Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Custos

Sexuals - Initial Attraction Thoughts?

Recommended Posts

TheKindredSoul

I didn't desire partnered sex--actually, anything sexual involving another person--until I had been in a relationship for a bit. Should I label myself "demisexual" or forget about all these labels. Thoughts?

How about forgetting all the terms? You love someone, and that is all that matters, right? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I Shot the Serif

I didn't desire partnered sex--actually, anything sexual involving another person--until I had been in a relationship for a bit. Should I label myself "demisexual" or forget about all these labels. Thoughts?

How about forgetting all the terms? You love someone, and that is all that matters, right? :)

Yes! :- )

And in response to Teagan, it's really helpful to me that you used the word demisensual because: and I really don't want to offend you here: I'm not a big fan of touch outside of a relationship, but I wouldn't use the word demisensual just because it sounds silly to me to have such a technical-sounding term to describe it. So that leads me to consider making other labels sound the same to me, and just be in love, as Cheshire put it.

In response to Law of Circles, very much yes!! Maybe it's a kind of cognitive dissonance? I felt frustrated and attacked when my boyfriend would suggest I wasn't ace, but today I can totally understand how he felt and how obnoxious I was being. In a certain place, you just can't accept different perspectives on something that is important to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

So.. internal desire instead of innate? :)

Mm, that works for me.

my entire life is internal. there is nothing I experience that isn't internal. so it seems like a useless adjective xD (what is a less harsh word than "useless" lol )

My actions are not all based on internal desires. I may desire to do something to please another, that I consider an external desire more than internal... it comes from someone else, not myself and if left to myself, I would never do them or want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricecream-man

I want to apologize beforehand for anything I say that may be offensive. That filter Mystic and Serran were talking about, it seems like mine may be broken judging by my recent comments to a couple users that have really irked me. Working on replacing said filter.

I guess I am stretching it a little xD but, based off of some things I've seen, some sexual people feel attraction for other people in a sexual way, while other sexual people feel generally attracted towards a sexual life style. and of course many who feel both

This is a great way to put it.

makes me wonder if there is another layer to this complex "sexual attraction" concept lol

It's all these layers that make "sexual attraction" as a definition so confusing amd frustrating for those of us who believe that "sexual desire" is a much better definition. Significantly less ambiguity combined with fewer alternate definitions just makes it easier.

@Law of Circles

I've noticed quite a bit of that too and I believe it's because so mamy people have this peculiar attachment to labels. That's part of the reason I always try to tell people to only use labels if they conveniently fit them.

Those types of people you've mentioned usually either have a warped sense of sex and sexuality, and so they turn to asexuality as an alternative. Just because your type of sexual attraction is different from the norm doesn't make you asexual.

Plus, these people cling on to labels as if the label itself is part of what makes them who they are. Just because you slap a sticker that says crayons on a box of colorer pencils doesn't change the pencils into crayons, even if they're sort of the same. Vice versa, taking off a sticker that says crayons doesn't make the crayon less of a crayon. Colored pencils are still pencils. No matter how wacky they are or how special of a color they write with colored pencils (sexuals) are still colored pencils.

And guess what they're just as cool as crayons !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season

It's all these layers that make "sexual attraction" as a definition so confusing amd frustrating for those of us who believe that "sexual desire" is a much better definition. Significantly less ambiguity combined with fewer alternate definitions just makes it easier.

I always felt like even though the arguments of the "desirists" were logical, there was something off about the desire-defintion. Now I know what that feeling was refering to: The definition sounds like it disregards the fact that people who find other people sexy and thus experience this kind of "sexual attraction" exist. I might be wrong about this. If the definition can exist without ignoring those people, I will fully support it.

Edit:

(Btw I am not saying that sexual people have to find anyone sexy. But some can.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

How about forgetting all the terms? You love someone, and that is all that matters, right? :)

I think "love" is the worst possible word to use if you want to avoid issues with unclear definitions..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season

How about forgetting all the terms? You love someone, and that is all that matters, right? :)

I think "love" is the worst possible word to use if you want to avoid issues with unclear definitions..

xD That's funny because it's true and totally missing the point at the same time. Ah, I love this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

xD That's funny because it's true and totally missing the point at the same time. Ah, I love this thread.

I don't think it's missing the point. If I were to ask myself "Does my girlfriend love me?", the fact that she is asexual is crucial information. Without that knowledge, I might just conclude "She does not love me as she does not desire sex with me".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

It's all these layers that make "sexual attraction" as a definition so confusing amd frustrating for those of us who believe that "sexual desire" is a much better definition. Significantly less ambiguity combined with fewer alternate definitions just makes it easier.

I always felt like even though the arguments of the "desirists" were logical, there was something off about the desire-defintion. Now I know what that feeling was refering to: The definition sounds like it disregards the fact that people who find other people sexy and thus experience this kind of "sexual attraction" exist. I might be wrong about this. If the definition can exist without ignoring those people, I will fully support it.

Edit:

(Btw I am not saying that sexual people have to find anyone sexy. But some can.)

Imo, those people fit just fine. See, from what I can gather, people have all sorts of attractions that they base partner selection on. My partner can see someone hot and want to have sex with them, or he can base it off an appreciation for their intellect, even if they are "ugly, or off being in love. All those are different attractions. But, they just direct his desire, his desire still exists with or without those attractions being active at the time. Which is why I don't think the type of attraction you experience is the key. Some aces find people "sexy", but it doesn't direct their sexual desire, cause they simply lack it. It may direct their sensual desire, or even begin to direct their romantic desires though (if they have them and also find aesthetic attraction important).

So... yeah you might choose your sexual partners off personality, or looks, or how you feel about them, or how much you trust them. But, why you choose them isn't your orientation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

I am 100% behind a multiple definition definition. like you know how when you look up a definition in the dictionary, it says

1) [definition 1]

2) [definition 2]

and either definition is valid and sometimes in a poem or novel the author uses the existence of both definitions to enrich her text?

I'm fine with a multi-definition, if we define it close enough that not all sexuals would fit within it also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season

xD That's funny because it's true and totally missing the point at the same time. Ah, I love this thread.

I don't think it's missing the point. If I were to ask myself "Does my girlfriend love me?", the fact that she is asexual is crucial information. Without that knowledge, I might just conclude "She does not love me as she does not desire sex with me".

You are right that it is important to know what "love" in a concrete context means.

Why I think a point was missed: As far as I can see it, I Shot The Serif is trying to understand herself better and for this reason she is searching for a label that fits herself. (Please feel free to correct me, Serif.) CheshireCheeseSoulKitty is saying that in Serif's current situation 1) it doesn't matter much what label she has (since there are no sexual or romantic problems in her relationship) and 2) she should stop worrying and instead enjoy the situation. Because hey, Serif is going to get married (or at least that's what the text under her profile pic says), it's awesome and she deserves to be completely happy. ^^ (Also feel free to correct me here, Cheshire.)

You are saying that Cheshire is making things more complicated by using an imprecise word like "love". (Is that right?)

I am saying that even though the word "love" is vague and should be avoided in most discussions, in this particular situation it was used correctly: "You are experiencing this amazing, inexplicable feeling, don't think too much about it, just enjoy it!".

And, Tar, I was not trying to criticize you. Sorry if it sounded that way. I was just enjoying your comment, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

I am 100% behind a multiple definition definition. like you know how when you look up a definition in the dictionary, it says

1) [definition 1]

2) [definition 2]

and either definition is valid and sometimes in a poem or novel the author uses the existence of both definitions to enrich her text?

I'm fine with a multi-definition, if we define it close enough that not all sexuals would fit within it also.

I don't understand your phrasing :(

Well, like, the last multi definition that was suggested was sexual attraction and/or desire. Which, again, did not want to define sexual attraction. So it was "the current all inclusive" definition with the extra inclusion of desire, so it actually just broadened the definition of asexual rather than defining it at all. So literally everyone in the world could fit it. If we continue to use sexual attraction, allow the definition of sexual attraction to be set, rather than "meh, it's got 100 definitions, pick the one you like and go with it"...

Of course, as I said pages ago, no definition will ever be perfect and some may not totally fit and still really fit no matter what one you go with. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season

I am 100% behind a multiple definition definition. like you know how when you look up a definition in the dictionary, it says

1) [definition 1]

2) [definition 2]

and either definition is valid and sometimes in a poem or novel the author uses the existence of both definitions to enrich her text?

I think that when dictionaries use different definitions, then that's not because it's best to have many. It's because people cannot agree on a single definition. So it's kind of a compromise. And yes, AVEN can probably have more than one... not as a goal, but because there is no other way. ^^°

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season

I was just enjoying your comment, that's all.

:o I like you lol

I'm a bit afraid that the way I expressed myself sounded wrong, but I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Law of Circles

It's all these layers that make "sexual attraction" as a definition so confusing amd frustrating for those of us who believe that "sexual desire" is a much better definition. Significantly less ambiguity combined with fewer alternate definitions just makes it easier.

I always felt like even though the arguments of the "desirists" were logical, there was something off about the desire-defintion. Now I know what that feeling was refering to: The definition sounds like it disregards the fact that people who find other people sexy and thus experience this kind of "sexual attraction" exist. I might be wrong about this. If the definition can exist without ignoring those people, I will fully support it.

Edit:

(Btw I am not saying that sexual people have to find anyone sexy. But some can.)

I don't think the desire-based definition necessarily assumes that people who experience "sexual attraction" don't exist. Rather, it implies that their experience of "sexual attraction" doesn't have as much bearing on their sexuality, and instead partnered sexual desire is the central factor. What that further implies is that a person who experiences "sexual attraction" (e.g. maybe they find people hot/sexy, feel aroused when looking at people, or have sexual fantasies) but isn't internally driven to have partnered sex isn't excluded from being asexual. I believe that's an advantage of the desire-based definition, as I don't see why people like that shouldn't be able to call themselves asexual.

Indeed, that's what many asexuals have been saying all along - that factors like masturbating, having sexual fantasies, enjoying sex, and being aesthetically attracted to people (because "sexy" could easily be considered a type of aesthetic that doesn't always function as an indicator of sexual arousal, unlike what many AVENites seem to think) don't have a bearing on whether a person is asexual or not. Defining asexuality in terms of an intrinsic desire for partnered sex is not in opposition with any of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

xD That's funny because it's true and totally missing the point at the same time. Ah, I love this thread.

I don't think it's missing the point. If I were to ask myself "Does my girlfriend love me?", the fact that she is asexual is crucial information. Without that knowledge, I might just conclude "She does not love me as she does not desire sex with me".

You are right that it is important to know what "love" in a concrete context means.

Why I think a point was missed: As far as I can see it, I Shot The Serif is trying to understand herself better and for this reason she is searching for a label that fits herself. (Please feel free to correct me, Serif.) CheshireCheeseSoulKitty is saying that in Serif's current situation 1) it doesn't matter much what label she has (since there are no sexual or romantic problems in her relationship) and 2) she should stop worrying and instead enjoy the situation. Because hey, Serif is going to get married (or at least that's what the text under her profile pic says), it's awesome and she deserves to be completely happy. ^^ (Also feel free to correct me here, Cheshire.)

You are saying that Cheshire is making things more complicated by using an imprecise word like "love". (Is that right?)

I am saying that even though the word "love" is vague and should be avoided in most discussions, in this particular situation it was used correctly: "You are experiencing this amazing, inexplicable feeling, don't think too much about it, just enjoy it!".

And, Tar, I was not trying to criticize you. Sorry if it sounded that way. I was just enjoying your comment, that's all.

You're right. Somehow I completely forgot about the context when replying to you. I'm tired. ._.

I was just enjoying your comment, that's all.

:o I like you lol

Well, I guess my brain fart was worth it then. But honestly, we should probably stop turning this thread into a chat room. There is a very important discussion going on and etc. I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Those types of people you've mentioned usually either have a warped sense of sex and sexuality, and so they turn to asexuality as an alternative. Just because your type of sexual attraction is different from the norm doesn't make you asexual.

Exactly. People need to stop making individual labels for every possible experience. Who cares why/ how/ under what circumstances I want sex? That's really a personal thing that needn't be turned into a global definition. THAT I want sex is what matters... whether it's to express love, or because it feels good, or because i just miss it, etc... doesn't matter. Those are personal fluctuations and there will be as many permutations on attraction as there are humans to experience it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
butterflydreams

Who cares why/ how/ under what circumstances I want sex?

In related news, Skullery's memoir should be hitting bookstore shelves soon ;)

I really, really appreciate all the thoughts and insights people have provided into this. Especially the sexual points of view. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you guys get steamrolled here too often. Without you, this whole place risks collapsing into its own footprint.

I don't have a damn clue what makes sexual people tick the way they do, and I'd be the last person to say something like, "oh, well, sexuals experience blah and blah and BLAHblah". How the hell would I know? I've got a much better idea: How about you all tell me what it's like, and I just listen?

It's kind of why I have a hard time accepting that people can know they're asexual at young ages. "Oh, well you can know you're gay at that age" No, it's not the same. Discovering the absence of anything is fundamentally different from discovering the existence of something. The reason I know I'm asexual is because I've had years of experience of noticing a difference. A core difference. Between myself and loads of other people. Unfortunately, I think you have to have that experience.

I only know Skulls as a person on a forum, but I know we're different in really core ways. What exactly is she experiencing? How does it manifest? What does it feel like? I don't have a clue. Call it whatever you want. Sexual attraction, desire, flambulstorp...all I know is that she's got it, and I don't. That's easy for me to understand. A hell of a lot easier than 'what is attraction?' :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I only know Skulls as a person on a forum, but I know we're different in really core ways. What exactly is she experiencing? How does it manifest? What does it feel like? I don't have a clue. Call it whatever you want. Sexual attraction, desire, flambulstorp...all I know is that she's got it, and I don't. That's easy for me to understand. A hell of a lot easier than 'what is attraction?' :)

Yup yup, same as with Teagz and his "is choosing a partner romantic attraction"... I dunno, but it's sure as hell a lot different than what happens to me :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...