Sexual Attraction without sex?

[Skycaptain]

@Telecaster68, that's the best one in a long time 🤣 🤣 

[Sage Raven Domino]

On a side note, Google has reminded me about an old attempt to coin the label for sexuals who don't desire penetration (note that coitus is only one of the many types of penetration):

 

 

[Sage Raven Domino]

37 minutes ago, CBC said:

God I break out in a fucking cold sweat (well, almost) when someone digs up an old thread I've posted in.

I'm sorry 

 

You have the right to revenge by quoting my old threads; some of them were extremely stupid 

[Guest]

Im one of those people that likes partnered sexual interactions but not PiV, even though its typically an option. Does make me a rarity though and is probably one of the reasons I could never become sexually interested in anyone in the past. Removing that act alone makes things so, so much nicer. The idea of adding it isn't that appealing even after experiencing sexual attraction. 

[tase]

3 hours ago, CBC said:

Hrmm. Do you desire other sexual acts with women, @tase?

 

2 hours ago, CBC said:

"Impenetrosexual" though... lmao. I remember that thread.

Yes. I believe somewhere I explained that I desire a relationship with ZERO sexual pressure. 

If we take away PIV, we are 95% there. Regularity (I’m sure there is a better term) is also huge for me as in I prefer being irregular.  

 

Lobbed one (several) up for you @Skycaptain

[Måskemigselvetsted]

On 3/8/2019 at 6:27 PM, Telecaster68 said:

... and don't mind not being taken seriously.

 

If you want sex, then you must be experiencing sexual attraction, so you're not asexual.

You can want sex a lot of other reasons than sexual attraction. Maybe it feels good, maybe you like to make other people feel good, maybe it feels fun, maybe you like the intimacy before/after, maybe you like the confirmation it can give you.

 

I'm not sexually attracted to the guy I like atm. I'm not even sure I'm romantically attracted to him. I'd still like to have sex with him, and that doesn't give anyone the right to take my asexuality less seriously or try to gatekeep my own identity from me.

[Guest]

I can understand the attraction to Dinklage. He is charming in a down to earth blunt way. The way his character is in "Little Bit of Heaven" could easily win over a lot of people if they think he could be like that for real at any point. 

 

But yeah... I dont understand "I want sex with this person for my own pleasure but Im not sexually attracted to them". I stopped IDing as ace because I began desiring sexual activities with my spouse. For the connection, for the feeling, for the trust. 

[Måskemigselvetsted]

1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

Those are all reasons that sexual people feel too - in fact they're pretty much the reasons. What do you think sexual attraction is if it doesn't include any of those?

 

If you want to have sex with him for your own innate pleasure (ie not to get pregnant, or relationship management),  you're sexually attracted to him.

 

Again, what do you think sexual attraction is, other than 'wanting to have sex with someone'?

 

1 hour ago, CBC said:

Those are all reasons sexual people have sex. 😶

I'm aware allos also have sex for that reason. But they are not exclusive to allos.

 

But no, I never see anyone and think "he/she/they are hot."

 

I think "sexual attraction" is seeing someone and - for some reason which doesn't have to be how they look - want to do things, which feels sexual with them. And I don't feel that. I can feel a desire to cuddle up with someone - or hug them or just touch them - and they way I've understood sexual attraction it's like that, but with sex. As it is now I can like someone, I can cuddle with them, I can be wet, and I still don't feel any pull to have sex with them.

 

I've been away from AVEN for a couple of years - but since when did it become okay to tell other people, what they feel? No, I don't experience sexual attraction. But it's possible to have sex or want to have sex without experiencing sexual attraction.

[Måskemigselvetsted]

9 minutes ago, CBC said:

Errr... yes they are? That's what makes them "allo" (or, you know, sexual).

 

We're not telling you what you feel, you're telling us what you feel. We're telling you what it means.

No, it's not.

 

I can want to hug a friend because we are friends and she's nice and I've missed her or she said something vulnerable or cute or whatever.

 

I can also want to hug some man because I feel some kind of sensual attraction to him that makes me want to be physically close to him.

 

In both cases I want to hug the other person. But in one case, it feels like being attracted to the person, and the other case it doesn't, it's just a way of showing my friend I like her.

 

Sexual attraction isn't that much different - you can have sex with someone because it's fun and you are attracted to them, or you can have sex with someone because it's sort of entertaining and weird and you want to show them you like them. You don't have to be sexually attracted to them, just like I can want to hug my friend without feeling sensually attracted to her.

 

 

Well, then stop telling me what my feelings mean when I haven't asked, when I've spend a decade more than you trying to understand them - and I'm pretty happy with the result.

[Måskemigselvetsted]

2 minutes ago, CBC said:

Welp, there are some reasons I've actually not ever wanted to have sex. If I want weird entertainment, there's YouTube.

Good for you, but that wasn't my point, and you know it

[Måskemigselvetsted]

6 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

If you want to look at them, you're aesthetically attracted to them.

 

If you want to have a relationship with them, you're romantically attracted to them.

 

If you want to have sex with them, you're sexually attracted to them.

That's extremely unnuanced, try to read my previous reply again. If it was that simple, why would there be thousands "am I asexual??" "what IS sexual attraction really?" "help, is this sexual attraction or not?"-posts

 

Also - maybe don't try to explain to someone asexual why they are not actual ace? I do know my own feelings, thank you very much

 

EDIT: maybe it's as easy as you wrote for you and most allos. But it happen not to be like that for everyone - some of us can still chose to want to have sex without feeling any sort of sexual attraction.

 

[Måskemigselvetsted]

1 minute ago, CBC said:

Yes, and? So is whether you want to have sex with someone.

 

Maybe for you, definitely not for me.

 

1 minute ago, Telecaster68 said:

 Because they've heard this stuff about asexuals wanting to have sex with people in exactly the same way that sexuals do, and are confused.

 

 Nobody's said otherwise. We're just saying you're applying a label to them inaccurately.

I happen to have chosen the completely correct label. I think it's pretty acephobic to be so certain that you know better than me what my sexual identity is.

[Måskemigselvetsted]

You know, maybe the reason you don't get why you can be asexual and still want sex for whichever reason without suddenly stopping being ace is because it says on both your accounts that you are sexuals. So if someone who is ace comes by and say that yes, it's possible, maybe listen instead of assuming you know better, even though it isn't something you would never have had the possibility to experience (assuming your sexuality isn't fluid)

[Måskemigselvetsted]

Just now, Telecaster68 said:

Words do not mean whatever you want them to mean. They mean whatever people agree they mean. A bit like a Euro isn't worth whatever your think it's worth as there's another person involved in the exchange.

 

Also, I'm still puzzled about how you can want to have sex with someone and also not want to have sex with someone. You didn't really address that.

Luckily, words doesn't mean what you want them to mean, either.

 

I can want to have sex with someone without that desire being grounded in an experience of attraction. It's really very simple, if you don't get it, maybe it's just because you've never personally had the chance to experience it?

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

Hmmmm....could this be aromantic sexual ?

[Måskemigselvetsted]

Stop identifying me. I can perfectly well put labels on myself and I didn't ask for help.

 

I'm asexual. I might be aromantic, I might not, I don't care. 

 

I don't want you to put any more labels on me, I didn't ask for it, and it's honestly not a very nice feeling.

[Måskemigselvetsted]

Just now, Telecaster68 said:

No, you can't. Wanting to have sex with someone (other than for pregnancy, stop them leaving etc) constitutes sexual attraction.

 

Since I'm sexual, yes, I've experience sexual attraction. A lot.

Yes, so you've likely never tried turning things sexual with someone you didn't feel sexually attracted - because why would you, when you did feel attracted to other people.

 

I happen to not feel attracted to anyone, so if I did want to try to have sex, it seemed naturally to have it with someone I wasn't sexually attracted to. Therefore, it makes sense you don't recognize the feeling of wanting to have sex with someone your aren't attracted to because you have never had to

[Måskemigselvetsted]

Just now, CBC said:

Why is disagreeing over definitions always "phobic" now. If I have an orange and I tell you it's an apple and you say no, it's an orange... do I get to scream APPLEPHOBIA!? What??

 

Because gatekeeping other peoples identities are acephobic (if we are talking about asexuality, ofc)

[Måskemigselvetsted]

Just now, Telecaster68 said:

Okay, so what you mean is you want to have sex with them for the sake of the relationship? Because that's definitely not what you implied before.

No, I came with other reasons to have sex. I didn't have sex because of the relationship, I also didn't have sex because of all the reasons I gave, I did because of some one them, and a few I didn't mention

[Sage Raven Domino]

50 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

So now I'm confused.

I find ice cream tasty and can eat it when I'm in a cafe and someone orders it for me, but I don't feel the pull to buy it when I walk near it in a department store because reasons.

[Sage Raven Domino]

32 minutes ago, Telecaster68 said:

Yep I know that analogy. The poster had previously strongly implied she did feel the urge to go into the store and buy ice cream, hence my confusion.

I'd rather order myself a vegetarian cheeseburger stuffed with spices and maybe unprocessed onions than a serving of ice cream, but I understand that my tablemates wouldn't enjoy that and they want to bond with me over the appreciation of ice cream, and I feel for them and do what they expect.

 

I can't come up with a better analogy because I haven't had my daily heavy dose of black tea yet.

[Kimmie.]

42 minutes ago, CBC said:

Honestly I'm becoming acephobic. I'm scared of what asexuals are doing to the English language.

Another reason to why I am not open about my asexuality. We are the laughingstock of the Internet and for good reason unfortunately. 

[Måskemigselvetsted]

1 hour ago, Telecaster68 said:

Just for clarity, because I'm honestly confused now... this is where the line is usually drawn (and not by me, but as the general consensus on AVEN): having sex for reasons such as to find out what it's like, getting pregnant, to placate a partner - in other words in a situation where sex is the solution to a problem - are 'asexual' reasons, as it were. If you could find another way of achieving that end, you'd use the other way. Having sex because you find it intimate, pleasurable, bonding, etc - in other words for its own sake - are the reasons sexuals have sex.

 

It is that simple and unnuanced.

(A)sexuality isn't defined by whether you have sex or not or for which reasons. It's defined by whether you experience sexual attraction.

 

Like I said before, I get that you can't relate, because it makes less sense to want to have sex with someone, you are not attracted to, if you could instead have it with someone you are attracted to.

[Sage Raven Domino]

10 minutes ago, CBC said:

But what is sexual attraction if not "wanting to have sex with someone"?

If one makes the decision to consent to sex (or initiate it) by means of purely rational derivation from one's non-sexual thoughts and feelings, then it doesn't qualify as a sexual attraction episode imo.

 

If the derivation has a significant irrational component, I still don't know where to draw the line.

[Guest Jetsun Milarepa]

I'm thinking this is all nuts.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, chandrakirti said:

I'm thinking this is all nuts.

Same...

 

I did not experience sexual attraction for 30 years. I didn't want sex with anyone, because I was not attracted to them in that way. I had sex, because it made other people feel good, never was for my own emotional/physical gain. It was purely a "they want it, I don't mind giving it, so I'll give... even though I'd rather be doing something else, but it's important to them". So, I ID'd as asexual for 5 or so years (25-30, after finding the label existed).

 

I met someone that I did want to have sex with, for myself, not just for them. I actually wanted to partake, not just to make them feel good, but because it makes me feel good. I initiated it because I wanted it. Therefore, I stopped IDing as asexual. The wanting to partake in sex, not for other people, for myself, is sexual attraction for me and most people I know. Only on AVEN and asexual tumblrs does it seem that isn't the case. So, IDing as ace didn't make sense to me anymore and I dropped that label.

 

Others seem to be fine keeping the label even after experiencing it. I don't understand how it fits. But, to each their own, sexuality is a self-ID thing.

[jay williams]

On 3/8/2019 at 12:34 PM, Nowhere Girl said:

 

I don't think that a label is needed for that. I'm not even sure about using it on dating profiles - a lot of people are fed up with microlabels, writing "I don't like PIV" doesn't take much more space and anyway I doubt if it's something to make public... I'm old-fashioned enough to believe that sexual preferences should be discussed after getting to know each other at least a little.

However, basically highlighting the fact is needed. Straight people are expected to desire PIV, gay men are expected to desire anal sex, and preferences are much broader than that.

I am always appreciative of your knowledge and wisdom. There is one statement you made that defies my understanding and experience however.   You state that gay men are expected to desire anal sex. This is surely true in many instances, and it is the main activity depicted in movies. However, it is my belief and understanding that oral sex is the biggest preference for gay and bi males; with giving oral significantly more popular than receiving. Do you have a source that supports your statement?

 

[everywhere and nowhere]

I'm speaking from the other side of the attraction/desire divide: I can feel something which could be described as a form of sexual attraction, but at the same time I feel entirely unable to desire sex (and to have sex) with anyone. And, to be honest, I personally prefer defining asexuality as "not wanting to have sex" rather than "not experiencing sexual attraction" - also because I find it less confusing. I have seen people scratch their heads over "what is sexual attraction???", completely baffled by the idea of deciding whether they have experienced something when they don't even know what it feels like (I'm, by the way, inclined to believe that having this kind of doubts more often than not suggests that the person involved doesn't experience sexual attraction).

But I just don't like gatekeeping, especially when it gets aggressive. Yes, I have too been affected by gatekeeping - not really for experiencing sexual attraction (I'd guess it's because others probably don't recognise what I experience as sexual attraction because it never includes the component of "wanting to have sex"), rather for believing that more than only lifelong zero sexual attraction counts as asexuality.

But that's what I believe. After all, any label is only an approximation. Nobody's asexual experience - or any other kind of experience - is identical to anyone else's experience. Yes, I agree with the most basic statement that labels shouldn't be confusing, that if they are confusing, it can result in doing a disservice to the group to which they refer. But still a label never means exactly the same. For some people the asexual label is obvious. For some it's just the best match because they are anyway incapable of "normal" sexual functioning and choose not to try changing their feelings (this is also my case: if asexuality is defined as "not wanting to have sex", I am effectively asexual because of nontraumatic sex aversion). So I rather perceive asexuality as a spectrum of consistent experiences of very low or nonexistent levels of sexual desire, clearly below what is socioculturally perceived as the "norm". The side on which I stand - the experience of not wanting to have sex (which also has different grades from mere lack of interest to active aversion) is the easiest to understand for me. But just because I cannot imagine myself being able to desire sex, to consent to sex, to simply not feel that sex would be a deeply frightening and traumatic experience - I don't want to exclude people who feel otherwise and for whom the concept of "not experiencing sexual attraction" feels closer. (The only thing I definitely wouldn't tolerate would be saying things like "True asexuals should be sex-indifferent, aversion is pathological and sex-averse people should choose treatment" or "Wanting or not wanting to have sex has nothing to do with asexuality! Use the attraction-based definition or get lost!".) What I want of the asexual community is support for people who have been influenced by both social enthusiasm for sex and by being told that you shouldn't trust your own feelings, particularly if you're very young, female, colored or a member of any other underprivileged group - such people need validation, need countering these anti-individualistic, anti-introspection beliefs and instead recognise that they feel what they feel and they have a right to accept it. But I also want the asexual community to challenge mainstream views about sex, to show that some people can live happy lives without sex (and some even can only live happy lives without sex), that the concept of sexual freedom must include freedom not to have sex, that if sex positivity is to be worthy of saving, it should be agency positivity and not sexual enthusiasm. Because of this, the asexual communities shouldn't exclude people who are on the fringes, in the gray area, or even those who are clearly outside the community (for example voluntarily celibate people), but face some of the same prejudice. I deeply believe in the idea that "sexual revolution should be revised" to re-accomodate those who were left behind, judged abnormal for their preference for not having sex, or only having sex if very specific conditions are met. (I don't necessarily believe that the latter must constitute asexuality, but I do see a lot of prejudice for people who are willing to have sex exclusively in a committed relationship and are told that they are "wasting their youth" if they prefer waiting because they can't settle for anything less.) I perceive asexuality as a very valuable movement for intiating this kind of change, but I'll rather jump off the asexual bandwagon if the community starts suggesting that asexuality is the only good reason not to have sex.

[everywhere and nowhere]

24 minutes ago, jay williams said:

There is one statement you made that defies my understanding and experience however.   You state that gay men are expected to desire anal sex. This is surely true in many instances, and it is the main activity depicted in movies. However, it is my belief and understanding that oral sex is the biggest preference for gay and bi males; with giving oral significantly more popular than receiving. Do you have a source that supports your statement?

 

I have simply seen a case very similar to the OP. The OP is a most likely straight man who wonders if he might be asexual because he doesn't like PIV, and the person in that case I'm mentioning (about a year ago? maybe even less) was a gay man who wondered whether he might be asexual because he doesn't like anal sex, either as a top or as a bottom. Just like in the OP's case, from what he described it seemed clear that he enjoyed everything else - oral sex, manual sex, petting... - just not the activity considered most typical for his orientation. So I believe that it too deserves the same kind of clarification: asexuality is about preferring no partnered sexual activities at all, not just about not liking the kind of sexual activity which is most likely to be judged "Full Sex" for their particular orientation.

I agree that in fact oral sex seems much more popular among gays and bisexual men than anal. However, there is still at least the stereotype that "gay sex is anal sex" and, as the case I described shows, it can also influence people's thoughtfeeling to the point that they start wondering whether something could be not right with them because they don't desire the activity considered most typical for their orientation. By the way, the inverted form of this belief - "anal sex is gay sex" (or, in other words, "anal sex is for gays") - also seems to be common. There seems to be a widepread belief, particularly among men who have never tried being the receptive side in any kind of partnered or solitary anal play, that the rectum is just an orifice the "bottom" partner is offering simply because of not having a vagina. Given general beliefs that anal sex is a particularly disgusting kind of sex, a lot of women also believe that "why should I try anal sex if I have a vagina?". I absolutely don't suggest that people should try things they are uncomfortable with, but

Spoiler

I am personally, to be honest, much less apprehensive about anal than vaginal experimentation. For me anyway the only kind I consider is self-pleasuring because I'm entirely unwilling to ever have any kind of partnered sex, but it's much less frightening to try inserting something into an orifice which expands with relative ease given my mild obesity*, than into one which is protected by a large and thick piece of mucosal tissue.

*Recently I tried massaging my sphincter with gloved and oiled fingers - not for autoerotic purposes, but rather because of constipation - and, perhaps unlike what is true for most people, for me inserting two fingers is pretty much painless...

 

[Kimmie.]

Yup the sexuals on this forum are the ones that makes it work, Without you we would all run around like dizzy chickens (that was a something that did sound good translated: som yra höns 😊) I mean you would not go to car salesman and ask how a black hole works, to then go and say that to a space enginer.