Sensual vs. Sexual Attraction

[AtypicalBandGeek]

Sensual attraction is defined as "an emotional or physical desire to engage in sensual acts with the person that the attraction is felt towards. Sensuality is a pleasure that involves the senses. This is especially true regarding tactile sensuality such as cuddling." Sexual attraction is defined as "an emotional response that sexual people often feel that results in a desire for sexual contact with the person that the attraction is felt towards." Both of these definitions are from AVENwiki. These confuse me though, because it feels like there's a bit of a gray area. I guess what I'm asking is, when does sensual cross the line into sexual? Is it the intent that matters? Is it sexual as soon as it involves genitals? Is the only way for it to be sexual actual sex? If anyone knows, please help me out. I think of myself as an "everything-but ace," which to me means that I feel every type of attraction except sexual. I'm very romantic, and very sensual, so I love cuddling, kissing, and even making out sometimes. This sometimes confuses me because it's like, if I like all these things, and sexual people also like these things, what makes it different? Like what does the (lack of) sexual attraction change? So yeah, to go back to my original question... when does sensual change to sexual?

[cloudy]

I think this is the problem with the split attraction model. Attraction is not black and white and there is definitely overlap i guess it just depends how you personally define sexual intimacy. For me, i imagine sensual attraction involves more the thought of touching someone (wherever that may be) and the physical sensation of it whereas sexual attraction is the desire for explicitly sexual contact and the intimacy involved in that, although people define "sexual contact" as different things. A lot of people experience both at the same time or completely seperately there is just no single way to feel these types of attraction, and these types of things are hard to fit into neat little boxes hence why you should probably just roll with it and just do whatever youre comfortable with. Sorry for the ramble : TL;DR   sensual=physical sensation sexual=desire for sexytime

[Finn.]

Yeah I don't know! If the desire for sexual contact defines sexual attraction then I don't have that. I don't even have a desire for sensual acts. But I for sure find some people far more attractive than others, and it definitely (also) becomes about their body and how they move and talk and such. I definitely find some people *sexy* per my own definition. Hah, that's the reason I go by quoisexual here. It feels like too much for ace, but also way too.. nothing for sexual.

My aromanticism is much more clear to me that way.

 

Tell me, if someone figures this out!

[binary suns]

as a person who feels sexual attraction without sexual desire, I think it's important to mention that just because it lacks sexual fantasy don't mean it can't be sexual. 

 

 

idk what to really say. my experience of a need for sensual touch is part of my sexuality. so I couldn't accurately explain when sensuality isn't sexuality. all I know is, there's this certain positive sensational range of experiences I can get in my body, and if I'm attracted enough and/or close enough to a person - those feelings are more and more powerful until it involves sexual arousing. so it don't matter that I don't actually want sex, nor that I don't always feel aroused, because it's the same experience that becomes arousal, so it's obviously sexual for me. I used to say I was experiencing sensual attraction, but then I realized that it wasn't, it was sexual. 

 

sometimes my aesthetic attraction isn't sexual, in fact usually it ain't. sometimes it is, and hones there are certain types of looks that I find sexy. it's boringly predictable lmao. the only way I can tell the difference between platonic appreciation of the aesthetic, and sexual attraction that so far only manifests as aesthetic admiration - is experience. I know my body and my feelings and sensations, and after feeling them for so long I can tell the difference between platonic feelings and sexual feelings. honest it was confusing for a long time, and IMO that's perfectly OK. 

 

 

 

[Cnyb]

Well if the intention is not having penetrative sex, because a person is content to live without penetrative sex, then whatever sensuality is involved probably doesn't sound like what sexual people talk about as their attraction/drive.  The orientation wouldn't sound quite sexual to a sexual person, would it?

[binary suns]

@Cnyb no, penetrative sex is not the only form of sex, and sex itself is not the only way for two people to share their sexual energy with each other. additionally, sexual attraction is not limited to just the desire for sex, it involves a lot of emotional experiences, including romance, sensuality, aesthetic appreciation, befriending, and other various aspects that can be divorced from sexuality and considered platonic, yet still remain an important part of the sexual's experience.

[Cnyb]

@float on , my thinking was that in a given relationship, if genitals are never penetrated or used to penetrate something, ever, that most sexuals would likely describe it as non-sexual (or at least, not fully sexual) relationship, unless there was a lot of focus on genitals in some other way.

 

Lots of things MIGHT be 'sublimated sexuality' or 'libido channeled into X or Y', but at some point they are non-sexual activities, non-sexual desires, whatever the source of the energy is posited to be according to some type of theoretical framework.

 

In practical rather than theoretical terms, it seems simple enough start with saying, if someone is more sensual than sexual, they most likely are not pursuing penetrative sex or focusing on genitals, so much as pursuing other sensual activities and non-genital areas.  If someone is sensual without being sexual, then without getting into theoretical frameworks about subjectivity and sublimation, seems it's more practical to think along similar lines, someone's not seeking intercourse or oral sex, doesn't want those, but is happy to engage in other sensual activities, focused somewhere besides the genitals.

[binary suns]

you said that you wondered if it wasn't penetrative then it probably wasn't sexual. that is what I don't find to be accurate. there are non-penetrative sexual things. 

 

even a relationship that lacks penetration can still be sexual. There are people in this world who don't like penetration, but are still sexual or greysexual or etc. there are people who are in long-term relationships and rarely or never have sex due to some stress complication hindering that connectivity between them, yet would be mortified if they were said to be asexual because they don't have penetrative sex. 

 

it just isn't a correct differentiation to make. penetrative sex is not the only way to have sex, and there are plenty of sexual activities beyond sex that people do enjoy partaking in. I strongly oppose any message that tries to push penetration as the pinnicle of sex, because for many people it just isn't. maybe it's a little different for men than for women, but sex is not and should not be defined by penetration. 

[Cnyb]

@float on ok I get your point I think, sure some activities focus on genitals quite a bit, without being pentrative sex, still seems clearly sexual.