Jump to content

Sexual vs Romantic Attraction


SweetDreamsMyLove

Recommended Posts

SweetDreamsMyLove

After reading the post about a dual asexual hypothesis.. I was reminded of just how difficult it can be for those outside of the asexual community to distinguish between the two.

For a final project in one of my graduate school psychopathology courses I did a literature review and presentation on the differences between asexuality in the DSM IV and 5 (specifically sex disorder related).

And during this presentation.. every person in the room could not grasp the differences between romantic and sexual attraction.. and did not know how to distinguish them as separate entities.

Whereas most asexuals can understand the differences between sexual attraction and romantic attraction... desire and no desire. 

I would love to know of others have seen this as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, I explain it to people who can't understand as: When you're romantically attracted to someone, you love them. When you're sexually attracted to someone, you want to connect with them on a sexual level. A lot of the time, these two experiences go together, however there are still a LOT of people who have experienced them separately. Many people, for example, may have had casual sex with people they're not in love with.. in that moment they're experiencing solely sexual attraction in those situations. Now, if you can experience sexual attraction without the romantic aspect, look at it the other way around - an asexual can experience romantic attraction but still won't have a desire to connect sexually with the person they love. If sex without love can exist (and many, many people know from first hand experience that that is definitely a thing!) then so can love without sex.

 

So yeah, literally anyone who has had casual sex, or at least, has had sex without being in love has experienced sexual attraction as a separate entity from romantic attraction. That's how I explain it for people who are having trouble grasping the concept!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very tricky, but I think a bunch of these terms like sexual attraction can be broken down into separate parts that sexual people experience simultaneously, and thus can't tell the difference.

 

And if it's not immediately and instantly clear that you experience what was said, then you don't experience it at all. That is just my definition at least. Which is why I still say that I don't experience sexual attraction even though I may desire intimate sex. Because that whole experience falls under the clear and immediate answer to if I experience romance, rather than sexual attraction for me.

 

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

It's very tricky, but I think a bunch of these terms like sexual attraction can be broken down into separate parts that sexual people experience simultaneously, and thus can't tell the difference.

 

And if it's not immediately and instantly clear that you experience what was said, then you don't experience it at all. That is just my definition at least. Which is why I still say that I don't experience sexual attraction even though I may desire intimate sex. Because that whole experience falls under the clear and immediate answer to if I experience romance, rather than sexual attraction for me.

 

 

Sexual attraction isn't immediately and instantly clear for many people (even a lot of those who end up realizing they experience it) as hundreds of threads on AVEN can testify to. A lot of people come here unsure whether they're experiencing romantic attraction or sexual attraction or whatever because they saw someone describing it one way and they're like 'er, I don't experience that'.. but then when described a different way they're like ''oh wait yes, I experience that!''.

 

If you ask me ''do you experience sexual attraction, in that you get horny when you see hot people?'' that would be a definite no the way you're defining it. Absolutely not. By a different definition of sexual attraction though (the desire to connect sexually with other people for pleasure) I would answer that yes, under very rare circumstances I do experience that. ergo I am not asexual :) 

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

Sexual attraction isn't immediately and instantly clear for many people (even a lot of those who end up realizing they experience it) as hundreds of threads on AVEN can testify to.

That's just my definition and I think it works well. Because it doesn't rely on words. There are thousands upon thousands of people to whom it is immediately and instantly clear. So if I had to sort a group of people for whether they experience something or not, taste, color, warmth, sexual pleasure, sexual attraction, romantic attraction.

 

I would ask them that simple question, if it's a fast and clear yes, then they go in the yes group, if it's no or maybe, then they go in the no group.

 

Can you give me an example of someone who experiences one of the basic senses, taste, sight, ect. Answered maybe to the question above, and is labeled as a yes?, A bind man, would be the only one to answer maybe to the above question of sight. If you can see, taste, or hear things, then you know you experience them it's very clear.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, skepa said:

Can you give me an example of someone who experiences one of the basic senses, taste, sight, ect. Answered maybe to the question above, and is labeled as a yes?, A bind man, would be the only one to answer maybe to the above question of sight. If you can see, taste, or hear things, then you know you experience them it's very clear.

The senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, etc) are very different than something as subjective as a attraction though. Most people (er, all people?) know from the moment they're old enough to have thoughts that they can see, for example (or not see if they're blind) but attraction often doesn't develop until puberty at the earliest and there's a MASSIVE age-range in which those feelings can become fully realized, and they're often very complicated and tumultuous for some time. I mean, just think about all the people who question whether they're gay or straight, as an example. Then we get a lot of young people coming here too who are SURE they've never experienced sexual attraction and never will, then by about 17 they start understanding and experiencing it.. sometimes that doesn't happen until mid to late 20s even!!  If you ask a 13 year old 'do you experience sexual attraction' they're very likely to not know one way or another. Sure a 25 year old may have a better idea, but still may not be sure of whether it's solely towards men or whether they experience for women too. Senses like sight and hearing etc don't work like that though, you either have them or you don't.

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

MASSIVE age-range in which those feelings can become fully realized, and they're often very complicated and tumultuous for some time. I mean, just think about all the people who question whether they're gay or straight, as an example.

I still think if you experience something it is clear and obvious. If a developing person gives a maybe answer, then I would put them in the no group. That is until they hit puberty, or the age that they do experience it and the answer for many questions becomes this resounding and absolute yes. Which in my definition is the quality for if you experience it or not.

 

It makes things a bunch easier if a young person asks their parents these types of questions. And a bunch of the time the answer is, "well kid, when you know it, you'll know"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skepa said:

I still think if you experience something it is clear and obvious. If a developing person gives a maybe answer, then I would put them in the no group. That is until they hit puberty, or the age that they do experience it and the answer for many questions becomes this resounding and absolute yes. Which in my definition is the quality for if you experience it or not.

 

It makes things a bunch easier if a young person asks their parents these types of questions. And a bunch of the time the answer is, "well kid, when you know it, you'll know"

 

I don't agree that it's so clear. Colour blindless is a better example rather than the sight overall. I had a teacher in highschool in his late forties, who only figured out that he was colour blind a few years back because he kept passing the football to the opposing team because he was mixing up the colours. Or something like that, I forget the details. He would have been identifying as fully sighted in every way for his entire life up until that point. Doesn't mean he actually was.

 

I 100% agree with Ficto here, it is even harder to tell with sexual attraction. As I've said before, I thought I was asexual for a long time before I realised I was gay. It can be really hard to tell. It was absolutely in NO WAY clear and obvious to me that I experience sexual attraction to women for quite a long time. If it were so obvious, as Ficto said, no one would have to question their sexuality, especially not gay people. And a lot of gay people question their sexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Baam said:

Colour blindless is a better example

well perhaps a better example is infrared light, no one sees that, but I don't think people will say that they can, more or less for the reason that we do or do not experience concepts, and then when finally that concept is spoken from another person, or when you see another person act in the same way that you have (like going awww when you see something cute). you can immediately identify with that concept and place a word on it. I suppose the point is that the concept is already there in the brain, it just doesn't have an associated word yet.

 

perhaps a more interesting way to test this theory, is what are the physical things people do when they experience sexual attraction? i.e. to they raise their eyebrows when they see someone hot, or does their temperature rise, or something else? and when they do this, is that what they describe as the emotion they are experiencing, if you don't also do those similar motions, then you perhaps do not experience sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I should also note that the experience based definitions are much more prone to false negatives rather than false positives, which I think is a much better trait compared to word based definitions which are highly skewed toward false positives over false negatives. I.e. I'd much rather be confident that I am actually something, rather than identify with something and not be sure.

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

well perhaps a better example is infrared light, no one sees that, but I don't think people will say that they can, more or less for the reason that we do or do not experience concepts, and then when finally that concept is spoken from another person, or when you see another person act in the same way that you have (like going awww when you see something cute). you can immediately identify with that concept and place a word on it. I suppose the point is that the concept is already there in the brain, it just doesn't have an associated word yet.

To be honest, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. You were saying that people who experience the basic senses, such as sight and hearing, are able to immediately identify that they are able to, and so sexual attraction is the same. Ficto pointed out that it's not the same at all because sexual attraction is experienced differently by everyone and it's not so easy to identify sometimes. I said that colour blindness is a better example because you can't really describe what experiencing non-colour-blindness is like to a colour blind person perfectly, the same as a sexual person can't really perfectly communicate what it's like to experience sexual attraction to an asexual person. A colour blind person may live for years on end not realising they don't see full colour, just as an asexual person may go on in their life not realising they don't experience sexual attraction. Or, conversely, a sexual person may think they don't experience sexual attraction because of inaccurate descriptions of what sexual attraction is by people who don't even experience it in the first place (as was what happened to me). So I'm not sure how infrared light fits into all this as no person experiences that. That's like the blind leading the blind, there... Almost literally.

 

I agree that experience based descriptions are more prone to false negatives. Which is why we have the extremely clear word-based definition - not possessing the innate desire for partnered sex.

1 hour ago, skepa said:

 

perhaps a more interesting way to test this theory, is what are the physical things people do when they experience sexual attraction? i.e. to they raise their eyebrows when they see someone hot, or does their temperature rise, or something else? and when they do this, is that what they describe as the emotion they are experiencing, if you don't also do those similar motions, then you perhaps do not experience sexual attraction.

I am a sexual person but I don't experience sexual attraction when I see someone hot, so I can't comment on that. All sexual people don't necessarily find aesthetically attractive people also sexually attractive.

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

Which is why we have the extremely clear word-based definition - not possessing the innate desire for partnered sex.

I mean I won't disagree that it is clear, I'll just disagree that it really covers all aspects of what sexual attraction is. You can verify this yourself by asking 100 sexuals (who haven't been to aven before) what sexual attraction is, and you'll probably get 100 different but similar answers. I.e. yes it's clear, but it's still not correct, and word based definitions can inherently never be completely correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, skepa said:

I mean I won't disagree that it is clear, I'll just disagree that it really covers all aspects of what sexual attraction is. You can verify this yourself by asking 100 sexuals (who haven't been to aven before) what sexual attraction is, and you'll probably get 100 different but similar answers. I.e. yes it's clear, but it's still not correct, and word based definitions can inherently never be completely correct.

Sure, it is very likely that I'll get 100 different yet similar answers. But first of all, that's because they're not using the same split-attraction model (romantic/sexual/aesthetic/sensual) that people on this website are all familiar with. But even just Googling 'sexual attraction definition', the first result (Wikipedia of course lol) gives the same one:

Quote

Sexual attraction is attraction on the basis of sexual desire or the quality of arousing such interest.

Yes, it's using slightly different words - the phrasing is a wee bit more confusing in my opinion. But that doesn't mean my definition or theirs is wrong at all. Just because I may get different yet similar answers, doesn't mean they're incorrect. Do you mean word-based definitions of any word can never be inherently completely correct? Or just the definition of sexual attraction? If not word-based, what sort of definition do you want? A visual one..?

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Baam said:

Do you mean word-based definitions of any word can never be inherently completely correct? Or just the definition of sexual attraction? If not word-based, what sort of definition do you want?

Yes! Word based definitions are inherently flawed for classifying people based off of experiences. My proposal would be to switch to experience based definitions: i.e. is the experience of X clear and obvious to you? Why is experience based definitions inherently better? Because they optimize for false positives over false negatives! i.e. we will incorrectly tell some non cancer patients they have cancer, rather than the horrible alternative, we will incorrectly tell some cancer patients they do not have cancer.

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

Yes! Word based definitions are inherently flawed for classifying people based off of experiences. My proposal would be to switch to experience based definitions: i.e. is the experience of X clear and obvious to you? Why is experience based definitions inherently better? Because they optimize for false positives over false negatives! i.e. we will incorrectly tell some non cancer patients they have cancer, rather than the horrible alternative, we will incorrectly tell some cancer patients they do not have cancer.

Do you hate dictionaries? :P I thought you meant at first that you disagreed with stating definitions in words, and wanted to draw pictures or something! 

 

On a serious note, I see what you mean, and I totally agree that asking questions like those can help out heaps in terms of figuring out if you're a particular identity. But I also think that the word-based definition is extremely useful in its own right. Perhaps it would be best if we just present both types of definition together? Surely different people would find different types more or less useful, just as different people learn in different ways (spatially, linguistically, kinesthetically, etc). Personally I don't think false positives are necessarily better than false negatives in this context. It's totally better in your analogy, but that's a completely different situation.

 

Your questions can be flawed in the same way, though. For example, you say that because the experience of sexual attraction isn't clear and obvious to you, you identify as asexual. That's perfectly fine of course and if it makes sense to you, go for it. But I answer in the same way to you - a no to that question, and I still identify as sexual. So neither word-based or experience-based definitions are perfect in any sense. There's always going to be people who don't perfectly fit into the box we present no matter how we frame the definition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Baam said:

Your questions can be flawed in the same way, though. For example, you say that because the experience of sexual attraction isn't clear and obvious to you, you identify as asexual. That's perfectly fine of course and if it makes sense to you, go for it. But I answer in the same way to you - a no to that question, and I still identify as sexual. So neither word-based or experience-based definitions are perfect in any sense. There's always going to be people who don't perfectly fit into the box we present no matter how we frame the definition.

Well that's why I was saying there would be more false positives rather than false negatives, it obviously doesn't mean that there still won't be false negatives. My argument for why that is better, is that we should be more inclusive as a community, rather than exclusive (using the words, or conveying the meanings of sexual elitism, pure asexual, true asexual ect...) which seems to be a problem on here. An experience based definition brings us together rather than separates us apart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skepa said:

 My argument for why that is better, is that we should be more inclusive as a community, rather than exclusive (using the words, or conveying the meanings of sexual elitism, pure asexual, true asexual ect...) which seems to be a problem on here. An experience based definition brings us together rather than separates us apart.

Why should the definition of asexual have to be as inclusive as possible though? Because by the way you're trying to define it (by including as many different experiences as possible) at least 30% of the population are asexual, and now we have a label that has lost all meaning.

 

The definition of 'gay' wasn't designed to include as many people as possible. It ONLY covers those who desire partnered sexual intimacy with people of the same gender (and that desire generally has to be exclusive or else people will start debating whether that person is actually bi, if they also desire sex with people of different genders).. why should asexuality be any different?

 

Also no one in these threads has been using elitist terms like 'pure' asexual and 'true' asexual (no one really uses that kind of terminology anywhere on AVEN anymore because it's against ToS), we're merely trying to identify the specific qualities that make an asexual person different from everyone else, and that does come down to who you desire sex with, in the same way a gay persons desire to have sexual intimacy with people of the same gender is what makes them different from a hetero person.

 

AVEN is actually extremely inclusive as a community, and as you may have noticed every single person who has been responding to you has been saying you can still call yourself asexual if you feel that label is best for you, even if we have a different definition on what asexuality is. The one person who said they thought you weren't asexual had their comment removed immediately and the thread was locked, and I imagine they will face disciplinary action because that's a massive no-no in the ToS. So yeah, we're about as un-elitist as it's possible to be as a community. You're confusing the definition for the community itself, but they are two separate things.

 

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

at least 30% of the population are asexual, and now we have a label that has lost all meaning.

hmmm I really would probably say something like 1-2% of the population would be asexual under that definition, without statistical research as evidence it's basically impossible to say at this point. I know you've seen and talked to lot of people like that, but keep in mind, this is aven so confirmation bias is probably very high in that regards.

 

14 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

why should asexuality be any different?

asexuality is vastly different, because instead of talking about what people have, we are talking about what people lack, and that can be hard to define. Furthermore you have the incorrect definition of gay: from wikipedia:

Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender, and we see the term sexual attraction and fall into the same problem that I've been talking about here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, skepa said:

Homosexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender,

That does not make my definition of 'gay' incorrect.

 

If I ask Baam 'do you want sex with people of a different gender as yourself' then Baam is going to say ''No I've just been saying I'm gay, that means I desire sexual intimacy with people of the same gender as myself, duh''. If you have a gay male friend and ask him ''do you want to have sex with that girl over there?'' he's going to say ''are you homophobic or something? you know I don't want sex with women''. Yes the WORDING used to define 'gay' is different from dictionary to dictionary, but they all mean the same thing at the end of the day: You want to have sex with people of the same gender as yourself.

 

Romantic attractions etc can also be an aspect of that, but an aromantic person can still be 100% gay, while another person may ONLY be gay because they experience romantic attraction for the same gender as themselves and desire sexual intimacy as an aspect of romantic love - both people are just as gay because at the end of the day, they want sexytimes with people of the same gender.

 

12 minutes ago, skepa said:

hmmm I really would probably say something like 1-2% of the population would be asexual under that definition,

Yet multiple people have told you that they know fully sexual people who experience the types of things you're describing as part of your asexuality definition, and there are even members here who have said they experience what you're describing (started wanting to have sex with someone else, but not because of a sexual reaction to their appearance) and that's why they STOPPED identifying as asexual. If so many people experience this or know others who experience it just in these few convos we have had, then it's obviously relatively common, a lot more common than 1-2% anyway.

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

a lot more common than 1-2% anyway.

I'd like statistical research on this before I'll take numbers.

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

even members here ........ If so many people experience this

some good examples of sampling and confirmation bias.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@skepa, the 1-2% oft cited, and used as a reference in Understanding Asexuality by Anthony Bogaert comes from one survey in one country many years ago. People have taken it to be relatively authorative simply because of the sample size, 11000+.

The same survey of the same people carried out today may produce a different figure because of greater awareness of asexulity, where to differentiate asexulity from disorders of sexual desire, that orientation is not always fixed for life and many other variables 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

the 1-2% oft cited, and used as a reference in Understanding Asexuality by Anthony Bogaert comes from one survey in one country many years ago.

Oh yeah, we're taking about how many people would classify under the question, "is the experience of sexual attraction clear and obvious to you?" Which doesn't have current statistical research behind it, so it may be higher, or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Actually I didn't say you weren't asexual (even though you've posted that you want to have partnered sex, but we'll let that go). I posited a hypothetical question as an alternative way of looking at the point we were discussing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Actually I didn't say you weren't asexual (even though you've posted that you want to have partnered sex, but we'll let that go). I posited a hypothetical question as an alternative way of looking at the point we were discussing. 

Yeah sorry, I should have clarified that, just didn't want the mods to think I was 'calling you out' by being too specific with my comment (been nudged for it before). But yeah it was just a hypothetical question, and even then it was dealt with instantly - the comment was removed, and the thread was locked, so yeah that just goes to show how heavy-handed the mods are with even perceived 'elitism' , which is the opposite of what @skepa was saying!

 

1 hour ago, skepa said:

some good examples of sampling and confirmation bias.
 

29 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

@skepa, the 1-2% oft cited, and used as a reference in Understanding Asexuality by Anthony Bogaert comes from one survey in one country many years ago. People have taken it to be relatively authorative simply because of the sample size, 11000+.

The same survey of the same people carried out today may produce a different figure because of greater awareness of asexulity, where to differentiate asexulity from disorders of sexual desire, that orientation is not always fixed for life and many other variables 

 

20 minutes ago, skepa said:

Oh yeah, we're taking about how many people would classify under the question, "is the experience of sexual attraction clear and obvious to you?" Which doesn't have current statistical research behind it, so it may be higher, or not.

 

I was referring to the people who don't experience 'sexual attraction' (as in, getting horny when they see attractive people) yet desire sexual intimacy for other reasons. I was saying that if you're making an 'all inclusive' definition of asexuality that also includes people who desire sexual intimacy, then suddenly at least 30% of the population are asexual.

 

Regarding people who can't answer an instant 'yes' to whether or not they experience sexual attraction or whether it's clear and obvious to them, that's nothing to do with asexuality or not. Well, I mean, obviously a lot of aces will say they don't, but like we were saying before, there are lots of gay people especially who are confused about the direction of their desire for some time, and like I said, there are people here who don't experience it, or at least don't think they experience as 'looking at hot people and wanting sex with them', yet still identify as fully sexual. Then we get a LOT of asexuals who do actually find other humans very sexually appealing, they just don't want to have sex with them, so they're still not sure if that's actually sexual attraction or not. Ergo, the 'instant yes or no' criteria really isn't that helpful in a lot of cases.

 

But yeah, when I said '30%' originally, I was referring to people who desire partnered sex, but don't find other people 'sexually appealing'. If we're talking about aesthetic attraction, there are obviously far fewer people who don't experience aesthetic attraction, but that's still not a measure of whether one is asexual or not.

 

 

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

then suddenly at least 30% of the population are asexual.

Sure, I think been we're on the same page, but I still don't think it would be anywhere near that high, and research would need to be done first, before we get a true percentage.

 

30 minutes ago, FictoVore. said:

I said, there are people here who don't experience it, or at least don't think they experience as 'looking at hot people and wanting sex with them', yet still identify as fully sexual.

Yeah I understand that's a problem with the obvious & clear question model I have, I'm working on a new version I'll post soon that should rectify most of these problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...