Jump to content

Does this qualify as sexual attraction?


flesh-pocket

Recommended Posts

I know on this site we like to split attraction up into a few different types, but ive also seen some sexual people on here telling how this way of thinking doesn't work for them and i think that deserves some exploring. 

 

i read a recent post where someone described the full-on attraction that they had for another person, where they not only check the persons body, but also their face and hair, and had desires to touch this person and thought about them when they weren't together. i definitely feel some sort of physical attraction to some people and have a 'type' and gender preference, but my feelings do not extend this far when im attracted. 

 

i feel two forms of attraction-- the first is low-key checking people out. this happens all the time when im around other people, especially when im at the gym, etc. this is specifically checking out things like breasts, butts, sides, hips, and it is not just thinking someone is beautiful. it has no gender preference and i cant remember a time when i didn't do this, so i dont pay it much mind if i find myself doing it to people i interact with a lot. 

 

the second form is physical. i feel a very strong impulse to stare at the other person and check them out, and feel physically hot and tense in my sides and limbs. it is physically difficult to not look at the person when this is happening. given that i have a clearly defined 'type' of people i can feel this towards, that happens to be muscular young men, it seems ridiculous to me to call this plain old AVEN aesthetic attraction when it is very strong and physical in nature. not to mention that i can compare and contrast it with the other type of attraction i feel. what i DON'T do when im attracted to someone this way is have clearly defined desires to touch or 'have' these people in any way, including sexually. i also dont really include the face when im checking them out or think about the person when im not physically around them (unless im analyzing the feelings for traces of sexual attraction, lol) every time ive felt this towards someone, this attraction has gone away within a few instances of seeing the person without incident. however, i also found out that all of these people were already dating someone pretty quick, and i feel that that has to play a role in the feelings disappearing so fast. 

 

is this just what sexual attraction feels like when your aromantic, or aromantic-ish? i could currently consider myself asexual under the 'desires no sexual interaction with others' definition, but im inexperienced, both sexually and romantically.

 

if you are sexual and you felt attraction like this to a person, would you feel it was sexual attraction? 

 

if this isnt sexual attraction, then that would make me both asexual and aromantic. why then would i so clearly have a 'type' and gender preference? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help you so much with what sexual attraction feels like, but I can say that I have never felt anything like what you're describing. I occasionally notice that I find someone attractive, but it's a very general impression, usually just involving their face. There has never been any sort of desire associated with it to touch, or even interact with, the other person. I just occasionally get a very short, instantaneous reaction where I notice that someone is attractive. The feeling is usually gone by the time I've realized that I had it. I usually only experience this kind of spontaneous feeling with a specific 'type' of people - people whose facial features remind me of my family members, I think. I'm not a psychologist, but I have a theory that it's because of all that early instinctual programming to recognize family members. We find facial feature which are similar to our own to be attractive because we immediately recognize them on an instinctive level. This attraction isn't necessarily based in a desire of sex, or companionship, it's just our brains going 'That person looks like me. They must be part of the group I need for survival.' That's my theory, anyway. I hope some part of my ramblings was useful to you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think attraction and orientation are different for every single person on this planet. Thus naturally a handful of labels do not suffice to describe everybody's experience.

As you proved above, you have given a lot of thought to the way you experience attraction. Unless you are denying secret desires this is a great accomplishment! :cake:

 

The only thing you're looking for is a label, isn't it? Do you need a label for yourself or for other people? Have you ever considered not using a specific label but creating a short and more individual explanation?

 

As for splitting types of attraction: that is a way of categorising the innumerable experiences. When you experience several types of attraction at once they are one feeling to you and evidently appear to be inseparable but for other people they aren't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am one of the people that finds the splitting up of attractions problematic. When I'm attracted to folk, it's not the same each time, but there are similarities. I find it far more useful to think what I want to do with my attraction. Too mild? I don't bother. Want to be with them and feed them grapes? That's what I do. Want to see them naked? Goodbye clothes. Sex? OK then. If there's no sexy element to it, then there's no sex. I think that's pretty easy to determine, and it saves me from thinking hmm, yes according to AVEN I'm feeling aesthetic and sensual attraction but not romantic or sexual blah blah blah. This is the first place where I've found people carving up their attraction into neatly defined chunks. It's bizarre.

 

Anyway. When I'm attracted to someone in a more physical sense, I do check them out. I don't necessarily think about sex, in fact I'd say it's rare that I do unless I've already slept with them. Sexual attraction isn't having the desire to sleep with them... If I had to call it anything like that, it's the possibility of sleeping with them. It's the getting close to them that you ultimately want. I know, unequivocally, that I'm attracted to someone in a sexual fashion, when they turn me on. Their voice, smile, the way they move or smell, all contribute. It's undeniably sexual, to be turned on by someone without them even touching you. That's when I think about the possibility of sex. Still don't necessarily desire it, because that's desire, not attraction :lol:

 

So the usual AVEN disclaimer: it's all completely up to you. Your type of attraction is what you say it is. You're asexual if you want to be :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dissolved said:

So the usual AVEN disclaimer: it's all completely up to you. Your type of attraction is what you say it is. You're asexual if you want to be :)

but thats just the crux of it, isnt it? "your asexual if you want to be" -- we have no set definition like homosexuals or bisexuals or the rest, no hard line of what is or isnt asexual. we've based or orientation around whether or not we feel sexual attraction while not having any idea what it is or what it is not. if all types of attraction are the same, than what im feeling would automatically be 'sexual' attraction, because its definitely attraction, even though i dont think ive felt arousal or any sexual element for any of these people. thats why we get people carving it up into different chunks, because only the sexual element in attraction is supposed to matter in whether or not your asexual.

 

i have another asexual friend whos never even thought someone was beautiful before, never had any type of attraction whatsoever. are people like her the 'true' asexuals who dont feel any attraction at all, and people like me indistinguishable from sexuals because we do feel attraction (and all attraction is the same), even though we dont want sex?

 

it just bothers me to no end how wishy-washy, choose-your-own-adventure asexuality seems to be. and we think of other sexualities as being immutable biological facts about the person as strong as eye color. how can we put asexuality on an equal pedestal with other sexulaities when we basically choose whether we want to be it or not. and grey-sexuality is even less nebulously defined. i know sexuality is fluid and a spectrum and all but this is ridiculous. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, flesh-pocket said:

it just bothers me to no end how wishy-washy, choose-your-own-adventure asexuality seems to be.

You're my favourite person today.

 

Attraction is what you make of it, that's all we can conclude really. It's got to be what you want to do with the attraction that matters, because I've seen plenty of folk here say they find people attractive to the point of becoming aroused, but deny it's sexual. That denial doesn't make sense to me, but I understand that it doesn't necessarily translate to wanting sex, because I experience that too.

 

What does that attraction make you want to do, is probably the only question you need to ask yourself. The word you assign your sexuality isn't important, in my opinion. It's just a word to simplify the way you interact with folk around you regarding relationships etc. I'm not heterosexual, but it sure beats saying "well I'm attracted to females in most sense of the word but it takes me a hell of a long time and it's very rare, and I don't always want to sleep with the people I find attractive". I would personally recommend the "I don't give a shit" route. If you feel drawn to someone, see where it goes. If you don't, don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont get the denial either, except in so much as i might be doing it lol. 

 

the only thing that i can tell i want to 'do' with my attraction when i have it is creep on the person, ive never kept it long enough to see if theres anything more. 

 

it bothers me a lot that people say you can tell what your orientation is without having experience, but i cant. im also not terribly keen on getting that experience, and when i know someone is attracted to me its just annoying. 

 

i guess ive just been realizing that the internet doesnt have all the answers to sexuality. im reluctant to claim the asexual label but also reluctant to let it go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure no one will mind if you have "creep" as your sexuality :lol:

 

People figure out their sexuality without experience because they know who turns them on and who they're drawn to, and because it's usually those same people that they want to have sex with, that's all. It's difficult to prove a negative though, isn't it? If you're not really drawn to people and they don't press your sexual buttons, when do you claim asexuality? I have no idea how old you are, but I'm quickly approaching 31 and I've only just started figuring things out. There are more important things in life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this thread... I really have problems with the unscientific splitting up of attraction into sexual/romantic/whatever, and the fact people are told that if they experience sexual attraction then they're not asexual. I've often felt caught between two worlds, like I don't belong in the asexual community as a gay guy who finds guys hot (but has no desire for sex) or in the gay community as someone on the asexual spectrum. "I'm reluctant to claim the asexual label but also reluctant to let it go" sums me up perfectly. I knew I was gay at 14 and accepted it pretty well, but I didn't realise I was asexual till I was 25 and have never fully accepted it because, well, how do you construct a positive identity around an absence?

 

I find guys hot all the time, but I've never genuinely desired sex. When I'm physically attracted to a guy, it can't be split into sexual or romantic, it's both. There are loads of things I want to do with them - kissing, touching, dating etc - but I've just never been turned on my sex. Never dreamt about it or fantasised it, never watch porn, etc. My interest in genitalia is zero.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2016 at 3:00 AM, flesh-pocket said:

the second form is physical. i feel a very strong impulse to stare at the other person and check them out, and feel physically hot and tense in my sides and limbs. it is physically difficult to not look at the person when this is happening. given that i have a clearly defined 'type' of people i can feel this towards, that happens to be muscular young men, it seems ridiculous to me to call this plain old AVEN aesthetic attraction when it is very strong and physical in nature.

I relate similarly to this. At first I came to this site and, after some investigation, I was like... wait, maybe I am asexual afterall... and I embraced what people were calling aesthetic attraction and sensual attraction (attraction to others in a way that leads to cuddling and other platonic touch)

 

but the thing is, when I'm attracted to others in that physical way, like, it is feeling aroused, there is a sexual nature to my attraction, I don't really know how to say it. When I was listening to others talk about their sensual and aesthetic attraction, it always sounded different from my experience, mostly what was on my mind was how I could find kissing and touching arousing, and wanted to touch breasts and butt more so than other parts of the body. And, as I thought about it more, the more aware I was of how my platonic feelings feel, and how my romantic feelings are different, and how my feelings of sexual attraction do in fact exist. 

 

For me, I am a demiromantic, and actually becuase of my sexual feelings I identify as greyromantic. but then, I've never been both romantically and sexually attracted to the same person, so idk. (you asked if, maybe this is how aromantic sexual people feel their feelings) well, I guess, actually, aromantic sexual people I've known seemed to be interested in sex, without making it some big-deal relationship thing. keeping it casual, the things the few people I've briefly talked to, were concerned more so with safety or availability issues with promiscuous activity. they didn't seem to have reservations about calling their attraction sexual. 

 

 

(ps. for me, I can differentiate clearly between romantic, sexual, and aesthetic attraction, and I wouldn't call it "platonic attraction" but I can also differentiate my platonic feelings of appreciation as different from these too. They are similar in many ways as well, but also different in other ways too. The differences can be subtle sometimes. Sometimes the difference is literally "just knowing" that somehow, in my awareness of the feelings, it is clear that it is a certain way. There isn't a way to explain this, it's a certain level of awareness that can be reached with practice I guess? I am sure it is easier for some than it is for others.... )

Link to post
Share on other sites

im 22, 23 in march, to answer an earlier question. 

 

6 minutes ago, Every Red Heart Shines said:

I relate similarly to this. At first I came to this site and, after some investigation, I was like... wait, maybe I am asexual afterall... and I embraced what people were calling aesthetic attraction and sensual attraction (attraction to others in a way that leads to cuddling and other platonic touch)

 

but the thing is, when I'm attracted to others in that physical way, like, it is feeling aroused, there is a sexual nature to my attraction, I don't really know how to say it. When I was listening to others talk about their sensual and aesthetic attraction, it always sounded different from my experience, mostly what was on my mind was how I could find kissing and touching arousing, and wanted to touch breasts and butt more so than other parts of the body. And, as I thought about it more, the more aware I was of how my platonic feelings feel, and how my romantic feelings are different, and how my feelings of sexual attraction do in fact exist. 

 

For me, I am a demiromantic, and actually becuase of my sexual feelings I identify as greyromantic. but then, I've never been both romantically and sexually attracted to the same person, so idk. (you asked if, maybe this is how aromantic sexual people feel their feelings) well, I guess, actually, aromantic sexual people I've known seemed to be interested in sex, without making it some big-deal relationship thing. keeping it casual, the things the few people I've briefly talked to, were concerned more so with safety or availability issues with promiscuous activity. they didn't seem to have reservations about calling their attraction sexual. 

the thing is that what asexuality actually is is seeming very difficult to describe.

 

other sexual orientations have no need to assume all types of aren't the same, so homosexuality can be described as people being sexually attracted to members of their own gender and everything else is also assumed (aesthetic, romantic attractions ect.) even still the fact that they are sexually attracted is still the most important aspect of this identity because it is the most stigmatized part of it. mainstream christanity specifically condemns gay sex, not gay moonlit walks on the beach. this is why hetero, homo, bi, pan, are all described as -sexual and why that makes perfect sense. 

 

but asexuality is different. if we take the holistic all-attraction-is-the-same approach with asexuality, id say that only people like my friend that feel no type off attraction at all would be asexual. that would probably make a lot AVEN members sexual, including both me and you.

 

but then we also have the desire definition of asexuality, too. the  ' has no innate desire for partnered sex for emotional or sexual pleasure' definition. that ones great, but it discounts attraction entirely. theoretically, someone could feel no attraction to anyone at all in any way, and still desire sex for sexual or emotional pleasure. theres also the existence of 'responsive desire' that many many sexual people experience. by the desire definition, either of these groups of people being included as asexual is ridiculous, but the prevalence of the sexual attraction definition and the dividing up the elements of attraction is why we get people on here saying that asexuals can love sex, thus alienating those of us who took up the label specifically because we didnt want sex. 

 

we-- @zulawski too-- are on the other side of the coin. we might fit asexually perfectly from the desire definition, but by the attraction definition we really shouldnt. the dividing up of attraction is the loophole that allows people like us to claim asexuality.  

 

so, if we dont like the loophole anymore, where does that leave us? we could discount the attraction definition entirely and look the the desire definition, but how do we tell if our lack of desire is innate and what does that mean? like i have the feeling that my lack of desire comes from my personality and experiences more than it does anything coded into my dna. im an introspective person and i feel like my sexuality is no one else's business and other peoples' sexualities are none of mine. therefore i have no desire to have a sex life with someone else. if i didn't have that conviction, my experience of attraction would probably indistinguishable from that of a sexual person. the only difference is that i dont want sex, which would make dating among the sexuals dating pool a fools errand for someone like me who wanted a relationship. i have serious doubts at a conviction like that could be as inborn as being gay. the desire definition is great for people practically navigating asexual relationships, but it doesnt make asexuality out to be an orientation the way homosexuality or heterosexuality is, even though it still treats it like it does. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
everywhere and nowhere
On 14.12.2016 at 6:18 PM, flesh-pocket said:

it just bothers me to no end how wishy-washy, choose-your-own-adventure asexuality seems to be. and we think of other sexualities as being immutable biological facts about the person as strong as eye color. how can we put asexuality on an equal pedestal with other sexulaities when we basically choose whether we want to be it or not. and grey-sexuality is even less nebulously defined. i know sexuality is fluid and a spectrum and all but this is ridiculous. 

I don't believe that any sexual orientation must be inborn, biologically based, immutable and not subject to choice in order to be valid.

 

Once again: in a more extreme form, this is homo-/bi-/asexophobic rhetoric. I accept gay people because their love is just as important and the world would be poorer without them, not because they are some poor little creatures which can't become straight no matter how hard they would try.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nowhere Girl said:

Once again: in a more extreme form, this is homo-/bi-/asexophobic rhetoric. I accept gay people because their love is just as important and the world would be poorer without them, not because they are some poor little creatures which can't become straight no matter how hard they would try.

youre right, and ive backed off this view a lot now. i was just finding it frustrating that there was/is no way to "prove" to my self i was or wasnt asexual. but youre right, how it comes about doesnt really matter. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...