"Demisexuality" and Misunderstanding Sexual Attraction

[Telecaster68]

Would you rather point your eyes at Nicole Kidman or a rotting disembowelled hippopotamus?

 

I'm specifically making it about two sights most people would view as pleasant vs unpleasant. That's all aesthetic attraction comes to.

[anisotrophic]

Honestly I'm finding it hard to imagine tearing my eyes away from the spectacle of a rotting disemboweled hippo for, well, anything. 😂

[Telecaster68]

2 minutes ago, anisotropic said:

Honestly I'm finding it hard to imagine tearing my eyes away from the spectacle of a rotting disemboweled hippo for, well, anything. 😂

You must be a hipposexual.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

Poor hippo

 

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

You must be a hipposexual.

That would actually be sexual attraction to horses: hippo = horse potamus = river *yay semantics! *

[Ceebs]

14 minutes ago, anisotropic said:

Honestly I'm finding it hard to imagine tearing my eyes away from the spectacle of a rotting disemboweled hippo for, well, anything. 😂

Hahaha saaaaame. I had the same thought exactly. 

 

Although if it was Winona Ryder...

[ryn2]

20 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

It's still an aesthetic judgement, even if it's about negatives, and that means you're experiencing attraction sufficiently to make a judgement. 

I see a difference between the absence of dislike and the presence of enjoyment, or the absence of repulsion and the presence of attraction.

 

If you view aesthetics as a sliding scale where one endpoint is “completely repulsed” and the other is “completely attracted,” I suppose you could say someone who is 99% repulsed is also 1% attracted.  I see it as a scale with neutral or indifferent at the midpoint, so “attracted” starts above indifferent and “repulsed” starts below indifferent.

[ryn2]

13 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Poor hippo

 

That would actually be sexual attraction to horses: hippo = horse potamus = river *yay semantics! *

Hippopotamusexual!

[Telecaster68]

5 minutes ago, asshole said:

Hahaha saaaaame. I had the same thought exactly. 

 

Although if it was Winona Ryder...

I'm older than you and therefore probably saw her first.

[ryn2]

I would much rather look at Winona Ryder than Nicole Kidman.

[Telecaster68]

6 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

I see a difference between the absence of dislike and the presence of enjoyment, or the absence of repulsion and the presence of attraction.

 

If you view aesthetics as a sliding scale where one endpoint is “completely repulsed” and the other is “completely attracted,” I suppose you could say someone who is 99% repulsed is also 1% attracted.  I see it as a scale with neutral or indifferent at the midpoint, so “attracted” starts above indifferent and “repulsed” starts below indifferent.

Maybe. But my point was that I can't imagine anyone being so devoid of opinion based on aesthetics that they would have no preference between which one they looked at, and whichever they preferred, they're more attracted to. Negative v positive is just semantics.

 

Asexuals don't have any preference when it comes to sexual attraction, because they don't experience it. Sexuals do.

 

Therefore sexuals are in a better position to make statements about the difference between the two kinds of attraction.

[ryn2]

To work the example, though, suppose the comparison is a rotting, disemboweled hippo and a rotting but otherwise intact hippo.

 

I wouldn’t consider someone who found the intact hippo easier to look at aesthetically attracted to the intact hippo...

[Snao Cone]

I'm not "attracted" to Nicole Kidman (my eyes are very light sensitive and she's very pasty ) but I know she attractive. Is that what you mean? Being able to distinguish between what has more concrete basis for being nice to look at?

 

I can understand why many people would see my preferences for looking at certain people as akin to their sexual attraction. If I wanted to have sex I would absolutely call it that. But I don't want to have sex (and I've tried to want to have sex with people I've found very good looking plus good friends who were literally naked in front of me) and no dice. So what am I feeling when I get a little electric brain chemistry going when looking at people who fit a type? 

[ryn2]

2 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Asexuals don't have any preference when it comes to sexual attraction, because they don't experience it. Sexuals do.

 

Therefore sexuals are in a better position to make statements about the difference between the two kinds of attraction.

My point was(n’t in dispute of this, but that) we often use similar/identical language to describe finding someone aesthetically attractive as we do finding someone sexually attractive and I think that adds to the “but I feel that too!” confusion.

[Ceebs]

8 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I'm older than you and therefore probably saw her first.

Probably did!

 

Man, I should've seen the signs when she appeared in the 1994 film adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's Little Women and my nine-year-old self was utterly enamoured of her. Like she was over half the reason I loved that movie. Plus her character was the most badass of the sisters.

 

I won't lie, I've spent evenings trading Winona Ryder photos with someone. This is how lesbians bond, right? 😂

[Snao Cone]

3 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Therefore sexuals are in a better position to make statements about the difference between the two kinds of attraction.

Sexuals would call how I feel about pretty faces sexual attraction. But it's not, since I don't want sex. So are sexuals in a better position/more likely to be correct in describing what I'm feeling?

 

I'm in no way saying that I know what sexual attraction is better than sexual people. I'm in no way saying that uncontrollable smiles when looking at a beautiful face is not sexual attraction for them. There is no practical difference for them to make it worth separating what can end with just looking at people and what will get their loins flaming. But for an asexual person, where there's an absence of wanting sex at all, it's worth making a distinction, to be better understood. 

[Telecaster68]

6 minutes ago, Snao Cone said:

Sexuals would call how I feel about pretty faces sexual attraction

If they knew enough about LGBTalphabetsoup+ to differentiate sexual and aesthetic attraction, they wouldn't.

[Telecaster68]

12 minutes ago, Snao Cone said:

. But for an asexual person, where there's an absence of wanting sex at all, it's worth making a distinction, to be better understood. 

I agree. But when some of them insist they know what sexual attraction is better than asexuals (in order to differentiate it from aesthetic because the one affects the other) they're just demonstrably wrong.

[Ceebs]

I don't think I even make much mental distinction between any of it. No matter who they are I'm not actually interested in sex with attractive randoms, so if they give me butterflies I guess it's probably technically sexual attraction and if not it's just "yup, there's a pretty human". I have that with guys too, I'm a complete sucker for men with facial hair for some reason. I was creeping a friend's brother on Facebook last evening because I thought he was really attractive. 

 

Still don't wanna bang any of them, so I just don't categorise it as anything other than casual attraction with no real meaning.

[ryn2]

 

 

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

I agree. But when some of them insist they know what sexual attraction is better than asexuals (in order to differentiate it from aesthetic because the one affects the other) they're just demonstrably wrong.

When people commonly say “ooh, she’s hot” to mean any subset of “she’s pretty,” “she falls into the broad category of people I would have sex with as long as other conditions were met,” and/or “I would have sex with her today if she showed up and asked me,” it’s understandable that people struggle to get what’s different and what’s the same (like, in the original question, is there a difference - beyond personal self-identification between demisexuality and “just” being a “regular” sexual person who needs to get to know people before becoming sexually attracted to them?).

[Ceebs]

For the record, despite not being much into dudes after all when it actually comes down to sex and romance, I married someone who looks like a freaking hippie, long hair and facial hair and all... he's an actual Deadhead... so. I do have a certain taste in men regardless.  I don't know that it makes me think "Do me now!", because my actual experiences tell me that's not gonna go too great, but there's an attraction there nonetheless. And his appearance still means "comfort" and "love" to me even if it's not of a romantic sort. I really just don't spend too much time dissecting what means what since, when it comes down to it for me, sex is a matter of the particulars of the connection I have with someone and loving them and desiring to be close in that way. All this aesthetic stuff is barely a factor. 

[Telecaster68]

I've said all I'm going to. You'll all have to do more extensive textual analysis and exegesis on my posts because it's all in there.

[Ceebs]

Oh and likewise, physical attraction to someone I love and desire sexually is something that kind of comes after as well. Chances are they couldn't be hideously ugly and I'd still fall for them, but the strong physical attraction part comes after the other feelings for me and is certainly not dependent upon being super hot. Someone I love in that way will be the most beautiful human alive to me.

 

Anyways. I just woke up to the 24/7 news channel going on about another mass shooting in the States, which is inexplicably stressing me out (the fuck is wrong, America???) and I also need a shower and a coffee, so... later.

[Telecaster68]

As The Onion put it: 'There Is No Way To Prevent This', says only country where This happens regularly.

[LeChat]

Yeah. My only sibling and I discussed gun laws just before the election. Living in a state where most of the population and the politicians they elect are for guns has, I guess, helped change his mind, to where, he now also thinks more guns are what's needed, in order for people to "protect themselves." He thinks that all other countries' gun laws don't work out for them, as (TW: for graphic discussion of attacks)

Spoiler

people in those countries are still injured with other weapons, like knife attacks, using vehicles to run people over, etc. "So, people there aren't able to defend themselves."

 

[ryn2]

30 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

I've said all I'm going to. You'll all have to do more extensive textual analysis and exegesis on my posts because it's all in there.

I’m not disagreeing with you.  What you described makes sense to me and is similar to my experience.

[everywhere and nowhere]

6 hours ago, Lucinda said:

I saw a documentary about 10 years ago that had probably been filmed 10 years previously.  It followed 3 couples.  In the first case, the husband (mtf) said she suddenly became attracted to men and claimed never to have experienced that before starting estrogen.  (Other posters said she probably didn't want to admit it previously).  In the second, the person was gay before and gay after starting transition meaning the sex of the partners changed as in the previous case.  And in the last case, it seemed like the couple was going to stay together -- I wish there had been a followup doc -- but I asked if people thought the orientation of the wife had changed -or- were they simply attracted to each other regardless of the physical changes the husband underwent?

 

Lucinda

It may have something to do with trying to fit into norms. I have a friend who is trans, post-legal transition, post-surgery (and, on top of that, later had a stroke, which makes her largely dependent on whoever she is with)... She has a butch partner, but in the early phase abandoned her for a man. It was a bad decision because later the guy started drinking and abusing her. But she was rationalising this relationship as "being attractive to real men really gives a boost in confidence", "don't I have a right to try?". Now she feels sick of men. Her most "natural" preference is probably bisexual, but she prefers to identify as a lesbian now. And she herself thinks that trying a relationship with a man was mostly conformism.

[ryn2]

2 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

If they knew enough about LGBTalphabetsoup+ to differentiate sexual and aesthetic attraction, they wouldn't.

I don’t think it takes LGBT+ awareness/split attraction awareness, even.  It’s the difference between “oh yeah, she’s hot!” and “eh, she’s pretty but she doesn’t do anything for me.”

[Snao Cone]

8 minutes ago, ryn2 said:

I don’t think it takes LGBT+ awareness/split attraction awareness, even.  It’s the difference between “oh yeah, she’s hot!” and “eh, she’s pretty but she doesn’t do anything for me.”

I think there's enough awareness of people of one orientation still knowing what looks good in the gender they're not attracted to (eg straight women thinking other women are hot) to grasp it, I would hope. If I were to explain it to someone that would probably be the first approach I'd take. "You know how you find women like [example] to be sexy even though you don't want to have sex with women? It's like that, but with all genders."

 

So you don't need an extensive education in a/sexuality to grasp it (or at least you shouldn't). 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Someone who is drawn to how people smell, e.g., probably isn’t going to report that separately from the other ways they find them attractive, because to that person it’s not a separate thing... but the smell-liker and a looks-liker can each say someone is hot and yet not quite mean the same thing.

And the one thing they all have in common (regardless of what form their attraction takes) is that they innately desire to connect sexually with other people under some circumstances. Asexuals don't have that desire. It really is that simple

[ryn2]

4 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

And the one thing they all have in common (regardless of what form their attraction takes) is that they innately desire to connect sexually with other people under some circumstances. Asexuals don't have that desire. It really is that simple

Alas, reading the many active threads at any given point, it would be that simple... if only everyone agreed.