My thoughts on sexual attraction and demisexuality

[skepa]

Hey there! this post while a bit long goes over some theories of why people might be confused about sexual attraction and my own investigation into it from my perspective. enjoy!

 

Also this post should be useful for attraction blind asexuals rather than sex blind asexuals, i.e. identifying under the terms:

Someone who does not experience sexual attraction to any gender.

rather than

Someone who has no desire to have sexual contact with another person.

 

I really don't identify with the second definition so I can't give my perspective on that.

 

So I've recently discovered the asexual spectrum and community not to long ago, and have been delighted that I can see myself somewhere in this spectrum. However a couple things have bothered me with the current definitions specifically sexual attraction, romantic attraction, and demisexuality. I've spent a bunch of time thinking about the different definitions for each and why I have been confused to label myself as either asexual(feeling no sexual attraction) or demisexual(feeling sexual attraction after a close bond with someone), and perhaps why many people feel as if they are Quoisexual(trouble distinguishing between sexual attraction and other forms of attraction (platonic, romantic, etc.) )

 

So for me I have the distinct lack of sexual attraction, that is when I see anyone, they are no more sexually appealing than perhaps a chair, or a brick or some other object, regardless if I'm in a relationship or not. This fits the definition of asexual pretty well. However the confusion starts since, intimate/romantic things like kissing or sweet talking, tend to make me physically sexually aroused(also perhaps something I would act sexually on), this fits the definition of demisexual pretty well (no sexual attraction unless a close bond is formed). The main confusing part however is that even when I'm feeling sexually aroused via intimacy, I still lack the sexual attraction I mentioned earlier. I still don't feel sexually attracted to that person, but I am now sexually attracted to that person, from the intimate things they are saying to me. I know this may sound confusing but bare with me.

 

So here is the conundrum.  For me I both lack sexual attraction and have sexual attraction simultaneously, the problem here lies in the definition of sexual attraction, and why I believe many are confused, that is, how can you know what sexual attraction feels like if you've never felt it? Is what you are feeling right now sexual attraction or something else. Here are the three hypotheses that what I'm experiencing can be fit into:

 

hypothesis 1:

sexual attraction is defined as  both the lack of physical (i.e. everyone is a chair) sexual attraction and intimate sexual attraction as well. This means that I should identify as demisexual, and demisexual could be defined as: does not experience sexual attraction(physical) until that person forms a close bond then they experience sexual attraction(intimate). This definition seems to play along very nicely with the primary and secondary model of demisexuality nicely: http://wiki.asexuality.org/Primary_vs._secondary_sexual_attraction_model

However this model is highly debated online. (I think for the reason that people can not fathom that sexual attraction can in fact be broken down into two separate entities)

Some more evidence that contradicts this hypothesis actually is the fact that asexuality can be considered either attraction-blind or sex-blind, and Demisexuality under the primary vs secondary model is just attraction-blind asexuality, while asexuality under the model can just be described as attraction-sex-blind asexuality.

 

hypothesis 2:

sexual attraction is defined as just the lack of sexual attraction, i.e. everyone you view right off the bat is unappealing. Intimacy (even with arousal) is classified as romantic attraction or something. This viewpoint definitely is more in line with just the word asexual, that is allosexuals see someone they like and instantly become sexually attracted to that person, it follows logically that an asexual is the opposite of that, they do not find anyone sexually attractive right off the bat, that part is just deactivated in their brains I suppose. the whole intimate thing is a different topic that has nothing to do with asexuality. The outcome here is that I should identify as asexual or cupiosexual(asexual but still looking for sex in a relationship).

Note that this hypothesis could go along with the terms sexual attraction and sexual desire (sexual desire being the intimacy part as described above)

I'm thinking this hypothesis may be the closest to reality, especially considering the terms attraction-blind, sex-blind, and attraction-sex-blind asexuals.

 

hypothesis 3:

romantic attraction and sexual attraction are or can be linked. That participating in intimacy causes sexual attraction. I really don't think there is a specific label I could choose to identify myself as here, because for the most part I believe that people in this community consider romantic and sexual attraction as separate, although I don't necessarily think that is a good idea especially since romanticism can affect sexual ism. The outcome is some sort of mix between demisexual and asexual.

 

Basically in my mind each of these three hypothesis are equally likely. It's impossible for me to tell which one is correct in the same way that it is impossible for someone to really describe color to a blind person. This is why it ends up being a paradox, there is no way for us to share experiences between one another, but I can say that one of the hypothesis above is likely true. All three hypothesis share a difference between both types of experiences, regardless if they fit as sexual attraction or romantic attraction. So the definition currently of demisexual (not feeling sexual attraction until a close bond is formed and then feeling sexual attraction) does not capture my feelings at all because the not feeling sexual attraction is a completely different experience held simultaneously to feeling sexual attraction. It would be as if holding two and conflicting thoughts simultaneous. And the asexual label doesn't fit well either because I do experience something that full asexuals don't experience which is some sort of sexual attraction. The one thing however that all three hypothesis also share though is a lack of the first type of sexual attraction, therefore I think either the definition of demisexual should be changed to reflect that idea, or if others still identify with demisexual a new term could be created such as attraction-blind asexuality, meaning lack of sexual attraction when related towards physical aspects of people.

 

I think both attraction-blind, sex-blind, and attraction-sex-blind asexualities are very well understood and descriptive terms that should be used more often.

 

Let me know if any of this resonates with fellow demis or asexuals, or comments on anything mentioned above! Thank you for reading

 

 

[Susurrus]

I think there's a difference between sexual attraction and sexual desire, as described here: 

 

Based on all my reading over the past month or so, sexual desire is linked with arousal and can be "caused" by intimate situations regardless of your sexuality. It's kind of like how some aces enjoy sex, but they still identify as asexual because they don't experience the attraction itself. People seem to identify as demisexual if they only experience sexual attraction to people they're really close to (such as close friends they've known for years). It's all kind of confusing, so please let me know if I'm explaining this poorly.

 

Overall, it sounds like you experience sexual desire when things get intimate, but still don't experience sexual attraction regardless of how well you know the person. If that sounds right, then you could probably consider yourself asexual; you'd just (I'm guessing) be sex-favorable (enjoying sex) as opposed to sex-indifferent or sex-averse.

 

This can be really confusing, especially when you're trying to understand something you may have never experienced. If you're worried about labels, you can think of it this way (as I do): they're mainly there to help yourself (and sometimes others) understand the way you interact with the world relative to everyone else. If a label doesn't provide any meaningful information, then you don't need to label yourself. I, personally, find it helpful as a framework because it "fits" and helps me make sense of the world.

 

Sooo I rambled a bit, but I hope some of that helps.

[skepa]

2 hours ago, Susurrus said:

Overall, it sounds like you experience sexual desire when things get intimate, but still don't experience sexual attraction regardless of how well you know the person. If that sounds right, then you could probably consider yourself asexual; you'd just (I'm guessing) be sex-favorable (enjoying sex) as opposed to sex-indifferent or sex-averse.

Actually that is super helpful!! yeah that describes me I would think. I guess apart of my point about this is that sexual attraction, I suppose now sexual desire, and especially demisexual are really badly defined, and the term body-asexual or body-sexual-attraction is very well defined, and I think intuitive to understand especially by aces.

 

edit: I now think the terms attraction-blind, sex-blind, and attraction-sex-blind asexuals are much more well defined terms than body-asexual, I shall be using this from now on.

[Effectricis]

I think this is helping me realize why I never realized I was on the ace spectrum until a few weeks ago. Unlike a lot of people I keep reading from, I *didnt* realize I was super different than the average. (This may have been a little because I literally didn't realize I was using words like "hot" to mean "stunning or attractive" when other people use those terms to mean "would bang" but oh well.) The rest of my problem was in that, at least right now, I am currently hoping to have a sexual relationship someday and can become aroused, but I don't feel actual sexual attraction to people like my allo friends describe. Looking at a stranger is a bit like looking at a chair. I see that it has all its important pieces and maybe it looks like a nice chair but like...why do people wanna get naked with it??

 

So your hypothesis 2 definitely resonates with me. I feel sexual desire but it takes a little work to get in that mood, however I don't feel sexual attraction when looking at people. 

[Guest]

From the AVEN FAQ (on the front page)

 

Quote

Sexual attraction: Desire to have sexual contact with someone else,

 

3 hours ago, skepa said:

So for me I have the distinct lack of sexual attraction, that is when I see anyone, they are no more sexually appealing than perhaps a chair, or a brick or some other object, regardless if I'm in a relationship or not. This fits the definition of asexual pretty well.

There are a lot of asexuals who can find other people physically attractive, even to the extent of finding those people hot and 'sexy' etc. The difference is, they have no interest in having sex with those people no matter how attractive they find them.

 

3 hours ago, skepa said:

how can you know what sexual attraction feels like if you've never felt it? Is what you are feeling right now sexual attraction or something else.

You can talk to sexual people about their own experiences, many on AVEN have tried to describe this over and over again, but a lot of the time asexuals don't listen and prefer to define sexual attraction in ways they personally think are most appropriate. This has always baffled me, because why would you attempt to define something you don't experience when someone who does experience it is sitting right there trying to tell you how it feels?

 

3 hours ago, skepa said:

This is why it ends up being a paradox, there is no way for us to share experiences between one another, but I can say that one of the hypothesis above is likely true.

None of your hypothisis were really accurate though. Like the above definition from the AVEN FAQ, the best way to define sexual attraction (or, in other words, what drives sexual people to choose certain sexual partners over others) IS that they have a desire to connect sexually with other people (for pleasure) in the first place. How and why they choose certain partners varies so massively from person to person that it really can't be summed up in any one definition, but underlying that is that fact under certain circumstances, all sexual people desire to connect sexually with other people for pleasure. Some only desire to connect sexually with those they have fallen in love with, some can desire to bang just from seeing a 'hot' person, some people just enjoy sex to the extent they can have it with any willing person and really don't care at all about appearance, some only desire sexual intimacy as an aspect of romantic love - the list goes on and on. But underneath all those motivations is a desire to connect sexually with others.

 

3 hours ago, skepa said:

However the confusion starts since, intimate/romantic things like kissing or sweet talking, tend to make me physically sexually aroused(also perhaps something I would act sexually on), this fits the definition of demisexual pretty well (no sexual attraction unless a close bond is formed). The main confusing part however is that even when I'm feeling sexually aroused via intimacy, I still lack the sexual attraction I mentioned earlier.

I think you're overthinking things. If the stimulation of erogenous zones (through things like kisses), and sweet talking etc, causes you to become aroused enough to actively want to engage in sex (regardless of whether or not you care about the appearance of the person) that's still a relatively common experience, for many women especially, but also for some men. Many women CAN'T be aroused enough to actively want to have sex with someone unless you give them the right kind of foreplay (including erogenous stimulation and sweet talking) for a certain amount of time (sometimes it can take a looong time). Sure some women can jump straight into sex, but others will actually find sex physically painful unless you spend the time to get them aroused enough to want it. That doesn't make them asexual or demisexual or anything though, it's just the way some people's bodies work.

 

3 hours ago, skepa said:

The one thing however that all three hypothesis also share though is a lack of the first type of sexual attraction, therefore I think either the definition of demisexual should be changed to reflect that idea, or if others still identify with demisexual a new term could be created such as body-asexuality, meaning lack of sexual attraction when related towards physical aspects of people.

No, demisexual means that someone is completely asexual (no interest in partnered sex with anyone) until a deep emotional bond has formed with someone which for demisexuals, takes a long time. Once that bond has formed, they start desiring partnered sexual intimacy with that person. It's already very basic and doesn't need to be changed just because you're questioning your sexuality. Regarding the 'body asexuality' thing, again, many asexuals can find aspects of other people physically appealing, they just have no desire to actually have sex with them for pleasure.

 

17 minutes ago, Effectricis said:

(This may have been a little because I literally didn't realize I was using words like "hot" to mean "stunning or attractive" when other people use those terms to mean "would bang" but oh well.)

No, a lot of people use words like 'hot' and even 'sexy' to mean 'wow she is so beautiful' instead of 'I would screw her'. Whether or not someone means 'I would screw her' is more a personality thing than an inherently sexual thing. 

 

18 minutes ago, Effectricis said:

I don't feel actual sexual attraction to people like my allo friends describe.

Regardless of how they describe it (everyone describes it differently depending on their own personal experience) they would almost unanimously agree that a gay man wants to have sex with other men. Most sexual people inherently know that the term 'sexual attraction' (when defining sexual orientation) means 'desires partnered sex with people of a certain gender/s'. They might not think about that when they're trying to describe it to you, but at the same time they would agree that homosexual (sexually attracted to people of the same gender) means you want to have sex with people of the same gender as yourself. If someone said 'I'm a gay man but I have no interest in having sex with men, I only want sex with women because mmmmmm, it just feels so good to screw women' everyone would automatically say 'dude, you're not gay'. So yeah, looked at in this light, AVEN's above definition of sexual attraction is correct when attempting to define a sexual orientation (and that includes asexuality). Asexuals have no innate desire to have sex with other people (for sexual and/or emotional pleasure) and that's the one thing that sets them apart from sexual people.

[skepa]

23 minutes ago, Effectricis said:

I think this is helping me realize why I never realized I was on the ace spectrum until a few weeks ago. Unlike a lot of people I keep reading from, I *didnt* realize I was super different than the average. (This may have been a little because I literally didn't realize I was using words like "hot" to mean "stunning or attractive" when other people use those terms to mean "would bang" but oh well.) The rest of my problem was in that, at least right now, I am currently hoping to have a sexual relationship someday and can become aroused, but I don't feel actual sexual attraction to people like my allo friends describe. Looking at a stranger is a bit like looking at a chair. I see that it has all its important pieces and maybe it looks like a nice chair but like...why do people wanna get naked with it??

 

So your hypothesis 2 definitely resonates with me. I feel sexual desire but it takes a little work to get in that mood, however I don't feel sexual attraction when looking at people. 

yeah I added the terms sexual desire and sexual attraction to hypothesis 2, because I feel like that is good evidence in support of that hypothesis.

[skepa]

2 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Sexual attraction: Desire to have sexual contact with someone else,

actually from the FAQ here is the two definitions, either one or both can be described as asexual:

1. Someone who does not experience sexual attraction to any gender.
2. Someone who has no desire for partnered sex.

suffice to say, I completely fall under definition 1. however not really definition 2 at all

 

Another hypothesis I think that I think is correct is that there are two main types of asexuals in this scenario.

asexuals like me who are in a way attraction blind (i.e. just like color blind), and asexuals who have no desire for sex at all (they don't feel anything or have any desire period, in a way desire blind, or sex blind)

 

I feel some people talk about pure asexuals as people that poses both 1 and 2. It might be good to have different terms for each of these types to be honest if they do in fact reference two different types of asexuals.

 

I've edited the top post to make this fact clear.

[Effectricis]

Just now, skepa said:

actually from the FAQ here is the two definitions:

1. Someone who does not experience sexual attraction to any gender.
2. Someone who has no desire for partnered sex.

suffice to say, I completely fall under definition 1. however not really definition 2 at all

 

Another hypothesis I think that I think is correct is that there are two main types of asexuals in this scenario.

asexuals like me who are in a way attraction blind (i.e. just like color blind), and asexuals who have no desire for sex at all (they don't feel anything or have any desire period, in a way desire blind)

 

I feel some people talk about pure asexuals as people that poses both 1 and 2. It might be good to have different terms for each of these types to be honest if they do in fact reference two different types of asexuals.

God bless. I'm with you here my dude. I really am loving this 'color blind' analogy. I think I too am 'sex blind' but I would like to have sex someday. I guess that leaves me somewhere in the cupiosexual range but whatever. It doesn't mean I can't still call myself ace (or gray-ace if I decide I've felt sexually attracted to one or two people and I'm still not so sure I ever have but I'm not quite ready to discount it as a possibility.)

 

I feel like reading in forums on aven and on Tumblr I don't spot many aces who want to have a sexual relationship someday. But people keep saying that attraction and action are two very different things and aces can have sex if that's what they want and still be ace. So I'm really digging this 'sex blind' view of things. It's a good analogy to explain where I stand right now. 

[skepa]

1 hour ago, Effectricis said:

God bless. I'm with you here my dude. I really am loving this 'color blind' analogy. I think I too am 'sex blind' but I would like to have sex someday. I guess that leaves me somewhere in the cupiosexual range but whatever. It doesn't mean I can't still call myself ace (or gray-ace if I decide I've felt sexually attracted to one or two people and I'm still not so sure I ever have but I'm not quite ready to discount it as a possibility.)

 

I feel like reading in forums on aven and on Tumblr I don't spot many aces who want to have a sexual relationship someday. But people keep saying that attraction and action are two very different things and aces can have sex if that's what they want and still be ace. So I'm really digging this 'sex blind' view of things. It's a good analogy to explain where I stand right now. 

thanks! I think the blind analogies are super super helpful! I'm almost certain that when people were talking about asexual previously everyone had different concepts of that term, it was too overloaded, differentiating asexual into either attraction, sex, or both blind variants really gives a more descriptive picture.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, skepa said:

• Someone who does not experience sexual attraction to any gender.
• Someone who has no desire for partnered sex.

If the FAQ is defining sexual attraction AS 'the desire for partnered sex' then both those definitions say the same thing.

 

Could you explain sexual attraction to me in a way that describes what sexual people actually feel when they experience it? Because so far it's all been supposition that has been incorrect.

 

I'm not saying you can't ID as asexual if you want, though. Just trying to help educate for others reading as there seems to be a lot of confusion, and as usual, asexual-identifying people preferring to believe what they say sexual people feel, instead of listening to what actual sexual people say sexual people feel.

[skepa]

17 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

If the FAQ is defining sexual attraction AS 'the desire for partnered sex' then both those definitions say the same thing.

 

Could you explain sexual attraction to me in a way that describes what sexual people actually feel when they experience it? Because so far it's all been supposition that has been incorrect.

 

I'm not saying you can't ID as asexual if you want, though. Just trying to help educate for others reading as there seems to be a lot of confusion, and as usual, asexual-identifying people preferring to believe what they say sexual people feel, instead of listening to what actual sexual people say sexual people feel.

yeah sure, I mean I don't experience it but I can give my best guess, since I believe I am sexually attracted to certain fetishes.

 

So for me, no one outwardly is sexually attractive, and by that I mean no matter who I see, famous celebrities, pairs Hilton, george clooney ect. I never experience any sort of sexual thought in the slightest, I never think about their sexual parts, I never look at their sexual parts first. I suppose it would be similar, if you were a female and heterosexual, perhaps the non sexual attraction you feel towards other females, but towards everyone. I simply do not have sexual thoughts about people. People are but containers for personalities, emotions, friendship ect I suppose in a way I view it.

 

What I think people who are sexual experience (from my experience with fetishes) is when a really hot person walks in the room, some sexual part of their brain immediately lights up, their eyes automatically look towards the erogenous zones of that person, maybe they have a mini fantasy about having sex with that person, perhaps even become aroused. I.e. this is sexual attraction it's automatic, uncontrollable and undeniably sexual. It might also involve having fantasies about sex in your spare time, or when masturbating visualizing a sexual scene with someone else. I don't experience any of those, nor do I have any want in the slightest.

 

sexual desire is something completely different though, I really think that the two different types of asexuality relate to both attraction and desire. I.e. some people completely lack sexual attraction towards other people, and some people lack sexual desire, and some people lack both. thus the blind terms which are a wip.

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, skepa said:

yeah sure, I mean I don't experience it but I can give my best guess, since I believe I am sexually attracted to certain fetishes.

 

So for me, no one outwardly is sexually attractive, and by that I mean no matter who I see, famous celebrities, pairs Hilton, george clooney ect. I never experience any sort of sexual thought in the slightest, I never think about their sexual parts, I never look at their sexual parts first. I suppose it would be similar, if you were a female and heterosexual, perhaps the non sexual attraction you feel towards other females, but towards everyone. I simply do not have sexual thoughts about people. People are but containers for personalities, emotions, friendship ect I suppose in a way I view it.

 

What I think people who are sexual experience (from my experience with fetishes) is when a really hot person walks in the room, some sexual part of their brain immediately lights up, their eyes automatically look towards the erogenous zones of that person, maybe they have a mini fantasy about having sex with that person, perhaps even become aroused. I.e. this is sexual attraction it's automatic, uncontrollable and undeniably sexual. It might also involve having fantasies about sex in your spare time, or when masturbating visualizing a sexual scene with someone else. I don't experience any of those, nor do I have any want in the slightest.

 

sexual desire is something completely different though, I really think that the two different types of asexuality relate to both attraction and desire. I.e. some people completely lack sexual attraction towards other people, and some people lack sexual desire, and some people lack both. thus the blind terms which are a wip.

I responded more about this in the other thread of yours I just commented on (they all came up in my feed at the same time for some reason). What you're describing as sexual attraction -seeing that hot person and wanting sex with them - is actually just a preference, or a personality trait if you will. Some sexual people experience that, but not everyone looks at people's appearance and assesses whether they'd have sex with them or not, and certainly not everyone experiences that immediate sexual reaction you're talking about. I never have personally and know many others who haven't experienced that. For me,I need to develop an emotional bond with someone before I even start thinking about sex with them,and their appearance isn't something that matters. Once I develop that bond and that desire, they become beautiful to me regardless of whether or not they're someone I'd normally find aesthetically attractive. That still doesn't mean I suddenly start getting wet between my legs every time I look at them or anything though. The situation has to be sexually arousing for me to start actually wanting sex with them. And at that moment, when you're starting to want sex with that person,that's when you're being attracted to them in a sexual way. It doesn't have to be about their appearance though, it can be anything that makes you want to have sex with them (their laugh, their humour, specific things they are doing with you like flirting or being super sweet or whatever, it's all sorts of different things for different people).. but the moment you're thinking "yes i'd have sex with this person now" (regardless of what caused that) you're being sexually drawn to them. If you weren't being drawn to them in a sexual way (sexually attracted to them) then you wouldn't actually want to have sex with them.

 

And your description was quite good where you said "it's the way straight people would feel about people of their own gender" but the difference is that for a fully straight person then they're not going to be able to be turned on in that way by someone of the same gender as themselves, no matter how romantic or sweet or sexy that person was being. They'd actually be kind of creeped out by those actions unless they actually secretly have bi tendencies. Once they're wanting sex with someone for pleasure, it's showing that they're being drawn to that person in a sexual way even if it's not about appearance. 

[skepa]

5 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

start thinking about sex with them

I guess here's some more things different about me than other sexual people, I never visualize having sex with anyone, it doesn't interest me in the slightest even with someone that I'm in a relationship with. When I develop an emotional bond with people as well, sex with them doesn't come to mind, when I'm having sex with someone I'm actually not thinking about them sexually while doing the deed. however the thought that I'm bonding with my partner, without even thinking about them sexually is very arousing.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, skepa said:

I guess here's some more things different about me than other sexual people, I never visualize having sex with anyone, it doesn't interest me in the slightest even with someone that I'm in a relationship with. When I develop an emotional bond with people as well, sex with them doesn't come to mind, when I'm having sex with someone I'm actually not thinking about them sexually while doing the deed. however the thought that I'm bonding with my partner, without even thinking about them sexually is very arousing.

 When I said 'start thinking about sex with them' I wasn't actually referring to fantasies, I meant that they get aroused enough to start thinking 'I want to have sex', and obviously that sex will be WITH the person they're kissing.. they're not thinking ''I'm going to go out and screw some random now that I'm all aroused as a result of these romantic gestures'' but yeah, I'm not talking about sexual fantasies. 

 

For many sexual people, the emotionally intimate aspect of sex IS what's most arousing and fulfilling for them. They aren't all thinking ''yay me get sex with lady with nice boobies'', lol. Okay, let me try to explain that part better. For some sexual people, even if their partner isn't someone they'd be aesthetically attracted to normally, the fact that they're in love with that person can cause them to desire sexual intimacy -  it's the love itself that makes them want that though, and because they love that person, it's them they want that sex with. That powerful, sweetly aching emotion of 'love' heightens sexual pleasure massively, and it can be so incredibly intimate that it feels almost spiritual. That's what draws some people to sex, and what makes them love it. There are sexual people out there who have literally no interest in casual sex and get nothing out of it (they sometimes even end up feeling empty and heartbroken as a result of casual sex with people they're not emotionally attracted to). Sure there are others who will go to club looking for hot chicks to pick up and bang, and who couldn't care less about the emotions, and there are those who have a mixture of both those different types of preferences and more, but I'm just trying to emphasize that you can't squeeze all sexual people, and all their sexual behavior, into one box.. because there will always be a lot of people who don't fit in that  box. The ONLY box you can squeeze all sexual people into is that sometimes, under some circumstances, they desire partnered sexual intimacy with other people for pleasure. Literally any other way anyone tries to explain the way that sexual people feel will always fall short because there will be so many people who don't experience that.

 

I'm not trying to argue with you specifically, or say you're not asexual or anything, I just see a lot of people come through here with massive misconceptions about how sexual people think and feel and behave. I just want to try to clarify some of those misconceptions for the sake of others who may be reading is all.

[skepa]

9 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

I just see a lot of people come through here with massive misconceptions about how sexual people think and feel and behave. I just want to try to clarify some of those misconceptions for the sake of others who may be reading is all.

I think that's really good thanks, yeah sexuality is a supremely complex subject. I suppose what I can add to that, is that once I heard the definition of asexuality, at least the second term. It was day and night clear, without a doubt that I fit that definition, and I feel like that experience would be the same for others. I've just been trying to navigate this space and let me tell you it is supremely complicated, especially when you are dealing with subjective experiences. I'm doing my best trying to understand and empathize where everyone is coming from, and trying to help the community to the best of my abilities. I think more discussion is probably the best way to get more concepts out there and moving about.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, skepa said:

I think that's really good thanks, yeah sexuality is a supremely complex subject. I suppose what I can add to that, is that once I heard the definition of asexuality, at least the second term. It was day and night clear, without a doubt that I fit that definition, and I feel like that experience would be the same for others. I've just been trying to navigate this space and let me tell you it is supremely complicated, especially when you are dealing with subjective experiences. I'm doing my best trying to understand and empathize where everyone is coming from, and trying to help the community to the best of my abilities. I think more discussion is probably the best way to get more concepts out there and moving about.

Yeah I actually really don't like coming across like I'm arguing with you as you're new (when you've been here for a while though there will be no mercy  lol jokes) it's just unfortunate that in these convos that when people have very different ideas about a thing .. it will always look like an argument and feel a bit like one too for some people, and that sucks. I'm not trying to say you're not asexual though, or criticize your personal experience or your ideas about your asexuality or anything, it's more just the sexual side of this I like to speak about having now had experience on that side of the fence (after having been functionally asexual until I was like 28) and also having worked in a brothel for a couple of years and modelling a bit on FetLife (the worlds largest online fetish community), I seem to have had the opportunity to talk to people with all sorts of sexual experiences and preferences from all sorts of different walks of life, of all (legal!) ages (and that includes people I've interacted with on AVEN) and the one thing that is supremely clear to me is that whenever anyone says something like 'sexual people are like this' there are almost always maaaaany sexual people who feel the complete opposite of that, and many who feel the total opposite of those other two, haha. Discussions can be suuuper helpful though if people can keep their cool. I used to define asexuality as 'an asexual is someone who has no desire for partnered sex and/or does not experience sexual attraction', I was suuuuper big on that definition and made a lot of posts about it, until others here (over many months and literally hundreds of thousands of words!!) managed to show me why my definition was flawed, and when I looked properly at my own experience with sexual people over the years I was able to finally understand what they were saying and realize that my own experience had actually reflected their side of the argument all along! I'm not saying that would be the case for you, and like I said, even the academic community can't really agree on any of this, so it just comes down to what each individual feels is most true (and then they have to try not to turn that into a shouting match that gets so intense that threads get locked - been in many threads where that ended up happening in the past, lol, not good!)

[Telecaster68]

Just to add to the complexity, and speaking as a sexual person, those different patterns of being attracted to someone sexually aren't always the same in the same person. Sometimes - in some situations, with particular people, when imuin a particular mood - it'll be be more like the one night stand version. Other times, with a different person, in a different situation, in a different mood - it'll be be more about the relationship. There aren't really hard and fast rules, just a set of parameters in play. 

[skepa]

6 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

an asexual is someone who has no desire for partnered sex and/or does not experience sexual attraction

Yeah I mean I definitely think some asexuals identify under that. I think the idea I'm forming about what asexual is that, an asexual is someone who completely lacks a common sexual function in the brain as compared to the norm. This definition in my mind encompasses both definitions of asexual as defined in the FAQ, when looked through the lens of different sexual parts of the brain.

 

4 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

in some situations, with particular people, when imuin a particular mood

I think the term could also be expanded to a general form i.e. <description of what someone lacks> asexual. So in the above case that could be like mood asexual or something. But generally I think of thinking of the term asexual in the lacking way is  much more encompassing, descriptive, easier to communicate, and generally makes way more sense to people.

 

[Telecaster68]

Isn't that the same as just using an adjective to modify any noun? 

[skepa]

10 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Isn't that the same as just using an adjective to modify any noun? 

Of course, which is why it makes sense. The important part however is just the perspective change that an asexual is someone who lacks something (whatever that may be) sexual. Rather than the ambiguous definitions we've been using in the past.

 

I suppose in this view every heterosexual is homo asexual, and while that is an interesting viewpoint, the term could be kept to, "needs to apply to all genders, and is different than the norm" in order to keep historically accurate.

[Effectricis]

10 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

What you're describing as sexual attraction -seeing that hot person and wanting sex with them - is actually just a preference, or a personality trait if you will. Some sexual people experience that, but not everyone looks at people's appearance and assesses whether they'd have sex with them or not, and certainly not everyone experiences that immediate sexual reaction you're talking about.

Hey, I'm a little confused, and maybe it's because I'm so new to this whole concept. I've only identified as gray-ace for like three weeks at most.

 

I am on board with and understand the idea that not all sexual people are constantly assessing people on whether they would have sex with them or not. I realize that the amount people feel drawn towards having sex with others is a spectrum like any other. With my allo friends I've been discussing asexuals and allosexuals with in the last few weeks I've seen plenty of proof that some people have a higher drive for I guess noticing other people in a sexual manner. Sexuality and human brains are both very complicated or nuanced things.

 

But what I'm a little confused about then is this: I've been considering myself gray-sexual because I don't *ever* see people or images of people that make me want to have sex. However I would like to have sex someday so I consider myself sex-positive. I like the thought of someday doing that with someone I really care about. But I never get that urge or feel that draw towards a specific real life person. This may be TMI but when I masturbate I don't even picture myself being involved or picture any real people; it's always two hazy half-thought out characters of the moment, kinda like actors I guess.

 

So I guess what I'm trying to ask is: I consider myself gray-ace because to my knowledge and memory I can't remember more than one single specific time when I thought "yeah maybe I could be interested in sex with that person." But then, according to your quote up above do you mean I'm more just an allosexual who is extremely picky...?

 

Maybe I'm just a little confused or jumbled up. Sorry if I'm wildly misconstruing what you meant. 

 

And maybe you just just meant to point out that even allos who *do* feel sexual attraction are still on a spectrum themselves as to how often they feel that way towards others. Which like I said earlier, I can agree with that.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, skepa said:

Of course, which is why it makes sense. The important part however is just the perspective change that an asexual is someone who lacks something (whatever that may be) sexual. Rather than the ambiguous definitions we've been using in the past.

 

I suppose in this view every heterosexual is homo asexual, and while that is an interesting viewpoint, the term could be kept to, "needs to apply to all genders, and is different than the norm" in order to keep historically accurate.

But when you're saying every asexual lacks something that's sexual, then suddenly about 80% of the population (or more!) are asexual because many sexual people lack something sexual that some other sexual person has (I mean, some don't even masturbate as a really basic example). The one thing that all sexual people unanimously have in common is that to some extent or another, under some circumstances, with specific people, they desire partnered sexual contact for sexual and/or emotional pleasure. Literally every other factor is massively variable from sexual person to sexual person

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Effectricis said:

Hey, I'm a little confused, and maybe it's because I'm so new to this whole concept. I've only identified as gray-ace for like three weeks at most.

 

I am on board with and understand the idea that not all sexual people are constantly assessing people on whether they would have sex with them or not. I realize that the amount people feel drawn towards having sex with others is a spectrum like any other. With my allo friends I've been discussing asexuals and allosexuals with in the last few weeks I've seen plenty of proof that some people have a higher drive for I guess noticing other people in a sexual manner. Sexuality and human brains are both very complicated or nuanced things.

 

But what I'm a little confused about then is this: I've been considering myself gray-sexual because I don't *ever* see people or images of people that make me want to have sex. However I would like to have sex someday so I consider myself sex-positive. I like the thought of someday doing that with someone I really care about. But I never get that urge or feel that draw towards a specific real life person. This may be TMI but when I masturbate I don't even picture myself being involved or picture any real people; it's always two hazy half-thought out characters of the moment, kinda like actors I guess.

 

So I guess what I'm trying to ask is: I consider myself gray-ace because to my knowledge and memory I can't remember more than one single specific time when I thought "yeah maybe I could be interested in sex with that person." But then, according to your quote up above do you mean I'm more just an allosexual who is extremely picky...?

 

Maybe I'm just a little confused or jumbled up. Sorry if I'm wildly misconstruing what you meant. 

 

And maybe you just just meant to point out that even allos who *do* feel sexual attraction are still on a spectrum themselves as to how often they feel that way towards others. Which like I said earlier, I can agree with that.

Well, it depends on how important you think that kind of sexual reaction to appearance must be for sexual people. I know I've never looked at a photo of someone and thought "yeah I'd screw him" or anything like that, no matter how attractive the person is. And never thought about a male actor "I wish he'd take his shirt off"... I actually find the male chest pretty unappealing!! For example I do find Tom Hardy very attractive aesthetically and really respect his talent and his creativity and everything, but I don't want to have sex with him! On the other hand there are sexual people who want to screw every actor on TV that they like, but that's not ALL sexual people. There are plenty who might see someone attractive, but need to actually get to know the person's personality better before they can know if they want sex with them or not. And many others besides. And like Tele said, these things can also all be experienced by ONE person at different times, and that includes total 'funtional asexuality' sometimes when you just totally go off everyone! I don't really even notice an actor unless I realize I like the *character* they're playing,then the actor becomes beautiful or attractive to me in that role, but not in a way that makes me want sex. I've seen a lot of Tom Hardy movies but never noticed  him as a person until his role in Taboo a couple of years ago! And I've never felt that aesthetic attraction about anyone I ever met in 'real life' (offline, I mean).

 

So anyway, what made me stop identifying as asexual when I was about 28 was nothing to do with some sexual reaction to people's appearance (which I don't have) but the fact that I realized I can desire some sexually intimate acts with my partner under the right circumstances, even though for now those acts are only done online through text (I've been celibate physically for 7 years now and am totally happy with that). It was nothing to do with his appearance that made me start wanting that with him though, it was the connection we have and the shared kinks and fetishes we both enjoy. That's enough for me to no longer ID as asexual. I'm definitely sexual, though in a greyish area where I can be very happy with celibacy and don't actually get anything at all out of having my own genitals stimulated by another person in any way. I also don't need the person to be physically with me to enjoy it.

 

In my personal opinion, if you know you want sex someday, that would be enough to me to ID as something like "don't find people attractive in a sexual way but want sex eventually" but of course how you ID is totally up to you. You could just go with Grey and explain it further when people ask you what that means. Out of interest, are you able to find people aesthetically attractive? Because there are people who can't experience that, I think they call it a-aesthetic around here, something like that. But anyway yeah how you identify is totally up to you of course

 

Hope this isn't full of typos, I typed it on my phone in a hurry!

 

[binary suns]

@skepa sorry my friend but you’re over complicating it. Attraction doesn’t have to be special to be experienced. Getting aroused because of romantic attraction makes that attraction sexual definitively. I think you don’t consider yourself alosexual, so I suggest greysexual. Someone who experiences partial sexual attraction is greysexual, and you’re describing partial sexual attraction at the very least. 

 

Gotta respect occums razor. If you paint a giraffe red it’s still a giraffe. Maybe being red camouflages it, but it still got that tall neck and adorable horns. 

 

[skepa]

2 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

then suddenly about 80% of the population

Which is why I mentioned, needs to apply to all genders, and is different than the norm, probably around 1% of the population.

 

2 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

So anyway, what made me stop identifying as asexual when I was about 28 was nothing to do with some sexual reaction to people's appearance (which I don't have) but the fact that I realized I can desire some sexually intimate acts with my partner under the right circumstances,

I think the word sexual is just overloaded. I.e. there are multiple types of different sexual attractions, and lacking some of them while not all of them is still important, and in my opinion should be able to be expressed with words. Using the terms sexual to define what types of sexual attraction you have, and asexual to describe what types of sexual attractions you lack is, to me at least more useful than terming asexual as lacking all types of sexual attraction.

 

For example the term completely asexual commicates this idea better than just the term asexual.

[skepa]

1 hour ago, float on said:

Someone who experiences partial sexual attraction is greysexual, and you’re describing partial sexual attraction at the very least.

Well my point is that I've experienced two different types of sexual attraction, one through my fetishes (which is more like instant uncontrollable arousal just from the visual aspect) and sexual arousal from intimacy (if this is actually sexual attraction could be debated) but I definitely lack the first type with people, and is strikingly similar to what people describe as sexual attraction vs sexual desire.

 

Even if both of these are sexual attraction, they are two different types, or at the very least have two different causes and should be differentiated. Especially since that differentiation is important to my identity.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, skepa said:

Well my point is that I've experienced two different types of sexual attraction, one through my fetishes (which is more like instant uncontrollable arousal just from the visual aspect) and sexual arousal from intimacy (if this is actually sexual attraction could be debated) but I definitely lack the first type with people, and is strikingly similar to what people describe as sexual attraction vs sexual desire.

 

Even if both of these are sexual attraction, they are two different types, or at the very least have two different causes and should be differentiated. Especially since that differentiation is important to my identity.

But I've tried to say many times now, instant uncontrollable arousal from visual aspects of certain people is certainly not a unanimous sexual experience, especially not for women but even for many men. It's something 16 year old guys might experience while their hormones are still going crazy, but that will calm down for them eventually. I've been trying to say that what you are describing as 'sexual attraction' is actually generally NOT what people define their sexual orientations by when they say ''I'm heterosexual because I'm sexually attracted to men''. You're defining a specific personality trait/behavioral trait that SOME people have, but it's certainly not unanimous among sexual people. A LOT of people don't experience the thing you are trying to describe as 'sexual attraction towards people'.

 

I have fetishes (some extreme ones) and still don't have that 'immediate, uncontrollable desire' you're saying you have for your fetishes  (for me, they're just something I enjoy doing sometimes) and I don't ID as asexual in any way. Being (allo)sexual is NOT about experiencing immediate and uncontrollable arousal towards visual aspects of certain other people.. that would actually be pretty hellish to have to live with for a lot of people!! 'Immediate, uncontrollable arousal' is just a personal thing that some people might experience for some things (like you said for your fetishes), but yeah, it's certainly not something that everyone experiences just from visual cues. For example, for some women especially, you have to do foreplay and sweet romantic gestures and tell them they're beautiful (stimulating their mental and physical erogenous zones) to be able to get them physically and mentally aroused enough for sex. Not all women are like this, but the ones that are generally can't just look at their partner and feel BAM instant arousal that makes them want to have sex.. you need to do the right things in the right ways (for a long enough time) to help prepare their bodies and minds for the sexual activity. This seems a lot more like what you're trying to explain as 'arousal from romantic intimacy' but it's not some super rare thing.

[skepa]

1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

I'm heterosexual because I'm sexually attracted to men'

Actually in research and the academic realm it's common to classify people as either homosexual or heterosexual based off of what they masterbate too.

 

1 hour ago, FictoVore. said:

but it's certainly not unanimous among sexual people. A LOT of people don't experience the thing you are trying to describe as 'sexual attraction towards people'.

I would disagree, anyone that has masterbated to porn, or would have the inclination to, and their pleasure is substantially increased due to the people in the material experiences the first type of sexual attraction I've been talking about. And I truly believe that is the majority of men, less so women I would imagine.

 

And you actually might be right, that this may not be uncommon in women.  Which would exclude the definition from being used with women (as the classifier must be against the standard norm). However I firmly believe that attraction-blindness is very rare in men, in which case it should still have its own term for it's  very small percentage in that case.

[Telecaster68]

I love it when asexuals explain to sexuals how sexual attraction works. 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, skepa said:

Actually in research and the academic realm it's common to classify people as either homosexual or heterosexual based off of what they masterbate too.

Well I was speaking about your everyday run of the mill person. And there are plenty of people who masturbate to people and/or things they have no interest in actually having sex with. I can only get off to torture porn involving women (the more brutal and bloody the better) but would get nothing out of being in that situation and don't get anything out of having sex with women. I'm only one person, I know, but I've met many people especially on FetLife who get off to things they wouldn't actually enjoy doing in real life. Different topic though, as I wasn't talking about masturbation fantasies.

 

24 minutes ago, skepa said:

I would disagree, anyone that has masterbated to porn, or would have the inclination to, and their pleasure is substantially increased due to the people in the material experiences the first type of sexual attraction I've been talking about.

Well for a start, masturbation is very different than actually wanting to have sex with another person. But regardless, not everyone watches porn to get horny. There are just as many people who are horny already and watch it to help them get off, and those who do a mixture of both, and those who really get nothing out of porn at all.

 

25 minutes ago, skepa said:

Which would exclude the definition from being used with women (as the classifier must be against the standard norm).

This definition of whatever it is you're trying to identify here is getting more and more... I don't know, impossible? First you said it was anyone who doesn't experience something that other sexual people do, then that it needs to match all genders and be different from the norm (but again, many sexual people have something different from the norm that other sexual people don't experience, or like to wipe their butt on their girlfriends face or whatever, lol.. seriously, there isn't any 'norm' when it comes to what people like sexually and how or why they like it!)  but anyway now you're saying women would be excluded from the definition.. or something? 

 

30 minutes ago, skepa said:

However I firmly believe that attraction-blindness is very rare in men, in which case it should still have its own term

Well, you're free to come up with your own term of course, but wouldn't attraction-blind hetero/homo/bi/pansexual work just fine, if you're defining someone who wants sex under certain circumstances but doesn't experience whatever you're defining as sexual attraction?