Model: Sexual Attraction Space

[Guest]

  So I've just read an excellent overview of studies on asexuality and some of the heated debate here about the universal definition of asexuality and the related problems, and thought I'd post a theory I've developed from upon an existing model, namely the Storms' model. I have posted this on my personal blog before, but I thought it would be better to put it as a new topic here and gather some interest.

 

Notice: reference to sexual activities.

 

1. A little background

  Years ago, when I was swiping through twitter timeline, I've noticed some sexual people tweeting about how they liked and turned on by the body odor of some other person. Then I realized, as an asexual myself, that I have never experienced such feelings on how the natural body odor of another human being could be perceived as seductive, or even likable. After googling on AVEN forums, I've found some posts (and a small sample census) relating anosmia (not being able to smell) to asexuality. But then this raised concerns about "is this implying asexuality is a disorder?" and all that, so I searched for research papers looking for the link between olfactory function and sexual orientation groups.

 

2. Existing evidence

  I found two papers.

  In the 2005 study of Savic, Berglund, & Lindström, when exposed to Androstadienone(AND), homosexual men and heterosexual women activated their anterior hypothalamus (roughly meaning, the odor was processed in a sexual way), but heterosexual men activated their olfactory brain (roughly meaning, the odor was processed in a non-sexual way). Homosexual and heterosexual attraction to men share similar mechanisms.

  In the 2006 study of Berglund, Lindström, & Savic, when exposed to Estratetraenol(EST), homosexual women and heterosexual men activated their anterior hypothalamus (roughly meaning, the odor was processed in a sexual way), but heterosexual women activated their olfactory brain (roughly meaning, the odor was processed in a non-sexual way). Homosexual and heterosexual attraction to women share similar mechanisms.

 

3. Idea

  My idea is, the activation strength of anterior hypothalamus could be used as a direct measure of sexual attraction. Starting from Storms' model, the hetero- and homo- axes would be renamed as attraction to male and female with empirical support from neurological studies. As far as I know, one of the limitations in Storms' model was that since it used hetero- and homo- definition, it was restricted to two dimensions, implying a binary gender system. Redefining the axes effectively releases the model from this constraint.

  However, as far as I know, experimental study with AND and EST stimuli have not yet been conducted on asexual and bisexual groups, the two other groups in Storms' model. Now comes the hypotheses.

 

4. Hypotheses

1. Asexual men and women, either self-identified or non-self-identified, will activate their olfactory brain to AND and EST. (no sexual attraction to males and females)

2. Asexual men, homosexual men, heterosexual women will activate their olfactory brain to EST. (less/no sexual attraction to females)

3. Asexual women, homosexual women, heterosexual men will activate their olfactory brain to AND. (less/no sexual attraction to males)

4. Bisexual men, bisexual women, homosexual men, heterosexual women will activate their anterior hypothalamus to AND. (sexual attraction to males)

5. Bisexual women, bisexual men, homosexual women, heterosexual men will activate their anterior hypothalamus to EST. (sexual attraction to females)

 

5. Asexual Experiences Explained by the Model

1. Some asexuals masturbate: the activity does not require using your nose or any olfactory stimulus.

2. Some asexuals have sex: the activity does not require using your nose or any olfactory stimulus.

3. Some asexuals have sexual fantasies: the activity does not require your nose or any olfactory stimulus.

4. Some asexuals are sexually oppressed: like, nasal congestions?

5. Activation strength comes in full gradients! yay!

 

TL;DR

Brain studies suggest that sexual attraction is related with how the brain processes body odors. This could be used to measure sexual attraction, defined as uncontrollable sexual processing of the body odor of another person. This is further quantified as response strength of anterior hypothalamus to specific types of chemical stimuli. By equating sexual attraction to a specific brain region, not only asexuality but all sexual orientation groups can be understood in a unified model.

 

The reason I'm posting this is that I'd like this theory to be empirically tested by anyone interested in this topic, as I lack the resources and training to do so.

Thanks for reading. Let me know what you think!

 

 

 

References

Berglund, H., Lindström, P., & Savic, I. (2006). Brain response to putative pheromones in lesbian women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(21), 8269–8274.

Savic, I., Berglund, H., & Lindström, P. (2005). Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(20), 7356–7361.

Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), 783.

 

 

 

[Cobie]

22 minutes ago, butterflo said:

The reason I'm posting this is that I'd like this theory to be empirically tested by anyone interested in this topic, as I lack the resources and training to do so.

Thanks for reading. Let me know what you think!

I thought it was very interesting. 🤔 (but I have no resources or training).

[Spades36]

Hey, just wondering - where does romantic attraction fit in to this? I'm asexual, but I'm also biromantic, and I definitely adore my girlfriend's scent. I'd even go so far as to say that I'm attracted to it (in a romantic manner). How does that fit in?

[Mychemicalqpr]

It's not unusual for people to be sexually (and/or romantically) attracted to celebrities or fictional characters that they haven't smelled. 

[Guest]

 

10 minutes ago, Spades36 said:

Hey, just wondering - where does romantic attraction fit in to this? I'm asexual, but I'm also biromantic, and I definitely adore my girlfriend's scent. I'd even go so far as to say that I'm attracted to it (in a romantic manner). How does that fit in?

 

I'm sorry if this offended you. Although the model does not directly account to romantic attractions, the model would help in that romantic attractions in general are different from sexual attractions (e.g. the two being related to different regions in brain).

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, twilightstarr said:

It's not unusual for people to be sexually (and/or romantically) attracted to celebrities or fictional characters that they haven't smelled. 

I think that would be distinct from the smell-based attraction. People get "sexually attracted" to porn or game characters, and monitors and smartphone screens don't smell.

[Mychemicalqpr]

7 minutes ago, butterflo said:

I think that would be distinct from the smell-based attraction. People get "sexually attracted" to porn or game characters, and monitors and smartphone screens don't smell.

OK, maybe I misunderstood, but it sounded like you were saying sexual attraction comes entirely from smell. I would agree though that it's probably a factor for a lot of people. I've heard some sexuals say so. 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

I'm sure smell is involved in sexuality but I hardly think it's the be all and end all.

[Tofer]

Sounds interesting. I don't have resources or training, but sounds plausible as a worthwhile project.

 

However, I think you overstate the possible implications:

3 hours ago, butterflo said:

could be used as a direct measure of sexual attraction

 

Should be, "could correlate with sexual attraction as defined [thusly] and measured [thusly]"

 

In other words, your theory sounds potentially too reductionistic to me.

[Guest]

Well I know many asexuals here find smell a very sensual aspect of their interactions with their romantic partner.. they just don't desire partnered sex. And of course there are sexual people who can't smell (for any number of reasons) who still desire partnered sexual contact with others, find others attractive, etc etc.

 

You're over thinking all this, that's what I think the issue is here!

 

Attraction (as an overall concept, not just sexual) is made up of a number of different emotional and physiological reactions to certain people. It can include romantic feelings, smell, appearance, the sound of someone's voice, the way they laugh, even something as basic as the way someone says certain words, or certain mannerisms, humour, etc. Some sexual people are specifically sexually driven to some people as a result of things like appearance, smell, etc.. Others desire partnered sexual intimacy as a reaction to romantic emotions. Some literally can't desire sex with randoms no matter how attractive those randoms are, they physically require romantic emotions to desire partnered sexual intimacy with someone. And the list goes on. Sexual orientation is the direction of someone's desire for partnered sexual activity and it's made up of all these different aspects of attraction.

 

Asexuals can experience all these exact same emotional and physical reactions (attraction) to different types of people based on different factors, but the one difference is that asexuals have no desire to connect sexually with anyone (regardless of whether or not they're attracted to those people)

 

Sexuals: desire to connect sexually with certain people for sexual and/or emotional pleasure.

 

Asexuals: have no innate desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure, ever.

 

All other factors (like what types of attraction are present and what those attractions consist of/what specifically causes that attraction) are variable from from person to person, regardless of whether they're ace or sexual.

[Guest]

On 3/25/2017 at 5:30 AM, twilightstarr said:

OK, maybe I misunderstood, but it sounded like you were saying sexual attraction comes entirely from smell. I would agree though that it's probably a factor for a lot of people. I've heard some sexuals say so. 

The reason I'm emphasizing the smell component is that it has been shown to reliably correlate with some sexual orientation groups. The visual component is less reliable, as some heterosexual men find lesbian porn stimulating, and some heterosexual women find gay porn stimulating. Also, fantasizing about a fictional character is a far more complex process than responding to a chemical stimulus.

 

On 3/25/2017 at 8:04 AM, Tofer said:

Sounds interesting. I don't have resources or training, but sounds plausible as a worthwhile project.

 

However, I think you overstate the possible implications:

 

Should be, "could correlate with sexual attraction as defined [thusly] and measured [thusly]"

 

In other words, your theory sounds potentially too reductionistic to me.

Thanks for the compliment =) I tried to put things brief for the TL;DR part, but having specific details wouldn't hurt. I'll add them later on.

I agree, the model is quite reductionistic. I'd argue that the benefit is in that being able to quantitatively confirm the existence of asexuality, along with other sexual orientation groups, under a unified understanding of their mechanisms. The model also predicts in-group differences in bisexuality as illustrated here.

 

On 3/25/2017 at 8:46 AM, Pan. said:

Well I know many asexuals here find smell a very sensual aspect of their interactions with their romantic partner.. they just don't desire partnered sex. And of course there are sexual people who can't smell (for any number of reasons) who still desire partnered sexual contact with others, find others attractive, etc etc.

 

You're over thinking all this, that's what I think the issue is here!

 

Attraction (as an overall concept, not just sexual) is made up of a number of different emotional and physiological reactions to certain people. It can include romantic feelings, smell, appearance, the sound of someone's voice, the way they laugh, even something as basic as the way someone says certain words, or certain mannerisms, humour, etc. Some sexual people are specifically sexually driven to some people as a result of things like appearance, smell, etc.. Others desire partnered sexual intimacy as a reaction to romantic emotions. Some literally can't desire sex with randoms no matter how attractive those randoms are, they physically require romantic emotions to desire partnered sexual intimacy with someone. And the list goes on. Sexual orientation is the direction of someone's desire for partnered sexual activity and it's made up of all these different aspects of attraction.

 

Asexuals can experience all these exact same emotional and physical reactions (attraction) to different types of people based on different factors, but the one difference is that asexuals have no desire to connect sexually with anyone (regardless of whether or not they're attracted to those people)

 

Sexuals: desire to connect sexually with certain people for sexual and/or emotional pleasure.

 

Asexuals: have no innate desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure, ever.

 

All other factors (like what types of attraction are present and what those attractions consist of/what specifically causes that attraction) are variable from from person to person, regardless of whether they're ace or sexual.

Beware: I'm an Attractionist!

 

I agree with you in that attraction in a general sense, is a complex response consisted of various components, and the difference between sexuals and asexuals is that they have no innate desire to connect sexually with anyone.

 

Now please forgive me, I'm quite new to the "innate desire"-based definition that is being currently debated.

When you say "desire", are you implying that a constant level of that desire is fixed for lifetime for each sexual orientation groups? or they are allowed to vary along time? I am asking this because I can think of a counterexample that seems not readily explained by the innate-desire-based definition.

 

That is, sexuals temporarily enter into an "asexual state" when they catch cold, have sinus problems, or their olfactory receptors are blocked.

If the innate-desire based definition is true, how is the innate desire reduced with cold or sinus problems?

 

And there's the two studies mentioned above.

[I'mjustsoconfused]

I'm glad you mentioned this research; it's extremely interesting. I actually have non-functioning olfactory glands so I'm curious what relationship this may have with attraction levels and the like.

10 minutes ago, butterflo said:

That is, sexuals temporarily enter into an "asexual state" when they catch cold, have sinus problems, or their olfactory receptors are blocked.

I hadn't heard of this before, is this something that most people know? (Like, is it so obvious that there hasn't been research done on it or is there some research that's found this correlation?) It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've completely missed something like this. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, I'mjustsoconfused said:

I'm glad you mentioned this research; it's extremely interesting. I actually have non-functioning olfactory glands so I'm curious what relationship this may have with attraction levels and the like.

I hadn't heard of this before, is this something that most people know? (Like, is it so obvious that there hasn't been research done on it or is there some research that's found this correlation?) It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've completely missed something like this. 

I think its taken for granted, but I wasn't sure so I googled it. Here's a link.

Note the tone: the article seems to be written for sexuals.

[gisiebob]

that is an interesting question to ask. but like all questions it's important to remember that just because you have asked it doesn't mean you have answered it

[I'mjustsoconfused]

Huh. I wonder if the percentage of people w/o smell is higher here than among sexuals. Obviously, from above, it's not everyone.

 

After some quick googling, it looks like 1-2% of the general population has some form of Anosmia. Oh, and there's a thread from AVEN (actually there's a lot of threads; I had no idea so many people were interested in this): 

And a poll!

I mean, it's rough data, but the percent here is in fact more than 2% Food for thought.

[Tofer]

4 hours ago, butterflo said:

I agree, the model is quite reductionistic. I'd argue that the benefit is in that being able to quantitatively confirm...

My bias is that reductionistic models and quantitative data can be useful, but only to a very limited degree. I'm personally more interested in a humanistic and concrete approach to these questions (so I second Pan's objections). 

[Sally]

5 hours ago, butterflo said:

 The visual component is less reliable, as some heterosexual men find lesbian porn stimulating, and some heterosexual women find gay porn stimulating. .

Of course they do!   Can't you see why?  

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Tofer said:

My bias is that reductionistic models and quantitative data can be useful, but only to a very limited degree. I'm personally more interested in a humanistic and concrete approach to these questions (so I second Pan's objections). 

From my point of view, suggesting there is a smell-based kind of sexual attraction also allows for full variations in the complex aspects of attraction. To quote a few:

 

13 hours ago, Pan. said:

romantic feelings, smell, appearance, the sound of someone's voice, the way they laugh, even something as basic as the way someone says certain words, or certain mannerisms, humour, etc.

Each these would be just involved with different pathways in the brain. As with all subjective experience, the same subjective experience "sexual attraction" could be triggered from many different sources. Speaking with reductionism, say I am eating pies, explaining that my experience of the taste of pie can be equated with something quantitative in my brain, it does not necessarily disaccount my subject experience of taste. The pie is still good.

 

I'm getting the impression that we are using the term "reductionism" in a different way: the one I was using refers to the notion that every natural phenomena can be explained with materialistic and/or quantitative aspects. It seems to me that the one you @Tofer are using is referring to an overly simplistic explanation that does not allow for variations in the complex subtleties in which are being explained. Did I get that correctly? just to be sure =)

[Tofer]

5 hours ago, butterflo said:

I'm getting the impression that we are using the term "reductionism" in a different way: the one I was using refers to the notion that every natural phenomena can be explained with materialistic and/or quantitative aspects. It seems to me that the one you @Tofer are using is referring to an overly simplistic explanation that does not allow for variations in the complex subtleties in which are being explained. Did I get that correctly? just to be sure =)

It's not that you and I are using different definitions of reductionism. I also understand reductionism as the belief that every natural phenomenon can be explained materialistically and quantitatively. However, I don't share that belief. To me, that belief is like religious faith; I can't prove it isn't true, but I shouldn't have to, because you can't prove a negative. It's up to reductionists to prove their belief; the trouble is, the only way to prove it would be to explain every natural phenomenon! So strictly speaking, I'm an agnostic on the question. But for practical purposes I'm a non-believer.

[Cobie]

1 hour ago, Tofer said:

Its not that you and I are using different definitions of reductionism. I also understand reductionism as the belief that every natural phenomenon can be explained materialistically and quantitatively. However, I don't share that belief. To me, that belief is like religious faith; I can't prove it isn't true, but I shouldn't have to, because you can't prove a negative. It's up to reductionists to prove their belief; the trouble is, the only way to prove it would be to explain every natural phenomenon! So strictly speaking, I'm an agnostic on the question. But for practical purposes I'm a non-believer.

Well said!

[Dreamer23]

I find the core assumption you base this on - that smell causes sexual attraction - questionable to begin with.

Humans have no vomeronasal organ like other animals where this is the case (at least none with active neurons after your fetal stage)

All studies I have seen so far that tried to proof "human pheromones" were incredibly bad in either methodology or size.

--> The ones you quoted both have a sample-size of 36, which makes them absolutely meaningless. The second one also mentions that they had to lessen the restrictions on what they consider statistically significant to get their results.

 

From what I understand, the current standing theory is that smell-based attraction is based on the fact that the nasal neural receptors are next to the hippocampus --> What smell you like is based on your positive memories of something, not the other way around.

--> If you stand by your theory, I would like to see some data that suggests that asexuals in a relationship have a statistically significant lower rate of liking someone's smell than sexual couples in a comparable relationship.

Until that basis is established, I don't see the value in dragging a thousand sexuals and asexuals to an MRI to get statistically significant data about what might be going on in there when exposed to certain smells.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Tofer said:

However, I don't share that belief. To me, that belief is like religious faith; I can't prove it isn't true, but I shouldn't have to, because you can't prove a negative. It's up to reductionists to prove their belief; the trouble is, the only way to prove it would be to explain every natural phenomenon!

Ah, I get your point. The big assumptions about the world tend to go parallel to each other. Well said in also pointing out that reductionism is like a belief system, or just one of the ways to approach the world.

 

9 hours ago, Dreamer23 said:

Humans have no vomeronasal organ like other animals where this is the case (at least none with active neurons after your fetal stage)

All studies I have seen so far that tried to proof "human pheromones" were incredibly bad in either methodology or size.

Those parts, you would better inquiring to the publisher of the studies. At least they found it's okay. In general, experimental studies require much smaller sample size. It also varies with the fields of study. The 2005 study also mentions about the vomeronasal organ in their first paragraph, and says that what they are trying to suggest is that that may not be the case. The article is open to the public.

 

9 hours ago, Dreamer23 said:

What smell you like is based on your positive memories of something, not the other way around.

Two points:

1. Saying that "liking" of a smell can "also" be acquired by conditioning does not serve as a counterargument to the theory I'm suggesting. Liking is different from sexual attraction. (Romantic) asexuals can still like, or even attracted to how their partners smell. The attraction would simply not be hypothalamus-based sexual attraction in nature.

2. "not the other way around": that would require ruling out all other possible variables. It is also dangerous in that it implies that, surely unintentionally, with no offense given, that sexual orientations can viably be manipulated by inducing a positive memory by therapy or something.

[Guest]

On 3/25/2017 at 2:58 PM, Sally said:

Of course they do!   Can't you see why?  

Do you mean that the watching gay porn by heterosexual women is still indicative of their heterosexual orientation, as the video primarily features men? But then, should't asexuals don't watch any porn at all, or at least don't have any preference over the gay, het, lesbian types of porn?