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?)

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.

Hmmm... have you considered maybe you are actually asexual? People here who go by this ''it's all about the magical attraction'' definition, have quite literally suggested to me that my hypersexual ex was maybe asexual, because for him casual sex was never, ever about appearance; he had casual sex for the sex itself, and it had nothing to do with what the person he had it with looked like. It sounds like you are saying something at least along the same lines, so maybe you are actually also an unidentified asexual like my ex Skulls? (just without the utter arsehole factor that he had)

..Have some ace cake and welcome to the wonderful asexual spectrum :cake: :P *

*I hope everyone gets the sarcasm.. thought I better point it out in case I didn't convey it well enough through text

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.

^^^ I could not agree more with this.

This is exactly what has happened/is happening in this community, and it has permeated throughout the entire asexual community due to the 'sexual attraction' definition (which in my opinion is still okay as a definition, as long as AVEN could put what they mean by sexual attraction, ie the desire for partnered sexual contact, in a place where everyone could frikken see it, instead of hiding it away where it is so easily missed).

What has happened here is people are totally reinventing sexuality itself, and the definitions of what makes sexual people sexual, in favor of allowing anyone who wants to be, to be asexual, for any reason at all. Which is simultaneously erasure or sexual people and asexual people, for the sake of special snowflakes. In my opinion.

I have had discussions with people here multiple times, that go like this:

them: That lack of innate desire for partnered sex definition that some people here keep spouting is so stupid. I do desire partnered sex and feel it is important for me to be happy, especially in relationships, and it's a wonderful bonding experience with another person.. I just don't feel sexual attraction. So by AVENs definition, I am asexual. I agree with how AVEN defines asexuality, because being asexual really is only about not feeling sexual attraction. I am sick of people trying to say it's about not desiring sex with other people, why are they even here if they are so anti AVENs definition?

me: what is sexual attraction to you?

them: seeing people and wanting to have sex with them based on appearance. what people who are sexual feel.

me: you get that AVEN defines it as the desire for partnered sexual contact with another person, right?

them: uuum where do they say that?

me: in their general FAQ

them: *goes to look* Oh okay well I completely disagree with AVENs definition in that sense then, but I'm still asexual as I don't find anyone sexually attractive the way sexual people do. That's a stupid definition they need to get rid of that part.

me *shakes head*

It pisses me off how people will fight for AVENs definition seemingly to the death lol, as long as they ignore the part where AVEN defines their definition. I have seen this time and time again, and really, it's just so frikken old now. I just can't believe that people can legitimately think that a sexual person's entire sexual orientation is based on ''looking at people and wanting sex with them'' or ''sexual desire based on appearance'' .. how can people truly think that all sexual people are that frikken shallow, and how can they be allowed to say that without a mod pointing out that actually that's casual antisexuality?. Like I said, so old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

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.

Hmmm... have you considered maybe you are actually asexual? People here who go by this ''it's all about the magical attraction'' definition, have quite literally suggested to me that my hypersexual ex was maybe asexual, because for him casual sex was never, ever about appearance; he had casual sex for the sex itself, and it had nothing to do with what the person he had it with looked like. It sounds like you are saying something at least along the same lines, so maybe you are actually also an unidentified asexual like my ex Skulls? (just without the utter arsehole factor that he had)

..Have some ace cake and welcome to the wonderful asexual spectrum :cake: :P *

You joke, but I've been told many times over the years on here that I'm asexual. It makes me so angry... not for mislabeling me, but for the sheer stupidity of such a comment.

But yeah, basically i have sex for two reasons: I want to have sex or I feel emotionally attached to someone and want to play with them. But never, never have I had sex because someone is hot. I don't understand how their attractiveness would make sex good or why that would be a sensible motivator for sex... of course I recognize that some people do like bangin' hotties, I'm just not one of them.

Share this post


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

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.

Yep mine would have been exactly the same. If I had learned about asexuality while with him and 'came out' and if he actually knew how to use a computer, he would definitely have been here posting about how difficult being with an asexual is, even when getting sex every single day.

And I can actually see how that would be legitimately crappy for a sexual person. Even if your partner is giving you sex every day and wants to give it to you to make you happy and please you, it would still be pretty sucky knowing they would really prefer not to be doing it and I could see how it could make someone 'feel like a rapist' when your partner, the person you love and who loves you, is intentionally trying to avoid touching or kissing you, and covering their entire body with clothes, in an attempt to try and avoid accidentally initiating sex, even though they still give it to you for a certain amount of time every day or week or whatever to try to satisfy you. It's a hard situation for everyone involved, sexual as well as asexual, regardless of whether the sexual person is forced into celibacy or the ace is giving sex, or they have compromised even though both their needs are clearly not being fully met due to just how different an asexuals needs are from a sexuals.

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

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

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.

Hmmm... have you considered maybe you are actually asexual? People here who go by this ''it's all about the magical attraction'' definition, have quite literally suggested to me that my hypersexual ex was maybe asexual, because for him casual sex was never, ever about appearance; he had casual sex for the sex itself, and it had nothing to do with what the person he had it with looked like. It sounds like you are saying something at least along the same lines, so maybe you are actually also an unidentified asexual like my ex Skulls? (just without the utter arsehole factor that he had)

..Have some ace cake and welcome to the wonderful asexual spectrum :cake: :P *

You joke, but I've been told many times over the years on here that I'm asexual. It makes me so angry... not for mislabeling me, but for the sheer stupidity of such a comment.

But yeah, basically i have sex for two reasons: I want to have sex or I feel emotionally attached to someone and want to play with them. But never, never have I had sex because someone is hot. I don't understand how their attractiveness would make sex good or why that would be a sensible motivator for sex... of course I recognize that some people do like bangin' hotties, I'm just not one of them.

... people have told you that you're asexual? :lol: You're like one of the more sexual sexuals on here at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

Exactly! Only Serran's partner can give me a run for my money, and he's only here in theory :)

Share this post


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

Exactly! Only Serran's partner can give me a run for my money, and he's only here in theory :)

Probably you, Serrans partner, and my hypersexual ex are all actually asexual. The way this site is going, you could all well be :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

EDIT: The below is in part a response to Mysticus continuing to try and suggest that I may be "grey sexual". Just so you know. :)

It's largely personality, not sexuality. IMO.

That statement kind of got me thinking.

I avoided speaking like this up to now because I wasn't so sure of myself, but I do feel certain now.

The gist of what some of you guys are saying seems to be that the degree to which we depend on sex and the role that sex plays in our lives completely depends on our sexual orientation. That it can not be changed, other than by a never-ending conscious struggle with one self.

That assumption is denying the person I am. It quite literally contradicts my identity.

I'm not an "average" sexual. Like Skulls here, I'm quite positively hypersexual. As far as my biology is concerned, having sex upward of once a day would be ideal for me.

But I'm also a virgin. In my teenage years, the fact that I could not "get laid" was quite traumatizing to me. It was at least part of the reason I was suffering constantly, which over the years led to a suicide wish, mild depression and quite a few therapies, some of which were almost exclusively focused on "making me more functional in society, and thus desirable".

However, I got through that and out of it (mostly). I did never allow myself to attempt desperate things in order to get sex, because it was part of my personality, my self-respect, not to. I'm not demi-sexual, but I do deeply believe that sexuality should be with someone you like, and in all those years I simply never managed to find a female person who would like me "that way". Thus I remained a virgin, and it was for the sake of my survival that I learned to accept this.

A bit over a year ago, for the first time in my life, I found that person I'd been waiting for. She's the first woman in my life who would be friend material even if she were male. Some of you witnessed how devastating it was to me to learn that all these amazing things I'd missed out on in my teens, I'd still be missing out on. I won't lie, it nearly broke our relationship.

It didn't. She's way too important to me for that. At any point could I have thrown the towel, walked out on her, demanded that she give me sex or I leave her. But I didn't. The reason for that? Yup, personality. What I think of her, what she means to me, how we connect, is much more important to me than sex. Even if sexuality were a primal desire of mine, whatever I feel for her is stronger. And the reason I feel for her that way by now aren't her stunning looks, it's the fact that our personalities mesh well together, it's all the things we've lived through, we've done for each other.

My wish for sexuality is still there. I will still look at her body and think of how attractive she is in a sexual manner. I guess that's what makes me a "sexual" person. But the feeling has no hold over me at this point. It can not make me "desire" sex, if I don't actually want that sex. I decided what I want, and that decision over time became part of me, part of my perception, part of my instinctive reactions.

To someone who's felt completely alone for all their life, just having a partner to be close to is a gift. It doesn't matter how strong my "instinctive" desire for sex is. Through a long and winding path, I've become a person who does not need sex, and who does not see sex as something important in their life. That is me, that is who I made myself.

To assume that one has no choice over these things feels like an insult to me. It feels like denying these accomplishments of mine that I have earned under a lot of pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran
To assume that one has no choice over these things feels like an insult to me. It feels like denying these accomplishments of mine that I have earned under a lot of pain.

No one has said there is no choice. Or that all sexuals NEED sex (well, OK, some aces do think that.. but that's such a silly idea). My ex, as I said, will only have sex once he's in a relationship out of choice. Even though his desire is still there (the my ideal sex would be X, the seeing people in a sexual way, the thinking it would be nice to HAVE sex under X conditions)... he at no point NEEDS sex in his life. He does desire it though and is kinda bummed a little when he can't have it. He thinks about it, thinks it'd be nice to do, IF he had the choice of a partner he cared about and was 100% willing to have sex with him and enjoy it - he'd have sex. If those conditions are not met though, oh well, life goes on and he can do without, because he has values and an honor code he won't violate.

Desire doesn't mean "I need this, or I will be horribly depressed" or "I actively must seek it out". I DESIRE cuddling and non-sexual physical affection. I know I enjoy it. I think about it. When I had a partner who was into it, I loved it and it was awesome and I would initiate that any chance I could get where we'd both enjoy it. But, since I do not have one that likes that now, I mean... it'd be nice to have, but whatever, he doesn't like it and it's not going to destroy me to not have it. Doesn't mean I don't still desire it - I do, just, that desire doesn't rule me.

How IMPORTANT a desire is, varies by person. Some find it a need, some just find it a nice bonus if they can get it, but no big deal if they cannot. I've dated people all over the spectrum in terms of how important it is to them. Feral, you, LG ... you all are willing to go without to be with an ace, which totally makes sense to me. Desires/wishes/urges whatever we want to call them, do not control us and it's more personality "How much value do *I* place on this specific one?"

My IDEAL is no sex. I do not desire sex. A sexual's IDEAL includes sex. They desire sex. But, in the same way I can be happy and still have sex, it makes sense a sexual could be happy and not have it. <-- Essentially what I mean when I say desire/lack of desire. Not "some overpowering primal drive that destroys a person if they do not fulfill it". (And yes, there are exceptions - celibate people who still kinda want it, but want their moral code or whatever is the basis more. Or people who have suffered trauma, so their interest in sex can actually repulse them, etc, etc ... as I said no box will fit everyone of a label if we try to define it).

(And it seems like maybe we just have different word choices for things, you say wish, I say desire)

Share this post


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

EDIT: The below is in part a response to Mysticus continuing to try and suggest that I may be "grey sexual". Just so you know. :)

It's largely personality, not sexuality. IMO.

That statement kind of got me thinking.

I avoided speaking like this up to now because I wasn't so sure of myself, but I do feel certain now.

The gist of what some of you guys are saying seems to be that the degree to which we depend on sex and the role that sex plays in our lives completely depends on our sexual orientation. That it can not be changed, other than by a never-ending conscious struggle with one self.

That assumption is denying the person I am. It quite literally contradicts my identity.

I'm not an "average" sexual. Like Skulls here, I'm quite positively hypersexual. As far as my biology is concerned, having sex upward of once a day would be ideal for me.

But I'm also a virgin. In my teenage years, the fact that I could not "get laid" was quite traumatizing to me. It was at least part of the reason I was suffering constantly, which over the years led to a suicide wish, mild depression and quite a few therapies, some of which were almost exclusively focused on "making me more functional in society, and thus desirable".

However, I got through that and out of it (mostly). I did never allow myself to attempt desperate things in order to get sex, because it was part of my personality, my self-respect, not to. I'm not demi-sexual, but I do deeply believe that sexuality should be with someone you like, and in all those years I simply never managed to find a female person who would like me "that way". Thus I remained a virgin, and it was for the sake of my survival that I learned to accept this.

A bit over a year ago, for the first time in my life, I found that person I'd been waiting for. She's the first woman in my life who would be friend material even if she were male. Some of you witnessed how devastating it was to me to learn that all these amazing things I'd missed out on in my teens, I'd still be missing out on. I won't lie, it nearly broke our relationship.

It didn't. She's way too important to me for that. At any point could I have thrown the towel, walked out on her, demanded that she give me sex or I leave her. But I didn't. The reason for that? Yup, personality. What I think of her, what she means to me, how we connect, is much more important to me than sex. Even if sexuality were a primal desire of mine, whatever I feel for her is stronger. And the reason I feel for her that way by now aren't her stunning looks, it's the fact that our personalities mesh well together, it's all the things we've lived through, we've done for each other.

My wish for sexuality is still there. I will still look at her body and think of how attractive she is in a sexual manner. I guess that's what makes me a "sexual" person. But the feeling has no hold over me at this point. It can not make me "desire" sex, if I don't actually want that sex. I decided what I want, and that decision over time became part of me, part of my perception, part of my instinctive reactions.

To someone who's felt completely alone for all their life, just having a partner to be close to is a gift. It doesn't matter how strong my "instinctive" desire for sex is. Through a long and winding path, I've become a person who does not need sex, and who does not see sex as something important in their life. That is me, that is who I made myself.

To assume that one has no choice over these things feels like an insult to me. It feels like denying these accomplishments of mine that I have earned under a lot of pain.

I actually have only ever seen you suggesting the Grey label for yourself by saying you seem more grey than sexual etc, and/or suggesting that many sexual people must be grey etc (not saying Mysticus didn't suggest this, I just didn't see it) but in reading this, you definitely do sound fully sexual to me, yeah.

A lot of sexual people can/will deny their sexual desire for their asexual partner (I don't mean deny they have that desire, I mean deny acting on it). It doesn't stop the desire being there though, that preference for partnered sexual contact over no sexual contact is still there, it just means they deny that desire for the sake of their relationship. Like Lady Girl, for example, she has been celibate for many, many years and it hasn't all been easy, but she gave (acting on) that 'desire' up for the sake of the person she loves as her husband is asexual. Sorry for randomly mentioning you Lady Girl, I just know that you have been celibate for many, many years, but that doesn't mean you are identifying as grey or asexual just because you were able have that desire but not need to act on it, if that makes sense. And I know Skulls goes without sex for months (years?) on end, for the sake of her asexual partner, despite being a very sexual person herself. That doesn't stop her being a very sexual person, just because she isn't actively having sex as often as she would be ideally having it if her partner was also sexual (sorry to randomly mention you as well Skulls, just trying to use relevant examples here)

You Tarfeather, saying you have ''given up the need for sex'' isn't to say that you would deny your partner if she decided she would love to have sex with you and for sexual intimacy to be an integral part of your relationship.. Would that distress you at all if she decided she would love to have sex? would you need to come up with a 'sexual compromise schedule' with your newly sexual partner, in that you give her sex once a week, the other days she satisfies her desires alone? Or would you then be able to enjoy a fully sexually rewarding, sexually intimate relationship with her, just because she has had a sudden sexual conversion in which case you can now fully express your sexuality?

Anyway, what I'm saying is that yes, you sound fully sexual to me, and yes, fully sexual people can and do forgo acting on that desire, for the sake of their partner (or religion or whatever) and for some, that is not a battle as such. It does not mean though that if their partner said ''hey I'd absolutely love for sexual intimacy to be an integral part of our relationship now'' you'd be like ''uuum well honestly, I'm not that into it, so could we compromise on the sex, or maybe not have it at all if possible? would that be okay?'' (however if you did feel like sex would be something you wouldn't be fully into and may need to compromise on, and/or that you'd just prefer not to have, then I would suggest that yeah, grey would quite possibly be a label for you)

No one said (correction some do say it, but they are incorrect) that sexuals would die without sex, or that they can't choose to not have sex and live in celibacy, just that there will always be a preference (even if the preference is not acted upon) to have sex when that desire for sexual intimacy is there, over being forced by circumstance to not have it when/if you desire it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

So I guess those who make a big deal over aesthetic attraction with their sexuality could just be another type of sexual. I agree that those who desire partnered sex are far more sexual than asexual, and I definitely agree more that it's the lack of desire for partnered sex that makes someone asexual. When I look in the Welcome forum I see more people saying they don't want or don't desire sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

I actually have only ever seen you suggesting the Grey label for yourself by saying you seem more grey than sexual etc, and/or suggesting that many sexual people must be grey etc (not saying Mysticus didn't suggest this, I just didn't see it) but in reading this, you definitely do sound fully sexual to me, yeah.

Well, to be honest, I did ask/suggest it... but only after Tar (rather surprisingly to me) said he doesn't feel any desire/incentive for partnered sex at all until he gets to know a specific person better. Which still sounds demi-ish (and thus, gray) to me... but Tar does give a pretty good reasoning why he doesn't identify as such and sees just plain sexual as better fitting for himself.

In other news, this thread is becoming the first one that risks me running out of allowed likes per day. ;) :p :cake:

Share this post


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

Noooo. Hit back at the wrong time, deleted my whole post, no 'retrieve auto save' for some reason *cries*

I actually have only ever seen you suggesting the Grey label for yourself by saying you seem more grey than sexual etc, and/or suggesting that many sexual people must be grey etc (not saying Mysticus didn't suggest this, I just didn't see it) but in reading this, you definitely do sound fully sexual to me, yeah.

Well, to be honest, I did ask/suggest it... but only after Tar (rather surprisingly to me) said he doesn't feel any desire/incentive for partnered sex at all until he gets to know a specific person better. Which still sounds demi-ish (and thus, gray) to me... but Tar does give a pretty good reasoning why he doesn't identify as such and sees just plain sexual as better fitting for himself.

In other news, this thread is becoming the first one that risks me running out of allowed likes per day. ;) :P :cake:

aaah I see where you are coming from with now, that does make sense!

I'm not an "average" sexual. Like Skulls here, I'm quite positively hypersexual. As far as my biology is concerned, having sex upward of once a day would be ideal for me.

But I'm also a virgin. In my teenage years, the fact that I could not "get laid" was quite traumatizing to me. It was at least part of the reason I was suffering constantly, which over the years led to a suicide wish, mild depression and quite a few therapies, some of which were almost exclusively focused on "making me more functional in society, and thus desirable".

However, I got through that and out of it (mostly). I did never allow myself to attempt desperate things in order to get sex, because it was part of my personality, my self-respect, not to. I'm not demi-sexual, but I do deeply believe that sexuality should be with someone you like, and in all those years I simply never managed to find a female person who would like me "that way". Thus I remained a virgin, and it was for the sake of my survival that I learned to accept this.

A bit over a year ago, for the first time in my life, I found that person I'd been waiting for. She's the first woman in my life who would be friend material even if she were male. Some of you witnessed how devastating it was to me to learn that all these amazing things I'd missed out on in my teens, I'd still be missing out on. I won't lie, it nearly broke our relationship.

That bit (the bolded parts in particular) gave me the impression the innate desire to connect sexually with another person had always been there, but he had never met anyone who reciprocated the desire, and/or who he was close enough to, to express the desire with that person (many sexual people do need that connection, and obviously also for the person they are connected to to reciprocate the desire, before they will want to have sex with that person. Certainly not all, but many) Him saying he became miserable over the years gave me the impression he was desiring that sexual connection with another person, just had no one to share that desire with (many sexual people become depressed like that when they cannot find a partner they relate to and/or can't find someone who reciprocates their desire etc)

However if he literally had no desire for partnered sexual contact UNTIL he met his partner, then developed a desire for sexual contact for the first time only once he became close to her, then yes that would fit the definition of demisexual. Tarfeather is free to identify as he wishes of course, but I can totally see how one would get the impression he could be demisexual if partnered sexual contact is something he literally never desired or wanted (regardless of whether or not there was a target present for the desire) UNTIL he met his partner. (Because as we know, a demisexual person does not have that innate desire to connect sexually with others until they meet a person they develop a deep bond with, it's not until then that they desire partnered sex. Many sexual people however pine for a romantic/sexual partner, and wish they could meet a partner they connect with on a deep enough level to have sex with. They still desire that sexual contact in general, they just won't/can't have sex with a random person for whatever reason, be it morals, not being able to find anyone who reciprocates the desire, not feeling close enough with the people they do meet to have sex with them, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
In other news, this thread is becoming the first one that risks me running out of allowed likes per day.

I didn't even know there was a limit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus
In other news, this thread is becoming the first one that risks me running out of allowed likes per day.

I didn't even know there was a limit

Apparently the number it's high enough that hardly anyone runs into it normally. :D But I've read folks posting that they've run out of likes to give once or twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

That bit (the bolded parts in particular) gave me the impression the innate desire to connect sexually with another person had always been there, but he had never met anyone who reciprocated the desire, and/or who he was close enough to, to express the desire with that person (many sexual people do need that connection, and obviously also for the person they are connected to to reciprocate the desire, before they will want to have sex with that person. Certainly not all, but many) Him saying he became miserable over the years gave me the impression he was desiring that sexual connection with another person, just had no one to share that desire with (many sexual people become depressed like that when they cannot find a partner they relate to and/or can't find someone who reciprocates their desire etc)

However if he literally had no desire for partnered sexual contact UNTIL he met his partner, then developed a desire for sexual contact for the first time only once he became close to her, then yes that would fit the definition of demisexual. Tarfeather is free to identify as he wishes of course, but I can totally see how one would get the impression he could be demisexual if partnered sexual contact is something he literally never desired or wanted (regardless of whether or not there was a target present for the desire) UNTIL he met his partner. (Because as we know, a demisexual person does not have that innate desire to connect sexually with others until they meet a person they develop a deep bond with, it's not until then that they desire partnered sex. Many sexual people however pine for a romantic/sexual partner, and wish they could meet a partner they connect with on a deep enough level to have sex with. They still desire that sexual contact in general, they just won't/can't have sex with a random person for whatever reason, be it morals, not being able to find anyone who reciprocates the desire, not feeling close enough with the people they do meet to have sex with them, etc)

I don't remember the exact discussion, but I think it's important to distinguish between "back then" and "now". During those years, sure I desired sex in general, even though I had nobody in particular to desire it with. Currently, I do not desire sex in general. I do not desire it with my partner because it's not something she (currently) wants. I don't desire it with others because during this relationship, women who do not like/admire/respect me for who I am have been getting increasingly uninteresting to me with regards to romantic/sexual interest.

At this point, the only way for me to become interested in sex again, would be to meet a woman who's genuinely interested in me. I guess that's where the whole "demi" idea comes from, even though that's not really the case for me.

Oh, and I do of course satisfy my urges through imagination, masturbation, porn, etc.. But I think we've already established that this isn't the same as actually desiring sex with someone.

EDIT: Wait, now I remember the exact discussion. It was because I usually need to have known a bit of someone's personality and mentality before I desire sex with them. Which can happen after 5 minutes, or take longer. Either way, that doesn't make me demi-sexual either. ^^'

I actually have only ever seen you suggesting the Grey label for yourself by saying you seem more grey than sexual etc, and/or suggesting that many sexual people must be grey etc (not saying Mysticus didn't suggest this, I just didn't see it) but in reading this, you definitely do sound fully sexual to me, yeah.

Well, sometimes that was confusion on my part, sometimes that was just me being diplomatic. Most people are indeed gray, as everyone experiences sexuality differently. I do believe that. I don't know how the label should be used, though.

It doesn't stop the desire being there though, that preference for partnered sexual contact over no sexual contact is still there, it just means they deny that desire for the sake of their relationship.

Well, I'll say this much that at the end of the day, for a sexual person there will still be something making them desire sex, yes. However, if that something is weak enough compared to other "pulls", then it won't lead to a desire that you actually "feel", and thus I'm not sure whether to call that "desire" or not. This actually ties in with my problem with the definition of asexuality, because it's not always possible to notice that "something making you desire sex". It's for me because it was so strong for me during my teens, and I had nothing else like e.g. strong sexual repulsion cancelling it out, but there may be others who have a weaker pull toward sex and a stronger sexual repulsion who never notice.

You Tarfeather, saying you have ''given up the need for sex'' isn't to say that you would deny your partner if she decided she would love to have sex with you and for sexual intimacy to be an integral part of your relationship.. Would that distress you at all if she decided she would love to have sex? would you need to come up with a 'sexual compromise schedule' with your newly sexual partner, in that you give her sex once a week, the other days she satisfies her desires alone? Or would you then be able to enjoy a fully sexually rewarding, sexually intimate relationship with her, just because she has had a sudden sexual conversion in which case you can now fully express your sexuality?

I'd ask the imposter what they did with my girlfriend if that happened.. It's not like I tolerate her lack of sexual desire because I like the rest of her. I like her as she is, and her lack of sexual attraction is part of that. She wouldn't be who she is if that weren't the case.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that yes, you sound fully sexual to me, and yes, fully sexual people can and do forgo acting on that desire, for the sake of their partner (or religion or whatever) and for some, that is not a battle as such. It does not mean though that if their partner said ''hey I'd absolutely love for sexual intimacy to be an integral part of our relationship now'' you'd be like ''uuum well honestly, I'm not that into it, so could we compromise on the sex, or maybe not have it at all if possible? would that be okay?'' (however if you did feel like sex would be something you wouldn't be fully into and may need to compromise on, and/or that you'd just prefer not to have, then I would suggest that yeah, grey would quite possibly be a label for you)

Yes, probably not. I think the actually having sex plays a role in that. For instance, my friend has been abused by a woman in the past and in the last relationship he started, he was trying to stall out the sex, out of fear that he might be abused again. Then after their first time, it completely turned around to the point where he said it was hard for him not to initiate sex. So yeah. If you actually experience it, as a sexual person, your body will want more. But if you don't experience it, it remains a concept that you can deal with through adjusting your mentality and viewpoint. That's where I'm at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

ugh pan serran and skully were just building off each other basically saying "if you dont feel my pain you're not allowed to be like me" I skipped everything since then I'm so ticked off

like that is wrong on so many levels

I don't care if you're upset about inability to police people but do not fool yourselves into prejudiced traps like that.

my sexual partner as far as I know was completely unaware of my asexuality and the problems I faced are ones that now I am educated will be a lot easier for me to handle. I wouldn't do it because I'd be lying if I did, but if we randomly got back together I could probably have a so called normal relationship with her because sex isn't all that pain ful for me I could literally write off any uninterest in sex as autism or introversion or depression and the relationship would "look like a normal sexual relationship"

I can imagine an asexual who doesn't ever know they are asexual because the honest truth is most relationships have problems and many are regarding sex it isn't just an asexual thing to have problems in bed, it's a relationship thing

like come on what got into you?? thinking that your experience is the only valid human condition is how racism and elitism spawns shame on you!

I think your reasoning is weak to put it mildly, but I totally get the feelings you're expressing. I felt the same when reading some of the posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

I wish you would pull out posts and quote because I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. If anything, our entire point is that everyone experiences things differently, so defining sexual attraction in such an absurdly specific, not to mention inaccurate, way is fucked because it doesn't take into account human diversity.

Honestly, and I mean this with all the love in the world, but you have NO IDEA what it's like to pretend to enjoy sex for a decade. So don't condescend to hoist your entire argument on baseless wishful thinking about your sexual acting abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

They're all exclusive. That's the point, teagz. If they were inclusive they'd be meaningless. Which is exactly what our argument is... and I won't back down because I believe it completely and totally... the inclusion of people who share 100% of traits with sexuals but who have decided they don't feel the magical mystical "sexual attraction" are full of shit and are, by virtue of calling the exact same traits both sexual and asexual, are demeaning, devaluing, and, quite frankly, making a mockery of actual asexuality.

This has literally nothing to do with me thinking everyone is like me. Which is a bizarre accusation, tbh, because I've spent the last 5 years on AVEN arguing the exact opposite. This has to do with one thing and one thing only... the diminishing value of the term asexuality due to the flooding of sexuality into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

What makes you think homo- and heterosexuality weren't exclusive?

If a man says he only wants sex with women, date women, live with women, but chooses to call himself "gay", you bet that almost everyone - gay or straight likewise - would tell him that he's talking bullshit. Despite what he identifies as, he never really was gay to start with, and should be corrected on this misidentification.

EDIT: Cross-posting with Skulls saying basically the same thing. :cake:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

No, exclusive means there are criteria that, if you fufill them, mean you are not in the group in question. And yes, that is true of both hetero- and homosexuality, and we should strive to make it so about asexuality, too, if we ever want to be taken seriously.

If your argument were true, "gay" and "straight" would be nothing but special snowflake concepts, used by bisexuals who just have a slightly stronger partner preference than usual.

Overlap does not and should not invalidate exclusivity. Exclusivity is neccessary for every definition that is worth using, at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

They're all exclusive.

so if I think some one is cute I am asexual but if I think they are sexy then I'm sexual, and no one thinks people can be cute OR sexy?

they are not exclusive in the least and thinking they are is foolish. exclusive means that there isn't overlap, that there aren't such things as "bi" and "grey" and that there is no gay men admiring boobs and no asexuals who like sex.

Everything in this post is incorrect.

So, you really don't see a difference between my gay boy friends jiggling my boobs vs. someone who holds 0 asexual traits calling themselves asexual? Really? Those are directly analogous to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

No, it's because one fits the criteria of the term and the other doesn't. You can put a hat on a cat and it's still a cat. But you can't put cat ears on a dog and call it a cat.

You, however, are arguing that the dog can call himself a cat and that's valid, and you are ignoring that 1) there's nothing wrong with being a dog, 2) there are actual qualities to being a cat, and 3) the dog doesn't have those qualities.

In other words. The definition of gay isn't "people who want to call themselves gay." that's flat out stupid. The definition for lesbian isn't "people who want to call themselves lesbian." I get that, for whatever reason, you think that should be the definition... for all things, there are no necessary qualities... everything is everything.

But that's a really extreme view that I can almost guarantee even the sexual asexuals wouldn't like. I'm sure they'd prefer their labels have actual value. There's no value in a label if it has no necessary qualities to it.

I feel like Aristotle covered this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

It's one thing to argue that specific cases of people calling themselves asexual are ridiculous. It's another to categorically exclude everyone from the label who doesn't match criterion X. I don't think that any proposed definition of "asexual" thus far can possibly accurately define asexuality as sexual orientation; It'll either be too inclusive or too exclusive. That's because we can never be sure whether someone is asexual by orientation or by life choices. In some cases the distinction even is irrelevant.

I don't have an issue with policing the label, but I think it'd be pretty presumptuous for anyone to think they have a better understanding of someone else's sexuality than that person does themselves. For veganism this is different. It's easy. For sexual orientation, there's so much data to consider that each case must be looked at carefully and reasoned out, before you can even come to a conclusion that is mildly accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...