On “sexual attraction” meaning and the difference between being asexual and non-asexual sex-repulsed

[Green mouse ice-cream]

I am afraid this is going to be a reeeeally long post. Apologies for that, but I wanted to explain myself clearly and this is the best I could do. The questions in bold are the key points I would like to be answered, the rest is for clarification of my perspective.

First and main problem (and I’ve seen this is a pretty common one): asexuality is defined as "lack of sexual attraction to anyone". Great. Here's the thing: I have no idea what "sexual attraction" is supposed to mean. I can tell if a man or a woman looks attractive, though. But I see this as the acknowledgement of a fact, as far as I am concerned there's no attraction involved.

How am I supposed to distinguish sexual attraction from esthetic attraction? Or even worse: sensual attraction?

E.g. Yesterday I saw a guy wearing a big, warm, furry sweater and I was a bit like “awwww... it would be so nice to be hugged by him” (plus, he had curly, funny hair... very fluffy and adorable). I didn't think "I'd like to fuck him" neither did I get aroused in any way. But, apparently, many non-asexual people don't either. And this is where I start being terribly confused.

Some people (non-asexual) tell me they don't constantly think of having sex with other people. Some do, but others don't. So: what does sexual attraction feel like... if it is not directly related to sex? I know that according to AVENwiki sexual attraction is “a feeling that sexual people get that causes them to desire sexual contact with a specific other person.” Definitely I don’t experience this, but I think that’s not a really accurate definition… since some non-asexuals don’t either. They don’t feel like having REAL sexual contact with other people: even if they think that someone’s hot, that doesn’t necessarily imply an actual desire for sex with them (at least that’s the idea I get from most of my friends’ words and behavior). Usually, they tell me they have crushes, but that these crushes don't involve anything specifically sexual: they just want to be close to this certain someone; they feel butterflies in the stomach when they are around them and this kind of stuff... like a "general attraction". The point is that they may not feel anything strictly sexual at the beginning of their relationship. To me, it sounds as if they felt a romantic attraction and then the sexual attraction appeared (or was "built" as the relationship develops) AFTERWARDS (btw, wouldn't that be demisexuality?). In conclusion: it’s not that usual to desire real sexual contact with strangers (I think), even if they are thought to be really hot. Not to mention that, apparently, there are sex-repulsed “sexuals” who, obviously, don’t desire sex with anyone (but still experience sexual attraction... which seems contradictory).

It's like:

If you are in love with someone and you want/need/desire intimacy through sex ... then you are clearly sexual (maybe demisexual), because you are attracted to them in a sexual way.

If you love someone in a romantic way, you want to cuddle and stuff, but you don't feel compelled to search intimacy through sexual activity whatsoever.... then you are asexual.

(*Footnote: I am aware that I am oversimplifying this, since romantic and sexual attraction don't have to be present at the same time, but most non asexual people do think they are both equally important to sustain a relationship and they don't even see them as separate and independent things; thus, I think this simplified outline of mine can apply to most cases.)

Now, according to this I won't be able to tell if I am asexual/demisexual/whatever until I fall in love and kind of start a relationship with someone. And I don’t like that. I have tried to convince myself that it doesn’t matter: I am who I am and I don't need a label. It sounds great, but it's not working. I am afraid of starting a relationship with someone "sexual" because if it turns out that I am asexual and I am attracted romantically to them but not sexually, I won't be able to handle the situation. Either I start being sexually attracted to them and then everything is solved or I just can't be in a sexual relationship. I can't. I know that certain mixed couples work, but really, no matter what, I am not forcing myself to have sex if I don't feel like it, neither am I asking my partner to sacrifice this "part" of them for my sake.

On the other hand, I am so afraid of "deciding" that I am asexual. Case closed: I should look for other asexual people because that's the only thing that will work. You see, maybe not only am I denying what appears to be an important, pleasurable part of human nature, but also overcomplicating my life unnecessarily; because, honestly, only 1-2% of the population is thought to be asexual... no one can deny me that, when it comes to get a partner, it is more advantageous to be in the other 98-99%.

So, I am trying to figure out myself, but I've reached a dead end and, since I have no one to talk about this in my "real life" and this forum seems really nice, I decided to sign up, ramble here and see if someone can enlighten me.

The thing is I think that genitals and body fluids are disgusting. The abstract idea of sex doesn't repulse me, though. As weird as it may sound, sex in films is fine by me, even nice: naked, vulnerable people kissing and whispering nice things to each other in the darkness. But the actual, real thing seems far from that: the genitals (so ugly), the sweat and other fluids, the smell, a strange, sticky body stuck to yours... Plus, I need a lot of personal space and I am hypersensitive when it comes to any physical contact, so this seems extra smothering, disgusting and icky. Whenever I force myself to think about the matter not as in "standard movies" with nice illumination, photography and soundtrack (and without explicit scenes, genitalia no, thanks)... but as in porn, I can't help but feel like eww... No. Just... no.

And for the record, I do have a pretty normal sex drive, which only makes this whole issue harder to grasp. I just don't understand why people prefer sex to masturbation. Apparently most women don't even reach orgasm through actual intercourse (??), which leads me to my next point. That is, regarding the "dimensions" of sex, people always come up with one of these:

-Sex as a physical need and/or a pleasurable activity. But I insist: why is sex more desirable than masturbation? Physically, the stimulation can be pretty much the same or better, since you don't depend on anyone else than yourself.

-Sex as a way of expressing love. Wait, what? Seriously: what? How's the friction penis-vagina a sign of love (no offence intended to anyone, I am genuinely clueless)? It seems totally random. I understand the biological-reproductive need but apart from that, where does this whole concept of "sex=making love" come from? My best guess is that it's some kind of cultural construction... The thing is that I understand the "reasons" behind other intimacy signs or ways to strengthen the bound in a relationship: sleeping together (literally sleeping: zzzzz), or cuddling or hugging or talking or just staying together in silence. I am able to understand how these "activities" can make you feel warm and loved and accompanied. But the intercourse itself... I don't get it. I hate when I don't get things. But I don't. It's frustrating.

To sum it up: I have read many posts around here and I am still confused. Homosexuals can know they are homosexuals before sleeping with anyone, so do heterosexuals, etc. And that's because they feel this special thing called sexual attraction... Right? Is there any satisfactory definition of sexual attraction? I am repulsed by the idea of actually having sex with anyone. But some non-asexual people are too (see repulsed “sexuals”), so that means nothing. I don't imagine myself engaging in any sexual activity with strangers as I walk down street (and the very concept sounds extremely weird). But some non-asexual people don't either. I am 20 and never, ever felt like in need of actual, partnered sex. But, again, "sexual" people don't either. Wait... Do they? Is there any difference between the "abstract" sexual desire and the desire of partnered sex, like when one is not only hungry, but wants to satisfy the hunger with one specific food? In other words, do non-asexual people feel like "needing" partnered sex and thus, not just in need of satisfying the sexual physical urge (which they could do themselves) but satisfying it in a certain way (that is to say, with a partner)? Is this the difference between asexuals and non-asexuals?

I am stuck here. I wish I could move on. I don't know if I am a repulsed sexual (or undeveloped? repressed? afraid of intimacy? What are all these terms supposed to mean?) or an asexual looking desperately for excuses because of the fear of being "broken" or lonely...

And then, it's said that you can't say you don't like something without trying it, which seems a fair point. But on the other hand, the rest of the world doesn't have this problem: they do know they want it, no need to try it beforehand. And then, there are these people (especially women) who say they didn't enjoy sex that much at first, that they had to get used to it (whaat??)... Stuff like this leaves me utterly puzzled. Sometimes I feel like everyone's making up everything just to confuse me (no, not really, but I do wonder if people say what they actually think or what they force themselves to think/feel in order to fit in or something...)

And this is it. Any insights on the matter will be helpful.

Thank you very much.

[Verb]

Welcome to the debate :lol: People have been discussing at length exactly what "Sexual attraction" is. It's an abstract concept and is therefore very difficult to pin down. Generally, it's down to the subjective interpretation of the individual. However, I will attempt to address your questions.

"How am I supposed to distinguish sexual attraction from esthetic attraction? Or even worse: sensual attraction?

Some people (non-asexual) tell me they don't constantly think of having sex with other people. Some do, but others don't. So: what does sexual attraction feel like... if it is not directly related to sex?"

The way I like to think of Sexual Vs. Aesthetic attraction is to imagine a very nice looking vase. I can appreciate the beauty and craftsmanship that has gone into the vase, and admire what it brings to a room. But that's not the same thing as wanting to have sex with it.

As for the "non-asexual people not wanting sex" thing, it's important to remember asexuals are not different from anyone else. Aesthetic attraction is NOT an exclusively asexual concept. It's just that with non-asexuals, the idea of aesthetic attraction and sexual attraction may often go hand in hand, much in the same way that romantic attraction does.

"Why is sex more desirable than masturbation?

where does this whole concept of "sex=making love" come from?"

My understanding is that this also stems from the pairing of Sexual and Romantic attraction. Many non-asexuals report that in a close relationship, they desire sex not just for the physical act, but so that they can actually feel closer to their partner on an emotional level. This effect has spread out as a general concept that having sex is emotionally fulfilling, and leads naturally to the conclusion of "Making love" - it perhaps literally feels like they are cementing a loving bond in some cases.

"Is there any satisfactory definition of sexual attraction?"

No.

"Is there any difference between the "abstract" sexual desire and the desire of partnered sex, like when one is not only hungry, but wants to satisfy the hunger with one specific food? In other words, do non-asexual people feel like "needing" partnered sex and thus, not just in need of satisfying the sexual physical urge (which they could do themselves) but satisfying it in a certain way (that is to say, with a partner)? Is this the difference between asexuals and non-asexuals?"

It sounds like you may be describing either sex drive or libido here. In either case, no, this would not be the difference between asexuals and non-asexuals. The difference is that asexuals lack sexual attraction: that's all. Both asexuals and non-asexuals can desire abstract partnered sex, as this does not necessarily require that they feel sexual attraction.

"Or undeveloped? repressed? afraid of intimacy? What are all these terms supposed to mean?"

Undeveloped - Not yet reached the point at which you have developed an interest in sex. The same as "Immature", in some respects.

Repressed - Having a subconscious fear of something such that you have mentally suppressed any conscious thought around a certain idea. In the case of asexuality, it is the idea that one cannot accept one's "true" sexual orientation and have therefore locked the feelings of sexual attraction away deep in your psyche, where they can no longer "harm" you.

Afraid of intimacy - Generally, the idea that one fears opening up to others or being made vulnerable.

I think I just about covered everything...Yes. If you need any further clarification, just say so :P

[WhenSummersGone]

I agree 100%. All these points are definitely confusing, and I still have no idea what Sexual Attraction is lol.

[Member54880]

What 'sexual attraction' precisely is, has been debated multiple times here: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/69810-what-is-sexual-attraction/

It's a flawed term, and there are some non-asexuals here who are baffled by 'sexual attraction', and say they don't experience what AVEN describes as 'sexual attraction', but still identify as non-asexual because they desire sex.

I think that sensual attraction would be intertwined with sexual and/or romantic attraction, for people who experience both. Asexuals can experience sensual attraction, and it is linked with romantic attraction for some, but clearly separate for others: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/88710-sensual-attracion-it-does-exist-and-i-experience-it/

There are sex-repulsed 'sexuals'. Non-asexuals have some sort of desire to have partnered sex, and this desire may be rooted both subconsciously and biologically, but that doesn't necessarily mean they want to act upon it. Like with sexual attraction, repulsion generally isn't on a conscious level, but since there are sex-repulsed non-asexuals, attraction and repulsion must somehow be processed separately.

I've met some who really don't want sex at all, and they hate that they experience sexual attraction. But to me, that's not repression because they don't want sex in the first place. Repression would be someone who wants sex, but is unable or unwilling to act upon those desires because of fear, and forces themselves to not do so (or try not to).

[Infinite Tree]

Welcome to AVEN! Long, well thought-out posts are always welcome!

I also have no idea what "sexual attraction" is. I personally suspect the term is intentionally vague, and was used in the AVEN definition so it could sound definitive while still being vague enough to handle the diversity within the asexual community. But it leaves out a bunch of people and confuses others, so it's not a perfect definition (not to suggest that we should even necessarily be trying to define asexuality or that it's possible to do so or even not harmful to try).

My advice for you is to check out as many asexuals' experiences of asexuality as possible and just ask yourself if you feel like you fit in roughly the same category. I found it really helpful to read through various other models of asexuality: http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Models_of_asexuality and watch a bunch of video series on asexuality: http://swankivy.com/writing/essays/philosophy/asexual/linkyoutube.html

and so now while I still have no idea if I meet the AVEN definition of asexuality, I can confidently identify as asexual.

And you're right that everyone is making up everything, but it's probably just because they're confused themselves.

[flesh-pocket]

im in pretty much the same boat as the op here.... i dont know if i experience sexual attraction or not? i feel i am attracted to the abstract idea of sex only, but i don't apply it to myself, either. its like if i look at a person i think is "hot," i notice the hot parts and can quantifiable explain them, but the person themselves is just a stick figure, and i would never use hotness as a reason to date someone. even before i knew about asexuality i thought i would not like to have sex even after im married, or understood why masturbation is considered superior to sex. I've never had a butterflies in the stomach crush, i never understood why puberty was supposed to make you boy crazy, always thought romance in books and movies was boring/dumb/gross, depending. ive gotten MAD at people who ask if i was thinking about boys ect.... all before i came here. i have a normal sex drive, and i experience absolutely nothing with girls, so i do know i have to be attracted to men somehow, because i can feel the difference. but the idea of someone finding me sexually attractive is a huge turn off for me, even though i can appreciate wearing a "sexy" outfit.

i relate to SO much that's here, and i WANT to be asexual, but that doesn't really cut it, right? you can want to be gay/straight/bi/pan but it doesn't change anything. but if i experience sexual attraction,then thats it, isnt it? i guess i could be grey-sexual, but if that's just about only feeling it once or twice then im out, too. if its just so low that it doesnt bother you on a daily basis, then what is the difference between gray-sexual and some sexuals?

*sigh* i just don't want to get exited about a new identity when i could just as easily be barking at nothing, you know?

[Green mouse ice-cream]

Thanks for all the responses!

Both asexuals and non-asexuals can desire abstract partnered sex, as this does not necessarily require that they feel sexual attraction.

I think my problem is the "official" definition of sexual attraction:

AVEN FAQ:

"Sexual attraction: Desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them." To me, this means sexual attraction=desire for partnered sex with a certain someone. The same idea appears repeatedly in other posts. In the pinned topic on "what is sexual attraction" I've seen it defined as "seeing someone and not only finding them attractive, but thinking you'd like to have sex with them, like fantasies and such."

If someone's repulsed by sex, they don't desire sexual contact with anyone. BY DEFINITION, I can't see how's possible that there are sex-repulsed people who are still non-asexual.

The same applies to asexuals that desire partnered sex without feeling sexual attraction (!!) How's that possible if the very definition of sexual attraction is to desire sexual contact with someone??

We are stating one thing and the contrary at the same time... Hence my confusion.

There are sex-repulsed 'sexuals'. Non-asexuals have some sort of desire to have partnered sex, and this desire may be rooted both subconsciously and biologically, but that doesn't necessarily mean they want to act upon it. Like with sexual attraction, repulsion generally isn't on a conscious level, but since there are sex-repulsed non-asexuals, attraction and repulsion must somehow be processed separately.

I've met some who really don't want sex at all, and they hate that they experience sexual attraction.

Ok, maybe here's the key. I understand that our bodies can desire something while our minds reject it. Maybe we could argue that asexuality is about your body not wanting/needing sex with other people (even if you on a conscious level decide to have sex with them for other reasons). And then, if your body wants sex with someone but your mind says "no" that would be a non-asexual consciously deciding not to act upon this desire (because of religious reasons, for example)... But, as you've said, repulsion is not on a conscious level. It's not like they are choosing not to pursue their instinct, their own bodies are rebelling against the idea. Desire and repulsion are both on a biological, physical level. So, repulsed "sexuals" PHYSICALLY want and reject sex at the same time? Does this make sense?

[Tommiboy13]

I agree with you on the relationship problem. I feel like it could be something that could hold me back from a long-term relationship. Especially because even if I decide I am sexual (new to all this stuff, but not grey-ace), I would be celibate anyway because of my religion. But, if I get into a relationship with a celibate, sexual guy then he'll probably want his wedding night and all that stuff, and I feel like I may not be able to do that.

I don't have many answers to your questions, but I feel your frustration.

[NamTar]

But I insist: why is sex more desirable than masturbation?

I prefer masturbation to sex. But it is my understanding that, esp for sexual romantic people, sex is vastly preferable because it is a shared experience, both physical and emotional, that contributes to bonding between the partners. I suppose the unpredictability might be nice for some, too.

So I would answer the question: it isn't, always. it depends on the person.

where does this whole concept of "sex=making love" come from? My best guess is that it's some kind of cultural construction...

From romantic sexual people who experience sex as an expression of emotional and physical love and intimacy with a partner. Not all sex is "making love."

[Ferric Chanticleer]

But I insist: why is sex more desirable than masturbation?

I prefer masturbation to sex. But it is my understanding that, esp for sexual romantic people, sex is vastly preferable because it is a shared experience, both physical and emotional, that contributes to bonding between the partners. I suppose the unpredictability might be nice for some, too.

So I would answer the question: it isn't, always. it depends on the person.

[This post will be somewhat ‘graphic’. If you don't want to read about sex, don't read it.]

It's not the case that all sexual people prefer sex to masturbation (at least not all the time). Sex requires a lot of work, the cooperation of another person, consideration of another person's needs, and it can't be done just whenever you feel like it. You can masturbate to get an orgasm without much work, and you can masturbate to fantasies you couldn't (or wouldn't want to) act out with an actual partner, etc. There are lots of times that I'd like to masturbate but don't really want to pursue sex.

But in terms of physical sensations, at least for this man, vaginal sex is plainly superior to mastubation, especially at the point of orgasm. It has a fuller feeling, although sometimes manual stimulation can be more intense, if not more all-enveloping.

I have only enjoyed (that is, obtained) sex in the context of romantic relationships (and the aftermath of such a relationship). So a significant part of it for me has been sex as a social activity, as a bonding experience, 'lovemaking', whatever. But another factor which might not occur to many asexuals is that the choice between masturbation and sex rarely comes up as such. Since sexual people quite often experience sexual arousal in (and because of) the setting of close, sensual, physical contact with another person, sex is sometimes the only natural choice for a course of action. Never, when two people are turned on together (having deliberately turned each other on!), would one person just leave the room and masturbate by themselves. It would be weird, rude, and unnatural.

Another way in which the choice between masturbation and sex never really comes up as such is that one is not really a replacement for the other; they're just different. Most sexual people still masturbate. I masturbate 1-2x per day, and (when my girlfriend is in town) have sex 7-12 times per week. But my masturbation rate is pretty constant whether I see her or not. Masturbation and sex are simply not always interchangeable for me.

On the point of ‘the friction penis-vagina’, don't get too hung up on vaginal sex (or penetrative sex at all) here. Sex includes all sorts of genital touching (and I'm sure, some could convincingly argue, acts including no genital touching). When my girlfriend and I fuck, she only sometimes reaches orgasm when my penis is inside her. If I get done and she isn't, I masturbate her by hand until she reaches climax. When she feels too sore to have vaginal sex, she masturbates me or helps me masturbate. Both of those cases definitely count as sex and assure that both of us can have orgasms if we want them, but don't involve ‘penis-vagina friction’.

On the origin of the ‘sex=lovemaking’ idea: the main thing is probably in the chemical facts of sex. Sexual intercourse involves (at least ends with) a huge release of a bunch of hormones, including oxytocin, and some of this is related to shared physical contact (as opposed to orgasms alone). But pretty much nobody thinks all sex constitutes romantic lovemaking.

Is there any difference between the "abstract" sexual desire and the desire of partnered sex, like when one is not only hungry, but wants to satisfy the hunger with one specific food? In other words, do non-asexual people feel like "needing" partnered sex and thus, not just in need of satisfying the sexual physical urge (which they could do themselves) but satisfying it in a certain way (that is to say, with a partner)? Is this the difference between asexuals and non-asexuals?

That's actually not a bad comparison, at least in the relevant detail: sexual interest can involve a desire to have sexual arousal satisfied in a certain way or by a certain person.

[Guest]

1. I don't ever call sex making love because I think its a super icky phrase... but sometimes it kinda does feel like that, yeah. It's a mystery to me when sex will be emotional transcendant... sometimes it happens, most of the time it doesn't (for me personally).

2. I like different kinds of sex, and sometimes I don't care at all about emotional connections. The physical sensation of having someone else get me off is enjoyable.

3. I still masturbate a lot, like 1-3 times a day sometimes. I go thru periods where I rarely masturbate too, but they are usually short-lived.

4. Sexual attraction is a pretty mild attraction on its own. It's not until its coupled with a romantic or other attraction that it really becomes noticeable. Otherwise, I'd actually compare sexual attraction to, like, the breast cancer gene... its existence means that cancer is possible but not guaranteed, and sexual attraction means that sexual desire is possible, but not guaranteed. The desire to have actual sex with someone is, in my opinion, about 90% psychological, so if repulsion, morality, distaste, boredom, tiredness, a preferred desire to watch the SVU marathon on USA, etc, interfere, there will be no desire. Even under ideal conditions, most sexuals don't want sex most of the time.

[Calligraphette_Coe]

And this is it. Any insights on the matter will be helpful.

Thank you very much.

Sometimes I think asexuality is like this paradox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawing_Hands

But when I think about how we all are own best artist until we let the critics tell us we're doing it wrong, I think about how Mr Escher gave the critics and skeptics crossed eyes and headaches. And/but then eventually toasted his genius. Then I don't feel so bad living in my world where parallel lines of romance and sexuality never meet at the vanishing point out there at infinity-- no matter how much it appears that they do.

Because really.... it's all good.

[Geo]

How am I supposed to distinguish sexual attraction from esthetic attraction? Or even worse: sensual attraction?

There isn't any difference. It's incorrect to classify attraction based on how you respond to it. Wanting sex with someone you are attracted to is something sexual people do because they inherently want sex with other people. Not because a special kind of attraction is making them want sex. Sexual attraction(as used by AVEN), sensual attraction and aesthetic attraction are nonsense concepts.

The correct way to classify attraction is on the aspect you are attracted to. If you like someone because they are intelligent that's intellectual attraction, if you feel close and intimate that's emotional or romantic attraction, if you like their appearance that's physical attraction(Called sexual attraction by the rest of the world because the sex of the target is usually a key aspect).

where does this whole concept of "sex=making love" come from?"

Because the feel good aspect of sex is not just something physiological happening to the body, there are also things happening chemically in the brain that encourage bonding.

[Nogitsune]

There isn't any difference. It's incorrect to classify attraction based on how you respond to it. Wanting sex with someone you are attracted to is something sexual people do because they inherently want sex with other people. Not because a special kind of attraction is making them want sex. Sexual attraction(as used by AVEN), sensual attraction and aesthetic attraction are nonsense concepts.

The correct way to classify attraction is on the aspect you are attracted to. If you like someone because they are intelligent that's intellectual attraction, if you feel close and intimate that's emotional or romantic attraction, if you like their appearance that's physical attraction(Called sexual attraction by the rest of the world because the sex of the target is usually a key aspect).

This makes no sense to me.

The way I've seen physical attraction used, it's sort of like sensual attraction and involves on some level wanting to do something physical with that person. But I can experience sensual attraction to someone whose apparance I'm not drawn to and want to hug them, for example. Likewise, when I think someone looks beautiful I don't automatically want to touch them in any way - in fact, I'd say that's super rare for me. Calling this physical attraction is misleading from my experience and is also often associated with desire; if you don't think so and it works for you, great, but there's no reason why "aesthetic attraction" should make any less sense. And hey, a lot of non-ace people aren't sexually attracted to everyone they think is aesthetically attractive. Describing the basis (as is a specific aspect of the other person) of my attraction is not what I want to do in pretty much all other cases, and even when it's about looks, I want to say that I am drawn to the person in that way, not why, though here the distinction makes less sense to me than with other attractions (for example, when I say emotional attraction I do mean some sort of intimacy, but distinguishing between this and attraction based on "intelligence" doesn't work for me, and sensual attraction remains a useful category because it describes something else - like wanting to hug a person I'm emotionally attracted to).

Oh and hey, I just saw you don't id as asexual? Um, yeah, now I'm really not inclined to debate this. These are terms that are useful to MANY asexuals - though not all of us - and it's all kinds of condescending for you to tell us how to do this the "correct" way like it's a fact and we're just clueless.

[WhenSummersGone]

How am I supposed to distinguish sexual attraction from esthetic attraction? Or even worse: sensual attraction?

There isn't any difference. It's incorrect to classify attraction based on how you respond to it. Wanting sex with someone you are attracted to is something sexual people do because they inherently want sex with other people. Not because a special kind of attraction is making them want sex. Sexual attraction(as used by AVEN), sensual attraction and aesthetic attraction are nonsense concepts.

The correct way to classify attraction is on the aspect you are attracted to. If you like someone because they are intelligent that's intellectual attraction, if you feel close and intimate that's emotional or romantic attraction, if you like their appearance that's physical attraction(Called sexual attraction by the rest of the world because the sex of the target is usually a key aspect).

where does this whole concept of "sex=making love" come from?"

Because the feel good aspect of sex is not just something physiological happening to the body, there are also things happening chemically in the brain that encourage bonding.

As a sensual asexual I disagree. Love, affection and good looks are much different than sex for me. I experience all those things and I'm asexual, I don't want sex. Just because I can appreciate good looks and want to hold hands with someone that doesn't make me sexual.

[Arctangent]

I used to think this issue was pretty cut and dry (i.e. if you experience sexual attraction, you're sexual; if you don't, you're not). I felt that I was asexual because I couldn't relate to the idea of being sexually attracted to someone. The idea of looking at someone and instantly wanting to have sex with them just seemed completely foreign to me.

As it turns out, there are some sexual people who feel the same way, yet still feel undeniably sexual. It's become clear to me that the sexual attraction definition (or at least the common interpretation of it) isn't as airtight as I once thought. More recently I've been thinking that it's the lack of sexual desire that's at the root of my own asexual identity. At the end of the day, regardless of whether I'm attracted to someone, I still don't have any intrinsic motivation to have sex. This isn't a perfect way to make the distinction either, but I think it captures something the attraction-based definition doesn't: some of the sexual people I've talked to experience a desire for partnered sex specifically, even in the absence of attraction.

These definitions aren't being made in a vacuum. Whatever way we choose to distinguish between sexuals and asexuals, we're inevitably making an assumption about what it fundamentally means to be sexual. And if a bunch of them start telling us that the assumption we've made doesn't apply, I think we should take that into consideration, because it suggests we may be making a false distinction. A distinction between two groups that only makes sense to one of the groups involved isn't all that useful, in my opinion.

[Geo]

There isn't any difference. It's incorrect to classify attraction based on how you respond to it. Wanting sex with someone you are attracted to is something sexual people do because they inherently want sex with other people. Not because a special kind of attraction is making them want sex. Sexual attraction(as used by AVEN), sensual attraction and aesthetic attraction are nonsense concepts.

The correct way to classify attraction is on the aspect you are attracted to. If you like someone because they are intelligent that's intellectual attraction, if you feel close and intimate that's emotional or romantic attraction, if you like their appearance that's physical attraction(Called sexual attraction by the rest of the world because the sex of the target is usually a key aspect).

This makes no sense to me.

The way I've seen physical attraction used, it's sort of like sensual attraction and involves on some level wanting to do something physical with that person. But I can experience sensual attraction to someone whose apparance I'm not drawn to and want to hug them, for example. Likewise, when I think someone looks beautiful I don't automatically want to touch them in any way - in fact, I'd say that's super rare for me. Calling this physical attraction is misleading from my experience and is also often associated with desire; if you don't think so and it works for you, great, but there's no reason why "aesthetic attraction" should make any less sense. And hey, a lot of non-ace people aren't sexually attracted to everyone they think is aesthetically attractive. Describing the basis (as is a specific aspect of the other person) of my attraction is not what I want to do in pretty much all other cases, and even when it's about looks, I want to say that I am drawn to the person in that way, not why, though here the distinction makes less sense to me than with other attractions (for example, when I say emotional attraction I do mean some sort of intimacy, but distinguishing between this and attraction based on "intelligence" doesn't work for me, and sensual attraction remains a useful category because it describes something else - like wanting to hug a person I'm emotionally attracted to).

Oh and hey, I just saw you don't id as asexual? Um, yeah, now I'm really not inclined to debate this. These are terms that are useful to MANY asexuals - though not all of us - and it's all kinds of condescending for you to tell us how to do this the "correct" way like it's a fact and we're just clueless.

This :

These definitions aren't being made in a vacuum. Whatever way we choose to distinguish between sexuals and asexuals, we're inevitably making an assumption about what it fundamentally means to be sexual. And if a bunch of them start telling us that the assumption we've made doesn't apply, I think we should take that into consideration, because it suggests we may be making a false distinction. A distinction between two groups that only makes sense to one of the groups involved isn't all that useful, in my opinion.

[WhenSummersGone]

What sexual means is that someone wants/desires sex. If good looks, romance and affection isn't causing asexuals to desire sex then it isn't sexual attraction.

[Notte stellata]

How am I supposed to distinguish sexual attraction from esthetic attraction? Or even worse: sensual attraction?

There isn't any difference. It's incorrect to classify attraction based on how you respond to it. Wanting sex with someone you are attracted to is something sexual people do because they inherently want sex with other people. Not because a special kind of attraction is making them want sex. Sexual attraction(as used by AVEN), sensual attraction and aesthetic attraction are nonsense concepts.

The correct way to classify attraction is on the aspect you are attracted to. If you like someone because they are intelligent that's intellectual attraction, if you feel close and intimate that's emotional or romantic attraction, if you like their appearance that's physical attraction(Called sexual attraction by the rest of the world because the sex of the target is usually a key aspect).

As a sensual asexual I disagree. Love, affection and good looks are much different than sex for me. I experience all those things and I'm asexual, I don't want sex. Just because I can appreciate good looks and want to hold hands with someone that doesn't make me sexual.

I don't think Geo was saying you're not asexual if you can be attracted to people's looks. He was just saying the fundamental difference between sexuals and asexuals lies in desire for partnered sex, not what kind of attraction one experiences.

[WhenSummersGone]

How am I supposed to distinguish sexual attraction from esthetic attraction? Or even worse: sensual attraction?

There isn't any difference. It's incorrect to classify attraction based on how you respond to it. Wanting sex with someone you are attracted to is something sexual people do because they inherently want sex with other people. Not because a special kind of attraction is making them want sex. Sexual attraction(as used by AVEN), sensual attraction and aesthetic attraction are nonsense concepts.

The correct way to classify attraction is on the aspect you are attracted to. If you like someone because they are intelligent that's intellectual attraction, if you feel close and intimate that's emotional or romantic attraction, if you like their appearance that's physical attraction(Called sexual attraction by the rest of the world because the sex of the target is usually a key aspect).

As a sensual asexual I disagree. Love, affection and good looks are much different than sex for me. I experience all those things and I'm asexual, I don't want sex. Just because I can appreciate good looks and want to hold hands with someone that doesn't make me sexual.

I don't think Geo was saying you're not asexual if you can be attracted to people's looks. He was just saying the fundamental difference between sexuals and asexuals lies in desire for partnered sex, not what kind of attraction one experiences.

I agree. I was just saying that I would not call what I experience as sexual attraction.

[theotherfey]

I too am repulsed by genitalia and fluids that happen during sex. Plus being that vulnerable terrifies me. If I think about sex, it is usually for characters I have invented, or co-invented, with friends (I'm a writer), and does not involve me. I have also never felt the need to masturbate. I have said someone is "hot" before, and appreciated the way they look, but it does not mean I want in their pants.

[Nogitsune]

This makes no sense to me.

The way I've seen physical attraction used, it's sort of like sensual attraction and involves on some level wanting to do something physical with that person. But I can experience sensual attraction to someone whose apparance I'm not drawn to and want to hug them, for example. Likewise, when I think someone looks beautiful I don't automatically want to touch them in any way - in fact, I'd say that's super rare for me. Calling this physical attraction is misleading from my experience and is also often associated with desire; if you don't think so and it works for you, great, but there's no reason why "aesthetic attraction" should make any less sense. And hey, a lot of non-ace people aren't sexually attracted to everyone they think is aesthetically attractive. Describing the basis (as is a specific aspect of the other person) of my attraction is not what I want to do in pretty much all other cases, and even when it's about looks, I want to say that I am drawn to the person in that way, not why, though here the distinction makes less sense to me than with other attractions (for example, when I say emotional attraction I do mean some sort of intimacy, but distinguishing between this and attraction based on "intelligence" doesn't work for me, and sensual attraction remains a useful category because it describes something else - like wanting to hug a person I'm emotionally attracted to).

Oh and hey, I just saw you don't id as asexual? Um, yeah, now I'm really not inclined to debate this. These are terms that are useful to MANY asexuals - though not all of us - and it's all kinds of condescending for you to tell us how to do this the "correct" way like it's a fact and we're just clueless.

This :

These definitions aren't being made in a vacuum. Whatever way we choose to distinguish between sexuals and asexuals, we're inevitably making an assumption about what it fundamentally means to be sexual. And if a bunch of them start telling us that the assumption we've made doesn't apply, I think we should take that into consideration, because it suggests we may be making a false distinction. A distinction between two groups that only makes sense to one of the groups involved isn't all that useful, in my opinion.

Except this has little to do with you telling us how to "correctly" classify attraction. Unless you're saying talking about sensual and aesthetic attraction automatically implies that sexual attraction is a special "type" of attraction in the sense that it can't have anything to do with other kinds of attraction... in which case you'd be simply wrong.

I seriously wonder how you would like asexuality defined if you think sexual attraction is a nonsense concept. It's a concept, by the way, that has also been used by a lot of people who aren't asexual to talk about sexual orientation.

[Sally]

OK. This discussion/argument/hassle/definition squabble will no doubt go on for the next XX years, all the while there are millions more minor definitions added. But here's mine. It doesn't mention attraction, or hugs, or cuddles, or romantic love, or any of that. We're talking about sex.

Asexual: Someone who doesnt want to have sex with another human being. However, that asexual may like to masturbate.

Sexual: Someone who sometimes wants to have sex with some human beings. Not always, not with every human being, but sex with human beings. That sexual may also like to masturbate.

Does anyone quibble with those definitions? If so, how, for god's sake?

[ithaca]

How am I supposed to distinguish sexual attraction from esthetic attraction? Or even worse: sensual attraction?

There isn't any difference. It's incorrect to classify attraction based on how you respond to it. Wanting sex with someone you are attracted to is something sexual people do because they inherently want sex with other people. Not because a special kind of attraction is making them want sex. Sexual attraction(as used by AVEN), sensual attraction and aesthetic attraction are nonsense concepts.

The correct way to classify attraction is on the aspect you are attracted to. If you like someone because they are intelligent that's intellectual attraction, if you feel close and intimate that's emotional or romantic attraction, if you like their appearance that's physical attraction(Called sexual attraction by the rest of the world because the sex of the target is usually a key aspect).

All sexual people I've talked to, of any orientation, tell me there is a difference between aesthetic and sexual attraction. They say there are aesthetically pleasing individuals who are also sexually attractive, and aesthetically pleasing individuals who are not sexually attractive [of the sex/gender(s) they're not attracted to and the one(s) they are]. And that there are people they consider not aesthetically pleasing nor sexually attractive, and others that are not aesthetically pleasing but they are sexually attractive anyway.

As far as sensual attraction goes, not my favourite term to use (I prefer others), but they told me it's something true and real and they just had never thought about (talking about asexuality does open discussion about new or neglected concepts).

So even the sexual people I've talked to (about 30 only last night in Florence) say that it's true that physical attraction can be divided in different things.

[WhenSummersGone]

There are people who I think are good looking but I'm not romantically attracted to them.

I think if sexual attraction doesn't exist then a person can have sex with anyone and be ok with it, making them pansexual. Why have a label if it's just sexual desire for sexual activity? Anyone could help you to achieve orgasm if that's what you're after.

[Geo]

How am I supposed to distinguish sexual attraction from esthetic attraction? Or even worse: sensual attraction?

There isn't any difference. It's incorrect to classify attraction based on how you respond to it. Wanting sex with someone you are attracted to is something sexual people do because they inherently want sex with other people. Not because a special kind of attraction is making them want sex. Sexual attraction(as used by AVEN), sensual attraction and aesthetic attraction are nonsense concepts.

The correct way to classify attraction is on the aspect you are attracted to. If you like someone because they are intelligent that's intellectual attraction, if you feel close and intimate that's emotional or romantic attraction, if you like their appearance that's physical attraction(Called sexual attraction by the rest of the world because the sex of the target is usually a key aspect).

All sexual people I've talked to, of any orientation, tell me there is a difference between aesthetic and sexual attraction. They say there are aesthetically pleasing individuals who are also sexually attractive, and aesthetically pleasing individuals who are not sexually attractive [of the sex/gender(s) they're not attracted to and the one(s) they are]. And that there are people they consider not aesthetically pleasing nor sexually attractive, and others that are not aesthetically pleasing but they are sexually attractive anyway.

As far as sensual attraction goes, not my favourite term to use (I prefer others), but they told me it's something true and real and they just had never thought about (talking about asexuality does open discussion about new or neglected concepts).

So even the sexual people I've talked to (about 30 only last night in Florence) say that it's true that physical attraction can be divided in different things.

Well I've never heard of anyone saying anything like that, except for people on AVEN, or ever experienced anything like that myself. Maybe you are misunderstanding what they are saying, or not asking them the right questions, or maybe the terms don't translate well from Italian to English.

There are people who I think are good looking but I'm not romantically attracted to them.

I think if sexual attraction doesn't exist then a person can have sex with anyone and be ok with it, making them pansexual. Why have a label if it's just sexual desire for sexual activity? Anyone could help you to achieve orgasm if that's what you're after.

You are completely not getting my point at all. I'm saying the idea there there is one type of attraction that makes people want sex and one type that makes them want sensual activities, and another type that makes them want something else. ect... is not how it works.

Sexual people want sex. Period. They prefer sex with people they are attracted to. They can be attracted to people for many different reasons. because they are intelligent, funny or interesting, or they feel emotional close to them or they are physically good looking. An asexual person doesn't inherently want sex they way a sexual person does. Their failure to experience any desire for sex doesn't mean they are subject to different forms of attraction than sexual people, it just means they respond to it differently.

The term "sexual attraction" meaning a type of attraction that makes people want sex is what doesn't exist.

The term "sexual attraction" meaning the sex of the target is a factor in the attraction is a real thing.

Note "sexual attraction" is not a requirement for sexual people to want sex with someone. We can feel any sort of attraction for a person and still want sex with them. Because we want sex. Because we are sexual.

[WhenSummersGone]

How am I supposed to distinguish sexual attraction from esthetic attraction? Or even worse: sensual attraction?

There isn't any difference. It's incorrect to classify attraction based on how you respond to it. Wanting sex with someone you are attracted to is something sexual people do because they inherently want sex with other people. Not because a special kind of attraction is making them want sex. Sexual attraction(as used by AVEN), sensual attraction and aesthetic attraction are nonsense concepts.

The correct way to classify attraction is on the aspect you are attracted to. If you like someone because they are intelligent that's intellectual attraction, if you feel close and intimate that's emotional or romantic attraction, if you like their appearance that's physical attraction(Called sexual attraction by the rest of the world because the sex of the target is usually a key aspect).

All sexual people I've talked to, of any orientation, tell me there is a difference between aesthetic and sexual attraction. They say there are aesthetically pleasing individuals who are also sexually attractive, and aesthetically pleasing individuals who are not sexually attractive [of the sex/gender(s) they're not attracted to and the one(s) they are]. And that there are people they consider not aesthetically pleasing nor sexually attractive, and others that are not aesthetically pleasing but they are sexually attractive anyway.

As far as sensual attraction goes, not my favourite term to use (I prefer others), but they told me it's something true and real and they just had never thought about (talking about asexuality does open discussion about new or neglected concepts).

So even the sexual people I've talked to (about 30 only last night in Florence) say that it's true that physical attraction can be divided in different things.

Well I've never heard of anyone saying anything like that, except for people on AVEN, or ever experienced anything like that myself. Maybe you are misunderstanding what they are saying, or not asking them the right questions, or maybe the terms don't translate well from Italian to English.

There are people who I think are good looking but I'm not romantically attracted to them.

I think if sexual attraction doesn't exist then a person can have sex with anyone and be ok with it, making them pansexual. Why have a label if it's just sexual desire for sexual activity? Anyone could help you to achieve orgasm if that's what you're after.

You are completely not getting my point at all. I'm am saying the idea there there is one type of attraction that makes people want sex and one type that makes them want sensual activities, and another type that makes them want something else. ect... is not how it works.

Sexual people want sex. Period. They prefer sex with people they are attracted too. They can be attracted to people for many different reasons. because they are intelligent, funny or interesting, or they feel emotional close to them or they are physically good looking. And asexual person doesn't inherently wan't sex they way a sexual person does. Their failure to experience any desire for sex doesn't mean they are subject to different forms of attraction than sexual people, it just means they respond to it differently.

The term "sexual attraction" meaning a type of attraction that makes people want sex is what doesn't exist.

The term "sexual attraction" meaning the sex of the target is a factor in the attraction is a real thing.

Note "sexual attraction" is not a requirement for sexual people to want sex with someone. We can feel any sort of attraction for a person and still want sex with them. Because we want sex. Because we are sexual.

I disagree and others have as well. Sexual means a want or desire for sex, something asexuals do not experience. These other terms make a lot more sense to me then just one term for everything. Sorry but I experience Aesthetic, Romantic, and Sensual Attraction only, not Sexual Attraction.

If you can't separate the different attractions then that's fine, but asexuals can.

[Guest]

If you can't separate the different attractions then that's fine, but asexuals can.

Um, no, they can't, because the terms are describing us. You label us, how we feel, how we behave, and when nearly every sexual on AVEN says "you're describing our experience wrong", you somehow claim asexual discrimination. It's bullshit.

It may be "helpful" for white people to think black people are lazy, it might be "helpful" for men to attribute emotional instability on women based on menstration, it might be "helpful" to teach your children that Santa knows when they're naughty...

and it may be extremely helpful to asexuality if there was some magical thing called "sexual attraction" that was completely distinct and knoweable...

but helpful and true are not the same thing. We should be shooting for true. Anything else is just mental masturbation.

[WhenSummersGone]

Well as an asexual I would appreciate it if sexuals on here would stop calling the things we talk about on here as complete bullshit. Thanks.

[Guest]

Dismissing an entire population's self descriptions IS bullshit.