Jump to content

Archived

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

Custos

Sexuals - Initial Attraction Thoughts?

Recommended Posts

Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)

''My asexual wife does desire sex with me, and she feels that sex is an enjoyable, pleasurable bonding experience when we do have it, which is about 3 times a week, we are very happy in that sense. She just doesn't lust after me, and my god, it's tearing me apart inside.. how can I make her more sexually lusty? please help :c''

He means passion. That's not really what we're talking about. Some people are more passionate than others, and I honestly don't think that's an Asexual vs Sexual thing. It's not like there's not boring milquetoasty sexuals and feisty asexuals.

You mean Philip means passion? Or do you mean the part of my comment you quoted? Because I just made that up to illustrate why I disagree with using ''lack of lust'' as the defining factor for asexuality. It's not about lust, or passion, it's about whether or not you desire partnered sexual contact with other people for sexual pleasure/release (as opposed to desiring sex to please a partner, desiring it to make a baby etc, those are not innate desires, those are a means to an end). As always, just my opinion. I don't believe asexuality has anything to do with whether or not you are lusty or passionate. Like you said, I don't think that's an asexual vs sexual thing. Desiring partnered sex for sexual satisfaction though? That to me is the difference between asexuals and sexuals.

(edit: I used that quote as an example of something I've never seen here :P .. always see sexual people in these forums saying they are unhappy because they are not getting enough sex, never seen them saying they are unhappy because they are getting lots of sex and their partner loves it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

Remember that Lust is always listed as one of the 7 deadly sins, so anyone going around saying ''an asexual is someone who does not experience lust'' is going to sound instantly like they are trying to say that asexuals are more pure than sexual people as they do not experience lust, even though they can still desire sex for sexual pleasure/as a bonding experience etc, they just desire that sexual release for reasons other than lust, so they are pure. I get that that's not exactly what you meant Crow (well, you meant everything minus the 'pure' part) but defining asexuality as a lack of lust would only ever hurt visibility and education efforts, even if it was correct (and I already explained why I believe it isn't correct)

Thanks for bringing that up, Ficto. I would've done so myself if you hadn't.

Lust is a word with very negative connotations, to me, and I've learned to consciously refuse to use it in cases when I actually mean "desire", "passion", and/or "strong enjoyment". Defining asexuality as "absence of lust" does sound very "holier than thou" to me, bordering on antisexual elitism. No me gusta.

I still think the "no innate desire for partnered sex" definition is the best one... but y'all already know this because it's not like I ever shut up about it. :P :cake:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

I still think the "no innate desire for partnered sex" definition is the best one... but y'all already know this because it's not like I ever shut up about it. :P :cake:

It's an accurate and very elegant definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J4m0nT045t

Gaaaah!! This thread has just confused the heck out of me! I USED to be confident in my understanding of sexual attraction and at the atsrt of reading this I had an explanation in my head and I felt it was quite good, if a little blurry, but that's part of what made it good as sexual attraction can be different for different people but now I've lost it and I can't remember it or make it up again cos I'm now confused about what sexual attraction even is! Imma take some time to think on it again and I'll most likely come back to this thread later with my personal understanding of it but maybe not. It depends on if I can come up with one again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

So sex appeal/lust is just someone's type of person (aesthetic attraction) who they desire to have sex with? I can definitely say I'm Demisexual lol. I just have romantic types and no one I would just have sex with. And the word "sexy" doesn't always mean there's a desire for sex? Now I understand this better. This topic has really helped me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
Not all sexual people experience/express 'lust' though.

I'm aware of that. I'm just saying that anyone who does is not anyone I would call asexual. To me this is a notably big sort of difference from merely being an asexual with a libido or something.

And the word "sexy" doesn't always mean there's a desire for sex?

The fact that people use the term in such ways is very, very confusing to people like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

I still think the "no innate desire for partnered sex" definition is the best one... but y'all already know this because it's not like I ever shut up about it. :P :cake:

It's an accurate and very elegant definition.
It is not accurate. In fact, I don't believe an accurate definition of asexuality is possible, because at the end of the day it comes down to who self-identifies as asexual. But even if we assume that we put this as official definition and everyone tried to adhere to it, the word "innate" there makes it way too fuzzy to serve as solid definition. For instance, if we interpret "innate" as "inborn", then we would bar people who have turned asexual later in their life from using the term for themselves.

Remember that Lust is always listed as one of the 7 deadly sins, so anyone going around saying ''an asexual is someone who does not experience lust'' is going to sound instantly like they are trying to say that asexuals are more pure than sexual people as they do not experience lust, even though they can still desire sex for sexual pleasure/as a bonding experience etc, they just desire that sexual release for reasons other than lust, so they are pure.

Well, that's because the whole idea there was that having sex for the sake of pleasure is sinful, and only having sex as gift to God or whatever is acceptable. I have no problem with people who genuinely follow that doctrine to think badly of me, and I don't think they'd think any differently of me if I called it sexual desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

Casual sex has virtually nothing to do with sexual attraction. You say to yourself "I wanna get laid" and then you find someone willing to bang ya. Attraction doesn't enter into the equation... it's the desire to sexually connect that drives casual sex.

lol, then defining asexuality as lack of attraction is inherently flawed.

Many of us would agree with that, given many of us have no clue what "sexual attraction" is ;) most of AVEN wants to say it's seeing someone hot and wanting to have sex with them. But, most the sexuals I know don't experience that either... they experience either what Skulls said there, or getting close to someone and the loving feelings causing a desire for sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

Yup... some people feel some things, and other people feel other things, and there's usually some amount of overlap, and despite the overlap some people call themselves asexual. And others some other orientation.

I would be okay with putting this at the top of the page that defines asexuality. You know, in the vein of those funny yet insightful quotes that give you the gist of a TVTropes page. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

Yup... some people feel some things, and other people feel other things, and there's usually some amount of overlap, and despite the overlap some people call themselves asexual. And others some other orientation.

I would be okay with putting this at the top of the page that defines asexuality.

Seconded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooded_Crow

Yup... some people feel some things, and other people feel other things, and there's usually some amount of overlap, and despite the overlap some people call themselves asexual. And others some other orientation.

Dude, that's so deep. And so true ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)

And the word "sexy" doesn't always mean there's a desire for sex?

The fact that people use the term in such ways is very, very confusing to people like me.

So sex appeal/lust is just someone's type of person (aesthetic attraction) who they desire to have sex with? I can definitely say I'm Demisexual lol. I just have romantic types and no one I would just have sex with. And the word "sexy" doesn't always mean there's a desire for sex? Now I understand this better. This topic has really helped me!

Yeah the word sexy is just another word for 'hot'.. like ''daaaamn she's extremely aesthetically beautiful, gorgeous shaped hips, gorgeous firm breasts, such lovely pale skin, perfect in every way'' it's much faster just to say 'hot' or 'sexy' .. they are just words. When I (or my ace friends) use the word sexy, it never under any circumstance means ''I want to have sex with that person'' .. Just a short term for defining them as extremely aesthetically attractive to us. I also have heard lots of gay men use the word sexy to describe gorgeous women in the same way I or my ace friends do.. Just a strong aesthetic appreciation without any desire for sex attached, that doesnt really have adequate existing words to describe the feeling, so we just go with 'sexy' or 'hot'.

Yup... some people feel some things, and other people feel other things, and there's usually some amount of overlap, and despite the overlap some people call themselves asexual. And others some other orientation.

Dude, that's so deep. And so true ^^

It seemed that Teagan was legitimately making a joke about how nonsensical asexuality can seem at times based on these discussions with people who persistently insist asexuality is a lack of some magical feeling that sexuals feel, which according to sexuals most of them don't feel? I don't think Teagan meant it seriously.

Regarding this particular argument some like to put forward (asexuality is whatever you want it to be, yay rainbows and unicorns) I personally am not really keen on officially making asexuality into more of a joke than it already is.. Like hey, you can be homo, bi, hetero and pan depending on who you feel like fucking on the day, but if you feel asexual for the most part in that you don't find anyone you fuck attractive, then you are asexual and can come to AVEN and preach about how your experience of asexuality is as legitimate as someone who has no desire for partnered sex with people of any gender, ever, and maybe actually it's the person who has no desire for partnered sex ever who is not asexual, given that they do find people 'attractive'. .. It's because of this ''anyone is asexual we don't need guidelines as long as you don't feel some magical feeling that sexual people apparently feel as long as you don't ask too many actual sexuals about whether or not they feel it'' that this warped shit is happening.

But in saying that, Teagans quote perfectly sums up what asexuality is right now, on AVEN especially ie: Asexuality is whatever anyone wants it to be, and people who have legitimately suffered there entire adult lives (as far as relationships are concerned anyway) because of not being able to desire partnered sex despite desiring romance and intimacy, too bad, because we prefer to preach erasure for you in favor of the ''anyone who doesn't find people attractive in the magical way sexual people do is asexual' definition. Again, here on AVEN anyway.

That's fine if everyone else is cool with that, as long as those same people also stop bitching about wanting asexuality to be recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. Pretty much Asexuality would just be the official label people use when they are confused about their sexual orientation, in between sexual orientations, or whatever.. NOT an actual sexual orientation in and of itself. Those same people also need to accept that they have totally illegitimized the experience of the people who literally do not innately desire partnered sex with people of any gender, ever (despite many of them having fully functioning libidos) so that for them to identify as asexual would mean they are saying ''I am confused'' as opposed to ''I do not innately desire partnered sex with anyone despite yes, being able to find others attractive'' .. ..What happens to these people? they get tossed aside into the ''confused'' ''broken'' ''not trying hard enough'' ''go to the doctor'' bin once again, in favor of all the people who want to say that literally anyone who wants to be asexual for any reason, or who is confused about their sexual orientation, or who sees the way that they have sex to be more special/unique than the way 'sexuals' have sex, or who is between orientations and just can't decide, is asexual as long as you don't find anyone attractive in the magical mysterious way that sexual people find people attractive, and that's ALL asexuality is.

New AVEN definition of Asexuality:

''An asexual person is anyone who wants to be asexual, as long as they do not experience the magical mysterious feeling that sexual people feel when they look at other people which even many sexual people say they don't feel''

Asexuality was never meant to be a synonym for: confused. But hey if that's what the rest of AVEN wants, I can't argue with that. Not here anyway. (and people wonder why others keep making AVEN hate pages elsewhere on the internet :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
Yeah the word sexy is just another word for 'hot'.. like ''daaaamn she's extremely aesthetically beautiful, gorgeous shaped hips, gorgeous firm breasts, such lovely pale skin, perfect in every way'' it's much faster just to say 'hot' or 'sexy' .. they are just words.

I have the same problem with "hot"

To me it just means the same as "sexy" without actually saying the word.

And it still baffles me why asexuals would use these terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

@Ficto... that was some epic sarcasm, about a sad truth. Sometimes you just need to get the frustration out that scathingly. I share your frustration, and I think this thread, and Teagan's post in particular (while, no doubt, they were being sarcastic/joking when they posted that), really brought the problem to the point without really intending to.

The "sexual attraction" (non-)definition is a dire problem for AVEN, and, with AVEN being the prime go-to site for information about asexuality, it's a dire problem for asexuality as a whole. And this problem urgently needs solving... even though neither you nor me feel the energy to spearhead the neccessary change anymore. :cake:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

That's fine if everyone else is cool with that, as long as those same people also stop bitching about wanting asexuality to be recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. Pretty much Asexuality would just be the official label people use when they are confused about their sexual orientation, in between sexual orientations, or whatever.. NOT an actual sexual orientation in and of itself. Those same people also need to accept that they have totally illegitimized the experience of the people who literally do not innately desire partnered sex with people of any gender, ever

This.

It's... kind of mind blowing. We've got people who just use a different set of terms to call themselves "asexual", despite these terms being mirror images of sexual ones. If you're drawn to beautiful women and want to be close to them, that's not fucking different from what sexuals experience and to call it "aesthetic attraction" is... I just can't even. Give it another year and there will be terms for Asexual sex... instead of "sex" it'll be "snix", and if you have snix you're Asexual. You can tell you're having snix because you just "know" you feel different from sexuals.

Just you wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
humantoafault

Yeah the word sexy is just another word for 'hot'.. like ''daaaamn she's extremely aesthetically beautiful, gorgeous shaped hips, gorgeous firm breasts, such lovely pale skin, perfect in every way'' it's much faster just to say 'hot' or 'sexy' .. they are just words.

I have the same problem with "hot"

To me it just means the same as "sexy" without actually saying the word.

And it still baffles me why asexuals would use these terms.

I don't even like to use them. I'd rather use cute or pretty or something. I've used "hot" maybe once, and it was for a fictional character I definitely have no sexual feelings for. (Even if I did, they're taken and I ship it hard.) I said it mainly because of lack of better wording...somehow "cute" didn't suffice. I would it as crossing a line to use it on a real person, though. Why would I call someone sexy if I don't actually want anything sexual from them? Even if it doesn't have to necessarily be, to me the word is too linked to sexual connotations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooded_Crow

Yeah the word sexy is just another word for 'hot'.. like ''daaaamn she's extremely aesthetically beautiful, gorgeous shaped hips, gorgeous firm breasts, such lovely pale skin, perfect in every way'' it's much faster just to say 'hot' or 'sexy' .. they are just words.

I have the same problem with "hot"

To me it just means the same as "sexy" without actually saying the word.

And it still baffles me why asexuals would use these terms.

That. So much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

Yup... some people feel some things, and other people feel other things, and there's usually some amount of overlap, and despite the overlap some people call themselves asexual. And others some other orientation.

Dude, that's so deep. And so true ^^

It seemed that Teagan was legitimately making a joke about how nonsensical asexuality can seem at times based on these discussions with people who persistently insist asexuality is a lack of some magical feeling that sexuals feel, which according to sexuals most of them don't feel? I don't think Teagan meant it seriously.

Regarding this particular argument some like to put forward (asexuality is whatever you want it to be, yay rainbows and unicorns) I personally am not really keen on officially making asexuality into more of a joke than it already is.. Like hey, you can be homo, bi, hetero and pan depending on who you feel like fucking on the day, but if you feel asexual for the most part in that you don't find anyone you fuck attractive, then you are asexual and can come to AVEN and preach about how your experience of asexuality is as legitimate as someone who has no desire for partnered sex with people of any gender, ever, and maybe actually it's the person who has no desire for partnered sex ever who is not asexual, given that they do find people 'attractive'. .. It's because of this ''anyone is asexual we don't need guidelines as long as you don't feel some magical feeling that sexual people apparently feel as long as you don't ask too many actual sexuals about whether or not they feel it'' that this warped shit is happening.

But in saying that, Teagans quote perfectly sums up what asexuality is right now, on AVEN especially ie: Asexuality is whatever anyone wants it to be, and people who have legitimately suffered there entire adult lives (as far as relationships are concerned anyway) because of not being able to desire partnered sex despite desiring romance and intimacy, too bad, because we prefer to preach erasure for you in favor of the ''anyone who doesn't find people attractive in the magical way sexual people do is asexual' definition. Again, here on AVEN anyway.

That's fine if everyone else is cool with that, as long as those same people also stop bitching about wanting asexuality to be recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. Pretty much Asexuality would just be the official label people use when they are confused about their sexual orientation, in between sexual orientations, or whatever.. NOT an actual sexual orientation in and of itself. Those same people also need to accept that they have totally illegitimized the experience of the people who literally do not innately desire partnered sex with people of any gender, ever (despite many of them having fully functioning libidos) so that for them to identify as asexual would mean they are saying ''I am confused'' as opposed to ''I do not innately desire partnered sex with anyone despite yes, being able to find others attractive'' .. ..What happens to these people? they get tossed aside into the ''confused'' ''broken'' ''not trying hard enough'' ''go to the doctor'' bin once again, in favor of all the people who want to say that literally anyone who wants to be asexual for any reason, or who is confused about their sexual orientation, or who sees the way that they have sex to be more special/unique than the way 'sexuals' have sex, or who is between orientations and just can't decide, is asexual as long as you don't find anyone attractive in the magical mysterious way that sexual people find people attractive, and that's ALL asexuality is.

New AVEN definition of Asexuality:

''An asexual person is anyone who wants to be asexual, as long as they do not experience the magical mysterious feeling that sexual people feel when they look at other people which even many sexual people say they don't feel''

Asexuality was never meant to be a synonym for: confused. But hey if that's what the rest of AVEN wants, I can't argue with that. Not here anyway. (and people wonder why others keep making AVEN hate pages elsewhere on the internet :P)

Chill. One thing really problematic with AVEN is that they have reclaimed the term "sexual orientation" to mean something completely different from the way it is actually used by most people. When I say I'm "heterosexual" to define my identity, this actually mostly refers to the fact that I experience aesthetic attraction for women and that I fantasize about sexual experiences with women often. That's what's significant about my "sexual orientation". I'm a virgin. I'm not going to have sex. And even if I did have sex, it wouldn't be such a defining factor for me. To me it's much more important that when I look at an attractive person, a whole range of feelings is kicked off. In other words, the part of my "sexual orientation" that actually matters to me, I could still experience if I were "asexual" by the "doesn't desire sex" definition.

So, AVEN has taken a rather insignificant part of "sexual orientation" and split it off from the other aspects of "attraction", allowing practically anyone who doesn't desire sex to call themselves "asexual". If we stick to that stupid, old, outdated model of "sexual orientation" (and yes it's not a good model, but it's what most people go by), then there indeed are people who have a right to complain about erasure: Those asexuals who experience none of the mechanisms and reactions that a sexual person experiences exclusively toward the people they're attracted to. Those are the ones who should be highlighted to mainstream society, as they are solid proof that such a thing as "asexuality" exists, even by an outdated understanding of sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, there are people who experience part of what I experience for women I'm interested in, yet who aren't interested in the actual act of sex, and these people want to call themselves asexual. Who am I to deny them? Who are we to deny them? It is fully in their right to do so, even if at the end of the day, a lot of these people have experiences closer to those of myself ((gray-)sexual) than to an aromantic asexual. But it is also in their right to identify as (gray-)sexual. That's kind of how I interpreted Taegan's quote.

Once we leave the simple model of "sexual orientation" that encompasses all components of attraction behind, things get very complex. That's because people are complex. You simply can not capture everyone with categories like "sexual orientation", "romantic orientation", and so on. Maybe there is a way to categorize everyone, but if so, our science in this regard hasn't advanced far enough. So we're left with the simple fact that there are people who don't fit into any category. They aren't confused. They're just different.

There is a simple solution to this. Stop placing such importance on "orientation". Stop relying on labels so much. Start thinking. Start seeing everyone as an individual, who is defined by the millions of aspects of their being, not just by a few labels. If you do that, if you actually expect that kind of attention to detail from both yourself and society, then there will no longer be an issue of "erasure" or "misconceptions".

But that post you made? Sorry, in my eyes that's just an attempt to keep things simple, to allow everyone to keep being lazy in the way they think. What you're trying to achieve isn't going to lead to a better, fairer understanding of people with an "unusual" sexual orientation, the only benefit this could possibly lead to is that a very specific group of people will be understood a tiny bit better by people who understand nothing to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooded_Crow

Thank you, Tar! Couldn't have said it any better. Hear hear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

@Tar...

I can honestly say that I've never used or understood "sexual orientation" as anything else than the answer to the question "who do you want to have sex with?", which is exactly why I've always been aware that I'm neither straight nor gay nor bi, even though I lacked a fitting label for what I am instead. And I've used the term s.o. in this sense far longer than I've been on AVEN - a good deal over two decades longer, as I've only found AVEN at 38 years of age. I have never seen any reason to suspect that other people use that term in any other way than I do - except when I entered AVEN (US AVEN, specifically; German AVEN's Verlangen-based definition was extremely simple to understand, and fit right in with my understanding of all other orientations), where it all gets muddied up with that vague concept of "sexual attraction" (which doesn't really get used much in the real world, IME, and surely not to define sexual orientations).

I honestly think most people see their sexual orientation as describing who they want to f**k, and nothing else than that. What makes you think most folks define it otherwise? Your experience really doesn't sound like a common description of heterosexuality, to me... I think it's a pretty fringe/exotic one (I trust we know each other well enough that you won't take that word as offensive :cake: ), and yeah, it sounds more and more like your experience is something I'd probably call grayce, the more you describe it. :mellow::wacko:

And yes, I would indeed say that everyone who (consistently) doesn't desire partnered sex is asexual... and I don't get why you seem to consider that statement problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

I can honestly say that I've never used or understood "sexual orientation" as anything else than the answer to the question "who do you want to have sex with?", which is exactly why I've always been aware that I'm neither straight nor gay nor bi, even though I lacked a fitting label for what I am instead. And I've used the term s.o. in this sense far longer than I've been on AVEN - a good deal over two decades longer, as I've only found AVEN at 38 years of age. I have never seen any reason to suspect that other people use that term in any other way than I do - except when I entered AVEN (US AVEN, specifically; German AVEN's Verlangen-based definition was extremely simple to understand, and fit right in with my understanding of all other orientations), where it all gets muddied up with that vague concept of "sexual attraction" (which doesn't really get used much in the real world, IME, and surely not to define sexual orientations).

I honestly think most people see their sexual orientation as describing who they want to f**k, and nothing else than that. What makes you think most folks define it otherwise? Your experience really doesn't sound like a common description of heterosexuality, to me... I think it's a pretty fringe/exotic one (I trust we know each other well enough that you won't take that word as offensive :cake: ), and yeah, it sounds more and more like your experience is something I'd probably call grayce, the more you describe it. :mellow::wacko:

And yes, I would indeed say that everyone who (consistently) doesn't desire partnered sex is asexual... and I don't get why you seem to consider that statement problematic.

That doesn't actually affect my argumentation. To most people, it is irrelevant how exactly sexual orientation is defined, as they have been educated to think that there is no difference between finding someone attractive and desiring sex with them, and that there is no difference between imagining sex with someone and desiring sex with them.

Now, if we re-educated the entire population, and they started distinguishing between these various concepts, then we could actually verify through polls and statistics whether I'm as "exotic" as you say. Currently, though, we have no way of telling.

My point is this: To people like you and me, the definition of asexuality is just that, a definition. Personally, I can work with anything as long as it's logically consistent. In that sense, I don't find any definition of the word "problematic", not even if it includes people who desire sex. If I want to talk about people who don't desire sex, I can easily find other ways to express that.

But if this is about communication with and education of mainstream society, then any definition is problematic that allows for things that "normal" people consider as part of sexuality. It's actually completely predictable that a person who thinks the various kinds of attractions and desires to be inseparable would be skeptical of a person who masturbates to sexual fantasies to be "asexual". To such people, we should first make clear that there are people who don't experience any of that stuff, and once they get used to that idea, we can start talking to them about the "inbetween" (which may or may not fall under whatever definition of "asexual" we decide to use).

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
Autumn Season

First of all I'll admit that "sexual attraction" is the explanation for everything that doesn't make sense to me in regard to people, who like to behave sexually ("sexuals").
Whenever I see, hear about, get approached by sexual behavior, I will think "Why would they do that?". And ever since I came across AVEN the answer would be "This person feels sexual attraction.". This way I am able to accept that some people act in a way that seems alien to me and respect this difference instead of shying away from it.

However people are complicated. As far as I see it, for many, sexual or not, their different feelings of attraction (aesthetic, sexual, platonic even, ...) are interconnected. And that's "normal". As Tarfeather said:

To me it's much more important that when I look at an attractive person, a whole range of feelings is kicked off. In other words, the part of my "sexual orientation" that actually matters to me, I could still experience if I were "asexual" by the "doesn't desire sex" definition.

I believe that sexual people are not able to only feel "sexual attraction", as a feeling which is completely isolate from other forms of attractions.

Also, some of us have mentioned, that AVENites use definitions for sexuality, without asking whether sexual people agree with it. This is rather true, but only because there are so few sexual people who discuss the topic of sexuality with us. I don't mean to criticize. All I'm saying is, most don't even know that asexuality exists and thus, they never think about what makes them sexual exactly.

About the "innate desire for partnered sex": It does sound good and it might be a good description for sexuality. However there is a theory that sexual orientation is fluid. So, as long as biology experts don't confirm that the orientation is indeed innate, we will not be able to use this defintion.

That's fine if everyone else is cool with that, as long as those same people also stop bitching about wanting asexuality to be recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. Pretty much Asexuality would just be the official label people use when they are confused about their sexual orientation, in between sexual orientations, or whatever.. NOT an actual sexual orientation in and of itself. Those same people also need to accept that they have totally illegitimized the experience of the people who literally do not innately desire partnered sex with people of any gender, ever


This.

It's... kind of mind blowing. We've got people who just use a different set of terms to call themselves "asexual", despite these terms being mirror images of sexual ones. If you're drawn to beautiful women and want to be close to them, that's not fucking different from what sexuals experience and to call it "aesthetic attraction" is... I just can't even. Give it another year and there will be terms for Asexual sex... instead of "sex" it'll be "snix", and if you have snix you're Asexual. You can tell you're having snix because you just "know" you feel different from sexuals.

Just you wait.


I can see it coming already. xD

@Tar...

I can honestly say that I've never used or understood "sexual orientation" as anything else than the answer to the question "who do you want to have sex with?", which is exactly why I've always been aware that I'm neither straight nor gay nor bi, even though I lacked a fitting label for what I am instead. And I've used the term s.o. in this sense far longer than I've been on AVEN - a good deal over two decades longer, as I've only found AVEN at 38 years of age. I have never seen any reason to suspect that other people use that term in any other way than I do - except when I entered AVEN (US AVEN, specifically; German AVEN's Verlangen-based definition was extremely simple to understand, and fit right in with my understanding of all other orientations), where it all gets muddied up with that vague concept of "sexual attraction" (which doesn't really get used much in the real world, IME, and surely not to define sexual orientations).

I honestly think most people see their sexual orientation as describing who they want to f**k, and nothing else than that. What makes you think most folks define it otherwise? Your experience really doesn't sound like a common description of heterosexuality, to me... I think it's a pretty fringe/exotic one (I trust we know each other well enough that you won't take that word as offensive :cake: ), and yeah, it sounds more and more like your experience is something I'd probably call grayce, the more you describe it. :mellow::wacko:

And yes, I would indeed say that everyone who (consistently) doesn't desire partnered sex is asexual... and I don't get why you seem to consider that statement problematic.


I agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

First of all I'll admit that "sexual attraction" is the explanation for everything that doesn't make sense to me in regard to people, who like to behave sexually ("sexuals").

actually, this is key. many who feel they don't feel sexual attraction do the same thing, assume everything they don't feel is a sign of sexual attraction. and similarly, many people who do say they feel sexual attraction, assume that everything they feel that attracts them to a person is signs of sexual attraction.

and then, when they see those signs in others, it doesn't make sense to them if they say they don't feel attraction.

It took me a long time to stop doing this re: being gay. I attributed every difference I felt to the fact that I'm gay. After time I started noticing that some straight people had the same attributes I was assigning to "gay", and eventually I realized that, other than some very basic gender preferences, everything else is personality based, so straight people with similar personalities to me held my same attributes.

Same on AVEN. Like you said... everything is considered part of sexual attraction, but most of the stuff that asexuals think are asexual traits just... aren't. They're personality based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

That's fine if everyone else is cool with that, as long as those same people also stop bitching about wanting asexuality to be recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. Pretty much Asexuality would just be the official label people use when they are confused about their sexual orientation, in between sexual orientations, or whatever.. NOT an actual sexual orientation in and of itself. Those same people also need to accept that they have totally illegitimized the experience of the people who literally do not innately desire partnered sex with people of any gender, ever

This.

It's... kind of mind blowing. We've got people who just use a different set of terms to call themselves "asexual", despite these terms being mirror images of sexual ones. If you're drawn to beautiful women and want to be close to them, that's not fucking different from what sexuals experience and to call it "aesthetic attraction" is... I just can't even. Give it another year and there will be terms for Asexual sex... instead of "sex" it'll be "snix", and if you have snix you're Asexual. You can tell you're having snix because you just "know" you feel different from sexuals.

Just you wait.

We already have a term for asexuals who desire sex, cupiosexual. Which is supposed to still be ace (as far as I understand), just aces that desire a sexual relationship with people and are not aesthetically attracted to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...