Nice, adorable, cute (used for adults) .... code for asexual?

[dee615]

7 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Nor that. We might clock sexual attractiveness in the same way we'd clock any other attribute but unless we're interested in them specifically, there's no particular threat dynamic going on purely because we think someone's attractive.

it is not the thoughts per se.  It is about how the thoughts translate into action - as in heightened attention, more careful listening to what they say, etc. This seems to be a big part of celebrity culture. They are spokespeople for various causes, advocates for various products because people notice them - and by extension what they say.

[Telecaster68]

1 minute ago, The Blue Fairy said:

it is perceived as a threat if there is a woman talking to some males and then one who is vastly more attractive walks up and she is displaying interest in him.

That would be interest in someone specific, then. I'm not quite sure how referring to asexuals as cute fits into that scenario.

[Guest]

@Telecaster68 She was saying that sexuals are a threat to eachother, and they don't view us as a threat.

[ryn2]

2 minutes ago, The Blue Fairy said:

I mean, it is perceived as a threat if there is a woman talking to some males and then one who is vastly more attractive walks up and she is displaying interest in him. The guys that she was talking to are most likely going to feel threatened by the more attractive male.

This is definitely true of some women, at least... and there’s been a lot of discussion and press over the years around how single people (either perpetually or newly) are no longer welcomed by partnered friends because their singleness is a threat.  So, while I doubt it’s constantly on anyone’s mind, there does seem to be some

potential truth to “the ace friend” (like the gay friend) being less of a perceived threat than friends who are “single and looking.”

[Salmiakki]

This whole conversation makes my head ache but maybe I'm just too simple to understand what's going on

[dee615]

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

That would be interest in someone specific, then. I'm not quite sure how referring to asexuals as cute fits into that scenario.

My point was that referring to asexuals as cute/ adorable, etc, is a way of saying that they are not competitors from others (= sexual people) for attention, and thus are not in danger of taking away, or diluting the attention a sexual person gets in that setting.

[Telecaster68]

I think the sexual friend being a threat is more about how secure the couple feel with each other.

[NickyTannock]

As I say, I asked two of my sexual friends about this, and they both called it a reach.

[Telecaster68]

Just now, dee615 said:

My point was that referring to asexuals as cute/ adorable, etc, is a way of saying that they are not competitors from others (= sexual people) for attention, and thus are not in danger of taking away, or diluting the attention a sexual person gets in that setting.

I don't think it's about competition. I think it's about not getting any kind of sexual vibe off them or a tactful way of saying you don't find them sexually attractive. Outside of high school, social groups really aren't the sexual piranha pool you seem to be painting.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

As I say, I asked two of my sexual friends about this, and they both called it a reach.

Just because they're sexual doesn't make them correct.

[Telecaster68]

It makes them better informed about what sexual people think than asexuals speculating.

[NickyTannock]

@The Blue Fairy Okay, how many Sexuals do I need to ask?

[dee615]

34 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I don't think it's about competition. I think it's about not getting any kind of sexual vibe off them or a tactful way of saying you don't find them sexually attractive. Outside of high school, social groups really aren't the sexual piranha pool you seem to be painting.

I think it still holds in the adult world - think about the multi billion ad industry, entertainment industry, and celebrity endorsements.  They use sexual allure to capture people's attention. And the target audience is often people with $$$ - quite a bit older than HS age.  Think about all the car ads that use seductively posed women. Lots of luxury goods are advertised this way, with a sexual angle.

 

 

[Guest]

Yeah, except people delude themselves about who they are and what they think and what they do. Someone who is out of touch with reality isn't going to be capable of giving an objective, truthful answer.

[Telecaster68]

I don't understand how that relates to sexual threats.

 

That's a different thing. It's a well demonstrated phenomenon that humans make associations, so by associating your product with something most people find pleasant (like sexually attractive person), next time we come across the product, even without the associated thing, we retain those pleasant feelings towards it. That's why it's so common in advertising. For instance, I used to have to read a particular farming magazine for work regularly and it had ads for a company that made plastic ear tags for pigs. Their ad always had a Hooters-esque woman in them, because mostly their potential customers were male and straight.

[Telecaster68]

3 minutes ago, The Blue Fairy said:

Yeah, except people delude themselves about who they are and what they think and what they do. Someone who is out of touch with reality isn't going to be capable of giving an objective, truthful answer.

And someone who's never experienced sexual attraction isn't going to be able talk about it with the same understanding as someone who has.

[dee615]

6 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I don't understand how that relates to sexual threats.

 

That's a different thing. It's a well demonstrated phenomenon that humans make associations, so by associating your product with something most people find pleasant (like sexually attractive person), next time we come across the product, even without the associated thing, we retain those pleasant feelings towards it. That's why it's so common in advertising. For instance, I used to have to read a particular farming magazine for work regularly and it had ads for a company that made plastic ear tags for pigs. Their ad always had a Hooters-esque woman in them, because mostly their potential customers were male and straight.

Making pleasant associations IS the crux of the issue - of capturing attention and interest. And sexuality is a very potent way of doing so. The person who is able to elicit sexual associations from others gains power over his/her audience than the asexual who does not project those vibes, unless of course the asexual is powerful in other ways e.g. professionally/ politically influencial.  And having competitors who have those powers to some degree, in your environment is the threat.

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, dee615 said:

having to compete with others who exhibit that power to some degree is the threat.

Only if you're bothered about what you're competing for, and unless there's a specific person you're competing for, there's no competition, hence no threat.

[dee615]

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Only if you're bothered about what you're competing for, and unless there's a specific person you're competing for, there's no competition, hence no threat.

I think that in every social interaction, there is some competition to be heard, noticed, registered, etc. (As opposed to being dismissed, discounted, ignored, etc.) I'm not talking about specifically targeting someone for romantic attraction - that may or may not be part of the interaction. But just to be noticed. And my point is that projecting sexual vibes, is a very potent way of being noticed. Think of George Clooney versus some dorky random guy. Wouldn't even the men in the setting pay more attention to Clooney, purely on the basis of his charisma? (This is an extreme example, but I'm using an exaggerated example to illustrate a point.)

 

[Telecaster68]

Maybe, but differentiating about whether you'd call asexual people 'cute' or 'hot' and whether that's to do with it being a threat to transient attention in a social group seems, as Michael's friend said, a stretch.

[daveb]

21 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

@The Blue Fairy Okay, how many Sexuals do I need to ask?

At least 3, so you can say 2 out of 3 (or 3 out of 3 as the case may be).  

Ten is better; then you might be able to say 9 out of 10.  

[Telecaster68]

Ten cute ones, and ten hot ones.

 

Then ten cute asexuals, and ten hot asexuals.

 

Then compare.

[daveb]

4 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

ten hot asexuals

Is there such a thing?  

[Telecaster68]

I'm dropping this before the definition of 'hot' jihad starts.

[Guest]

What I am confused by is how can people be sexually attracted to asexuals if asexuals are not sexually attractive and do not have a sexual vibe?

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, MichaelTannock said:

@The Blue Fairy Okay, how many Sexuals do I need to ask?

Atleast 10,000.

[NickyTannock]

2 minutes ago, The Blue Fairy said:

What I am confused by is how can people be sexually attracted to asexuals if asexuals are not sexually attractive and do not have a sexual vibe?

I've heard a Sexual explain how people will find others attractive if they show no sexual interest in them, so maybe Asexuals can be attractive to Sexuals?

[Telecaster68]

1 minute ago, The Blue Fairy said:

What I am confused by is how can people be sexually attracted to asexuals if asexuals are not sexually attractive and do not have a sexual vibe?

Nobody's objectively sexually attractive - it's entirely subjective, so you can't say that a single person isn't sexually attractive, let alone an entire orientation. You could say the number of people who'd find a smelly alcoholic grumpy tramp is pretty small, but if (say) another smelly alcoholic grumpy tramp fancies them, it's clearly not an absolute attribute.

 

And flip it around - there could easily be things about an asexual that a sexual person found sexually attractive: sense of humour, looks, intelligence, etc.

 

AVEN as a community seems to have this concept of sexual attraction as some kind of standalone, objective thing. it's not - it's a dynamic between people. You can't be just 'sexually attracted'; you have to be sexually attracted to someone, and depending on the two people involved, the nature of that attraction changes. 

[ryn2]

1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

I think the sexual friend being a threat is more about how secure the couple feel with each other.

Probably true, but it happens.  An ace friend should in theory not be a threat at all.

[ryn2]

39 minutes ago, daveb said:

At least 3, so you can say 2 out of 3 (or 3 out of 3 as the case may be).  

Ten is better; then you might be able to say 9 out of 10.  

22.75.