Asexuals... explain attraction and desire to a sexual person...

[BlueTuesday]

I, personally, really want to hear the experiences of sexual people, and often feel that their perspective is lacking in helping aces understand this stuff better.

 

I mean, to me, sex seems fine in theory, but the idea of doing it with another actual person when it comes down to it is just as icky and wrong as if I was going to do it with a sibling.  So the way I see it, I am missing SOMETHING in there, the bit that makes partnered sex "not icky", the bit that defines who is "like a sibling" and who isn't when it comes to choosing a partner for sex?

 

What the hell that is is another question, but the ability to feel that difference surely has to be a thing that sexual people in general do have in common?  Is that attraction, or part of it?  It's a question I am incapable of answering.

[Snao Cone]

15 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Surely it's just furnished with furniture you don't like.

But if I'm incapable of preferring any furniture over other furniture, it means my home isn't furnished, right?????? I mean, except I prefer furniture that isn't broken and doesn't have vomit stains on it. But I still maintain that my home is unfurnished.

 

(This has already gone awry, but I'm sticking to it because conceding even one point on the internet makes you less of a person.)

[Telecaster68]

47 minutes ago, Snao Çoñé said:

But if I'm incapable of preferring any furniture over other furniture, it means my home isn't furnished, right?????? I mean, except I prefer furniture that isn't broken and doesn't have vomit stains on it. But I still maintain that my home is unfurnished.

 

(This has already gone awry, but I'm sticking to it because conceding even one point on the internet makes you less of a person.)

Are you sitting on the couch because you have an innate desire to sit on it? Or just because your partner has the comfy chair?

[Snao Cone]

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

Are you sitting on the couch because you have an innate desire to sit on it? Or just because your partner has the comfy chair?

I'm sitting on the couch because I have a physiological need for comfort that can't be met by sitting on the floor.

[Telecaster68]

You don't have a need to sit on the sofa. Nobody will die from sitting on the floor.

 

If you really need to sit down, there's a perfectly good beanbag in the shed. Pop out and sit on that for a bit.

[Snao Cone]

But that bean bag's got stains on it that I assume are not from pleasant origins...

[Telecaster68]

You're invalidating your own analogy now. I think you've misunderstood the concept of furniture.

[Snao Cone]

My analogy is airtight and I will not back down.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BlueTuesday said:

I, personally, really want to hear the experiences of sexual people, and often feel that their perspective is lacking in helping aces understand this stuff better.

 

I mean, to me, sex seems fine in theory, but the idea of doing it with another actual person when it comes down to it is just as icky and wrong as if I was going to do it with a sibling.  So the way I see it, I am missing SOMETHING in there, the bit that makes partnered sex "not icky", the bit that defines who is "like a sibling" and who isn't when it comes to choosing a partner for sex?

 

What the hell that is is another question, but the ability to feel that difference surely has to be a thing that sexual people in general do have in common?  Is that attraction, or part of it?  It's a question I am incapable of answering.

What we are missing is the release of chemicals in the brain that make sexual people find other people appealing sexually.

[m4rble]

What if you just like looking at couches?

[Telecaster68]

That's okay, as long as the couches aren't being exploited.

[Snao Cone]

1 minute ago, m4rble said:

What if you just like looking at couches?

Aesthetic attraction to furniture is different from *desiring* furniture. Just because I like looking at couches, and also require sitting on them on occasion, doesn't mean my house is furnished.

[m4rble]

Just now, Snao Çoñé said:

Aesthetic attraction to furniture is different from *desiring* furniture. Just because I like looking at couches, and also require sitting on them on occasion, doesn't mean my house is furnished.

Some people just like to kiss and cuddle couches though, what type of attraction is that?

[Telecaster68]

 

2 minutes ago, Snao Çoñé said:

Aesthetic attraction to furniture is different from *desiring* furniture. Just because I like looking at couches, and also require sitting on them on occasion, doesn't mean my house is furnished.

But would you say an Ikea warehouse is furnished?

[Snao Cone]

7 minutes ago, m4rble said:

Some people just like to kiss and cuddle couches though, what type of attraction is that?

Completely normal.

 

7 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

 

But would you say an Ikea warehouse is furnished?

Every place is unfurnished until they become old enough to develop furniture, if you think about it. We've all been unfurnished at some point.

[Telecaster68]

But we all have our preferences for furniture and sometimes you need to collapse into a huge enveloping sofa, other times a quick sit down on the top of a wall will do.  

[Guest]

Some of us just don't care enough about furniture to even have preferences.

[Telecaster68]

But you wouldn't sit down on a damp, rotting, flea infested couch... 

[Guest]

That's different, though. That is furniture that has been ruined in some way.

[Guest]

On 9/21/2017 at 5:23 AM, Telecaster68 said:

It's implicit in fairly common statements like 'some sexuals don't even realise that romantic attraction and sexual attraction are different'. That's an asexual saying they understand sexuality better than sexuals.

 

You can view romantic and sexual attraction as different if you want, but for most sexuals, they're so intertwined that it makes no sense. It makes sense for a lot of asexuals, and that's great, but it's about how you think about sex and relationships. It can help for asexuals, but for sexuals, it's alien to our experience and doesn't elucidate anything. It's not inherently 'true'.

I think it makes sense that a romantic asexual would better understand what romantic attraction is considering they are experiencing that alone. Like you said, sexuals can't tell them apart because they're experiencing both simultaneously. But they are definitely separate, and that is why someone can experience romantic attraction without sexual attraction. I would actually also argue that both romance and sex are isolated from love, since there are people who cannot feel love but can still want sex and/or a romantic relationship.

[Guest]

Wait, are we using "furniture" in place of "people"? Because I definitely have no interest in sitting on anyone. Or being anywhere near them, for that matter. Whether they are a brand-new couch kind of person or a flea-infested couch kind of person.

[mallycat]

I discovered I was asexual last year as I have never had a desire to have sex, or be thought of as 'sexy' by another person.  I have had enough sexual partners to know that it's not a case of 'finding the right one' because none of them have created any sexual desire in me, and that's generally why the relationship has ended.  I have been romantically attracted to them, but not sexually.  I have been trying to find a way to describe this to my best friend.  She thinks that it's just a case of not having found the right person, and her view of sex is that she enjoys it but falls in the camp of needing to be in love with someone and to 'share' intimacy with them, so the romantic side of things is important to her.  She wants me to 'keep an open mind' but I think, at 54, I have tried it enough to know I don't like it, don't want it and am not interested at all.

 

So, to describe it to her, I used the analogy of sex being cake (cake being something which seems to appear on here quite a lot).  There are lots of types of cake, some with cream, some with fruit, different flavours, some with less calories etc, so pretty much something to suit all appetites.  As I see it, people fall into 3 categories:-

 

1  People who like cake.  They enjoy eating cake solo, with other people, and sometimes even in groups.  They may only want to share their cake with someone they love, they may be happy to eat it with anyone who wants some cake, but they love cake and will eat it and enjoy it all their lives.

 

2  People who like cake, but for whatever reason are currently abstaining from eating it.  This could be for health or religious reasons, or just that they only like eating cake with someone special so are saving their cake for the right person.  However this doesn't mean that they don't still think about eating cake, and they don't still want to eat cake, and they will probably eat cake again at some time in the future.

 

3  People who don't like cake!

 

Don't know if that helps, and I am sure there are different levels of 'liking cake'...and how often someone wants to indulge in eating cake.  Even those who are a bit 'give or take' about cake but will eat it if it's important to a loved one.

 

I am number 3.  I don't like it, don't want it, don't want to keep trying to eat it to see if I can find a flavour I like (I have tried most flavours just to see if there was one that did it for me).  I just don't like it.  And why should I continue to eat something which actually grosses me out.  If you have an allergy to a foodstuff, you wouldn't keep going back and eating it 'just in case I'm not allergic anymore' only to find out that you still are.  You just stop eating it.  And that's OK too...

 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Moon Spirit ☽ said:

What we are missing is the release of chemicals in the brain that make sexual people find other people appealing sexually.

and @BlueTuesday

 

My asexual ex got the exact same 'rush' from looking at me naked as my more sexual partners have (they were all males). And I've met other asexuals who get that rush and sexuals who don't get it. As I explained extensively in my other posts, there are sexuals who will literally just meet randoms in group sex sessions at furry clubs or whatever because it's not about 'being drawn to others sexually' for people like that, it's about preferring a certain type of partnered sex over masturbation but literally not caring who you have it with as long as they've been passed as 'safe' by the group leader. That's just a random example. Some others (this is more common) seek people with whom they can have a *romantic* connection because they love being in love, and enjoy sexual intimacy as a result of that love. It wasn't 'being drawn to others sexually' or 'finding other people appealing in a sexual way' that drove these people, it was the desire to seek romantic love (and no, not everyone chooses romantic partners based on appearance, lol). Those are just some examples but I'm trying to clarify that it's hard (probably impossible) to squeeze all sexual people into one box because their reasons for seeking partnered sex often vary so greatly from person to person. And like I said, there are certainly asexuals who seem to have the same kind of sexual reaction to others as many (not all, but many) sexual people do.. the asexuals just have literally zero desired by to actually have sex with someone else as a result of those feelings. Hence just one of the many reasons why 'desiring sexual intimacy with others for pleasure' is a far better indicator of the difference between sexuals and asexuals!

 

[Guest]

@FictoVore. That's really good to know. Thank you for taking the time to explain. <3

[Guest]

@Snao ÇoñéI really don't understand the furniture analology because in many cases furniture is actually a necessity that serves a function, so poor people (for example) get whatever furniture they can for free or as cheap as possible, no matter how old and ratty it is. My dresser was full of spiderwebs and rat poop, and had no handles on the draws, when I was given it by my mums ex because he was going to dump it. I cleaned it out and it serves its function perfectly despite not being something I would have 'wanted' otherwise. A lot.. well.. most.. of my furniture is like that; acquired out of necessity rather than desire.. But that doesn't mean my house is not furnished.

 

Regardless of all that though..

 

Both asexuals and sexuals have a necessity to furnish their house in this day and age, it's just that asexuals would be happiest if they didn't use any of the furniture to have sex on. Sexuals would be happiest if they got to have sex with someone else, under certain circumstances, on at least some of the furniture (or on the furniture the other person owns if they're worried about getting white marks on their nice new couch cover). lol.

[Snao Cone]

1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

I really don't understand the furniture analogy

That's the point.

[Salted Karamel]

On 9/20/2017 at 11:59 PM, Law of Circles said:

Yes, and when you try to explain that what they're saying doesn't fit your personal experience of sexuality so well, the "acesplainers" often just dismiss you. If you don't already fit their preconceived notion for how sexual people are, then your experiences don't "count" to them. They don't consider that if there are sexual people saying "it's not like that for me," then maybe there's a problem with their initial assumptions. It's quite frustrating.

To be fair, there are plenty of people whose experiences fit the definition of various types of graysexuality but who identify as allosexual and then insist that because they identify as allosexual, their experience of sexuality is the allosexual experience. And I am not here to challenge anyone on their sexual identity, so I would never argue to a person that their identity is not really X as they claim but actually Y. If they identify as X and all of their cited experiences are what we call Y, I am just going to side glance and shrug and quietly—yes—disregard.

 

I could say “I never want to have sex ever and I never find any other humans sexually appealing” and identify as allosexual and then claim that when someone defines sexual attraction or desire as something different from this that they are clearly wrong because I am allosexual and they are not, so I am the de facto authority on sexuality.

 

Or, to flip the script on that one, I could say “I love having sex all the time” and identify as asexual and then claim that this is the asexual experience—or at least one valid type of asexual experience—because it is my experience and I identify as asexual. And you can find plenty of posts around in which someone arguing for a stricter definition of asexuality cites this very example and then argues loudly that such a person cannot be asexual.

 

I’m personally not in favor of policing asexual identities, allosexual identities, or any other identities. But that also doesn’t mean I need to accept every identity claim as proof of authority on a topic. If someone wants to identify as a ladybug, I am just going to shrug and quietly disregard, not let them convince me that ladybugs are actually bipedal and play the piano and enjoy guacamole.

 

tl;dr, relying on someone’s personal statement of identity as a qualification of expertise in that identity and its typical experiences doesn’t always work. And I’d be extremely wary of allowing any one person or small group of people to tell you what is or is not [insert identity here] based on their own personal experiences and opinions.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, katydidd said:

tl;dr, relying on someone’s personal statement of identity as a qualification of expertise in that identity and its typical experiences doesn’t always work. And I’d be extremely wary of allowing any one person or small group of people to tell you what is or is not [insert identity here] based on their own personal experiences and opinions.

Sexual people are trying to explain what it feels like for them being sexual (I'm pretty sure they'd have a good idea of how they feel). If the ace is saying 'This is how all sexuals are and this is what sexual attraction is' and you, as a sexual, say ''well no. I'm like this and there are other people like me, and some people experience that yeah but I don't'' that doesn't mean you're saying ''No, all sexuals are like me'', you're saying that because there are some sexuals who experience their sexuality like you do, then the asexual is wrong about the blanket statement they made in regards to how all sexuals are and what they experience.

 

Quote

 

there are plenty of people whose experiences fit the definition of various types of graysexuality but who identify as allosexual and then insist that because they identify as allosexual, their experience of sexuality is the allosexual experience

 

What has happened there is that people who were asexual tried to define grey as something under the ace spectrum, then defined grey in a way that can be pretty much any regular sexual person depending on how you spin the sexual attraction definition. That's why a lot of sexual people seem to fit the definition of 'grey', it's because the people who initially were trying to define 'grey' were confused about the different ways people can experience their sexuality. They assumed ''all sexuals experience this, so if you desire sex/whatever, but for reasons other than that thing that all sexuals experience, you're in the grey area of the asexual spectrum!!'' when actually, they were just completely misinformed as to what 'all sexuals experience'. That's why there are plenty of 'allo'sexuals whose experiences seem to fit the definition of grey. It's the way many people define grey that's wrong, the sexuals aren't wrong in saying they're not asexual.

 

I say I'm very 'grey' but only because I'd be incapable of having a 'normal' sexual relationship with most (almost all) sexual people, but I don't mean I'm on the ace spectrum when I say 'grey'. I'm still sexual, I'm just in a super foggy area that makes it very, very difficult for me to have partners (and I'm still not sure if I'll ever take another partner physically, like, offline.)

 

But yeah, just to clarify, neither myself nor anyone else here is saying 'I experience sexuality like this so this is exactly how it is for all sexuals', we are trying to emphasize that the way asexuals try to explain sexuality is very often wrong and they make blanket statements about all sexual people, when whatever it is they're saying generally only applies to some sexual people. And yes, all sexuals do desire partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure, to some extent or another, under certain circumstances, with other people. That's just a fact that can't be avoided, so that's the one blanket statement we do make. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree with that though. regardless of whether you're sexual or ace (or how you define sexual attraction).

 

[Arctangent]

1 hour ago, katydidd said:

To be fair, there are plenty of people whose experiences fit the definition of various types of graysexuality but who identify as allosexual and then insist that because they identify as allosexual, their experience of sexuality is the allosexual experience. And I am not here to challenge anyone on their sexual identity, so I would never argue to a person that their identity is not really X as they claim but actually Y. If they identify as X and all of their cited experiences are what we call Y, I am just going to side glance and shrug and quietly—yes—disregard.

Yeah, I do see where you're coming from there. I certainly don't claim to be representative of all sexuals - I know I'm a bit of an oddball in some ways, and there's an argument to be made that I could also be labeled grey and/or demi. (I also think that some of the grey identities could be argued to be facets of regular sexuality for some people, but that's getting into another topic.)

 

But sometimes I see people making claims about sexual people that are blatant overgeneralizations or even just flat-out false. For example, sometimes people imply that all sexuals care about is sex, or that sexuals are less productive than asexuals because they're thinking about sex, or that sexuals always decide whom they want to have sex with on the basis of physical appearance. In those cases, I do think it's good to step in and explain that not all sexual people experience things that way - not necessarily because I think I have authority as a (sort of) sexual person, but because I know those kinds of statements don't apply to all sexual people (I can point to real life examples of people I know). You don't necessarily need to be a sexual person to understand the problems with some of the (mis)perceptions of sexual people floating around, and in fact there are several asexual members around that are good about pointing out these issues, IMO.

 

It's just frustrating when there's a good number of people from diverse backgrounds (sexuals, asexuals, borderline greys like me) trying to combat these issues, and yet people still hold onto them. Years go by and things don't seem to get better on that front, which can be exhausting.

[vega57]

1 hour ago, Law of Circles said:

But sometimes I see people making claims about sexual people that are blatant overgeneralizations or even just flat-out false. For example, sometimes people imply that all sexuals care about is sex, or that sexuals are less productive than asexuals because they're thinking about sex, or that sexuals always decide whom they want to have sex with on the basis of physical appearance. In those cases, I do think it's good to step in and explain that not all sexual people experience things that way - not necessarily because I think I have authority as a (sort of) sexual person, but because I know those kinds of statements don't apply to all sexual people (I can point to real life examples of people I know). You don't necessarily need to be a sexual person to understand the problems with some of the (mis)perceptions of sexual people floating around, and in fact there are several asexual members around that are good about pointing out these issues, IMO.

 

It's just frustrating when there's a good number of people from diverse backgrounds (sexuals, asexuals, borderline greys like me) trying to combat these issues, and yet people still hold onto them. Years go by and things don't seem to get better on that front, which can be exhausting.

I think a big part of the problem is that a number sexuals make some of these claims, exaggerations and overgeneralizations about themselves, both as individuals and as a group. 

 

It really gets confusing when so-called "experts" make similar claims. 

 

Also, according to Willard F. Harley Jr., author of the book, His Needs, Her Needs, one of the top 5 'needs' of a (married) man is to have a physically attractive spouse.  Another top 5 'need' is sexual fulfillment.  While ALL married men don't list physical attractiveness as one of their top 5 needs, Harley concluded that the "average" man does.  And when I read other forums day after day, presenting complaints from married men about how they've lost interest in having sex (at least as much as they used to) with their "overweight" spouse, I can see that physical attractiveness is VERY important to them. 

 

So, here we have an expert claiming that both physical attractiveness and sexual fulfillment IS important to the "average" married man, plus a number of these men are making the same claim. 

 

Although it's true that not ALL sexuals decide who they want to have sex with based on physical appearances, it seems that a sizable number of them do.