Jump to content

Archived

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

diconstruction

Another question for sexuals!

Recommended Posts

diconstruction

I was hoping you'd clarify something for me.

Have you ever had sex with someone that you were not sexually attracted to? If yes, what was the reason and how is that different from sleeping with someone you are sexually attracted to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I'm sure others would disagree, but I'd say that by definition, if you had sex with them, you were sexually attracted to them, even if not strongly and only temporarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandraisme360

Well the two people I had sex with I was not sexually attracted to. I liked them as a human being and they did not grove me out sexually. I was unaware of asexuality at the time and I thought sex was nessesary for a romantic relasionship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
diconstruction

I'm sure others would disagree, but I'd say that by definition, if you had sex with them, you were sexually attracted to them, even if not strongly and only temporarily.

Yeah, I think you're going to find a lot of disagreement with that statement around here since it invalidates anyone who identifies as asexual but has had sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I was starting from the bit where you said 'question for sexuals'. Obviously it's different for asexuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

Sexuals can have sex for the same range of nonsexual reasons that asexuals can. For example, many gay people have tried sex with their non preferred gender.

Share this post


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

I was starting from the bit where you said 'question for sexuals'. Obviously it's different for asexuals.

(This is for the OP as well, not just Tele)

Tele you are aware that an openly lesbian (and very sexual) member of this site has had sex with men for the pleasure of sex, yes? She's talked about it often. Because in those cases, it's the *sex* they desire..the attraction just doesn't matter.

I may not be sexual, but I know for a fact *many* sexual people will happily have sex with someone they're not sexually attracted to because it's the sex they desire more than the person.

My hypersexual ex and his friends all had a motto that went "if she's ugly, just bend her over so you don't have to look at her: They all look the same from behind" (and they didn't just *say* that, they lived by it) ..and hey in prison, just make sure you turn the lights out yeah? lol.

Also, I worked at a brothel for two years and we had some uuum.. extremely unattractive workers. I mean.. hmmm... there is no way to put it kindly. But if the more attractive girls were taken, men would *still* choose the ugly workers instead of wait for a more attractive worker (that's even if they'd been squabbling over who would get the attractive girls to start with) and they'd still pay full price happily for the girls they didn't want initially based on their.. extremely undesirable looks and bodies. It's the sex they were after, they didn't care what the person looked like that they had it with at the end of the day.

We even have a thread here titled "sex or celibacy" and it asks of sexuals "would you rather have sex with people you're not attracted to for the rest of your life, or be celibate for the rest of your life" ..Plenty of sexuals who answered chose sex with unattractive people over celibacy, hands down.

Those are just some of the many examples of sexual people having sex with people they aren't sexually attracted to. It's *extremely common*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I'm sticking with, in all those cases, the people were sufficiently attracted to that person to have sex with them at that moment. Not necessarily physically attracted, but something made them think 'yeah, I'd do that'.

Share this post


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

I'm sticking with, in all those cases, the people were sufficiently attracted to that person to have sex with them at that moment. Not necessarily physically attracted, but something made them think 'yeah, I'd do that'.

The first person I mentioned has explicitly stated on this site that they have advertised in Craigs List in the past. The will literally meet that person who answers their ad and have sex with them.. and that's it. as long as that person clearly isn' dangerous, they will have sex with them regardless of what they look like, because they literally just desired sex with someone else. who it was and what they looked like didn't matter.

Also, at the brothel, these men had nothing to go by other than the first glimpse they saw of the girls lined up.. There was nothing else to go by than that first glimpse. They just wanted a living, willing-enough person to put their penis in, and a brothel was the fastest way to achieve that.

There aren't really enough sexual people on this site for people like who I am talking about to back me up, but yeah.. There are sexual people who will happily have sex with people they aren't sexually attracted to (also, as has been covered here multiple times, there are sexual people who don't even experience sexual attraction as it's most commonly defined on or off AVEN)

You are looking at it from your own individual experience of ''one of the sexual people who can only desire sex with sexual attraction'' but there is a much bigger picture. Sexuality just isn't that black and white.

And yeah I know how annoying it is when an ace tries to tell a sexual what it's like to be sexual. But I am an ace who does experience ''sexual attraction'', I just don't want to have sex as a result of it. There are many asexuals like me. If it works that way, it obviously works the other way too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

All that works fine for your definition of sexual attraction. I don't buy that definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

I'm sticking with, in all those cases, the people were sufficiently attracted to that person to have sex with them at that moment. Not necessarily physically attracted, but something made them think 'yeah, I'd do that'.

if that's how attraction works, then unless there's something fundamental about sexual attraction I'm unaware of, there is no difference between sexual attraction or any other form of attraction, and there is no such thing as asexuality or homosexuality or heterosexuality or anything, it is all the same. Simply put, that if it's true that taking the time to notice a person is what it means to be attracted to them, then anyone who isn't a hermit has to be sexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

I have no idea how you got to that from what I wrote.

Share this post


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

All that works fine for your definition of sexual attraction. I don't buy that definition.

My definition of sexual attraction (when I have to define it) is something like ''becoming aroused in some way by some aspect that you find attractive in another person, often but not always leading to a desire to connect sexually with them'' .. It's a meaningless term when it comes to defining sexuality or asexuality, regardless of how you define it (UNLESS you define it the way AVEN does, which is ''the desire for sexual contact with someone else'' ..Are you saying you agree with AVEN's definition of sexual attraction now?)

(Also just to be clear, I'm one of the many people who would prefer the term sexual attraction be wiped from the face of the planet, because the way it is culturally used to define orientation causes nothing but confusion when it comes to defining asexuality. It's just not what defines sexual orientation for many sexual people, regardless of what the dictionary says.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

The reverse. I'm saying AVEN has mauled the concept of 'attraction' beyond recognition and usefulness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

I have no idea how you got to that from what I wrote.

I don't get how you got what you wrote from anything at all, and in trying to figure out I assumed you meant that any spark of interest in a person you have sex with must be sexual attraction. which means that any spark of interest in a person is sexual attraction.

or maybe are you trying to say that having sex is only something sexuals can do, so any one who has sex even once can't be asexual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

No, neither of those.

Share this post


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

I have no idea how you got to that from what I wrote.

I think Teagz surmised that because it sounded like you're saying that any form of being attracted to someone, like ''her eyes are nice'' or ''well her smile is passable'' or ''he's nice as a friend'' must automatically mean you're sexually attracted to them.. because people have sex with people they aren't sexually attracted to but do find attractive in some ways, all the time.. They may find some aspects of that person attractive (ie their friendship with that person, that person might look okay or whatever) but not sexually attractive in a way that causes them to be aroused by that person. Yet you can still get an erection and enjoy the feelings of sex for the sake of sexual pleasure itself, without being actively turned on *by* the person you're having it with. Many sexuals do this.

I'd like to point out that I used to be in exactly the same boat as you Tele. I was a desire-supporter, but said the sexual attraction definition is fine IF you are defining sexual attraction as ''the desire to connect sexually with someone else'' (the way AVEN does)..If sexual attraction IS the desire to connect sexually with someone, then any time you're having sex with someone for your own pleasure, you're experiencing sexual attraction.. Then I met too many sexual people here saying ''that definition is utterly incorrect, and you can desire sex without experiencing sexual attraction, and it's the desire that is the driving force behind sexuality, not sexual attraction. Sexual attraction is irrelevant in defining orientation UNLESS you define it incorrectly''. So what I learned comes from sexual people, not solely my own ideas based on observations I personally made as an asexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

No, neither of those.

then, whatever are you saying? it makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

If sexual attraction IS the desire to connect sexually with someone, then any time you're having sex with someone for your own pleasure, you're experiencing sexual attraction..

wait what? that doesn't make sense. desire to connect is not the same as desire for pleasure.

not that I disagree with your post, I prettymuch agree with most of it. but somebody liking sex because it feels good and wanting it only for that reason is not desire for connection with someone else. it's desire for personal pleasure, and I really don't think that "Desire for personal pleasure" makes any sense as attraction.

in fact, I think that "Desire for personal pleasure" is exactly what we're talking about, when we ask if it's possible for a sexual person to have sex with someone they are attracted to. well - not the only reason such a thing might happen, but the most common reason.

Share this post


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

The reverse. I'm saying AVEN has mauled the concept of 'attraction' beyond recognition and usefulness.

Yet you're also saying that to desire sex with someone, to have sex with them, you must be sexually attracted to them at least at the time the sex is happening. Which is how AVEN defines sexual attraction; as the desire for partnered sex with someone. Did you agree with how I personally defined sexual attraction or not?

I agree with what Teagz its saying, it sounded like you were saying any faint spark of interest must be sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction is being aroused to some extent by some aspect of another person, leading in some people to a desire to connect sexually with that person. You can have sex with someone without being ''turned on'' by them or by any aspect of them though, just for the enjoyment of sex itself.

Share this post


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

If sexual attraction IS the desire to connect sexually with someone, then any time you're having sex with someone for your own pleasure, you're experiencing sexual attraction..

wait what? that doesn't make sense. desire to connect is not the same as desire for pleasure.

not that I disagree with your post. but somebody liking sex because it feels good and wanting it only for that reason is not desire for connection with someone else. it's desire for personal pleasure.

If sexual attraction IS the desire to connect sexually with someone, then any time you're having sex with someone for your own pleasure, you're experiencing sexual attraction..

No I was just saying that quoted part (I double quoted it right above this comment for clarification) is NOT sexual attraction (because otherwise any time someone has sex with someone else, that automatically means they're sexually attracted to them.. which is NOT true)

(and whenever I say pleasure, I mean emotionally or physically.. Some people only desire sex for the emotional pleasure/satisfaction that brings them for example. They desire to connect with someone on that sexual level for emotional reasons as opposed to physical ones)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

Okay, I know of a case where a gay man was raised in a conservative religious background and was trying very hard not to be gay. A clergy member set him up with a suitable woman. They got married and had three children, which leads me to strongly suspect that they had sex at least three times. Afterwards they divorced when he finally came out. Does this chain of events prove that he was attracted to his wife?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Alternatively if a paedophile was to tell you he had sex with children but he wasn't attracted to them *in any way, ever*, would you believe him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

Not really, although I wouldn't much care. I would want to see him convicted and jailed because he had committed rape, rather than because of any theory I have about what goes on in his mind. However, that situation is almost opposite to the one I described, in which someone was trying to force himself to do what was considered normal and socially accepted in his community, contrary to his own impulses.

Share this post


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

Alternatively if a paedophile was to tell you he had sex with children but he wasn't attracted to them *in any way, ever*, would you believe him?

I've never met (or heard of) a pedophile who said he (or she!) wasn't sexually attracted to children (they usually say things like, they find the innocence alluring in a sexual way, etc?) but I do know of cases where soldiers (was it in Japan? I think it's quite famous I watched a doco about it years ago) were forced to rape girls as young as 3 or be executed and they chose to rape the kids? It was hundreds and hundreds of soldiers forced to rape hundreds, maybe thousands, of women and children. They weren't pedophiles, but it was a choice between raping the kids and living, or not raping them and dying and someone else rape the kids anyway.

There have been cases like that throughout history.

Anyway, I certainly don't think those soldiers were attracted to the children they raped in any way.

I have known two men who had sex with goats (both were convicted) and they said they just didn't have anything else to have sex with. They weren't aroused by the goats though.

EDIT: or what about the men in Africa (?) who have sex with babies and young children as a supposed cure for aids? They probably aren't all sexually attracted to the baby, they just desperately want to cure their sickness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

What about sex workers? Are all of them asexual? If not, are the ones who are not asexual sexually attracted to all of their clients? Or is it possible that they are only attracted to the money?

Also, do you accept that it is possible for an asexual to have compromise sex? If so, it is humanly possible to have undesired sex with an unattractive person. Why would this be a superpower that only asexuals possess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Float On

well now that I think about it, I remember a few members saying that experiencing arousal in association with another person was sexual attraction. in that sense, then of course having sex with someone means you probably are attracted to them, but even then no I don't think that means that it's 100% the case. there are ways to induce erections without arousal, and as painful as it sounds, ways to get things inside a person without arousal. not so painful if you do it gently at first and use lots of lube :rolleyes:

but, that interpretation of what sexual attraction is is not the same as what aven's definition defines it by. The way aven's terminolgy and philosophy is, being aroused in response to a person isn't necessarily sexual attraction.

Share this post


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

What about sex workers? Are all of them asexual? If not, are the ones who are not asexual sexually attracted to all of their clients? Or is it possible that they are only attracted to the money?

Also, do you accept that it is possible for an asexual to have compromise sex? If so, it is humanly possible to have undesired sex with an unattractive person. Why would this be a superpower that only asexuals possess?

Yeah I worked with two lesbian sex workers who actively enjoyed the work, actually. They sometimes even orgasmed with male clients and were very open about that. They only actively choose female partners outside of work because they were only sexually and romantically interested in women, but were still able to enjoy the feelings of the sex with male clients because the stimulation felt good. Obviously not all sex workers (even straight ones) experience it like that, but some do.

However I think Tele meant more, if you actively want (to the point of initiating out of your own volition) to have sex with someone for your own pleasure, you must be experiencing some kind of sexual attraction to them? Which is a bit different than a sex worker. However, that doesn't change anything. You can want to have sex with someone else, purely for the pleasure of the experience, without being ''turned on'' or ''aroused'' by any aspect of that person. Maybe you're just friends and you trust each other, maybe that person is a willing stranger at a bar, but you can want to have sex with them for the sex itself without being sexually attracted to them.

I am pretty much quoting word for word what I have heard sexual people here say by the way when it comes to ''wanting sex with someone without being sexually attracted to them''.. I'm not ''theorizing'' as an ace trying to work out what sexuals think and feel. I am just plagiarizing the words of actual sexuals on AVEN :P

Oh and obviously for many sexual people, sexual attraction is an integral part of their desire for sex with others (as Tele is saying, he could only desire sex with someone he is sexually attracted to) but that's just one expression of sexuality. There are others who do not require any form of sexual attraction to be able to want and enjoy sex with someone else, for the sake of the pleasure of sex itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

He didn't say if you actively initiate sex for your own pleasure you're attracted. He said if you had sex with someone by definition you were attracted to them, and he excluded only asexuals. If he would like to retreat to a more defensible position, he is free to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gekkosan

Where I come from there is a saying: A dick has no eyes

It's pretty much self-explanatory, I think.

Now, to answer OPs questions:

Have you ever had sex with someone that you were not sexually attracted to?

Yes.

If yes, what was the reason and how is that different from sleeping with someone you are sexually attracted to?

The reason was that I wanted to try things out. The difference I would say was that the whole experience was merely a sex act, sex for sex's sake with the focus on me. When I was sexually attracted to someone I was of course more aroused, more eager, but also more focused on them, there was a desire to explore their body, to give pleasure to that person, whereas if there was no sexual attraction you're just doing it more or less for your satisfaction or curiosity. Even a goat will do (not that I tried that, haha).

Sexual attraction is not needed in order to have sex. Just my 2 cents, although I admit I'm not familiar with all the definitions that are being thrown around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...