attraction. it is not so much the lack of attraction that causes the disconnect when it comes to sexual activity with other people, because I don't think sexual and aesthetic attraction is all that different minus that motivation, but rather the lack of that innate internal motivation to have sex. It simply doesn't feel natural and I'm never driven to have it. If given the choice I won't have it and that stems from no real repulsion, inexperience, ect. I simply lack that internal drive.

i'm very similar, vampyremage-- up to a point. (and i hope i'm not repeating myself ad nauseum here; i'm just trying to clarify, in order to give voice to a particular variety of asexual experience, and i've also said different things in different places, so forgive me if i'm being at all repetitive.) i don't dispute the part about it being impossible to separate sexual attraction from the idea of having an internal motivation to have sex with other people; in fact, that's why i say i do experience a kind of sexual attraction, and why i take issue with the idea that the 'does not experience sexual attraction' definition is the only possible or practical one for asexuality. in my case, as long as there's no one actually in the picture as far as a sexual encounter is concerned, i can experience sexual attraction. i can meet someone, fall in love, and think about what having a sexual relationship would be like, and it's fantastic-- in theory. in the past, this capacity for theoretical sexual attraction has caused me significant consternation, because i thought that theoretical attraction and desire would translate to reality and put myself into situations where something sexual could transpire. once it did, all traces of my previous sexual attraction vanished as though it had never existed; that's why i talk about the disconnect between what i want and what i experience when i get it. this is not simply something that happened once or twice; it was the case 25 years ago, and it's still the case today, with plenty of opportunity to test it in between. it's not something that i could change with therapy or hormones or anything else; it's simply the way i'm wired. in essence, i both do and do not experience sexual attraction (one could say, i suppose, that i experience Schrödinger's sexual attraction*), and since my overriding experience is that i don't when it counts, that's what i consider makes me asexual. and that's where my experience deviates from that of many asexuals, yet where it intersects with many others, and the main reason i feel the current definition is insufficient.

*i give all credit for the concept to Sciatrix, who elsewhere coined the term 'Schrödinger's dating'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'does not relate to other people sexually, regardless of the nature of the relationship'

I hope you all don't mind me jumping in here to say, yes, this, right here.

I've been having some of the same issues trying to parse 'no sexual attraction' as well--I know asexual fits, and for a long time, this definition would have fit too. But then, last year around this time, I suddenly and without provocation understood what sexual attraction was. Only a handful of times and not enough to affect my life other than to be very, very disturbing, but there it was. And it was still not anything I would consider as a drive to have sex with anyone. Nevertheless, it was sexual attraction, it was exactly one of those "you just know it when you feel it" experiences. No other word fits for it. It was sexual attraction with no internal drive to have sex, as vampyremage put it.

Under the 'no sexual attraction' definition, this would have booted me out of an identity that I am very comfortable in, to lodge with Gray-A, which I don't think fits me at all. "Does not relate to people sexually" though...yes, that works well for me.

Thank you for having this conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
P is for...

Under the 'no sexual attraction' definition, this would have booted me out of an identity that I am very comfortable in, to lodge with Gray-A, which I don't think fits me at all. "Does not relate to people sexually" though...yes, that works well for me.

Grey-A doesn't work for me either. i experience sexuality from the perspective of an asexual-- that is, through fantasy, masturbation, erotica, porn, etc. but bring real live human beings into the mix and i'm nowhere. so i'm more than sex-positive; i have an acute, intimate understanding of the appeal of sex for people who are sexual. but it's all abstract for me; it's nothing i can ever experience myself. so saying i don't relate to people sexually-- yeah, absolutely, that's perfect, that conveys the essence of my orientation. but saying i don't experience sexual attraction is something completely different, and something to which i can't wholeheartedly and honestly assent.

ETA: and how about the possibility of having a definition that contains multiple components? something like, 'Different asexuals describe their experience in different ways: for example, as not experiencing sexual attraction; as not relating to others sexually, regardless of the nature of the relationship; or as not having an internal drive to have sex. This list is not exhaustive.' just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

As far as sexual attraction goes, I think when speaking of such things it is impossible to seperate from the idea of having an internal motivation to have sex with other people. That motivation surely must be a part of sexual attraction? I believe it is possible to experience sexual attraction seperate from that internal motivation, but I do not believe it is possible to experience that internal motivation without sexual attraction. When thinking about my own asexuality, I am inclined to state that the lack of that internal motivation is more important than my lack of sexual attraction. it is not so much the lack of attraction that causes the disconnect when it comes to sexual activity with other people, because I don't think sexual and aesthetic attraction is all that different minus that motivation, but rather the lack of that innate internal motivation to have sex. It simply doesn't feel natural and I'm never driven to have it. If given the choice I won't have it and that stems from no real repulsion, inexperience, ect. I simply lack that internal drive.

i'm very similar, vampyremage-- up to a point. (and i hope i'm not repeating myself ad nauseum here; i'm just trying to clarify, in order to give voice to a particular variety of asexual experience, and i've also said different things in different places, so forgive me if i'm being at all repetitive.) i don't dispute the part about it being impossible to separate sexual attraction from the idea of having an internal motivation to have sex with other people; in fact, that's why i say i do experience a kind of sexual attraction, and why i take issue with the idea that the 'does not experience sexual attraction' definition is the only possible or practical one for asexuality. in my case, as long as there's no one actually in the picture as far as a sexual encounter is concerned, i can experience sexual attraction. i can meet someone, fall in love, and think about what having a sexual relationship would be like, and it's fantastic-- in theory. in the past, this capacity for theoretical sexual attraction has caused me significant consternation, because i thought that theoretical attraction and desire would translate to reality and put myself into situations where something sexual could transpire. once it did, all traces of my previous sexual attraction vanished as though it had never existed; that's why i talk about the disconnect between what i want and what i experience when i get it. this is not simply something that happened once or twice; it was the case 25 years ago, and it's still the case today, with plenty of opportunity to test it in between. it's not something that i could change with therapy or hormones or anything else; it's simply the way i'm wired. in essence, i both do and do not experience sexual attraction (one could say, i suppose, that i experience Schrödinger's sexual attraction*), and since my overriding experience is that i don't when it counts, that's what i consider makes me asexual. and that's where my experience deviates from that of many asexuals, yet where it intersects with many others, and the main reason i feel the current definition is insufficient.

*i give all credit for the concept to Sciatrix, who elsewhere coined the term 'Schrödinger's dating'.

I think this goes along with the idea that sexual attraction can exist independent of internal sexual motivation but internal sexual motivation cannot exist independent of sexual attraction. The more I think about it, the more I don't like the defintion of sexual attraction and the lack there of being what defines asexuality. Or, to put it more specifically, the more I think the idea of sexual attraction that is promoted on AVEN isn't accurate to what the majority of people think of as sexual attraction. There seems to be this impression on AVEN that an individual can be internally motivated to have sex with other people (for pleasure or whatever other internal reason) and still not experience sexual attraction. To me, this defies common sense and I don't understand it at all. The thing that differs sexual attraction is the difference between sex being appealing to have with another person and having no sexual relation to another person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I understand what you're all saying, and it makes sense. Sexual attraction being the primary descriptor for asexuality does not make sense...after you think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ETA: and how about the possibility of having a definition that contains multiple components? something like, 'Different asexuals describe their experience in different ways: for example, as not experiencing sexual attraction; as not relating to others sexually, regardless of the nature of the relationship; or as not having an internal drive to have sex. This list is not exhaustive.' just a thought.

I think this could be a productive approach, one that acknowledges the diversity of experience and yet conveys a common theme.

It's actually amazing how hard this is to pin down. Or not - human sexuality is an incredibly complex phenomenon with what looks like lots of recursive loops between physical expression and emotion, physical pleasure and interpersonal commitment etc. It's enough to make anyone's head spin :wacko: Human asexuality too is an incredibly complex phenomenon with what looks like an unusual configuration of these elements - and yes, it's making my head spin. :wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites

ETA: and how about the possibility of having a definition that contains multiple components? something like, 'Different asexuals describe their experience in different ways: for example, as not experiencing sexual attraction; as not relating to others sexually, regardless of the nature of the relationship; or as not having an internal drive to have sex. This list is not exhaustive.' just a thought.

I think this could be a productive approach, one that acknowledges the diversity of experience and yet conveys a common theme.

It's actually amazing how hard this is to pin down. Or not - human sexuality is an incredibly complex phenomenon with what looks like lots of recursive loops between physical expression and emotion, physical pleasure and interpersonal commitment etc. It's enough to make anyone's head spin :wacko: Human asexuality too is an incredibly complex phenomenon with what looks like an unusual configuration of these elements - and yes, it's making my head spin. :wacko:

I agree with this; not too much definition, but enough to show there is a variety of experiences that are still asexual.

I'm not surprised it's hard to pin down though--trying to translate all of that into only one avenue of human communication is bound to be slippery. Better to toss a well-designed net than to try to pin it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised it's hard to pin down though--trying to translate all of that into only one avenue of human communication is bound to be slippery. Better to toss a well-designed net than to try to pin it.

That's a great way of putting it :lol:

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