skepa Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 After some more thought put into the dual asexual hypothesis, I can understand why it's come out as much more controversial than I had originally thought. The main reason is that I had been using a different version of sexual attraction, to define the terms, than most are used to. Many people on this site use words to define sexual attraction, i.e. sexual attraction is the desire to have partnered sex, or sexual attraction is directed libido, or sexual attraction is currently undefined. I find all of these definitions to be lacking, they hit points, but to me it feels like trying to explain what color is to a blind person, and in a sense we all may or may not be blind, so the confusion is just crazy in my eyes. Especially since we are talking about a subjective experience that may or may not be different even for sexuals! So the definition that I had been using was actually a functional one rather than a bunch of words, which goes as follows: is the experience of X clear and obvious to you. so, is the experience of (taste,sight,warmth,sound) clear and obvious to me, yes. romantic attraction? yes sexual attraction? no. Which is how I go about defining myself as asexual. I think it's an elegant solution to the problem mentioned above (at least the best one I can think of now, I'm open to suggestions). However I feel that some others may still like sticking to more standard grounded definitions, And in that case I still feel as though the following terms maybe still be useful for others: attraction-blind sexual over demisexual or just attraction-blind These I feel should be less controversial because of instead of coming up with new terms and a new definition for sexual attraction, it sticks just to the former. Link to post Share on other sites
wavewall Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 If demisexuals are sexually attracted to people they've established the necessary emotional connection with, I'm not clear on how this corresponds with "attraction-blindness." That said, if demisexuals find the term useful, great. Link to post Share on other sites
wavewall Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 5 hours ago, skepa said: so, is the experience of (taste,sight,warmth,sound) clear and obvious to me, yes. romantic attraction? yes sexual attraction? no. A question based on this: is "attraction-blindness" meant to describe not experiencing [sexual] attraction.... or not knowing if you experience it because it isn't clear and obvious to you? Link to post Share on other sites
skepa Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 1 hour ago, wavewall said: A question based on this: is "attraction-blindness" meant to describe not experiencing [sexual] attraction.... or not knowing if you experience it because it isn't clear and obvious to you? Neither, the best analogy it describes that we have already out there, is lacking primary sexual attraction, as described in the aven wiki. The clear and obvious part only becomes useful when differentiating between attraction-blind sexual and attraction-blind asexual. i.e. I disagree that secondary sexual attraction counts as the full definition of sexual attraction. Which is why I'm a fan of the dual asexual model, because I believe the term sexual attraction can be broken down into two distinct and different things, if you lack either one, or both that would define you as asexual. All two/three of these types of people would answer no to the clear and obvious definition of sexual attraction. Link to post Share on other sites
skepa Posted March 21, 2018 Author Share Posted March 21, 2018 2 hours ago, wavewall said: If demisexuals are sexually attracted to people they've established the necessary emotional connection with Under the primary vs secondary model of demisexuality, demisexuals are still completely lack primary sexual attraction to their partners, so saying that demisexuals feel sexual attraction (both) is incorrect at describing these people. Link to post Share on other sites
Janus the Fox Posted March 21, 2018 Share Posted March 21, 2018 Regardless of "base", it's a resounding no to me, no much of such of anything past some romance "base" for me. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.