Sensual? I don't understand this as a term. COULD BE OFFENSIVE

[Eyikl]

I noticed that the definitions page includes the term "Sensual attraction: Desire to have physical contact with someone else, like affectionate touching, cuddling, hugs, or kissing, that is not sexual or does not lead to sex."

 

1. Do people use the term sensual as an orientation term? For example, at a PRIDE event would I tell someone "I'm  quoiromantic, pansensual, and asexual"?

 

2. If the  answer to 1. is yes, what's the point? Isn't physical affection just a universal thing? To me, having sensuality as an orientation term implies that there are people (who grew up in a non-abusive community, and don't have texture issues) that don't want physical affection at all from anyone ever, from the day they were born to the day they die. I could see that there are cultural differences in the degree to which people are affectionate, like how some friends in France kiss each other on the cheek, but I think physical affection is such a universal thing that an orientation devoted to someone who likes physical affection at all seems redundant. For example, would parent-child relationships fall under the term sensual, especially for babies and toddlers? How can sensual attraction be restricted by gender?

[Yeast]

To me being sensual means simply using one's senses. I have a rather good sense of smell for a human. I use it when I cook. Everyone is sensual in terms of their sight. Those that can't see use touch instead. Hearing is about the same. One's eyes can substitute for their ears and if not, there's still touch. Although I've never tried it, I am left with the impression sex is a sort of infantile regression. Lovers do all the things babies do. Even the nasty stuff. I think it prepares prospective parents for caring for future offspring. I've seen courting birds feed one another. The recipient of the treat even crouches and flaps its wings like an excited baby bird. I suppose men and women play out the same roles during sex. No wonder "baby" is an affectionate term in my culture. Babies are very sensual. They need to be to survive. Their sole motivation is gratifying their senses. So hopefully they remain warm and fed and clean, too. This sort of thing suits humans particularly well. I've always thought of my species as a form of free living fetuses. We never loose a lot of fetal traits like so many other animals do. Large heads, small teeth, ultra fine fur and an innate desire to cuddle and caress. Not all of us, though. I once asked the question of why we exist. One clever answer was that people like me are an evolutionary response to massive numbers of people on a very finite planet. I need not pass on my genes. Too many of them in the world already. I can pass on my knowledge, though. There will never bee to much of that.

[Snao Cone]

I don't think it's commonly used as an orientation, but asexual and/or aromantic people might use it to describe what kinds of affection they may still be looking for. It also helps to explain to people that wanting to kiss your partner doesn't contradict with being asexual, if that's a far as the drive for physical intimacy goes. 

 

And yes, some people can have a gender preference for things like cuddling or kissing. But I doubt that would be different from either sexual or romantic orientation. It's not really something that stands alone, at least not in any practical sense. 

[Just Somebody]

1 hour ago, Eyikl said:

I noticed that the definitions page includes the term "Sensual attraction: Desire to have physical contact with someone else, like affectionate touching, cuddling, hugs, or kissing, that is not sexual or does not lead to sex."

 

1. Do people use the term sensual as an orientation term? For example, at a PRIDE event would I tell someone "I'm  quoiromantic, pansensual, and asexual"?

 

2. If the  answer to 1. is yes, what's the point? Isn't physical affection just a universal thing? To me, having sensuality as an orientation term implies that there are people (who grew up in a non-abusive community, and don't have texture issues) that don't want physical affection at all from anyone ever, from the day they were born to the day they die. I could see that there are cultural differences in the degree to which people are affectionate, like how some friends in France kiss each other on the cheek, but I think physical affection is such a universal thing that an orientation devoted to someone who likes physical affection at all seems redundant. For example, would parent-child relationships fall under the term sensual, especially for babies and toddlers? How can sensual attraction be restricted by gender?

 

 

Well, for people to use a word,  they must be aware of that word first,  I doubt that the majority of people who never questioned their feelings toward physical contact  would even come across the concept of these words in first place. 

 

And I haven't seen a considerable amount of people using such words in pride spaces,  usually people who are touch repulsed/averse, who  have phobias or traumas or medical conditions , or even women who don't like the touch of men for whatever reasons use such identity words.

 

Sensual orientations work just like any other kind of orientation:

 You just insert pre-fix (es) in front of "sensual" like (hetero, homo,  ambi,  a,  gray,  demi,  pan, etc)  like in "demi-hetero-sensual"

 

 

But usually there's no reason to be so specific about your identity unless you fall outside the norms,  like the majority of people in the world say they're "heterosexual" only,  they don't feel like they need to say they're "hetero-allo-sexual-hetero-allo-romantic-etc" because they probably never had a reason to over think about their identities.

[HeteroRomanticAce]

I mostly agree with "Just Somebody". Most people do not even know about the sensual, aesthetic, romantic, etc. They usually would have the same prefixes (hetero-everything, or homo-everything), and consider them sexuals. So they would consider that hetero-everything=hetero-sexual. This is why they would use -sexual at pride.

 

But that is not the case for asexuals, because after analysing ourselves and asexuality, we then know the truth that hetero-everything≠hetero-sexual. But mostly asexuals know that. 

 

I knew who I was myself for a long time. But I didn't know the terms, the sensual/romantic/aesthetic bits. I considered myself half asexual, half heterosexual until I found this site and then saw that i am hetero romantic, aesthetic, sensual asexual.

 

Sensual is not strong part of parent-child relationship. Some cuddling is involved, which can even be with a pet, and dry kisses (cheek kisses, etc). That ends there.

The senual relationship outside family that lacks for understandment in this site is stronger cuddling and kissing. For example lying (naked*) in bed with each other, kissing (full tongue contact) and cuddling, would be a full example of sensual activity, but that would not happen with (normal) parent and child or pet.

 

*Non sexual nudity, for asexuals (or sexuals) who are comfortable with that, and it doesn't lead to sex.

[Apathetic Echidna]

for general introductions I do think that telling someone what you don't like is more informative than what you do like, so telling people if you are touch repulsed is more important than detailing a sensual attraction. Sensual attraction identity is probably a helpful modifier to some people, especially if they are navigating complex veriorientations or gendered repulsions (like my very gay friend who hated touching any female friend in public for the fear that strangers would think he was hetero and dating them)

[banana monkey]

On 1/16/2019 at 10:22 PM, Eyikl said:

I1. Do people use the term sensual as an orientation term? For example, at a PRIDE event would I tell someone "I'm  quoiromantic, pansensual, and asexual"?

It depends on the person, I would but I have not yet come across a situation where I would because I have yet to have a situation where it is appropriate to be that specific or where the other person would understand the terms without me having to go into detail. 

Quote

 

2. If the  answer to 1. is yes, what's the point? Isn't physical affection just a universal thing? To me, having sensuality as an orientation term implies that there are people (who grew up in a non-abusive community, and don't have texture issues) that don't want physical affection at all. 

There are people like that - I get what you are saying but this generally applies to partnered relationships rather than friends or relatives. Its a very different concept. (I really cant explain how but I know it is). There are many people on AVEN who dont like (or in some cases are repulsed by) hugging, cuddling, kissing in a relationship. On the other hand, there are people like myself who do not want sex but like sensual activities in a relationship and feel the need to make that distinction. Further more, just to let you know, in my case its totally different with someone I may like to be in a relationship with than with friends and or family, I am not comfortable at all with my family or friends kissing me (even as a greeting or peck on the cheek). Very rarely am I comfortable with them hugging me, it even used to feel awkward when my family we hugged goodbye. so I like to make the distinction for that reason. The only time I am comfortable with family hugging me is when I am upset and ask for it. When using it as an orientation term (as you describe it) for some people they may not use it to be about the presence or absence of the attraction but about who the attraction is directed towards. 

Quote

 

 How can sensual attraction be restricted by gender?

That's difficult to explain, but I think it can particularly if you are an induvidual for whom romantic and sensual attraction is linked. It is common for them to be but there are many on aven who have the 2 attractions contrasting (including the possible abscence of one) for example there are many aromantics who still have sensual attraction and may choose to have a Queerplatonic relationship with someone they have sensual attraction to. (or maybe a romantic friendship but i'm unsure of the difference exactly)