Jump to content

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


Green mouse ice-cream

Recommended Posts

WhenSummersGone

And making claims that everyone on here experiences Sexual Attraction when we say we don't.

I'm not going to argue anymore but I can say with confidence that I don't experience Sexual Attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'm definitely not Italian, and I had sexual husband for 10 years and a sexual boyfriend for 30 years, and they both said that sort of thing. I don't think it's cool to attribute someone else's exerience to "misunderstanding".

My boyfriend esecially often told me when he thought someone was aesthetically attractive, both women and men, and he also told me when he thought they were also sexually attractive. He admired men and women who were beautiful/handsome, as I do, but I just never feel any sexual attraction to them, and sometimes he did (but not always).

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'm definitely not Italian, and I had sexual husband for 10 years and a sexual boyfriend for 30 years, and they both said that sort of thing. I don't think it's cool to attribute someone else's exerience to "misunderstanding".

My boyfriend esecially often told me when he thought someone was aesthetically attractive, both women and men, and he also told me when he thought they were also sexually attractive. He admired men and women who were beautiful/handsome, as I do, but I just never feel any sexual attraction to them, and sometimes he did (but not always).

I don't think admiring or recognizing someone as beautiful/handsome/attractive is the same thing as attracted to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can be celibate, including but not limited to repulsed sexuals. There are a lot of reasons to abstain from sex besides repulsion... spirituality, often, or self-censoring of inappropriate desires.

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?

But seriously, what is wrong with those definitions? I like them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'm definitely not Italian, and I had sexual husband for 10 years and a sexual boyfriend for 30 years, and they both said that sort of thing. I don't think it's cool to attribute someone else's exerience to "misunderstanding".

My boyfriend esecially often told me when he thought someone was aesthetically attractive, both women and men, and he also told me when he thought they were also sexually attractive. He admired men and women who were beautiful/handsome, as I do, but I just never feel any sexual attraction to them, and sometimes he did (but not always).

It was definitely not a misunderstanding, and not an issue of translation. I'd argue that it's very likely that sexual people also experience things differently from one other, so it's possible that Geo, Skulls, and other millions of people experience one thing, and other millions of people experience it differently.

I repeat, all the sexual people I've talked to have confirmed that 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.

It doesn't seem wrong to me also by the experiences I've had with friends and coworkers. There was this friend of mine who was super sexually attracted by this coworker, and when I told her he's actually ugly in my opinion, she said that he isn't handsome but he's super sexy/sexually attractive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can be celibate, including but not limited to repulsed sexuals. There are a lot of reasons to abstain from sex besides repulsion... spirituality, often, or self-censoring of inappropriate desires.

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?

But seriously, what is wrong with those definitions? I like them!

I don't like these definitions because a person can be sexual and celibate - that is, they don't want to have sex with another human being, but they feel the urge to anyway due to their experience of sexual attraction and have to keep a lid on those urges for whatever reason. I get that for all intents and purposes they are effectively asexual (as in, people who ask them about their orientation get the same answer as they would from an asexual - I don't want sex with anyone), but the experiences and reasons they have are very different to those an asexual might have.

I also personally don't think sexual attraction is a case of wanting to have sex or not. I can't decide to not want sex, because I can't decide to want sex in the first place, if that makes sense, so reducing sexual attraction down to "want" vs "not want" doesn't accurately describe it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that doesn't make sense.

I also personally don't think sexual attraction is a case of wanting to have sex or not. I can't decide to not want sex, because I can't decide to want sex in the first place, if that makes sense, so reducing sexual attraction down to "want" vs "not want" doesn't accurately describe it.

So, what's your complaint? As an asexual, you cannot want sex, which places you within the definition of asexual. See how easy that is?? Of course you can't want sex, YOU'RE ASEXUAL. You just proved the definition works.

Of course, you still can have sex, and you can still choose not to have sex, so whether or not you desire it, you can still choose to act or not act in accordance with your choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'm definitely not Italian, and I had sexual husband for 10 years and a sexual boyfriend for 30 years, and they both said that sort of thing. I don't think it's cool to attribute someone else's exerience to "misunderstanding".

My boyfriend esecially often told me when he thought someone was aesthetically attractive, both women and men, and he also told me when he thought they were also sexually attractive. He admired men and women who were beautiful/handsome, as I do, but I just never feel any sexual attraction to them, and sometimes he did (but not always).

It was definitely not a misunderstanding, and not an issue of translation. I'd argue that it's very likely that sexual people also experience things differently from one other, so it's possible that Geo, Skulls, and other millions of people experience one thing, and other millions of people experience it differently.

I repeat, all the sexual people I've talked to have confirmed that 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.

I addressed this already: "admiring or recognizing someone as beautiful/handsome/attractive is not the same thing as attracted to them" If this is what you mean by aesthetic attraction then that's not in anyway shape of from "attraction" of any kind.

It doesn't seem wrong to me also by the experiences I've had with friends and coworkers. There was this friend of mine who was super sexually attracted by this coworker, and when I told her he's actually ugly in my opinion, she said that he isn't handsome but he's super sexy/sexually attractive.

Physical appearance isn't the only thing that can attract us to a person.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Yes, finding someone beautiful and being attracted to them are different, but finding them beautiful may be a result of being attracted to them. And a lot of people are attracted to those who are smart, or nice, or funny, or super kind to them... I know AVEN wants to give each of those things separate names (sapiosexual, humorosexual, etc), but they aren't different orientations. People have always been and always will be extraordinarily varied in 1) what they are attracted to, and 2) how they experience attraction.

To use my old example, what would the proper term for these people be?

A gets turned on by Brad Pitts' abs

B gets all tingly when she hears Brad's voice on an audio book

C wants to crawl inside Brad when he starts talking about saving kids from poverty

** Answer: They're all regular ol' sexual. What compels you toward sexual interaction or how it compels you isn't important, because everyone is different and experiences it a little differently. What matters is whether or not you're compelled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'm definitely not Italian, and I had sexual husband for 10 years and a sexual boyfriend for 30 years, and they both said that sort of thing. I don't think it's cool to attribute someone else's exerience to "misunderstanding".

My boyfriend esecially often told me when he thought someone was aesthetically attractive, both women and men, and he also told me when he thought they were also sexually attractive. He admired men and women who were beautiful/handsome, as I do, but I just never feel any sexual attraction to them, and sometimes he did (but not always).

It was definitely not a misunderstanding, and not an issue of translation. I'd argue that it's very likely that sexual people also experience things differently from one other, so it's possible that Geo, Skulls, and other millions of people experience one thing, and other millions of people experience it differently.

I repeat, all the sexual people I've talked to have confirmed that 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.

I addressed this already: "admiring or recognizing someone as beautiful/handsome/attractive is the same thing as attracted to them" If this is what you mean by aesthetic attraction then that's not in anyway shape of from "attraction" of any kind.

It doesn't seem wrong to me also by the experiences I've had with friends and coworkers. There was this friend of mine who was super sexually attracted by this coworker, and when I told her he's actually ugly in my opinion, she said that he isn't handsome but he's super sexy/sexually attractive.

Physical appearance isn't the only thing that can attract us to a person.

OH. I couldn't figure out what was at issue here, but let me take a stab at it..

Geo: You object to the "attraction" part of aesthetic attraction. Yes, OF COURSE finding someone beautiful isn't attraction, that's just having eyes. It's aesthetic appreciation, if you will. But if you are attracted to someone, calling it aesthetic doesn't change anything... attraction is attraction.

Does that help? Is that the issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aesthetic attraction never really worked for me especially when it is equated to a pretty painting or a beautiful sunset. Those are objects. People, however, aren't mannequins, statues, mugshots, or drivers license photos. People move, and breath, and emote, and interact. If I observe how someone looks, how can I not observe other expressions emanating from them?

If I key in on men, certain men in particular, because they have a je ne sais quoi that grabs and attracts my attention, then what would this be? It is beyond looks. It is something other than personality, especially if I don't really know them yet. And it would be too premature to say it had anything to do with romance. So what is it??

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.


Perhaps it is the definition of the second term meaning the gender-sex of the target is a factor in the attraction. Why not?

Lucinda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my god, of course asexuals can want sex. I don't know how many I've seen in this very forum who *wanted* to try sex out to satisfy their curiosity or who wanted to have it because it was a neat alternative to mastubation that would also make their partner happy, to give just two examples. Making sexual orientation about "wanting" to do something requires, at best, huge acrobatics in the definition of the word. I don't see this problem with "attraction" because its meaning is a lot less narrow in everyday life.

Also, I will stop using "asthetic attraction" the day I no longer have to justify my "aesthetic appreciation" or whatever of people because apparently a whole lot of allosexual people do indeed think strong "aesthetic appreciation" is not just attraction, but in fact so similar to sexual attraction that I can't experience just the former. Also, I don't think anyone said finding someone beautiful is automatically a sort of attraction, any more than finding someone nice or likable must be a kind of attraction. What's important is that it can be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Breaking my silence again because I'm actually curious what point sexuals are trying to make here.

So just because you are attracted to a sex/gender that makes it sexual attraction? Even if an asexual tells you they aren't attracted to you in a sexual way? What is the difference?

Not being attracted to someone in a sexual way is the same thing as not experiencing sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my god, of course asexuals can want sex. I don't know how many I've seen in this very forum who *wanted* to try sex out to satisfy their curiosity or who wanted to have it because it was a neat alternative to mastubation that would also make their partner happy, to give just two examples. Making sexual orientation about "wanting" to do something requires, at best, huge acrobatics in the definition of the word.

OH MY GOOD LORD ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

So, if I said that I don't like tomatoes but I want to eat one for antioxidants, you're telling me you'd be hopelessly confused?

Desiring sexual contact and making a conscious choice about acting are two very different concepts, and they are concepts that humans are amazingly good at differentiating. Unlike "sexual attraction", which has no meaning, you have to legitimately be playing dumb to not get the difference between "I have sexual desires" and "I want to have sex in a bathroom so I can check it off my scavenger hunt list."

You're not dumb, nog, so stop pretending to be just to try to make a point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Oh my god, of course asexuals can want sex. I don't know how many I've seen in this very forum who *wanted* to try sex out to satisfy their curiosity or who wanted to have it because it was a neat alternative to mastubation that would also make their partner happy, to give just two examples. Making sexual orientation about "wanting" to do something requires, at best, huge acrobatics in the definition of the word.

OH MY GOOD LORD ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

So, if I said that I don't like tomatoes but I want to eat one for antioxidants, you're telling me you'd be hopelessly confused?

Desiring sexual contact and making a conscious choice about acting are two very different concepts, and they are concepts that humans are amazingly good at differentiating. Unlike "sexual attraction", which has no meaning, you have to legitimately be playing dumb to not get the difference between "I have sexual desires" and "I want to have sex in a bathroom so I can check it off my scavenger hunt list."

You're not dumb, nog, so stop pretending to me just to try to make a point.

If you desire sexual contact then are you pansexual like I said on the previous page? Why not? Because you aren't sexually attracted to everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my god, of course asexuals can want sex. I don't know how many I've seen in this very forum who *wanted* to try sex out to satisfy their curiosity or who wanted to have it because it was a neat alternative to mastubation that would also make their partner happy, to give just two examples. Making sexual orientation about "wanting" to do something requires, at best, huge acrobatics in the definition of the word.

OH MY GOOD LORD ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

So, if I said that I don't like tomatoes but I want to eat one for antioxidants, you're telling me you'd be hopelessly confused?

Desiring sexual contact and making a conscious choice about acting are two very different concepts, and they are concepts that humans are amazingly good at differentiating. Unlike "sexual attraction", which has no meaning, you have to legitimately be playing dumb to not get the difference between "I have sexual desires" and "I want to have sex in a bathroom so I can check it off my scavenger hunt list."

You're not dumb, nog, so stop pretending to me just to try to make a point.

If you then said you can't want to eat tomatoes, yeah, that would seem weird to me - or rather, I'd assume you are working with two definitions of "want", which is... sort of the problem I was trying to point out.

You were talking about "wanting" before, now you're talking about sexual desire. They're two different things and I'd say the meaning of the latter is less clear. It makes absolutely no sense to claim asexuals can't want sex when many in fact do. "Desire" has different problems in my opinion, because in everyday life it can be just anothe word for "want" but it can also mean what I and many other asexuals would call sexual attraction. And "sexual desire" is from my experience usually used to refer to any desire connected to someone's libido and doesn't have to be directed at another person (edit: in fact, usually it's used generally, which is the main problem in my opinion; I don't want to deny you could talk about being sexually attracted to objects, but that's not what the term evokes without context and it's still an attraction directed at something, not just libido). So yeah, I'll stick with sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my god, of course asexuals can want sex. I don't know how many I've seen in this very forum who *wanted* to try sex out to satisfy their curiosity or who wanted to have it because it was a neat alternative to mastubation that would also make their partner happy, to give just two examples. Making sexual orientation about "wanting" to do something requires, at best, huge acrobatics in the definition of the word.

OH MY GOOD LORD ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

So, if I said that I don't like tomatoes but I want to eat one for antioxidants, you're telling me you'd be hopelessly confused?

Desiring sexual contact and making a conscious choice about acting are two very different concepts, and they are concepts that humans are amazingly good at differentiating. Unlike "sexual attraction", which has no meaning, you have to legitimately be playing dumb to not get the difference between "I have sexual desires" and "I want to have sex in a bathroom so I can check it off my scavenger hunt list."

You're not dumb, nog, so stop pretending to me just to try to make a point.

If you desire sexual contact then are you pansexual like I said on the previous page? Why not? Because you aren't sexually attracted to everyone.

The answer to your question is so basic that I'm confused as to how you don't get it. If you experience sexual desire, you are sexual. If you don't, you're asexual. If you score "sexual", then you get to go on to taxonomic bonus rounds! Maybe you're pan, bi, homo, hetero... personally, I those further categories are stupid and not particularly helpful or descriptive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Oh my god, of course asexuals can want sex. I don't know how many I've seen in this very forum who *wanted* to try sex out to satisfy their curiosity or who wanted to have it because it was a neat alternative to mastubation that would also make their partner happy, to give just two examples. Making sexual orientation about "wanting" to do something requires, at best, huge acrobatics in the definition of the word.

OH MY GOOD LORD ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

So, if I said that I don't like tomatoes but I want to eat one for antioxidants, you're telling me you'd be hopelessly confused?

Desiring sexual contact and making a conscious choice about acting are two very different concepts, and they are concepts that humans are amazingly good at differentiating. Unlike "sexual attraction", which has no meaning, you have to legitimately be playing dumb to not get the difference between "I have sexual desires" and "I want to have sex in a bathroom so I can check it off my scavenger hunt list."

You're not dumb, nog, so stop pretending to me just to try to make a point.

If you desire sexual contact then are you pansexual like I said on the previous page? Why not? Because you aren't sexually attracted to everyone.

The answer to your question is so basic that I'm confused as to how you don't get it. If you experience sexual desire, you are sexual. If you don't, you're asexual. If you score "sexual", then you get to go on to taxonomic bonus rounds! Maybe you're pan, bi, homo, hetero... personally, I those further categories are stupid and not particularly helpful or descriptive.

No, not just sexual desire, sexual attraction. If it's sexual desire you could seek out any sex/gender to get your sexual release.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my god, of course asexuals can want sex. I don't know how many I've seen in this very forum who *wanted* to try sex out to satisfy their curiosity or who wanted to have it because it was a neat alternative to mastubation that would also make their partner happy, to give just two examples. Making sexual orientation about "wanting" to do something requires, at best, huge acrobatics in the definition of the word.

OH MY GOOD LORD ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

So, if I said that I don't like tomatoes but I want to eat one for antioxidants, you're telling me you'd be hopelessly confused?

Desiring sexual contact and making a conscious choice about acting are two very different concepts, and they are concepts that humans are amazingly good at differentiating. Unlike "sexual attraction", which has no meaning, you have to legitimately be playing dumb to not get the difference between "I have sexual desires" and "I want to have sex in a bathroom so I can check it off my scavenger hunt list."

You're not dumb, nog, so stop pretending to me just to try to make a point.

If you then said you can't want to eat tomatoes, yeah, that would seem weird to me - or rather, I'd assume you are working with two definitions of "want", which is... sort of the problem I was trying to point out.

You were talking about "wanting" before, now you're talking about sexual desire. They're two different things and I'd say the meaning of the latter is less clear. It makes absolutely no sense to claim asexuals can't want sex when many in fact do. "Desire" has different problems in my opinion, because in everyday life it can be just anothe word for "want" but it can also mean what I and many other asexuals would call sexual attraction. And "sexual desire" is from my experience usually used to refer to any desire connected to someone's libido and doesn't have to be directed at another person (edit: in fact, usually it's used generally, which is the main problem in my opinion; I don't want to deny you could talk about being sexually attracted to objects, but that's not what the term evokes without context and it's still an attraction directed at something, not just libido). So yeah, I'll stick with sexual attraction.

See? You understand. Thank you for the intellectual honesty. :) And I understand that some people dig the "attraction" definition and if it works for people, that's good. I would just like to see the desire element acknowledged because I think for a large group of people, that makes more sense to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Oh my god, of course asexuals can want sex. I don't know how many I've seen in this very forum who *wanted* to try sex out to satisfy their curiosity or who wanted to have it because it was a neat alternative to mastubation that would also make their partner happy, to give just two examples. Making sexual orientation about "wanting" to do something requires, at best, huge acrobatics in the definition of the word.

OH MY GOOD LORD ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

So, if I said that I don't like tomatoes but I want to eat one for antioxidants, you're telling me you'd be hopelessly confused?

Desiring sexual contact and making a conscious choice about acting are two very different concepts, and they are concepts that humans are amazingly good at differentiating. Unlike "sexual attraction", which has no meaning, you have to legitimately be playing dumb to not get the difference between "I have sexual desires" and "I want to have sex in a bathroom so I can check it off my scavenger hunt list."

You're not dumb, nog, so stop pretending to me just to try to make a point.

If you then said you can't want to eat tomatoes, yeah, that would seem weird to me - or rather, I'd assume you are working with two definitions of "want", which is... sort of the problem I was trying to point out.

You were talking about "wanting" before, now you're talking about sexual desire. They're two different things and I'd say the meaning of the latter is less clear. It makes absolutely no sense to claim asexuals can't want sex when many in fact do. "Desire" has different problems in my opinion, because in everyday life it can be just anothe word for "want" but it can also mean what I and many other asexuals would call sexual attraction. And "sexual desire" is from my experience usually used to refer to any desire connected to someone's libido and doesn't have to be directed at another person (edit: in fact, usually it's used generally, which is the main problem in my opinion; I don't want to deny you could talk about being sexually attracted to objects, but that's not what the term evokes without context and it's still an attraction directed at something, not just libido). So yeah, I'll stick with sexual attraction.

See? You understand. Thank you for the intellectual honesty. :) And I understand that some people dig the "attraction" definition and if it works for people, that's good. I would just like to see the desire element acknowledged because I think for a large group of people, that makes more sense to them.

And sexual attraction causes sexual desire towards a specific person. If you desire sex with someone you are sexually attracted to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my god, of course asexuals can want sex. I don't know how many I've seen in this very forum who *wanted* to try sex out to satisfy their curiosity or who wanted to have it because it was a neat alternative to mastubation that would also make their partner happy, to give just two examples. Making sexual orientation about "wanting" to do something requires, at best, huge acrobatics in the definition of the word.

OH MY GOOD LORD ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

So, if I said that I don't like tomatoes but I want to eat one for antioxidants, you're telling me you'd be hopelessly confused?

Desiring sexual contact and making a conscious choice about acting are two very different concepts, and they are concepts that humans are amazingly good at differentiating. Unlike "sexual attraction", which has no meaning, you have to legitimately be playing dumb to not get the difference between "I have sexual desires" and "I want to have sex in a bathroom so I can check it off my scavenger hunt list."

You're not dumb, nog, so stop pretending to me just to try to make a point.

If you then said you can't want to eat tomatoes, yeah, that would seem weird to me - or rather, I'd assume you are working with two definitions of "want", which is... sort of the problem I was trying to point out.

You were talking about "wanting" before, now you're talking about sexual desire. They're two different things and I'd say the meaning of the latter is less clear. It makes absolutely no sense to claim asexuals can't want sex when many in fact do. "Desire" has different problems in my opinion, because in everyday life it can be just anothe word for "want" but it can also mean what I and many other asexuals would call sexual attraction. And "sexual desire" is from my experience usually used to refer to any desire connected to someone's libido and doesn't have to be directed at another person (edit: in fact, usually it's used generally, which is the main problem in my opinion; I don't want to deny you could talk about being sexually attracted to objects, but that's not what the term evokes without context and it's still an attraction directed at something, not just libido). So yeah, I'll stick with sexual attraction.

See? You understand. Thank you for the intellectual honesty. :) And I understand that some people dig the "attraction" definition and if it works for people, that's good. I would just like to see the desire element acknowledged because I think for a large group of people, that makes more sense to them.
And sexual attraction causes sexual desire towards a specific person. If you desire sex with someone you are sexually attracted to them.
Lol dude. I know you're trying to help your side win this argument, but you're not helping.

I'll let Nog or someone else explain why desire and attraction don't always show up together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you then said you can't want to eat tomatoes, yeah, that would seem weird to me - or rather, I'd assume you are working with two definitions of "want", which is... sort of the problem I was trying to point out.

You were talking about "wanting" before, now you're talking about sexual desire. They're two different things and I'd say the meaning of the latter is less clear. It makes absolutely no sense to claim asexuals can't want sex when many in fact do. "Desire" has different problems in my opinion, because in everyday life it can be just anothe word for "want" but it can also mean what I and many other asexuals would call sexual attraction. And "sexual desire" is from my experience usually used to refer to any desire connected to someone's libido and doesn't have to be directed at another person (edit: in fact, usually it's used generally, which is the main problem in my opinion; I don't want to deny you could talk about being sexually attracted to objects, but that's not what the term evokes without context and it's still an attraction directed at something, not just libido). So yeah, I'll stick with sexual attraction.

See? You understand. Thank you for the intellectual honesty. :) And I understand that some people dig the "attraction" definition and if it works for people, that's good. I would just like to see the desire element acknowledged because I think for a large group of people, that makes more sense to them.

I'm not sure if you're still implying I was being dishonest before (thus now being honest as opposed to just explaining in more detail what my problem with a definition based on "wanting" is), but I'm glad we can agree on this. As for sexual desire directed at people, I always took sexual attraction to mean basically that and it's how I usually see the term used, so I don't quite see the problem... I mean, people can still call what they feel or don't feel desire, but using an absence of desire as the definition for asexuality would as I see it increase the difficulty in explaining stuff to people like still being able to want sex or having a libido. Though I think I've read a much better and detailed explanation of the issue with "desire" to replace "attraction" in this context before and I'm sure there are people who could explain it better than me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this for a while, and here's how I understand the situation...

We can probably all agree that there are many reasons why people, both sexuals and asexuals, can be attracted to others (looks, personality, intelligence, etc.). When attraction to these qualities isn't coupled to a desire for sex, it gets classified further into many different types (aesthetic, sensual, etc.). When it is coupled with a desire for sex, however, we refer to the attraction as "sexual," regardless of what qualities the attraction is based on.

Is this a problem? Possibly. For one, you could say that the classification scheme itself is logically inconsistent. Different rules are being applied to categorize attractions on the basis of a factor that could arguably be external to the attractions themselves (i.e. sexual desire). For another, some sexuals may feel this is trivializing, oversimplifying, or otherwise misrepresenting their experience of attraction. Notice that "nonsexual" attractions are represented among many dimensions, while those that are "sexual" all get lumped together. Together with the fact that "sexual attraction" is often described in a very one-dimensional way, I can see why some sexuals might be bothered by this.

I don't know if I'm understanding things correctly, but that's what I've been able to glean so far. To be honest, I doubt that there's ever going to be a solution to this issue with which everyone will be 100% satisfied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Oh my god, of course asexuals can want sex. I don't know how many I've seen in this very forum who *wanted* to try sex out to satisfy their curiosity or who wanted to have it because it was a neat alternative to mastubation that would also make their partner happy, to give just two examples. Making sexual orientation about "wanting" to do something requires, at best, huge acrobatics in the definition of the word.

OH MY GOOD LORD ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

So, if I said that I don't like tomatoes but I want to eat one for antioxidants, you're telling me you'd be hopelessly confused?

Desiring sexual contact and making a conscious choice about acting are two very different concepts, and they are concepts that humans are amazingly good at differentiating. Unlike "sexual attraction", which has no meaning, you have to legitimately be playing dumb to not get the difference between "I have sexual desires" and "I want to have sex in a bathroom so I can check it off my scavenger hunt list."

You're not dumb, nog, so stop pretending to me just to try to make a point.

If you then said you can't want to eat tomatoes, yeah, that would seem weird to me - or rather, I'd assume you are working with two definitions of "want", which is... sort of the problem I was trying to point out.

You were talking about "wanting" before, now you're talking about sexual desire. They're two different things and I'd say the meaning of the latter is less clear. It makes absolutely no sense to claim asexuals can't want sex when many in fact do. "Desire" has different problems in my opinion, because in everyday life it can be just anothe word for "want" but it can also mean what I and many other asexuals would call sexual attraction. And "sexual desire" is from my experience usually used to refer to any desire connected to someone's libido and doesn't have to be directed at another person (edit: in fact, usually it's used generally, which is the main problem in my opinion; I don't want to deny you could talk about being sexually attracted to objects, but that's not what the term evokes without context and it's still an attraction directed at something, not just libido). So yeah, I'll stick with sexual attraction.

See? You understand. Thank you for the intellectual honesty. :) And I understand that some people dig the "attraction" definition and if it works for people, that's good. I would just like to see the desire element acknowledged because I think for a large group of people, that makes more sense to them.
And sexual attraction causes sexual desire towards a specific person. If you desire sex with someone you are sexually attracted to them.

Lol dude. I know you're trying to help your side win this argument, but you're not helping.

I'll let Nog or someone else explain why desire and attraction don't always show up together.

Nope, you just fail to see my point. Why not go out and have sex with anybody if there's no difference for you? You're just completely ignoring the fact that you experience sexual attraction and asexuals don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My main issue is this: a very large number of people would like to see alterations to the definition. When you refuse to budge, even after a sufficient number of people have come forward with reasonable explanations for the change, it feels like you're saying

"The status quo works for me so it's staying. Sure, we could make it more inclusive so it represented more people's experiences and understanding, but fuck it. I only care about me and since it works for me, case closed."

I think the attraction definitions are some of the most idiotic things I've ever read, but so what... I'm not so self centered that I think my experience is universal, and so I say, fine, use that idiotic definition, but could we at least add on?

And then you guys are all "gee, that would improve things, but... no."

It's like when a wife complains to her husband about the toilet seat and he says "stop complaining, its not a problem". Well no, not for him, but it is for her, and just because the status quo favors him doesn't mean he is more right, more important, etc.

So a bunch of teenage asexuals made up some words, and big surprise, some of it gets the sexual experience Very Wrong.

Would it kill you to acknowledge that? would it really ruin everything to adapt and evolve as the community grows?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I think I've read a much better and detailed explanation of the issue with "desire" to replace "attraction" in this context before and I'm sure there are people who could explain it better than me.

The major problem is that attraction is an external factor and your definitions imply that desire for sex stems from this external factor, when in reality for many of us sexual desire is an innate part of who we are. It's the defining characteristic of our sexuality. Your definition is highly dismissive of that fact.
Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Though I think I've read a much better and detailed explanation of the issue with "desire" to replace "attraction" in this context before and I'm sure there are people who could explain it better than me.

The major problem is that attraction is an external factor and your definitions imply that desire for sex stems from this external factor, when in reality for many of us sexual desire is an innate part of who we are. It's the defining characteristic of our sexuality. Your definition is highly dismissive of that fact.

An innate desire for sex doesn't explain who you want to have sex with, that's where sexual attraction comes into the picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I think I've read a much better and detailed explanation of the issue with "desire" to replace "attraction" in this context before and I'm sure there are people who could explain it better than me.

The major problem is that attraction is an external factor and your definitions imply that desire for sex stems from this external factor, when in reality for many of us sexual desire is an innate part of who we are. It's the defining characteristic of our sexuality. Your definition is highly dismissive of that fact.

An innate desire for sex doesn't explain who you want to have sex with, that's where sexual attraction comes into the picture.

I think the point is that it's the desire that's fundamental to their sexuality, not the attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual orientation (how people describe their sexuality) for most sexual people is not limited to attraction and attraction only. It includes behavior, how they think about it all (cognition), and desire. If these other aspects are excluded from the asexual definition it really starts sounding less descriptive of reality and much more dogmatic.

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