Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, vega57 said:

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

If it doesn't apply to ALL sexuals (which is what we have been saying all along) then it doesn't apply to all sexuals, it's that simple. You only proved our point with your comment.

 

On top of that, average male sexuality certainly does not make up the experience of ALL sexuals (because, you know, half the global population is female). Men and women do, in fact, experience their sexuality quite differently, so the exact same study with women over the age of 30 (as one random example) would have had very different results. Also, many women strongly prefer a man that DOESN'T place such high value on appearance, so just because many men are like that doesn't mean many women want men like that. Having a boyfriend like that would be scraping the bottom of the barrel if you ask me, and many women would agree with me. What turns many of us women on most is having someone who loves and adores us no matter what we look like, not some shallow git who'll get turned off if we gain a few pounds.

 

The whole point we have been making all along is that these standards in the ace community only apply to SOME sexuals, but not all. 

 

However all sexuals, regardless of how important sex or physical attractiveness is to them (because both can be low priorities for some sexuals) still have a desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure under some circumstances, to varying degrees. That's the one factor that is uniform among ALL sexuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

The whole point we have been making all along is that these standards in the ace community only apply to SOME sexuals, but not all. 

My point is, that some of these so-called "standards" in the ace community come from  sexuals themselves.   While ALL sexuals may not think or behave a certain way, SOME of those sexuals certainly DO claim that ALL sexuals think or behave a certain way. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

 

On top of that, average male sexuality certainly does not make up the experience of ALL sexuals (because, you know, half the global population is female). 

Yes, I know that. 

 

Quote

Men and women do, in fact, experience their sexuality quite differently, so the exact same study with women over the age of 30 (as one random example) would have had very different results

The study did, in fact, show that women did NOT prioritize sex OR physical attractiveness as one of their top 5 'needs'.  In fact, the top 5 needs for men and women (in the study) are as follows:

 

Men

1.  Sex

2.  Recreational Companionship

3.  Attractive Spouse

4.  Domestic Support

5.  Admiration and Respect

 

Women

1.  Affection

2.  Conversation

3.  Honesty

4.  Financial Support

5.  Family Commitments

 

Quote

Also, many women strongly prefer a man that DOESN'T place such high value on appearance, so just because many men are like that doesn't mean many women want men like that.

I absolutely agree. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vega57 said:

 

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

 

 

A lot of asexuals find physical attractiveness still important in a partner. We've had several threads based around would you date someone you didn't find physically attractive? And the answers weren't much different than from sexuals, some would and some wouldn't. Just, on AVEN, we use the term aesthetically attractive. 

 

Personally, I do find my partner both physically and sexually attractive, but neither is important to me, honestly. What I love is the respect, communication, and complete lack of obligations put on me. And without those, I probably wouldn't find her either physically or sexually attractive, so it's all intertwined. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

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. 

What baffles me as an asexual is where that "drive for partnered sex" comes from.  I did read your other posts in this thread (extensively!) and that was what intrigued me.  Someone at a furry club or wherever, however much they were just there for partnered sex rather than attraction, would surely still theoretically have something that would be a cut-off point where they would no longer desire partnered sex with that person, such as coming face to face with a relative - because that is presumably programmed in biologically as a "no" moment?  Yet I have the same cut-off when I see... anyone.  

Which is not by any means to say every asexual does, but I certainly do, and I'm just kind of intrigued to know what it is I'm missing out on.

I very much appreciate your efforts to explain! :) 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BlueTuesday said:

What baffles me as an asexual is where that "drive for partnered sex" comes from.  I did read your other posts in this thread (extensively!) and that was what intrigued me.  Someone at a furry club or wherever, however much they were just there for partnered sex rather than attraction, would surely still theoretically have something that would be a cut-off point where they would no longer desire partnered sex with that person, such as coming face to face with a relative - because that is presumably programmed in biologically as a "no" moment?  Yet I have the same cut-off when I see... anyone.  

Which is not by any means to say every asexual does, but I certainly do, and I'm just kind of intrigued to know what it is I'm missing out on.

I very much appreciate your efforts to explain! :) 

I would like to add: partnered sex with someone who also thinks partnered sex with you could be interesting/nice. The swinger clubs say that most sexual encounters start off by a conversation and feeling a mutual vibe. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlueTuesday said:

 Someone at a furry club or wherever, however much they were just there for partnered sex rather than attraction, would surely still theoretically have something that would be a cut-off point where they would no longer desire partnered sex with that person, such as coming face to face with a relative - because that is presumably programmed in biologically as a "no" moment?  

If it was "programmed" into us biologically that we shouldn't be incestuous,  there wouldn't have been any inbreeding. 

 

"However, in 2016 researchers published a new set of Neanderthal DNA sequences from Altai Cave in Siberia, as well as from Spain and Croatia, that show evidence of human-Neanderthal interbreeding as far back as 100,000 years ago".

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

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). 

Still not a male exclusive phenomenon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, vega57 said:

Yes, I know that. 

 

The study did, in fact, show that women did NOT prioritize sex OR physical attractiveness as one of their top 5 'needs'.  In fact, the top 5 needs for men and women (in the study) are as follows:

 

Men

1.  Sex

2.  Recreational Companionship

3.  Attractive Spouse

4.  Domestic Support

5.  Admiration and Respect

 

Women

1.  Affection

2.  Conversation

3.  Honesty

4.  Financial Support

5.  Family Commitments

 

I absolutely agree. 

 

 

Those seem like 1950s style gender roles, yuck. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous
12 hours 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.

 

I might get flack for this, but greys are allosexual. (Or just sexual, I don't like the term allo.) Grey just means a sexual person whose experiences fall closely enough to asexuality that they might relate to asexuals more than sexuals and prefer the ace community over the sexual one. Which is fine and awesome, I'm not saying otherwise!


But it doesn't mean we can just discount them from the 'sexual experience' just because they're not the norm. Just like, in the grand scheme of human sexuality, we can't discount asexuals just because we're a minority.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, m4rble said:

Still not a male exclusive phenomenon. 

No, I meant I've only had male romantic partners, I was just clarifying that. No it's not a male exclusive phenomenon BUT it's much more common for males to be able to be aroused visually from sight (though that does NOT automatically equate to them wanting sex, regardless of whether they're sexual or not), women often need things like communication, a sense of comfort, foreplay etc - all sorts of random stuff, to become aroused in the same way. Of course there are women who get aroused visually by site, but almost ALL men do, and in comparison far fewer females do. I hadn't been seen Vegas response about the females perspective in that study. I'd say commitment instead of 'family commitment' and the financial part isn't true of all women, but other than that those sorts of more emtional things are extremely common 'need' for many women to be in the right mindset for that kind of arousal. No, not always, but quite commonly, as opposed to men who still may need those things to actually want to HAVE sex (sometimes anyway) but can generally get hard at the site of a beautiful women naked in front of them (as a random example)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vega57 said:

If it was "programmed" into us biologically that we shouldn't be incestuous,  there wouldn't have been any inbreeding. 

 

"However, in 2016 researchers published a new set of Neanderthal DNA sequences from Altai Cave in Siberia, as well as from Spain and Croatia, that show evidence of human-Neanderthal interbreeding as far back as 100,000 years ago".

 

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding

 

 

Just to clarify, interbreeding means two species having sex with each other. Incest is two dumplings (oh wow, autocorrect, haha!!) two people who are closely related screwing each other. That just proves (to me anyway) that our innate desire to connect sexually with others can sometimes override choices that may be sensible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

However all sexuals, regardless of how important sex or physical attractiveness is to them (because both can be low priorities for some sexuals) still have a desire to connect sexually with others for pleasure under some circumstances, to varying degrees. That's the one factor that is uniform among ALL sexuals.

Here's a question? Given the above, I'm wondering how you would distinguish a stone butch lesbian from this example of an asexual person reported in Kristin Scherrer's 2008 paper Coming to an Asexual Identity: Negotiating Identity, Negotiating Desire:
 

"For Mark, a 36-year-old multi-racial male who identifies as a romantic hetero-asexual, ‘I’m romantically attracted to the opposite sex, but don’t desire sexual contact. I enjoy cuddling, and kissing and even pleasing my wife, but I don’t desire sexual intercourse.’ ... A prime example of this is Mark, who describes himself as a romantic hetero-asexual and his wife as a sexual person. Recall that Mark says that he enjoys ‘pleasing his wife’ but does not desire sexual intercourse. While we can only guess what was meant by Mark’s interest in pleasing his wife, if we assume that ‘pleasing his wife’ is widely considered a sexual act, then Mark is working to separate what is commonly understood as sexual from what is understood as non-sexual. Yet Mark’s interpretation is similar to androcentric understandings of this participant’s actions, as both characterize it as non-sexual because of the lack of penile penetration and (presumably) male orgasm."

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BlueTuesday said:

What baffles me as an asexual is where that "drive for partnered sex" comes from.

That one varies. 

 

People like my ex who just want sex and don't particularly care with who - even people he actively dislikes he'll go to bed with, if they're willing, just cause he wants sex - it is there all the time and if it's not fulfilled by someone, it gets worse and worse until he said even cardboard cutouts were unbelievably attractive, just cause he wanted sex so bad. 

 

For me, desire/drive for partnered sexual activities are tied to one very specific person and only come from an intense emotional connection with them. 

 

5 hours ago, BlueTuesday said:

 Someone at a furry club or wherever, however much they were just there for partnered sex rather than attraction, would surely still theoretically have something that would be a cut-off point where they would no longer desire partnered sex with that person, such as coming face to face with a relative - because that is presumably programmed in biologically as a "no" moment?  

That is gonna vary, again. Everyone has their own deal breakers and turn offs, as it were. And I doubt it's programmed into us as a biological "no", it's more a societal "no", given first cousins used to be common for marriage deals and Pharaohs used to marry siblings, there are still plenty of people who are attracted to their parents/siblings, etc.

 

Personally, I'd say choosing a partner to have sex with involves attraction with the person, if you're doing it from your own desire for sex (rather than desire just to please your partner). Desire for sex is the drive, but then it gets directed at someone when you choose a partner. Doesn't matter why you chose the partner - you trusted them, they seemed nice, you liked their smile, you figured it'd be safe with them, etc. Doesn't have to be just physical appearance that draws you to choose a person. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous
33 minutes ago, Pramana said:

Here's a question? Given the above, I'm wondering how you would distinguish a stone butch lesbian from this example of an asexual person reported in Kristin Scherrer's 2008 paper Coming to an Asexual Identity: Negotiating Identity, Negotiating Desire:
 

"For Mark, a 36-year-old multi-racial male who identifies as a romantic hetero-asexual, ‘I’m romantically attracted to the opposite sex, but don’t desire sexual contact. I enjoy cuddling, and kissing and even pleasing my wife, but I don’t desire sexual intercourse.’ ... A prime example of this is Mark, who describes himself as a romantic hetero-asexual and his wife as a sexual person. Recall that Mark says that he enjoys ‘pleasing his wife’ but does not desire sexual intercourse. While we can only guess what was meant by Mark’s interest in pleasing his wife, if we assume that ‘pleasing his wife’ is widely considered a sexual act, then Mark is working to separate what is commonly understood as sexual from what is understood as non-sexual. Yet Mark’s interpretation is similar to androcentric understandings of this participant’s actions, as both characterize it as non-sexual because of the lack of penile penetration and (presumably) male orgasm."

Not sure if this question is meant for Ficto only, but I'm here, so...

 

As I understand it, a stone butch lesbian gets off on getting their partner off. That IS their sexual gratification, and they WANT to. We don't know the man in your example personally so we can't ask him, but I imagine that if he had a wife that didn't want any sort of sexual contact, he'd be content - and probably happier - to not please her that way. A stone butch lez, however, would be rather put off if she couldn't please her lover sexually, and would probably be rather unsatisfied with the arrangement.

 

Now, if by 'enjoys pleasing his wife', the man actually means he gets turned on/climaxes while pleasuring his wife, I personally wouldn't call that asexual. PIV is not the only act that counts as sex and basing asexuality on that alone would be like using the (highly misinformed) teenage girl excuse of, I only let him do me in the butt so I'm still a virgin, 'loophole'.

 

 

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: With the stone butch lesbian context, I was only thinking of this in terms of mouth/fingers/toy pleasuring. Obviously if an asexual man compromises with PIV sex with his sexual wife and climaxes from stimulation, that doesn't mean he's not ace.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Alejandrogynous said:

We don't know the man in your example personally so we can't ask him, but I imagine that if he had a wife that didn't want any sort of sexual contact, he'd be content - and probably happier - to not please her that way.

I have an issue with this assumption, since the asexual man in the example said that he "enjoys" pleasing his wife. Now typically, if you enjoy doing something, then it's reasonable to assume that you might prefer to keep doing it, and that you would be happier if you could keep doing it. I'm sure I don't have an innate desire to eat smoked salmon, but I enjoy doing so, and wouldn't want to give it up.

I realize this also creates a problem with the definition of asexuality that @Telecaster68 proposed: "an asexual would be happier never having sex with anyone ever" because in order for it to make sense of examples like the one I provided above, you would have to ignore the natural language implications of the word "enjoys".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous
6 minutes ago, Pramana said:

I have an issue with this assumption, since the asexual man said he "enjoys" pleasing his wife. Now typically, if you enjoy doing something, then it's reasonable to assume that you might prefer to keep doing it, and that you would be happier if you could keep doing it. I'm sure I don't have an innate desire to eat smoked salmon, but I enjoy doing so, and wouldn't want to give it up.

I realize this also creates a problem with the definition of asexuality that @Telecaster68 proposed: "an asexual would be happier never having sex with anyone ever" because in order for it to make sense of examples like the one I provided above, you would have to ignore the natural language implications of the word "enjoys".

Maybe so, and if that's what he meant by the word 'enjoys' then I stand by the second part of my reply where I'd question him being asexual in the first place.

 

The way I interpreted it, though, is more that he enjoys his wife being pleased, rather than the act of pleasing her itself. 'My wife is a happier person when I do the dishes, so I do the dishes', rather than, 'I like doing the dishes'. That's just the way I read it, though!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

No, I meant I've only had male romantic partners, I was just clarifying that. No it's not a male exclusive phenomenon BUT it's much more common for males to be able to be aroused visually from sight (though that does NOT automatically equate to them wanting sex, regardless of whether they're sexual or not), women often need things like communication, a sense of comfort, foreplay etc - all sorts of random stuff, to become aroused in the same way. Of course there are women who get aroused visually by site, but almost ALL men do, and in comparison far fewer females do. I hadn't been seen Vegas response about the females perspective in that study. I'd say commitment instead of 'family commitment' and the financial part isn't true of all women, but other than that those sorts of more emtional things are extremely common 'need' for many women to be in the right mindset for that kind of arousal. No, not always, but quite commonly, as opposed to men who still may need those things to actually want to HAVE sex (sometimes anyway) but can generally get hard at the site of a beautiful women naked in front of them (as a random example)

There are a few issues I have with saying that being aroused on sight is much more common in men. For one, women may be less inclined to admit to being aroused by appearance because they might think it makes them sound shallow or slutty. Additionally, they may be less aware of their own arousal because boners are a lot more obvious than female arousal a lot of the time. I also think that the lack of arousal from visual arousal may be more common in straight women than in women who have attraction to other women. From some studies I've seen that measured arousal they've indicated that straight women don't typically get aroused from seeing a naked man but the same is not true for lesbians looking at other women. In fact, there are a fair number of self-identified straight women that claim they do get aroused from looking at women but they still prefer to only have sex with men. One proposed explanation for this is that people are exposed to women as being sexually stimulating so much through the media that feeling arousal might be a learned response even if it goes against orientation. I do not know whether or not this is true, but if it is it may explain some of the differences in how men and women respond sexually. 

 

As for the lists of, "needs" the female side seemed mostly unobjectionable except for maybe the, "financial support" bullet point. A lot of things on the male side made it seem like men viewed women more like hood ornaments or status symbols than people. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always had a problem with this idea of enjoying something but having no urge to do it again too, but that is what most sex-favourable asexuals say they feel. A bit like being perfectly fine going bowling to accompany friends but having no urge to instigate another trip yourself. By analogy, they enjoy sex but they don't get the same 'hit' as sexuals. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, most research about human sexuality deliberately excludes everyone who isn't straight(and cis) so I think it's often a poor representation of human diversity. Funny thing, a lot of the studies proving that cis and trans brains were different made sure to exclude anyone who wasn't straight(whether they were cis or trans), which creates an obvious confounding factor. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alejandrogynous said:

Maybe so, and if that's what he meant by the word 'enjoys' then I stand by the second part of my reply where I'd question him being asexual in the first place.

 

The way I interpreted it, though, is more that he enjoys his wife being pleased, rather than the act of pleasing her itself. 'My wife is a happier person when I do the dishes, so I do the dishes', rather than, 'I like doing the dishes'. That's just the way I read it, though!

 

48 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I've always had a problem with this idea of enjoying something but having no urge to do it again too, but that is what most sex-favourable asexuals say they feel. A bit like being perfectly fine going bowling to accompany friends but having no urge to instigate another trip yourself. By analogy, they enjoy sex but they don't get the same 'hit' as sexuals. 

Right, so the difference is going to depend on the internal state that motivates the activity. With the asexual man who enjoys pleasuring his wife, I think it's important to note that he mentions that at the end of a list where he also says that he enjoys kissing and cuddling with his wife, so I think the idea is that he enjoys the emotional intimacy that the activity involves. Granted, it's hard to be certain lacking the ability to ask follow-up questions of him, but I think that's a reasonable interpretation in context.

In any case, now we're back to the idea that what distinguishes sexual people is the experience of an internal motivational state that they seek to satisfy through partnered sexual activity, and what distinguishes between orientations is the sex/age of the people they find they need to have sex with in order to address that state. So, for example, even if a heterosexual man did enjoy the experience of having sex with another man, that experience wouldn't be fully satisfactory as it wouldn't address the internal motivation state of sexual attraction towards women.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, m4rble said:

There are a few issues I have with saying that being aroused on sight is much more common in men. For one, women may be less inclined to admit to being aroused by appearance because they might think it makes them sound shallow or slutty. Additionally, they may be less aware of their own arousal because boners are a lot more obvious than female arousal a lot of the time. I also think that the lack of arousal from visual arousal may be more common in straight women than in women who have attraction to other women. From some studies I've seen that measured arousal they've indicated that straight women don't typically get aroused from seeing a naked man but the same is not true for lesbians looking at other women. In fact, there are a fair number of self-identified straight women that claim they do get aroused from looking at women but they still prefer to only have sex with men. One proposed explanation for this is that people are exposed to women as being sexually stimulating so much through the media that feeling arousal might be a learned response even if it goes against orientation. I do not know whether or not this is true, but if it is it may explain some of the differences in how men and women respond sexually. 

 

As for the lists of, "needs" the female side seemed mostly unobjectionable except for maybe the, "financial support" bullet point. A lot of things on the male side made it seem like men viewed women more like hood ornaments or status symbols than people. 

The thing is when it comes to studies, the results of every single one seem based more on the personal biases of the people who conducted the study. That's why one study can show one result ie 'most women need foreplay, but believe us if you give them adequate foreplay they'll be begging you for sex!!' and another can show something completely different, ie 'women shown bonobos having sex, naked men, and pornography get MORE aroused than their male counterparts, though most of the women admitted to not feeling aroused' (that study always pisses me of, by the way. A woman saying 'no I don't feel aroused' is a good sign she's not aroused, regardless of whether she seems to be sweating a little more or her brain is firing in weird places.*sigh*). Some studies conclude that 'women think foreplay is a waste of time' whereas another study will conclude that 'women say they can't enjoy sex unless they have adequate foreplay, which helps them feel loved and desired.' So this is one reason why I always take 'studies' with a grain of salt. They're so clearly biased or they'd all come up with exactly the same conclusion.

 

Now. To address your points. Saying 'a woman might not know she's aroused because it's not as physically obvious as it is for men' is kind of offensive. We aren't so stupid that we would need a dick that gets hard just to be able to tell if we are aroused or not :S I understand that for many people in the ace community, it's foggy. But for most sexual people and even many asexuals, we can definitely tell if we are aroused (even if we are people who hate partnered sex). Your parts start to throb, you get all soggy down there, your jeans pushing against your crotch start feeling kind of nice.. yada yada. That aside, in my opinion, people who say 'women get aroused just as easily as men' is actually a step BACKWARDS in the progression of our understanding of female sexuality, and it's damaging to females. It reinforces the idea that as soon as she sees you naked, you can stick your dick in her and she'll love it.. because I mean, hey, you were hard just from seeing her naked so it must go both ways, right?. Yet a lot of women (not all, but many) actually feel kind of used and unsatisfied if a guy just rips his clothes off and shoves his cock in. He will orgasm and feel great.. she'll often feel 'meh' at that kind of treatment. Because for many women, more time does need to be taken than that. Spend time making her feel desired, loved, attractive etc, whispering to her about how beautiful she is as you gently kiss her earlobes, her neck, her shoulders etc.. THEN she'll starting getting wet, start getting in the mood, and not only be more ready for sex, she'll enjoy it a lot more. I find it very frustrating that still, in this day and age, this isn't a unanimously acknowledged FACT, because it means less men are aware of exactly what it takes to get their girlfriends aroused enough to truly enjoy sex. They also read the study about those damn bonobos and use that to say a conclusion like mine is stupid and false. But the thing is, even if women ARE just as 'visual' as men and can get sopping just from seeing a guy stripping (again, only some women can enjoy that sort of thing) or bobobos screwing *sigh*, that does NOT automatically equate to them being ready for, or able to enjoy, sex (in many cases). Whereas (no offense to the guys in this thread) a man is still  physically READY for sex as soon as he has an erection, regardless of whether or not he would actually have sex with that person. You often do have to take time to get a woman aroused enough that she becomes wet and swollen enough to actually be PHYSICALLY ready for sex and able to enjoy it, and that's just a physiological FACT.

 

Regarding the lesbians, the only lesbians I have known have actually been hypersexual and able to enjoy sex with anyone (man or woman) so I'm not a good judge. Some of the girls I worked with in the brothel were lesbian and they were often genuinely excited about the work, would orgasm with clients etc etc. Whereas the straight women more sort of just gritted their teeth and waited for it to be over. Skullery (the only other sexual lesbian I've talked to extensively) also admitted to being hypersexual and enjoying casual sex with both men and women.. so yeah. Obviously I'm assuming not all lesbians are like that, only the ones that I have met. I find women a lot more attractive than men and know that if I was romantically attracted to women, would be able to have sex with them a lot more easily than I can with men due to how beautiful women are. I could get aroused a lot faster I assume (though I would only be interested in getting off from doing things to the girl, not having her do things to me). 

 

Anyway, yeah, (many) women certainly often aren't as physically ready for sex immediately as men can be, even if the woman WANTS and DESIRES the sex, you still should take time to ensure she is aroused enough to enjoy the sex and not experience any discomfort. You should also make sure she orgasms at least once before you do, because if you finish first and aren't ready to go in for seconds, she'll have had a relatively unsatisfying experience. Anyone who says otherwise is, like I said, perpetuating ideas that are actually harmful to women's sexual enjoyment and fulfillment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Pramana said:

 

Right, so the difference is going to depend on the internal state that motivates the activity. With the asexual man who enjoys pleasuring his wife, I think it's important to note that he mentions that at the end of a list where he also says that he enjoys kissing and cuddling with his wife, so I think the idea is that he enjoys the emotional intimacy that the activity involves. Granted, it's hard to be certain lacking the ability to ask follow-up questions of him, but I think that's a reasonable interpretation in context.

In any case, now we're back to the idea that what distinguishes sexual people is the experience of an internal motivational state that they seek to satisfy through partnered sexual activity, and what distinguishes between orientations is the sex/age of the people they find they need to have sex with in order to address that state. So, for example, even if a heterosexual man did enjoy the experience of having sex with another man, that experience wouldn't be fully satisfactory as it wouldn't address the internal motivation state of sexual attraction towards women.

No if the 'asexual' enjoys the emotional intimacy enough that he would prefer to have the sex than not have it, then he's sexual. The emotional intimacy is one of the things many sexuals enjoy most about partnered sex, even if they're only giving and not actually receiving direct stimulation physically themselves. They can still 'get off' from the emotional pleasure. Sex is predominantly about the emotional pleasure it brings, as the physical pleasure it brings, for many sexuals. (not all sexuals, but many).

 

For the straight guy in your example, he prefers sex with women and probably gets more out it, but if he's actively seeking sex with men then he 1) should maybe consider if he's bi and 2) his desire for partnered sex is overriding his gender preferences. The 'orientation' is the gender preferences. The desire to connect sexually with others is the underlying factor though. If he didn't desire sex on some level, he wouldn't have it with anyone for pleasure (ergo, asexual). But he's having it with both men and women (for pleasure), even if he enjoys it for different reasons with women than he does with men.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Right, so the difference is going to depend on the internal state that motivates the activity.

None of us can know other people's internal states though, so it's a pretty useless criterion - describing 'enjoying' sex illustrates that very well. Both sexuals and asexuals can say they enjoy sex for emotional reasons, but I can't know what anyone else is actually experiencing, and they can't know what I'm experiencing. It's the same principle as not knowing what someone else is experiencing when they see 'yellow'. We're just using the same word. It's subjective, as is 'attraction' and 'desire'.

 

For instance, Snao (I think) said she sometimes enjoyed sex, but when she described that enjoyment, it sounded more like 'under some circumstances, with a lot of effort, can get some physical pleasure', and the pleasure itself isn't enough to want her to repeat it, particularly. That's very different to what most sexuals say when they describe their enjoyment, which is generally a combination of physical and emotional bonding, fairly easily attained, and intense enough that we have a very strong drive to repeat the experience persisently. Her particular experience clearly isn't generalisable, and I'd expect everyone's - sexual and asexual - to be different, and vary over time. But in the end, we can't know whether they're different, how different they are, and in what ways.

 

What we can do is infer some idea of that internal state from external behaviour. Your example, where someone says they enjoy sex but doesn't want to repeat it, is verifiable that way. There's no way of verifying someone's state of mind (although fMRI might one day help with that. It's not good enough yet though). So we can infer from behaviour and verbal unambiguous descriptions of that behaviour ('I would be distressed if I never I had sex again' vs 'I wouldn't be distressed if I never had sex again') more about what's going on in their head, than we can from endless speculation about what people mean when they use the word 'attraction'. I'm including statements like 'I prefer to have sex with women but I'd prefer to have sex with a man than have no sex' in those kinds of unambiguous statements.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

for most sexual people and even many asexuals, we can definitely tell if we are aroused

It's not even necessarily physical. Arousal is mental as much as physical - brain activity changes can be seen in brain scans - and since our brains frequently work on feedback loops, it's possible for purely physical stimulation (tight jeans, sitting on a washing machine, etc) to trigger involuntary physiological reactions which our brains then make sense of by assuming we must therefore be aroused, and getting mentally turned on, which then loops back to the physical signs. Forcing a smile and then finding you're actually feeling a bit happier works that way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

No if the 'asexual' enjoys the emotional intimacy enough that he would prefer to have the sex than not have it, then he's sexual. The emotional intimacy is one of the things many sexuals enjoy most about partnered sex, even if they're only giving and not actually receiving direct stimulation physically themselves. They can still 'get off' from the emotional pleasure. (not all sexuals, but many).

I think your interpretation is producing the wrong result in this case, as it can't distinguish between a stone butch lesbian and the asexual in this example. At least, it sounds like the guy enjoys pleasuring his wife in the same sort of way that he enjoys kissing and cuddling with her, so I would presume part of the reason for that is achieving greater emotional intimacy, and it seems to me that if you gain enjoyment from an activity than you might wish to continue to pursue it. But that doesn't mean that the guy experiences an innate desire for partnered sex/sexual attraction, because those concepts refer to internal motivational states which can't be deduced from outward behaviour.
 

20 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

The 'orientation' is the gender preferences. The desire to connect sexually with others is the underlying factor though.

Alright, so looking at this logically, I think we agree that "desire to connect sexually with others" can't distinguish between orientations like heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality. You need sexual attraction/gender preferences to do that. So then the question is, if "desire to connect sexually with others" can't distinguish between those orientations, then how can it distinguish between those orientations and asexuality, if asexuality is also an orientation? Your interpretation seems to require saying that asexuality isn't an orientation, or at least that it isn't an orientation in the traditional sense. Now I'm not necessarily opposed to that on principle, but I think a reason would have to be provided for why asexuality should be unique.
 

7 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

None of us can know other people's internal states though, so it's a pretty useless criterion - describing 'enjoying' sex illustrates that very well. Both sexuals and asexuals can say they enjoy sex for emotional reasons, but I can't know what anyone else is actually experiencing, and they can't know what I'm experiencing. It's the same principle as not knowing what someone else is experiencing when they see 'yellow'. We're just using the same word. It's subjective, as is 'attraction' and 'desire'.

This may be the crux off the issue, as the way that orientations are understood in psychology today centres on internal motivational states, and while to some degree we may be able to infer those states from behaviour, ultimately it comes down to people's subjective interpretations of their own experiences. Hence, the difference between the asexual man from Kristin Scherrer's paper and a stone butch lesbian is going to centre on that sort of subjective self-assessment. Thus, someone could by all outward appearances appear to be sexual, and yet legitimately determine that asexuality is the best descriptor of their internal motivational states. I think that's the concept people are having trouble with, and perhaps it does seem kind of counterintuitive, but as far as I can tell it's a consequence of the conceptual logic of sexual orientation theory.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BlueTuesday said:

What baffles me as an asexual is where that "drive for partnered sex" comes from.  I did read your other posts in this thread (extensively!) and that was what intrigued me.  Someone at a furry club or wherever, however much they were just there for partnered sex rather than attraction, would surely still theoretically have something that would be a cut-off point where they would no longer desire partnered sex with that person, such as coming face to face with a relative - because that is presumably programmed in biologically as a "no" moment?  Yet I have the same cut-off when I see... anyone.  

Which is not by any means to say every asexual does, but I certainly do, and I'm just kind of intrigued to know what it is I'm missing out on.

I very much appreciate your efforts to explain! :) 

Others have answered quite extensively, but yes everyone has a cut-off point (which is one of the things that annoys me most about self-identifying asexuals who say ''I desire sex, I just don't desire the person I have it with'' ..They're still going to admit to having a 'cut off' point as two whom they'd have sex with, literally no different than any other sexual who has sex because they enjoy the sex itself but aren't fussed on partners, *sigh*)

 

I also have a cut off point when I 'see' anyone, like you :P There is not one person right now I would 'see' and think 'yep, sex'.. haha. For me, I can never know if someone would be someone I would have sex with, because I start off as talking with someone casually. It always starts that way,, and sexual desire for that person will only 'kick in' if I develop a little crush on them (which will develop into full blown romantic love if we progress with the friendship and begin to be intimate, and take that to a relationship etc).. Two of my partners I hadn't even SEEN before I started getting feelings for them, and with those feelings (that little 'crush') starts coming the sexual thoughts as my hormones kick in. When I actually saw a picture of them, they were already beautiful to me because I already had those feelings. However, outside of that love, if I just saw them randomly on the street or something, I wouldn't have looked at them and thought 'ooooo potential sexy-time partner' haha!! Even if I was super aroused already, I still wouldn't have been able to look at that person and differentiate them as someone I'd screw, even if I can appreciate attractiveness. For example, my most recent love (who I still love deeply even though sadly he decided he didn't want a relationship with me anymore): If he'd walked past me on the street before I knew him I possibly would have been able to think 'that guy has lovely bone-structure' but it wouldn't be anything more than that. I was already crushing on him by the time I first saw him though and so to me, he was 'desirable' already. Also, I can definitely see if someone would be like, just a 'no'. If they were hugely overweight, for example, that's an automatic 'no'. Same way a woman is an automatic 'no' even though I find women extremely physically attractive. (PS omg I just heard a weird buzzing noise while I'm typing this, like a phone vibrating.. But it wasn't my phone and I can't work out what it was) :S

 

Anyway obviously not all sexuals are like me haha.. I'm quite a minority which is how I ended up on AVEN thinking I was asexual (well, that and I have never physically enjoyed sex. I love having it online which I only discovered AFTER I joined AVEN, and I know now that I could enjoy some sexual acts that don't involve my own genitals being stimulated by the other person if we had a chance to do that physically.. though I may just be too nervous and self-conscious and ask to play a board game instead if we were in person, no matter how much I desire that person online, haha!) but yeah I'm not your average everyday sexual although there are plenty of sexuals who do need an emotional connection before they can desire sex with someone.

 

8 hours ago, MrDane said:

I would like to add: partnered sex with someone who also thinks partnered sex with you could be interesting/nice. The swinger clubs say that most sexual encounters start off by a conversation and feeling a mutual vibe. 

Mr Dane's answer was also good!! Yeah I've experienced a fair bit of that on FetLife - where it's about a mutual vibe and mutual 'interests' as opposed to specifically being anything physical.

 

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

It's not even necessarily physical. Arousal is mental as much as physical - brain activity changes can be seen in brain scans - and since our brains frequently work on feedback loops, it's possible for purely physical stimulation (tight jeans, sitting on a washing machine, etc) to trigger involuntary physiological reactions which our brains then make sense of by assuming we must therefore be aroused, and getting mentally turned on, which then loops back to the physical signs. Forcing a smile and then finding you're actually feeling a bit happier works that way.

Oh sorry, same old drawback to so many different things being explained by the same word in English. I was only referring specifically to the genitals being aroused. Like if a guy is hard he knows his genitals are engorged with blood and (I imagine) can still feel that engorgement, even if he has absolutely no desire for sex or even masturbation. I just meant its not 'harder' (heh) for women to tell if their genitals are engorged just because they don't have a penis to assess. If the genitals are engorged, there are many traits/physical sensations that go along with the swelling, regardless of whether that happened from the jeans pressing against her (damn, life would be so much easier if something as basic as that could get my genitals in the mood) or whether her brain or hormones (or seeing Brad Pitt, lol) caused the swelling. But yeah I just meant, once genital engorgement has struck, it's generally quite easy to tell it's down there, even if you don't feel like having sex or masturbating. (and no, I don't speak for all people. I've heard a few ace/ace questioning women here say they get the 'symptoms' of genital arousal but don't 'feel' it, which would be the equivalent I think of a man having an erection but literally not feeling it even though he can see it. The nerves, for some reason, are lacking in sensation.. or the wiring between the genitals and the brain isn't quite fully functioning. Well, whatever.. it's quite rare is all I'm trying to say!)

 

(As a side-note, I'm pretty sure that it's mostly the hormones for me. I can only get aroused if my hormones are doing the right thing. No amount of direct stimulation to the genitals or sexy-porn or anything else will get me aroused genitally if my hormones aren't doing what they need to be doing. Then when they do their thing, I'm aroused  genitally all the time regardless of any other external factors, haha. I can still desire to connect sexually in certain ways with my lover though - when I have one - even if I am not able to get genitally aroused).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...