Jump to content

Archived

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

Custos

Sexuals - Initial Attraction Thoughts?

Recommended Posts

Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

But what, then, is the point in making a sentence using this vague, subjective term, which is different for everyone and not even believed to be a real thing by all, and not only call that sentence a "definition", but the one and only definition?

do you not remember how Pluto used to be a planet, but now isn't? the whole concept of definitions and the scientific process is that, we create theories and definitions. and maybe someday we'll learn a better way to do it, but for now this is the best way we know to do it. knowledge is not final.

Ah, careful... that was a completely different situation than what we face here.

There was a definition of "planet", and it wasn't vague and subjective. Pluto did fit it.

Then a new defintion was made, that wasn't vage and subjective either, which Pluto no longer fit.

Both times, though, you were able to look at the current definition of "planet", then look at Pluto, and come to a clear decision of "yes" or "no" for the question "is Pluto a planet?".

the dumb thing is, that for the most part we're in agreement on many regards. but then there's this one thing or other that we disagree about, and so we fill up pages and threads and forums with debate over it...

That's how progress is made. It's not a bad thing (well, as long as everyone remains respectful of each other as a person, and I don't see this discussion as having left this basis of respect at any point :)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

hm. Polaroid is a better person than me. and better at speaking. :unsure:

:mellow: Why do you think so??

maybe it is in my mind. I feel bad about my posts here, like I am being a shitty person to you all and to pan :unsure: I don't want to be shitty to you guys...

:s I don't take disagreement and debate that way. You are allowed your opinions and you're not being rude/disrespectful in expressing them. Don't feel bad about not totally agreeing with us.

the dumb thing is, that for the most part we're in agreement on many regards. but then there's this one thing or other that we disagree about, and so we fill up pages and threads and forums with debate over it...

That's how a lot of things go. Even people that mostly agree/disagree with each other tend to also have parts they agree/disagree with too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

I'm not asexual, so it shouldn't be up to me to define the term. But someone's been asking for a "clear definition". And in my mind, I do have one.

To me, an asexual is someone who would simply forget about sex if nobody else brought it up. Someone who can live their whole life without sex, and never notice.

I think that's the kind of person I truly consider asexual at the bottom of my heart. And there's just no telling that such a person could never develop a desire for sex. Anyone can develop a psychological desire for anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

To me, an asexual is someone who would simply forget about sex if nobody else brought it up. Someone who can live their whole life without sex, and never notice.

I think that's the kind of person I truly consider asexual at the bottom of my heart.

Potayto, potahto. To me, that sounds exactly someone with no innate desire for sex. (Except that you used more words. :P)

And there's just no telling that such a person could never develop a desire for sex. Anyone can develop a psychological desire for anything.

I think the crux here is, what is a desire? If they develop a desire they didn't have before, than I'd say that their orientation has changed. (Which happens. Just ask Ficto.)

Unless you're merely talking about a wish/want/decision, not an innate desire. People can choose to have partnered sex with absolutely no innate desire for it. (Which happens. Just ask Serran... or perhaps even better, ask starry.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

To me, an asexual is someone who would simply forget about sex if nobody else brought it up. Someone who can live their whole life without sex, and never notice.

I think that's the kind of person I truly consider asexual at the bottom of my heart.

Potayto, potahto. To me, that sounds exactly someone with no innate desire for sex. (Except that you used more words. :P)

Haha I am glad I am not the only one that had a "Isn't that what we've been saying the whole time?" reaction to that. I honestly think it's just a difference in word choices at this point...

teagan - No one wants a witch hunt, or to throw people under the bus / out. If someone doesn't quite fit the definition but still finds the community support useful, cool, fine. I just want a definition that is useful, I don't require everyone adhere to it 1000000% and say "get out, go away, this forum/community is not for you" if you do not. And if your desires / insertyourownword here changes over time, I have only seen people be supportive of that too - we're not going to be like "OMG HOW DARE YOU MISLABEL YOURSELF! YOU MAKE US ALL LOOK BAD BECAUSE YOU HAVE "found the right one"!1!1!1!" ... that's never been AVEN and no one wants that to be AVEN. You started desiring (again, insertyourownwordhere) sex and sexual relationships? Cool! I wish you all the happiness in the world figuring this new part of yourself out. And don't worry about the label, just take care of yourself first then decide where you think you fit after! ... that's about the only response I will ever give if a person says that and is worried about where they fit now.

Share this post


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

This scenario we are having (Skulls and Serran both being the same sexual orientation, and my ex as well of course) is exactly like this:

Two gay men who both have high libidos are in a relationship together. Although they love each other they are utterly miserable because despite both being homosexual, the definition of homosexuality is so broad and all-inclusive that one of the men only desires sex with men, the other man only desires sex with women. They do love each other, but trying to compromise sexually has become a nightmare because one man wants sex with his partner, the other does not want sex ever as he does not desire sex with other men. They may need to break up due to their vastly different sexual preferences, despite both being exactly the same sexual orientation''

This is what's been bugging me about this whole conversation. Let me preface this by saying I really appreciate the passion you all are bringing to this discussion. I envy your clarity and force of opinion; I feel really confused and ignorant by comparison. I've tried to chime in a couple of times, but then the conversation takes a turn that makes it feel like I don't have any idea what I'm talking about after all. Anyway.

The thing is, your scenario makes it sound like sexual orientation is some kind of very deterministic checkbox that is supposed to instantly communicate a specific amount of information about someone. It sounds like one of your guys was 'tricked' into a relationship with the other because he observed the other's homosexual label in a vacuum and said, all right then, let's proceed, things will work out because clearly we have compatible sexual orientations. Almost as if it was a matter of ordering a partner out of a catalog: "Very well, the product is labeled homosexual, this will fit my needs."

I just don't think people rely on the DEFINITION of sexual orientations like that -- at least, not those who are seeking a conventional sexual relationship.

Here's the crux of it for me: Asexuality, by its very nature, is more complicated than the other sexual orientations. It's simply not a parallel concept to heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. There's a reason why nobody worries about the "definition" of heterosexuality/homosexuality/bisexuality. It's the issue of defining a lack: there are a whole bunch of ways of describing or explaining or rationalizing or elucidating the details of the way something doesn't exist, while there are comparatively fewer ways to describe something that does exist.

As someone said above, you get a fairly complete idea of the other orientations by just asking, All things being equal, who would you like to f*ck? 90-plus percent of the world can give a straight answer:

  • Men
  • Men, with some exceptions
  • Women
  • Women, with some exceptions
  • No gender preference

If asexuality were a parallel concept, the asexual answer to this question would be similarly straightforward: Nobody. But it's not, for a large chunk of asexuals. For many of us, the answer is, "Well, in general, nobody, but it's complicated".

It strikes me that some (large) part of the conversation in this thread consists of litigating the boundaries of "it's complicated". It seems like the hope is that some magical phrasing of terms will dissolve the complications, and then we'll be able to state our asexuality with equal clarity and have everyone understand instantly. But… I think that's a fool's errand. I think we're stuck with the complications.

Anyway… apologies for the length, but here's one other thought. It's been a revelation to read Skullery's disavowal of the entire concept of "sexual attraction". I asked my (very sexual) best friend about it and he said exactly the same thing: no, he doesn't have a feeling of "sexual attraction", let alone an internal monologue, when he sees an attractive woman; he just appreciates the scenery (as I do!) and moves on (as I do). So, while I'm not prepared to say that "sexual attraction" is an empty concept for everyone everywhere, I do agree it's a poor choice as the foundation of the definition of asexuality. It's actually funny, and feeds back into other parts of the issue, in the sense of defining a lack of something: just because we lack "sexual attraction" doesn't mean it has any particular importance as a concept in the scheme of things; it turns out a lot of people lack "sexual attraction" in the AVEN sense! (Every person lacks an infinity of things.) We need to respect sexuals' assertion that it's not a particularly useful concept and move on.

I definitely agree with the bolded part.

Regarding the rest, that is why people like myself (lets call us 'desirists') prefer a desire-based definition for asexuality. ''An asexual is a person who has no innate desire for partnered sexual activity'' for example. As Ricerman outlined, that clears up practically every issue that there is with the attraction-based definition. Sure people complain ''hang on, I am asexual and I do innately desire partnered sex because it's a fun, intimate activity to do with another person and it feels good, I just don't find anyone sexually attractive! so that desire-definition is all shit'' Hello, sexual attraction is a meaningless term. Many sexual people say they do not feel whatever 'it' is, yet they still identify as hetero/homo/bi/pansexual as they do desire partnered sex, and the gender/s of the people that desire happens to be directed at is how they identify their sexual orientation. I know it seems harsh in a way, to compact everyone's entire sexual orientation into something so... basic. But in my mind, it really is that simple. Which gender/s do you prefer to have sex with? you would prefer to not have sex with anyone if given the choice? oh okay, asexual.

A woman who prefers to have sex with other women and would prefer never to have sex with men, is a lesbian. She may of course experiment with men to see if maybe she does enjoy anything with them, may even have had sexual relationships with men, she may even have a sexual relationship with a man right now as she is afraid of identifying as gay due to expectations from her family or whatever, but if she desires sex with women and would happily never have sex with a man again in her life, then she is clearly homosexual. not a questioning bisexual or anything. And it's exactly the same for an asexual who would have sex for various reasons ie to please a partner, to keep up 'appearances', to try to teach themselves to be 'normal' ..but if underneath all that they'd happily never have sex in their life if that was a possibility, as they just do not desire partnered sex with other people, then they are still asexual.

Honestly I just don't think sexual orientation (including asexuality) is that complicated. Even if you are not sure what your sexual orientation is, there is no harm in identifying as 'questioning hetero' 'questioning asexual' or whatever. But just because that uncertainty is there for many people, it doesn't make defining sexual orientation any more complicated (in my opinion anyway) .. It's who you innately desire partnered sex with. You desire sex with everyone, doesn't matter who they are or what gender they are, as you just desire partnered sex in general and have no sexual preference? Pansexual you are my friend. You don't desire partnered sex with anyone, ever? Asexual. Not sure one way or another, but you don't think you'd ever desire partnered sex? questioning asexual.

Asexual does not equate to ''love/desire sex, have no sexual preference'' as so many on this site seem to think. Asexual does not equate to ''confused about my sexuality'' Asexual does not equate to ''I only want sex for emotional reasons, it's a deeply intimate experience I can share with my partner that feels good, I just don't find my partner attractive in the same way sexual people do'' (just what?) ... Asexual is ''no innate desire to have partnered sex with people of any gender''.. That's what asexuality is in comparison to other sexual orientations (other sexual orientations have an innate desire for partnered sex with one/multiple gender/s) So in my mind, no innate desire for partnered sex is the perfect definition for asexuality as it's that defining factor that sets asexuals apart from the rest of the population.

And honestly, if someone feels they still must certainly be asexual in some way, because although they desire partnered sex and feel it is important in their relationships, they just ''totally don't feel the same as sexual people'' (whatever that means) then what is so bad about grey? I see nothing wrong with identifying in the grey area between asexuality and sexuality, it's there for a reason.

For many of us, the answer is, "Well, in general, nobody, but it's complicated".

If the ''in general nobody, but it's complicated'' is a factor when asked who one desires partnered sex with, I would question whether grey is not a strong possibility here?

and @ Teagan, I have no issue with you at all. I do strongly disagree with some of your opinions, but it's one thing to have a problem with someone's opinions (ie disagree with them completely) and another to have a problem with the person who has the opinions. I have no problem with you and I don't feel upset or anything that you disagree with my opinions, that's just how opinions work. Sometimes they clash. No harm done. ^_^ :cake:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
do you not remember how Pluto used to be a planet, but now isn't?

Pluto is a goddamn planet and I don't give a rat's ass how many astronomers say otherwise.

Taking Pluto out ruins all the mnemonic devices I learned as a kid for remembering the planets. :<

Share this post


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

I think the crux here is, what is a desire? If they develop a desire they didn't have before, than I'd say that their orientation has changed. (Which happens. Just ask Ficto.)

I wouldn't even say my orientation has changed as such. I'd say I was always grey (or demi, not sure yet still have to meet him. Maybe we will have sex and be like ''Aaaah lets never do that again. Gaming is way better'' haha) .. I just hadn't met the right person to 'set my greyness off' previously, if that makes sense? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think the crux here is, what is a desire? If they develop a desire they didn't have before, than I'd say that their orientation has changed. (Which happens. Just ask Ficto.)

I wouldn't even say my orientation has changed as such. I'd say I was always grey (or demi, not sure yet still have to meet him. Maybe we will have sex and be like ''Aaaah lets never do that again. Gaming is way better'' haha) .. I just hadn't met the right person to 'set my greyness off' previously, if that makes sense? :P

Sure, makes sense, if that's how you see it. :) I was just taking your word for it, as you did say you're asexual for a long time, and had no reason to think otherwise...

Basically, it's just a matter of viewpoint whether you changed from ace to gray/demi, or have always been grey/demi but mistook yourself for ace due to lack of situation. (The latter version is something that you would have to say before I can do so, though... you know, due to that pesky thing called ToS. ;) :p :cake: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

To me, an asexual is someone who would simply forget about sex if nobody else brought it up. Someone who can live their whole life without sex, and never notice.

I think that's the kind of person I truly consider asexual at the bottom of my heart.

Potayto, potahto. To me, that sounds exactly someone with no innate desire for sex. (Except that you used more words. :P)

Okay. I don't really mind that, but I think it should be obvious to you that the reason I needed more words is because your wording isn't really accurate (unless you redefine the words in your definition to just mean exactly what you had in mind, which would be.. convenient).

A few implications:

A person who by themselves never would be interested in sex, yet upon discovering the physical sensation, wants more of that in their life, can be asexual.

A person who does experience a strong pull toward sex/physical contact, yet for medical reasons does not enjoy the physical sensation of sex, would still be sexual.

Is that actually what you have in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

A few implications:

A person who by themselves never would be interested in sex, yet upon discovering the physical sensation, wants more of that in their life, can be asexual.

A person who does experience a strong pull toward sex/physical contact, yet for medical reasons does not enjoy the physical sensation of sex, would still be sexual.

Is that actually what you have in mind?

The latter example - most definitely yes, they'd be sexual.

I'll get back to you about the former when I've had a night's sleep and my brain operates at more than 60% functionality again. :p

Share this post


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

A few implications:

A person who by themselves never would be interested in sex, yet upon discovering the physical sensation, wants more of that in their life, can be asexual.

A person who does experience a strong pull toward sex/physical contact, yet for medical reasons does not enjoy the physical sensation of sex, would still be sexual.

Is that actually what you have in mind?

The latter example - most definitely yes, they'd be sexual.

I'll get back to you about the former when I've had a night's sleep and my brain operates at more than 60% functionality again. :P

No the former would not be asexual in my mind.

Not all sexual people are sex-craved maniacs from a young age :p Some people just don't really place much of an importance on sex, don't think about it a whole lot growing up, then get a partner and actually begin to experiment with sexually intimacy. Much of the time they will find it deeply enjoyable and pleasurable, and as a result do feel like sexual intimacy is an important part of their relationship (and future relationships) due to how good it feels etc.

People like this are not asexual by default just for not having sex constantly on their mind, or just because their motivation in getting a partner wasn't sex.

Honestly I actually don't think it's that uncommon for a sexual person to not really get what the big deal about sex is until they actually start partaking in sexual activity and realize how pleasurable (emotionally and physically) it is, usually sometime in their teens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

To me, an asexual is someone who would simply forget about sex if nobody else brought it up. Someone who can live their whole life without sex, and never notice.

I think that's the kind of person I truly consider asexual at the bottom of my heart.

Potayto, potahto. To me, that sounds exactly someone with no innate desire for sex. (Except that you used more words. :P)

Okay. I don't really mind that, but I think it should be obvious to you that the reason I needed more words is because your wording isn't really accurate (unless you redefine the words in your definition to just mean exactly what you had in mind, which would be.. convenient).

A few implications:

A person who by themselves never would be interested in sex, yet upon discovering the physical sensation, wants more of that in their life, can be asexual.

A person who does experience a strong pull toward sex/physical contact, yet for medical reasons does not enjoy the physical sensation of sex, would still be sexual.

Is that actually what you have in mind?

For me, the former could easily ID as asexual up until the point they discovered they really do want that in their life, then transition, much like we've had members do in the past (much like Pan has done, for example). Kinda like anyone who doesn't know their orientation until something happens to cause that epiphany moment. It'd be one thing if they just found out they like the sensations, then were like "well, I can take it or leave it, if someone else wants it, I can enjoy it ... but I am not going to actively go out and look for it, or make it a relationship requirement or anything". But, to decide "I now want sex in my life, because it was special enough that I don't want to continue living without it" .. well, to me, that would an awakened sexual desire. Of course, they can ID as what they want, so my opinion on it is limited to basically how I would ID if in that situation myself.

Kinda like, I didn't know I liked broccoli cause I never had it before. My partner made me, under protest (I assumed I would hate it, it looks like a tree!), try broccoli. Now, GIMME ALL THE BROCCOLIS! ... I can't call myself abroccoli just cause I didn't want it before (well, I could, but I won't). :D

The second, yes of course they'd still be sexual. Having ED or vaginismus doesn't make one asexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

Not all sexual people are sex-craved maniacs from a young age :P Some people just don't really place much of an importance on sex, don't think about it a whole lot growing up, then get a partner and actually begin to experiment with sexually intimacy. Much of the time they will find it deeply enjoyable and pleasurable, and as a result do feel like sexual intimacy is an important part of their relationship (and future relationships) due to how good it feels etc.

If the emotional enjoyment/pull toward it only results from the physical sensation, they are definitely asexual in my mind. And yes, if it feels physically good, that can lead to an emotional connection as well. That doesn't say anything about orientation.

I'd really like you to understand that we sexuals do not have sex for the physical sensation. If we did, we would all be pansexual. I'm certainly capable of having sex with another male, I might even find the physical sensations pleasing. That would not make me homosexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid
I'd really like you to understand that we sexuals do not have sex for the physical sensation.

Speak for yourself. If it didn't feel the way it feels (omg!) I wouldn't do it.

OK wait I'm already changing my mind... I need to think about this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricecream-man

But what, then, is the point in making a sentence using this vague, subjective term, which is different for everyone and not even believed to be a real thing by all, and not only call that sentence a "definition", but the one and only definition?

do you not remember how Pluto used to be a planet, but now isn't? the whole concept of definitions and the scientific process is that, we create theories and definitions. and maybe someday we'll learn a better way to do it, but for now this is the best way we know to do it. knowledge is not final.

the dumb thing is, that for the most part we're in agreement on many regards. but then there's this one thing or other that we disagree about, and so we fill up pages and threads and forums with debate over it...

You're right about knowledge not being final. That's the whole point of debates like this. We take our current knowledge and correct theories and definitions to the best of our abilities. If we do somehow decide om a new definition that's used by the asexual community and then there comes reasons to change it again, another debate like this occurs to try and better define it.

We can only define things to the best of our current knowledge. This doesn't mean we should be afraid of change because we're worried it won't be perfect.

As for being shitty, I don't know if Pan remembers but I'm pretty sure we got into some heated arguments back when I first joined and jumped into HotBox. Skulls might have been there too. I'd like to say that we're all on pretty decent terms now and I was a looot worse than you were :P

Not all sexual people are sex-craved maniacs from a young age :P Some people just don't really place much of an importance on sex, don't think about it a whole lot growing up, then get a partner and actually begin to experiment with sexually intimacy. Much of the time they will find it deeply enjoyable and pleasurable, and as a result do feel like sexual intimacy is an important part of their relationship (and future relationships) due to how good it feels etc.

If the emotional enjoyment/pull toward it only results from the physical sensation, they are definitely asexual in my mind. And yes, if it feels physically good, that can lead to an emotional connection as well. That doesn't say anything about orientation.

I'd really like you to understand that we sexuals do not have sex for the physical sensation. If we did, we would all be pansexual. I'm certainly capable of having sex with another male, I might even find the physical sensations pleasing. That would not make me homosexual.

Yes, but would you keep going back to having sex with men in order to re-experience those sensations? This is where the desire aspects come into play. It's not whether or not you may have enjoyed it at the time, but rather or not you want to repeat the experience.

While physical sensation might not be the only reasom for it, I find it hard to believe that it isn't a good part of it for most sexual people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

Speak for yourself. If it didn't feel the way it feels (omg!) I wouldn't do it.

OK wait I'm already changing my mind... I need to think about this...

Right. In the case of sexuals, they enjoy the physical sensation so much because of a multitude of processes going on in their mind and body that makes sex with that particular person something much more than just the physical act. It enhances the physical sensation if you will. So if a person experiences that, I'd agree that they are sexual. But it's also possible to just enjoy the physical sensation itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

As for being shitty, I don't know if Pan remembers but I'm pretty sure we got into some heated arguments back when I first joined and jumped into HotBox. Skulls might have been there too. I'd like to say that we're all on pretty decent terms now and I was a looot worse than you were :P

If the emotional enjoyment/pull toward it only results from the physical sensation, they are definitely asexual in my mind. And yes, if it feels physically good, that can lead to an emotional connection as well. That doesn't say anything about orientation.

I'd really like you to understand that we sexuals do not have sex for the physical sensation. If we did, we would all be pansexual. I'm certainly capable of having sex with another male, I might even find the physical sensations pleasing. That would not make me homosexual.

Yes, but would you keep going back to having sex with men in order to re-experience those sensations? This is where the desire aspects come into play. It's not whether or not you may have enjoyed it at the time, but rather or not you want to repeat the experience.

OMG you guys I've gotten warnings for attacking people, and vice versa, and we're still friends. Arguing is fine with me :D

re: the going back to men... so, if I understand Tar right, his point is: no, he wouldn't go back because it wouldn't be enjoyable, but there's a reason beyond the physical manipulation of genitalia because come on guys, a gay dude can probably give good head, but if you're not into dudes, it doesn't really matter...

and that's left me going... hmmmm. I've had great sex with men and I'd do it again just for the physical satisfaction, yes. But if I could choose between a girl and a boy (a girl who is less good in bed than the boy, even), I'd still go with the girl. Which means Tar is right... there's something besides the physical enjoyment. What that something is, I don't know but it's a fascinating topic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

As for being shitty, I don't know if Pan remembers but I'm pretty sure we got into some heated arguments back when I first joined and jumped into HotBox. Skulls might have been there too. I'd like to say that we're all on pretty decent terms now and I was a looot worse than you were :P

If the emotional enjoyment/pull toward it only results from the physical sensation, they are definitely asexual in my mind. And yes, if it feels physically good, that can lead to an emotional connection as well. That doesn't say anything about orientation.

I'd really like you to understand that we sexuals do not have sex for the physical sensation. If we did, we would all be pansexual. I'm certainly capable of having sex with another male, I might even find the physical sensations pleasing. That would not make me homosexual.

Yes, but would you keep going back to having sex with men in order to re-experience those sensations? This is where the desire aspects come into play. It's not whether or not you may have enjoyed it at the time, but rather or not you want to repeat the experience.

OMG you guys I've gotten warnings for attacking people, and vice versa, and we're still friends. Arguing is fine with me :D

re: the going back to men... so, if I understand Tar right, his point is: no, he wouldn't go back because it wouldn't be enjoyable, but there's a reason beyond the physical manipulation of genitalia because come on guys, a gay dude can probably give good head, but if you're not into dudes, it doesn't really matter...

and that's left me going... hmmmm. I've had great sex with men and I'd do it again just for the physical satisfaction, yes. But if I could choose between a girl and a boy (a girl who is less good in bed than the boy, even), I'd still go with the girl. Which means Tar is right... there's something besides the physical enjoyment. What that something is, I don't know but it's a fascinating topic...

Mmm, there is probably a lot going on beyond just physical pleasure. I can enjoy kissing. I might even find it kinda fun to kiss a girl (never tried, but probably). But... I lack desire to kiss women. I have desire to kiss men. Why? I have no clue. My partner has kissed a guy, he said it was good and the guy was a good kisser. He has no desire to kiss guys though, even though it was pleasurable. Why? Cause he's hetero is about the best answer. Why is it different if it's still enjoyable to do the whatever thing with either gender, but a person only desires it with what their orientation drives them to? Who knows? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricecream-man

Hmm, Skulls. Would you consider yourself homoflexible by any chance? I've seen the term pop up a few times and I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

Yes, but would you keep going back to having sex with men in order to re-experience those sensations? This is where the desire aspects come into play. It's not whether or not you may have enjoyed it at the time, but rather or not you want to repeat the experience.

I apologize in advance for the recognizably sophistic argument, but..

If I get myself an inflatable doll, use it, and like it so much that I want to keep going back to it.. That does not make me "inflatable-doll-sexual".

Of course, even to an asexual, there's probably more to sex than using the other person as a sex toy. But I really think we should be open to the idea that the experience for some might be something very much like using a sex toy. And the difference between doing it alone or with a partner would be more like the difference between playing a single player vs a two player video game, or between eating alone or with friends.

While physical sensation might not be the only reasom for it, I find it hard to believe that it isn't a good part of it for most sexual people.

I feel very sexually satisfied from touching my girlfriend's breasts. How much "physical pleasure" do you think I get out of that? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

Yes, but would you keep going back to having sex with men in order to re-experience those sensations? This is where the desire aspects come into play. It's not whether or not you may have enjoyed it at the time, but rather or not you want to repeat the experience.

I apologize in advance for the recognizably sophistic argument, but..

If I get myself an inflatable doll, use it, and like it so much that I want to keep going back to it.. That does not make me "inflatable-doll-sexual".

Of course, even to an asexual, there's probably more to sex than using the other person as a sex toy. But I really think we should be open to the idea that the experience for some might be something very much like using a sex toy. And the difference between doing it alone or with a partner would be more like the difference between playing a single player vs a two player video game, or between eating alone or with friends.

Then my question is - what difference is there between an asexual that has sex for the personal pleasure of it and a sexual that has sex for the personal pleasure of it? Both seek it out. Both want it. Both find it pleasurable enough to continue doing. Both are going to have their reasons for picking a preferred sexual partner (aesthetic attraction, trust, etc, etc). Both may or may not desire a relationship. I can think of a bunch of ways they would be similar. But, I can think of no way they would be different, unless the "magical feeling sexuals feel that asexuals do not" actually does exist. In which case, what is this magical feeling, so those of us who do not know can know if we feel it or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricecream-man

Yes, but would you keep going back to having sex with men in order to re-experience those sensations? This is where the desire aspects come into play. It's not whether or not you may have enjoyed it at the time, but rather or not you want to repeat the experience.

I apologize in advance for the recognizably sophistic argument, but..If I get myself an inflatable doll, use it, and like it so much that I want to keep going back to it.. That does not make me "inflatable-doll-sexual".Of course, even to an asexual, there's probably more to sex than using the other person as a sex toy. But I really think we should be open to the idea that the experience for some might be something very much like using a sex toy. And the difference between doing it alone or with a partner would be more like the difference between playing a single player vs a two player video game, or between eating alone or with friends.

While physical sensation might not be the only reasom for it, I find it hard to believe that it isn't a good part of it for most sexual people.

I feel very sexually satisfied from touching my girlfriend's breasts. How much "physical pleasure" do you think I get out of that? :P

Glad you pointed it out because my head was screaming it the moment I read doll :P

My counterargument to that is that I believe primary orientation is set within the limits of interpersonal interactions.

Then again, I've seen some people claim their sexual attraction to be towards robots and Japan's getting pretty advanced jn that field. I'll leave that one in the air until after sex androids come out. :P

And like I said, a good part of it. Not the whole thing. There's definitely a psychological/emotional aspect to it.

As for the breasts thing...

They're soft and squishy, who doesn't like soft and squishy things?

Not sure if this one :blush: or this one :P better captures my emotions after saying that...

Share this post


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

Yes, but would you keep going back to having sex with men in order to re-experience those sensations? This is where the desire aspects come into play. It's not whether or not you may have enjoyed it at the time, but rather or not you want to repeat the experience.

I apologize in advance for the recognizably sophistic argument, but..

If I get myself an inflatable doll, use it, and like it so much that I want to keep going back to it.. That does not make me "inflatable-doll-sexual".

Of course, even to an asexual, there's probably more to sex than using the other person as a sex toy. But I really think we should be open to the idea that the experience for some might be something very much like using a sex toy. And the difference between doing it alone or with a partner would be more like the difference between playing a single player vs a two player video game, or between eating alone or with friends.

Then my question is - what difference is there between an asexual that has sex for the personal pleasure of it and a sexual that has sex for the personal pleasure of it? Both seek it out. Both want it. Both find it pleasurable enough to continue doing. Both are going to have their reasons for picking a preferred sexual partner (aesthetic attraction, trust, etc, etc). Both may or may not desire a relationship. I can think of a bunch of ways they would be similar. But, I can think of no way they would be different, unless the "magical feeling sexuals feel that asexuals do not" actually does exist. In which case, what is this magical feeling, so those of us who do not know can know if we feel it or not?

Have to go to court hearing now >.< so no time to reply properly to all the comments, but pretty much, this ^^^

If you still prefer the sensations of partnered sex over masturbation, and if given the choice with a suitable person, would choose partnered sex over masturbation alone, just because you enjoy the sensations of partnered sex... then that's no different than any sexual person who feels the same way. Or does that automatically make all sexual people who feel that way asexual, in which case asexuals are like at least 15% of the population and we are back to square one.. There are still some people who have no innate desire or need in any way shape or from for partnered sex, for their own sexual pleasure or release. They will always choose masturbation over partnered sex to relieve arousal, no matter how high their libido is.

Again, I like AVENs definition of sexual attraction; The desire for partnered sexual contact with someone else. Even if you are ONLY having partnered sexual contact with someone else because it feels good, that's still a desire to have the sex with another person, as opposed to preferring to relieve your libido on your own.

Okay, gotta go now >.<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
humantoafault

Yes, but would you keep going back to having sex with men in order to re-experience those sensations? This is where the desire aspects come into play. It's not whether or not you may have enjoyed it at the time, but rather or not you want to repeat the experience.

I apologize in advance for the recognizably sophistic argument, but..

If I get myself an inflatable doll, use it, and like it so much that I want to keep going back to it.. That does not make me "inflatable-doll-sexual".

Of course, even to an asexual, there's probably more to sex than using the other person as a sex toy. But I really think we should be open to the idea that the experience for some might be something very much like using a sex toy. And the difference between doing it alone or with a partner would be more like the difference between playing a single player vs a two player video game, or between eating alone or with friends.

Then my question is - what difference is there between an asexual that has sex for the personal pleasure of it and a sexual that has sex for the personal pleasure of it? Both seek it out. Both want it. Both find it pleasurable enough to continue doing. Both are going to have their reasons for picking a preferred sexual partner (aesthetic attraction, trust, etc, etc). Both may or may not desire a relationship. I can think of a bunch of ways they would be similar. But, I can think of no way they would be different, unless the "magical feeling sexuals feel that asexuals do not" actually does exist. In which case, what is this magical feeling, so those of us who do not know can know if we feel it or not?

I've heard some say that they don't mind sex and even find it pleasurable, but they don't need or crave it even when in a relationship and if their partner didn't want it they wouldn't miss it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

Hmm, Skulls. Would you consider yourself homoflexible by any chance? I've seen the term pop up a few times and I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.

If we're going by AVEN terminology I say I'm pansexual homoromantic, so it's the "romantic" part I think that kicks it over the edge for me, i.e., why I'm always going to choose the girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

Yes, but would you keep going back to having sex with men in order to re-experience those sensations? This is where the desire aspects come into play. It's not whether or not you may have enjoyed it at the time, but rather or not you want to repeat the experience.

I apologize in advance for the recognizably sophistic argument, but..

If I get myself an inflatable doll, use it, and like it so much that I want to keep going back to it.. That does not make me "inflatable-doll-sexual".

Of course, even to an asexual, there's probably more to sex than using the other person as a sex toy. But I really think we should be open to the idea that the experience for some might be something very much like using a sex toy. And the difference between doing it alone or with a partner would be more like the difference between playing a single player vs a two player video game, or between eating alone or with friends.

Then my question is - what difference is there between an asexual that has sex for the personal pleasure of it and a sexual that has sex for the personal pleasure of it? Both seek it out. Both want it. Both find it pleasurable enough to continue doing. Both are going to have their reasons for picking a preferred sexual partner (aesthetic attraction, trust, etc, etc). Both may or may not desire a relationship. I can think of a bunch of ways they would be similar. But, I can think of no way they would be different, unless the "magical feeling sexuals feel that asexuals do not" actually does exist. In which case, what is this magical feeling, so those of us who do not know can know if we feel it or not?

I've heard some say that they don't mind sex and even find it pleasurable, but they don't need or crave it even when in a relationship and if their partner didn't want it they wouldn't miss it.

Yes. I know several like that. I have no issue with the "would not seek it out / require it / desire it enough to ask of a partner" being included in "lack of desire". Enjoying is not desiring. NEEDING is not being sexual, some sexuals need it, some do not.

But, if you are seeking out people when your libido flares up because you feel like partnered sex would be so much better than masturbation. Seek out a sexual relationship because you decided sex feels so good you want that in your life. And yet you're still asexual. What then separates sexuals and asexuals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...