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?)

I'm confused. So... they prattle on about emotional connections and expressing love physically and all that crap, but then they say they don't have a preferred partner and don't experience attraction? Because, I don't know about the other sexuals bouncing around here, but my attraction is distinctly emotional. If that counts as sexual attraction for me, it counts for them too.

Here this is better:

''Cupiosexuality provides a label for those individuals in the asexual community who, though they do not experience sexual attraction, still desire sexual contact with another person. There is also a romantic orientation equivalent to this in cupioromanticism.

​Robert, the moderator of the cupiosexual-cupioromantic Tumblr blog describes the orientation thusly in response to a question asked on the blog: “One of the better analogies I think is being hungry but nothing sounds tasty to you.”.

​Many would assume that this orientation would make it easier to connect with an allosexual partner, and while this may be the case for some cupiosexuals on a sexual basis with alloromantic cupiosexuals, there are still some obstacles that can arise in that not all partners are satisfied with sexual contact without sexual attraction. This is why some cupiosexuals tend to favor a friends-with-benefits situation. One blog, Besties With Benefits (warning: there is some NSFW imagery on the blog, so be aware of that if it makes you uncomfortable) is a public journal that explores one such relationship with a cupiosexual moderator who goes by the name of Cupid.

​For further information and personal experiences with Cupiosexuality/Cupioromanticism, please check out my friend Robert at cupiosexual-cupioromantic .''

That's from here: http://www.theasexualityblog.com/sex-and-self-disconnected--part-three---cupiosexuality-cupioromanticism.htmlwhich links back to the original blog I did not just spend 3 hours reading.

EDIT pretty much Cupiosexual: doesn't find anyone ''hot'', still desires partnered sex, wants that sex to be with someone close as opposed to a random.

And yeah, for many sexual people, sex is much more of an emotional thing (they have to me emotionally attracted to a person in some way to be able to desire/have sex with that person) as opposed to an appearance thing. Sure there are sexuals who only want sex based on appearance, but certainly not all of them. If we must use the annoying term sexual attraction to define sexual orientation, we need to say sexual attraction is some variation of ''the desire for partnered sexual contact with another person'' as AVEN does already, for it to make sense (as all sexual people desire partnered sex for sexual pleasure/release at some time or another, for different reasons) as opposed to ''finding someone physically attractive in a way that makes you want sex with them'' (which is the definition most people on AVEN seem to prefer) ..Many sexual people do not experience this ''he's hot, I want his cock in me'' that so many on AVEN seem to think they do, which makes that definition of sexual attraction a meaningless waste of time and energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027

I'm beginning to think that any sort of "sexual people are sexual because they experience X" statement is dangerous, because you're always going to get some people that will say "well, hold on a minute; I'm sexual and I don't experience X"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
humantoafault

Y'know, I be very interested in knowing how many sexual males actually in the grey sexual area--as in, sexual but don't get sexual desires from looking at people and/or don't even desire or "need" sex outside of a relationship. Because most people seem to think males are all highly sexual, even in my religion guys supposedly talk about struggling with "lust". What if they're confused, like they're mistaking aesthetic attraction for lust. (Of course, that's for them to decide! I'm just saying that maybe it's not what they think.) And while it's acknowledged that females can experience this, it's mainly the guys who are talked about as if they cannot control themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

I'm beginning to think that any sort of "sexual people are sexual because they experience X" statement is dangerous, because you're always going to get some people that will say "well, hold on a minute; I'm sexual and I don't experience X"

Well, that is true with ANY thing - there are people that are like "Wait a minute, I was a vegetarian for years and I still ate bacon" ...

But, it'll be rare to find someone who can say "I have a partner I love and adore, but I never desire sex with them - even if they would be totally into that!" and still identify as sexual. I've heard plenty that would desire it but still choose not to (celibate people, etc) but to not desire it at all of a willing partner? Nah. Just like the majority of vegetarians do not actually eat bacon.

Share this post


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

I'm beginning to think that any sort of "sexual people are sexual because they experience X" statement is dangerous, because you're always going to get some people that will say "well, hold on a minute; I'm sexual and I don't experience X"

But they do all experience a desire for partnered sex for sexual pleasure/release, with people of a certain gender/s.. I am not sure I have met an actual sexual person (unless they are an unidentified asexual) who has said ''I have just never really desired partnered sex, I would prefer my relationships be free of it as it gets in the way of non-sexual intimacy like kissing, which is my preferred way to bond with the person I love, no matter how much the person I love wants and enjoys sex''

This is not including self-identified celibate people who do desire sex, but do not have it due to antisexuality, sex-repulsion, religion or whatever.

I could ask every actual sexual person on this forum ''have you ever desired sex with another person for your own/shared sexual pleasure/release'' and they would all say (possibly with a very few random exceptions which I have never previously encountered before) yes, at some point or another, they have wanted to have sex with another person for sexual pleasure (as opposed to just doing it because they feel they have to to please their partner, to make a baby or whatever, which desiring an outcome, not desiring partnered sex itself) .. However, I could ask every sexual person here ''have you ever looked at someone and wanted to fuck them based on their appearance'' and certainly not all would give me an affirmative answer, as for many sexual people an emotional bond of some kind with a sexual partner is more important than the way someone looks at first sight (in determining who to have sex with)

EDIT: just saw Serrans reply, we were pretty much writing the same thing at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

I'm beginning to think that any sort of "sexual people are sexual because they experience X" statement is dangerous, because you're always going to get some people that will say "well, hold on a minute; I'm sexual and I don't experience X"

Well, that is true with ANY thing - there are people that are like "Wait a minute, I was a vegetarian for years and I still ate bacon" ...

But, it'll be rare to find someone who can say "I have a partner I love and adore, but I never desire sex with them - even if they would be totally into that!" and still identify as sexual. I've heard plenty that would desire it but still choose not to (celibate people, etc) but to not desire it at all of a willing partner? Nah. Just like the majority of vegetarians do not actually eat bacon.

Bingo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

Nah. Just like the majority of vegetarians do not actually eat bacon.

Not to mention that vegetarians don't have an inclusivity policy forbidding them from telling bacon-eaters "then you're not a vegetarian, doofus".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FlowerSpirituality

[quote name="Serran" post="1061304733" timestamp="1436201418"

I've known some people that see a person and want to have sex with them right away... but yeah, most people I know only either 1) Want sex and don't particularly care with who (go to bar find person that'll say yes, essentially) or 2) Want to get to know a person first and if they connect, then they desire sex with them

I thought they would find that one night stand attractive enough to have sex with that person without a bag covering their head. So, they would have sex with someone they find to be unattractive or repulsive just to have sex.

I find it amazing Allosexuals can have sex whenever with whoever they want anytime they want to. Even if it is a mere stranger off the net! They can enjoy that pleasurable feeling anytime they want to if the situation presents itself or offer that opportunity! I cannot do that though I have tried! I cannot fit into the dating world of sex on the third date. I would NOT enjoy it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
humantoafault

I can't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


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

Y'know, I be very interested in knowing how many sexual males actually in the grey sexual area--as in, sexual but don't get sexual desires from looking at people and/or don't even desire or "need" sex outside of a relationship. Because most people seem to think males are all highly sexual, even in my religion guys supposedly talk about struggling with "lust". What if they're confused, like they're mistaking aesthetic attraction for lust. (Of course, that's for them to decide! I'm just saying that maybe it's not what they think.) And while it's acknowledged that females can experience this, it's mainly the guys who are talked about as if they cannot control themselves.

I would say that what many here define as 'the grey area' is regular sexuality.

ie I only desire sex with people I know well, I cant just desire it with randoms, I am grey asexual... To me, that's actually just a regular version of a sexual person. SOME sexual people want to fuck randoms based on appearance, but certainly not all. I don't think that means the 'rest' of them fall into the grey area somewhere between asexuality and sexuality. I do not believe that to qualify as a 'full' sexual, you must have the experience of looking at people and wanting to fuck them, regardless of whether or not you know them, if that makes sense?

Random comment about my opinion of The Grey Area

To me, Grey is someone almost fully asexual for the majority of the time (no desire for partnered sex ever) but would desire some forms of sexual contact under very rare circumstances, or desires sexual contact without actually desiring to be sexually pleased in any way themselves - this is where I am starting to think I fall, for the first time in my life. What I desire all of a sudden, after 26 years (despite an actual drop in my libido due to massive stress over the past few months, go figure) is certain forms of sexual contact that are far too sexual for an asexual person (in that I do want to do sexual things to another person, mainly for fun, intimacy etc) but would not be sexual enough for a sexual person/to have a regular sexual relationship (as I have no desire for, or enjoyment of, being sexually stimulated in any way by another person. Don't want it, don't need it, won't have it done to me).. I am no longer identifying as asexual due to this, though am not exactly sure where to go with it until I actually meet my partner in person, at which time this will all stop being hypothetical speculation. Grey will do for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
humantoafault

Y'know, I be very interested in knowing how many sexual males actually in the grey sexual area--as in, sexual but don't get sexual desires from looking at people and/or don't even desire or "need" sex outside of a relationship. Because most people seem to think males are all highly sexual, even in my religion guys supposedly talk about struggling with "lust". What if they're confused, like they're mistaking aesthetic attraction for lust. (Of course, that's for them to decide! I'm just saying that maybe it's not what they think.) And while it's acknowledged that females can experience this, it's mainly the guys who are talked about as if they cannot control themselves.

I would say that what many here define as 'the grey area' is regular sexuality.

ie I only desire sex with people I know well, I cant just desire it with randoms, I am grey asexual... To me, that's actually just a regular version of sexual person. SOME sexual people want to fuck randoms based on appearance, but certainly not all. I don't think that means the 'rest' of them fall into the grey area somewhere between asexuality and sexuality. I do not believe that to qualify as a 'full' sexual, you must have the experience of looking at people and wanting to fuck them, regardless of whether or not you know them, if that makes sense?

Random comment about my opinion of The Grey Area

To me, Grey is someone almost fully asexual for the majority of the time (no desire for partnered sex ever) but would desire some forms of sexual contact under very rare circumstances, or desires sexual contact without actually desiring to be sexually pleased in any way themselves - this is where I am starting to think I fall, for the first time in my life. What I desire all of a sudden, after 26 years (despite an actual drop in my libido due to massive stress over the past few months, go figure) is certain forms of sexual contact that are far too sexual for an asexual person (in that I do want to do sexual things to another person, mainly for fun, intimacy etc) but would not be sexual enough for a sexual person/to have a regular sexual relationship (as I have no desire for, or enjoyment of, being sexually stimulated in any way by another person. Don't want it, don't need it, won't have it done to me).. I am no longer identifying as asexual due to this, though am not exactly sure where to go with it until I actually meet my partner in person, at which time this will all stop being hypothetical speculation. Grey will do for now.

Oh no, I agree that it's how probably most people experience sexuality. (Otherwise I would be calling myself grey-a, and I'm not.) Just that if being directly sexually enamored by another person before knowing them is considered the extreme, then the less extreme could be considered the (slightly) grey subset of sexuals.

And I'm curious how many males experience it that way versus females, since most people seem to think male = wants sex with every girl he sees. That's a tad hyperbole, but hopefully my meaning is clear.

Share this post


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

I find it amazing Allosexuals can have sex whenever with whoever they want anytime they want to. Even if it is a mere stranger off the net! They can enjoy that pleasurable feeling anytime they want to if the situation presents itself or offer that opportunity! I cannot do that though I have tried! I cannot fit into the dating world of sex on the third date. I would NOT enjoy it!

You mean some allosexuals.. Not all allosexuals are like this. Many would not be comfortable meeting a random off the internet just for sex, for example, and many are not just going to fuck some random who offers them sex and be able to enjoy that. Some sure, but certainly by no stretch of the imagination do they all do this. These people would actually be in the vast minority of sexuals if you ask me.

And technically, if you are saying you personally do/can eventually 'want to have sex with someone in particular', then you can want to have sex with whoever you want whenever you want (at the time of wanting that) you just want that a lot less than some other people do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

Nah. Just like the majority of vegetarians do not actually eat bacon.

Not to mention that vegetarians don't have an inclusivity policy forbidding them from telling bacon-eaters "then you're not a vegetarian, doofus".

lol true, we do not - though many of us do try to at least be diplomatic when explaining vegetarianism means not eating meat and we cannot stop people calling themselves that if they wish. Which is why I always get the question "So, do you eat fish or poultry?" when I say I am a vegetarian. So many people ID as such and just give up "meat" as in red meat. :huh: Also means I have to be the annoying person who needs the cook to come out and say what is in the dish, not just take someones word that it is vegetarian, because too often that has given me fish or poultry dishes (because so many people think "meat" means just beef).

[quote name="Serran" post="1061304733" timestamp="1436201418"

I've known some people that see a person and want to have sex with them right away... but yeah, most people I know only either 1) Want sex and don't particularly care with who (go to bar find person that'll say yes, essentially) or 2) Want to get to know a person first and if they connect, then they desire sex with them

I thought they would find that one night stand attractive enough to have sex with that person without a bag covering their head. So, they would have sex with someone they find to be unattractive or repulsive just to have sex.

I find it amazing Allosexuals can have sex whenever with whoever they want anytime they want to. Even if it is a mere stranger off the net! They can enjoy that pleasurable feeling anytime they want to if the situation presents itself or offer that opportunity! I cannot do that though I have tried! I cannot fit into the dating world of sex on the third date. I would NOT enjoy it!

Some sexuals can do it. Some cannot. My ex for example NEEDS an emotional connection/trust to actually go through with sex. He can be offered by a really hot stranger and be in a period of "Man, I wish I could get laid, it's been years" and still say no, because there is no emotional connection. To him, no sex is better than stranger sex, even though he does desire the sexual contact and feels stress without it for long periods of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

Like I said before, Pan... looking at how meaninglessly broad the "definition" is becoming, I'd be very surprised if the number of grayce and ace people shouldn't be estimated at 40%+ of the population rather than 1%.

And still, folks think we're a minority tiny enough to be de-facto invisible. Something simply doesn't compute here for me.

(BTW, pretty much 100% agreed to your description of the Gray Area. Have I actually given you kudos yet for changing your self-identification from ace to gray the moment you noticed you start feeling desire for sex, first time in your life? I admire such logical integrity and consequence. :cake: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

I had a very hard time with grey/ demi... demi in particular, but there was a guy who was patient enough to talk to me about it... I'm totally blanking on his name... but anyway, like Pan said, I understand identifying as grey if there are rare, fleeting moments of sexual interest, and I understand identifying as demi if you're literally unable to consider someone as anything but a friend until one day it just flips... I understand why, if it takes 6 months to a year for that to happen, why you'd feel very different from others and have a hard time dating. What I don't understand are the demis who know they're interested in someone, but just takes awhile to develop feelings. That's, like, very normal, and I feel like it speaks more to personality than sexuality.

Oh. And. As someone who has met random strangers off Craigslist for sex, I can say that I'm in a ridiculous minority... What, maybe 1% of women have done that? The response I usually get if I disclose that behavior is overt disgust. It is not something experienced by, or even condoned by, the vast majority of sexuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
Well, that is true with ANY thing - there are people that are like "Wait a minute, I was a vegetarian for years and I still ate bacon" ...

Yes, but in cases like that, you can very clearly and accurately state that they were not actually vegetarian in such a case.

It's not quite as easy to do that with regard to sexual orientation because it is less clearly defined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran
Well, that is true with ANY thing - there are people that are like "Wait a minute, I was a vegetarian for years and I still ate bacon" ...

Yes, but in cases like that, you can very clearly and accurately state that they were not actually vegetarian in such a case.

It's not quite as easy to do that with regard to sexual orientation because it is less clearly defined.

Actually, as I illustrated in the previous post, it's not clearly defined. "Meat" means "red meat" to many, or "land meat" to others, "actual cuts of meat" to others (so, broth/fat/gelatine/bone char, etc are fine), "all products based on killing an animal" to others (and yes, there are "vegetarian elitist" discussions, because of not counting people that eat say gelatine). Much like "sexual attraction" to some means aesthetic attraction that results in wanting to have sex, to others arousal at looking/thinking about someone, to others desire to have sexual contact with a person...

All you can do is go by what fits the majority of cases. There will never be 100% consensus on ANY definition of anything. If most of this group fits X, most of the other group does not, that's a good defining factor. You'll never fit everyone that IDs as something into any definition though. It's impossible without completely opening it up to ANYTHING, which means, why have a definition or a label to begin with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
Actually, as I illustrated in the previous post, it's not clearly defined. "Meat" means "red meat" to many, or "land meat" to others, "actual cuts of meat" to others (so, broth/fat/gelatine/bone char, etc are fine), "all products based on killing an animal" to others (and yes, there are "vegetarian elitist" discussions, because of not counting people that eat say gelatine).

Meat is meat. You can pretty much safely assume anyone trying to seriously make arguments like that is just suffering from Special Snowflake syndrome :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

But I think Serran's point is that there will always be people who say they are vegetarian who eat fish. And poultry. It really is surprising how common that is. So, even if you think they're wrong, they don't think they're wrong and they most definitely have communities that validate their interpretation. Same with some of these very sexual asexuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

Actually, as I illustrated in the previous post, it's not clearly defined. "Meat" means "red meat" to many, or "land meat" to others, "actual cuts of meat" to others (so, broth/fat/gelatine/bone char, etc are fine), "all products based on killing an animal" to others (and yes, there are "vegetarian elitist" discussions, because of not counting people that eat say gelatine).

That sounds more like an issue of ignorance than of clear definitions. Around where I live everyone agrees on the definition of vegetarian food (which is important because we have a whole food industry based around vegetarism and veganism around here).

(as it's the lack of that desire for partnered sex for sexual pleasure/release whether with a particular target or anyone in particular, that is the defining factor of asexuality. You only need to look at the issues people in mixed ace/sexual relationships have, to know this is so)[/font][/color]

I don't know what that tells you other than the fact that the sexuals coming here to ask about relationship advice usually do so because their asexual partner doesn't want as much sex as they do. That doesn't tell you anything about the potential sexuals in relationships with asexuals who are fine having sex as much as their partner.

I mean, come on, we have proof right here that there are asexuals who will have sex on a nearly daily basis to please their partner. Do you know of any sexuals who came here and were all like "My asexual partner has sex with me several times a week, I now feel the need to learn more about asexuality"? I sure can't remember such a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
But I think Serran's point is that there will always be people who say they are vegetarian who eat fish. And poultry. It really is surprising how common that is. So, even if you think they're wrong, they don't think they're wrong and they most definitely have communities that validate their interpretation. Same with some of these very sexual asexuals.

People certainly can believe what they want. The rest of us with brains that know what words actually mean will continue to roll our eyes at them :rolleyes:

Orientation/attraction/et al is just something much harder to pinpoint because it's based on those flimsy things called emotions rather than hard facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

It certainly makes it harder to discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

People certainly can believe what they want. The rest of us with brains that know what words actually mean will continue to roll our eyes at them :rolleyes:

That's pretty much the problem in a nutshell. People can call themselves what they want, because having a clear meaning attached to the word "asexuality" simply isn't wanted (and actively decried as "identity policing").

Basically, a lot of people's approach to AVEN parallels treating it as a vegetarianism forum that allows people to define "meat" whatever way you want. As long as you call bacon a vegetable instead of meat - and the forum's rules will fully support yor right of doing so - that's just fine, eat as much bacon as you want, you're still fine to call yourself vegetarian. You can feel safe in knowing that anyone who wants to challenge your highly idiosyncratic use of these words will be on thin ice regarding the vegetarian forum's ToS. It's all about using the words "meat" and "vegetable", which you can use for whatever you want, and whose definition is kept deliberately foggy. Any attempt to define "meat" and "vegetable" in an objectively binding form will be actively shot down and ignored by self-identified vegetarian bacon-eaters, who don't consider bacon "actual meat", because they searched for, but didn't find, a special mythical quality of "meatyness" in bacon and consider everything devoid of such "meatyness" a "vegetable", even when meat-eaters who happen to be on that forum tell them, no, there is no such "meatyness", there's just meat, and bacon damn sure is a form of it.

And when the forum makes a big step forward and starts defining "meat" in a slightly out-of-sight spot on their page in a more substancial way - say, as "organic matter coming from an animal" - there will be people who insist that's just "one possible" definition... but they'll firmly object against changing the definition "vegetarians are people who do not eat meat", used on the very same site, even if it's just replacing the word "meat" in it with "organic matter coming from an animal"... because that would be policing their vegetarian identity, and that's totally inacceptable.

(Before the usual suspects jump on the one thing that makes this a flawed analogy, I'll mention it myself: Eating meat is definitely a behavior, and the identity "vegetarian" should most definitely be defined purely behaviorally, as the absence of that behavior in a person. The same is not true of asexuality - having sex is a behavior, but an orientation cannot and should not be defined purely behaviorally, and thus asexuality should not be defined as the absence of the behavior of having sex.)

Meat is meat. You can pretty much safely assume anyone trying to seriously make arguments like that is just suffering from Special Snowflake syndrome :rolleyes:

Well... I guess you could say any lawyer worth their salt would advise me not to comment on this statement, in light of my previous paragraph, AVEN's ToS, and my currently active warning. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran
But I think Serran's point is that there will always be people who say they are vegetarian who eat fish. And poultry. It really is surprising how common that is. So, even if you think they're wrong, they don't think they're wrong and they most definitely have communities that validate their interpretation. Same with some of these very sexual asexuals.

People certainly can believe what they want. The rest of us with brains that know what words actually mean will continue to roll our eyes at them :rolleyes:

Orientation/attraction/et al is just something much harder to pinpoint because it's based on those flimsy things called emotions rather than hard facts.

Emotions are a bit more flimsy than behavior (which is what vegetarianism is based on). However, we COULD clearly define what we mean by sexual attraction. Just, people don't want to, because then that would exclude certain people. So we leave it as: It means whatever you think it means. Which means it means, "finding people aesthetically appealing to the point you are attracted to their looks or use the word "hot" ", "arousal to erotic material of a person", "arousal to thoughts of a person", "simply arousal" or even "undefined magical feeling that means I can find people aesthetically attractive, think they are super hot, desire sex, choose them cause they are hot and I still haven't felt sexual attraction"... and 100 other personal definitions.

Which means currently by AVEN rules and member definitions: An asexual is someone who may or may not find people attractive. May or may not desire sex. May or may not enjoy sex. May or may not watch porn. May or may not have fetishes. May or may not actively seek a sexual relationship. May or may not masturbate.

Which... pretty much means everyone in the world can fit some definition of it.

Defining it clearer will always mean someone says "Hey, but I don't / do fit this and I ID as X" - just like people who eat chicken or fish still ID as vegetarian. So, saying "sexuals feel this and asexuals do not" will always give some dissent from both sides. You'll never make a box everyone feels is labeled and defined correctly. That doesn't mean you have to mark the box "everyone" though. And that also doesn't mean people CANNOT identify if they don't fit the clearer definition. Just like girls can ID as bi if they kissed another girl and never want to do anything with girls again (and some do). And people can ID as vegetarian if their definition of meat is different than the majority. No one stops anyone IDing as they feel fits. Self-identification is cool that way. There is of course argument on both sides though.

Heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual/pansexual are pretty easy to define. "I desire sexual relationships with the gender my attraction leads me to". Even if one does not act on said desire, the majority still feels it, so that is the generally accepted definition. That's why my lesbian Aunt can still drool over male wrestlers, but be lesbian. My partner can go "HE'S SO DREAMY" over Arthur from Merlin and still be heterosexual. And a person can still have sex with the "wrong" gender, if the "right" gender is not available and it doesn't make them change orientation, because people get that masturbation doesn't remove the desire for sex itself and they have no other outlet (except some that feel any sort of experimentation would make you "gay" based on behavior alone, but I know no one not homophobic that doesn't just ignore those people). And why so many people look at you funny if you say "I don't want to have sex, it just doesn't interest me".

My partner when we first started discussing asexuality said (paraphrase, cause I don't remember exact words) "See, I get gay people. They just march to a different beat. Asexual people don't have a beat." ... which was his way of saying they feel all the same desires he does, it's just directed differently, while I and others he read about lack those desires completely. Which is the alien concept he still really doesn't grasp. I don't think he ever will fully, it's TOO alien for him. When we started discussing attraction though, we ran into he doesn't agree with the definitions of sexual attraction people put out here. Just like Skulls and Tar have issues with it. And this is a man who CAN date a person just because they're hot and they'll have sex with him, even if he doesn't like their personality at all. Supposedly the "normal sexual" that so many people assume all sexuals are like.

The "initial attraction" varies too much between sexuals though. Finding a consensus on what it feels like to them is not gonna happen. I've tried. And all it did was make me confused and think "attraction" means nothing to my orientation. :) Kinda like someone else just posted they are now confused over it after reading sexuals respond here.

@ Skulls - You know at one point, "sexual asexual" was a suggested label?

Share this post


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

(as it's the lack of that desire for partnered sex for sexual pleasure/release whether with a particular target or anyone in particular, that is the defining factor of asexuality. You only need to look at the issues people in mixed ace/sexual relationships have, to know this is so)[/font][/color]

I don't know what that tells you other than the fact that the sexuals coming here to ask about relationship advice usually do so because their asexual partner doesn't want as much sex as they do. That doesn't tell you anything about the potential sexuals in relationships with asexuals who are fine having sex as much as their partner.

I mean, come on, we have proof right here that there are asexuals who will have sex on a nearly daily basis to please their partner. Do you know of any sexuals who came here and were all like "My asexual partner has sex with me several times a week, I now feel the need to learn more about asexuality"? I sure can't remember such a thing.

I said the issues of a mixed (ie ace/sexual) relationship. Obviously someone without issues isn't going to come here unless they just want to learn more about asexuality in general.

The sexual issues however are always that the sexual desires partnered sex or sexual intimacy to some extent, and the asexual is having trouble meeting them half-way on that, or is completely unable to even come close to half-way and is scared of even showing any form of any form of intimacy (ie cuddling) in case they accidentally initiate sex.

And I gave my hypersexual ex full sex (meaning pretty much anything he wanted sexually) twice every single day, yet he was still perpetually miserable and annoyed because I could not enjoy the sex the way other women do. No matter what he did, I never enjoyed it, and that was a source of constant misery and stress for him. I also could not enjoy any other forms of intimacy (like cuddling) because of the high chance of accidentally initiating sex, in which case I would have to give even more sex than I did already, or risk having a pissed off sexually frustrated partner (at the time I did not know about asexuality, had no label to apply to what I felt/feel about sex, ie I feel nothing for/about it)

I know other asexual people here who give sex to their partner daily (or at least a few times a week) who have had the exact same issues as me in sexual relationships. Their sexual partner is frustrated with their lack of enjoyment and desire for the sex, trying to make the asexual enjoy and/or want the sex in the same way sexual people do by using toys and different techniques and things, yet nothing works.

I would argue that if a sexual partner was so happy with their sex life with their asexual partner (not the emotional and other aspects of the relationship, because often people here in mixed relationships are very happy in all other senses, it's just the sex that is the issue) that they literally don't see their relationship as any different than any other regular sexual relationship that they have had, then maybe the 'asexual' person is just one of those people that does desire sex in the same way any sexual person does, yet doesn't feel that 'feeling' that apparently 'all sexual people feel'. Because of course being sexual is nothing about desiring sex with another person, it's about that special 'feeling' all sexual people have when they look at attractive people, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

My partner when we first started discussing asexuality said (paraphrase, cause I don't remember exact words) "See, I get gay people. They just march to a different beat. Asexual people don't have a beat." ... which was his way of saying they feel all the same desires he does, it's just directed differently, while I and others he read about lack those desires completely. Which is the alien concept he still really doesn't grasp. I don't think he ever will fully, it's TOO alien for him. When we started discussing attraction though, we ran into he doesn't agree with the definitions of sexual attraction people put out here. Just like Skulls and Tar have issues with it. And this is a man who CAN date a person just because they're hot and they'll have sex with him, even if he doesn't like their personality at all. Supposedly the "normal sexual" that so many people assume all sexuals are like.

The "initial attraction" varies too much between sexuals though. Finding a consensus on what it feels like to them is not gonna happen. I've tried. And all it did was make me confused and think "attraction" means nothing to my orientation. :) Kinda like someone else just posted they are now confused over it after reading sexuals respond here.

@ Skulls - You know at one point, "sexual asexual" was a suggested label?

Almost everyone I've talked to also has issues with it. And I'm a fairly normal sexual... I acknowledge that physical appearance doesn't matter that much to me, but I still connect physicality with sex, so there is a link for me. Still, the way AVEN describes sexual attraction is just bizarre. At it's most simplistic, sexual attraction still entails the combining of several different feelings, motivations, and personality traits. For example... I'm a risk taker in my life generally. This also applies to sex. I have casual sex because I'm not afraid and I'm not disgusted. There seems to be a belief on AVEN that casual sex happens because we're just so overcome with attraction for a stranger that we can't help it... no, it's not that our attraction is stronger, it's that our reservations are fewer. It's largely personality, not sexuality. IMO.

My impression of a segment of the asexual community is that they've completely forgotten what their focus should be and are instead attempting to reinvent the entirety of sexuality. The reason everyone fits into the numerous definitions is that they aren't restricted to defining asexuality and, those making the new definitions do not intend to so restrict it. I think these kiddos believe they understand sexuality better than the generations of people who have built upon historical knowledge, research, etc. It's mindblowing to me that we can have maybe 10 members who believe they understand the rest of humanity better than the rest of humanity understands themselves, and somehow, somehow, they've managed to thrive.

Ok, well, not "somehow". Because no one on AVEN is allowed to tell them to shut up.

Share this post


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

@ Skulls - You know at one point, "sexual asexual" was a suggested label?

I actually know a few people here who identify as ''hypersexual asexual'' and ''pansexual asexual'' meaning (according to them) they desire a lot of partnered sex with no gender preference as to who they have sex with, and cannot be happy or content without regular partnered sexual activity, they just don't find people ''attractive in the same way all sexual people do'' and ''desire sex for very different reasons than sexual people do, as they, being asexual, only desire sex with another person for the enjoyment and pleasure of sex itself, and to be closer to a friend or loved one physically, not because they have looked at the person and found them physically attractive in the way all sexual people do''.. Due to not feeling this special feeling that all sexual people have, they are asexual. And there are many more here who just identify as ace, but when the topic comes up, say they do desire partnered sex and need it to be happy, yet don't find their partners or anyone physically attractive to look at in the same way that all sexual people do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

(as it's the lack of that desire for partnered sex for sexual pleasure/release whether with a particular target or anyone in particular, that is the defining factor of asexuality. You only need to look at the issues people in mixed ace/sexual relationships have, to know this is so)[/font][/color]

I don't know what that tells you other than the fact that the sexuals coming here to ask about relationship advice usually do so because their asexual partner doesn't want as much sex as they do. That doesn't tell you anything about the potential sexuals in relationships with asexuals who are fine having sex as much as their partner.

I mean, come on, we have proof right here that there are asexuals who will have sex on a nearly daily basis to please their partner. Do you know of any sexuals who came here and were all like "My asexual partner has sex with me several times a week, I now feel the need to learn more about asexuality"? I sure can't remember such a thing.

I know other asexual people here who give sex to their partner daily (or at least a few times a week) who have had the exact same issues as me in sexual relationships. Their sexual partner is frustrated with their lack of enjoyment and desire for the sex, trying to make the asexual enjoy and/or want the sex in the same way sexual people do by using toys and different techniques and things, yet nothing works.

I would argue that if a sexual partner was so happy with their sex life with their asexual partner (not the emotional and other aspects of the relationship, because often people here in mixed relationships are very happy in all other senses, it's just the sex that is the issue) that they literally don't see their relationship as any different than any other regular sexual relationship that they have had, then maybe the 'asexual' person is just one of those people that does desire sex in the same way any sexual person does, yet doesn't feel that 'feeling' that apparently 'all sexual people feel'. Because of course being sexual is nothing about desiring sex with another person, it's about that special 'feeling' all sexual people have when they look at attractive people, lol.

Mmm, yeah. My partner has said if we ever break up, he wouldn't be interested in dating an ace again UNLESS they were willing to at least fake enjoyment. He's content with just getting sex, but he'd rather I enjoyed it and initiated it and was as excited about it as he was - and if we had the knowledge of this mismatch to start, the relationship would never have started. He's just not willing to break up over it, as he still gets sex, so it's "good enough". He still complains that my doing things like dressing conservatively or not getting around him to avoid his trying to initiate sex makes him feel like a rapist. So, it's not perfect and if he was one to ever discuss his feelings about anything (which is like pulling teeth, as he feels a "man" doesn't discuss his feelings) then he might be one of the sexuals on AVEN sometimes posting about how difficult it can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skullery

I would argue that if a sexual partner was so happy with their sex life with their asexual partner (not the emotional and other aspects of the relationship, because often people here in mixed relationships are very happy in all other senses, it's just the sex that is the issue) that they literally don't see their relationship as any different than any other regular sexual relationship that they have had, then maybe the 'asexual' person is just one of those people that does desire sex in the same way any sexual person does, yet doesn't feel that 'feeling' that apparently 'all sexual people feel'.

I would also argue this. If the asexual has no variation in their sexual experience compared to sexuals, they ain't asexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...