How can an asexual become aroused if there's no attraction to people?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

Related in the sense of non-human characters, but yes it's been a thing probably since Brum xD Definitely a lot of us came into it from Cars though, as I did, and some of us never left. My avatar is my carsona, as he currently exists in the RP we live in daily.

 

But I feel this has now been slightly off-topicked xD

( ... O-oh boy I don't even know what Brum is. Sorry ; ; ; ; ; ) 

 

Although I do remember back then Cars and Transformers had uhh pretty strong followings on, dunno, Fandom Secrets or whatever hmm. I just never knew there's, like, a niche? Living and learning! 

 

... It has derailed. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Brittany_1 said:

I've tried to masturbate since I was 17. I'm 22 now. From what I can tell, I've never been aroused even though I've tried to become aroused. I know some asexuals masturbate but how can they? What do they think about?  Nothing? Doesn't the mind have to be aroused in order for the body to follow?

 

Edit: As an asexual, my main question is how to become aroused

Heck I'm not even ace but can't answer. For me, my arousal is never from a person I saw or from something I watched or whatever, it just happens on it's own

 

Sorry that doesn't help, but yeah arousal is a really confusing thing that happens in different ways for different people. Some people can become aroused just from touching themselves, heck.. that would make life so much easier if that were the case for me, lol.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

16 minutes ago, Hanas said:

( ... O-oh boy I don't even know what Brum is. Sorry ; ; ; ; ; ) 

 

Although I do remember back then Cars and Transformers had uhh pretty strong followings on, dunno, Fandom Secrets or whatever hmm. I just never knew there's, like, a niche? Living and learning! 

 

... It has derailed. 

Brum, an adorable little car from a cartoon I (perhaps not surprisingly) used to love xD

Spoiler

 

Well I found a fellow Pixar-vehicle dork on here in the last few month, so the fandom still very much exists!

 

Yes, it has been derailed. Will stop now :x

[R_1]

3 hours ago, CBC said:

I'm sexual and I don't have to think about people to get aroused. I mean, if I think about someone I'm really into (I don't mean because they're super duper hot, I mean because I have a connection with them) or I watch porn, sure, that helps... but I can also just decide I feel like masturbating, start doing it, and my body responds.

 

No, most definitely doesn't have to be. Which is exactly why I could be bored as shit, doing nothing, not experiencing random arousal or thinking of/interacting with a partner or watching porn, and my body will still react to touch.

Same here except that I can't really get into someone like that, but if I'm seeing some thing obviously sexual, a lot of time, my body will definitely respond automatically as a reflex even if I don't want to because it is sexual no matter how much I don't think about it. Doesn't mean I want any of that.

[Philip027]

Quote

That's something I don't understand. If a person isn't sexually attracted to people, how can a person get aroused by looking at people? 

Honestly, when it comes to porn, I think observers are generally more into seeing the acts they're doing than they are into the people doing them.  This is probably particularly true for aces that view it, but I bet it even applies to a good chunk of sexual people too.

[GlamRocker]

4 hours ago, Brittany_1 said:

That's exactly what I thought would happen when I first started trying to masturbate,  but my body doesn't respond.

I'm surprised at this... most of my life I've thought of nothing when I masturbate, and I started masturbating because I'd heard of how awesome it was... and it IS. lol And it worked for me just from touch, the physical sensations alone get me going. Everyone is different, I've heard, but the clitoris should be universal, it's full of nerve endings and incredibly adept at producing pleasure.

 

YES I have assumed you are a woman from your screen name.

 

3 hours ago, Snao Cone (me) said:

Some people get turned on by music, by the smell of food, or by the vibrations of a thunderstorm.

This kind of thing happens to me, like once I was turned on when I was working on dislodging a wheel bearing from the hub (mechanic work.) It was in a vice, struck with a hammer, and the sensation of the metal striking metal, and the vibration turned me on. It's true that I didn't feel any need to go masturbate or something (and, in fact, never do. I masturbate by a schedule... strange but TRUE lol) Also, (I've spoken about this in another thread), danger (adrenaline spike) often does this to me.

 

3 hours ago, Brittany_1 said:

That's something I don't understand. If a person isn't sexually attracted to people, how can a person get aroused by looking at people? 

I agree with you here. Truth is, I personally no longer believe asexuality has anything to do with attraction. I think asexuality is only the natural lack of sexual desire.

[Philip027]

Quote

I'm surprised at this... most of my life I've thought of nothing when I masturbate, and I started masturbating because I'd heard of how awesome it was... and it IS. lol And it worked for me just from touch, the physical sensations alone get me going. Everyone is different, I've heard, but the clitoris should be universal, it's full of nerve endings and incredibly adept at producing pleasure.

I actually can relate to the OP here, because for me at least, touching around down there doesn't do anything.  I've likened it to touching my arm.

 

I have to actually be in some sort of sexual scenario with another person before anything has a chance of happening.

[R_1]

54 minutes ago, GlamRocker said:

I agree with you here. Truth is, I personally no longer believe asexuality has anything to do with attraction. I think asexuality is only the natural lack of sexual desire.

But, this raise a question. Isn't the desire of having sex with x-person is the only thing that matters in terms of attraction, or is the only good definition of attraction?

[Alejandrogynous]

I dunno, my body just does it on its own. Or if I just feel like it, I only have to touch myself to get a response started. It's always been that easy for me, I've been masturbating since I was a small child when I happened to discover "touch here, feel good," but I definitely wasn't having sexual thoughts about other people at six years old. It was just a physical response.

 

Now as an adult, I have my fantasies and whatnot, but I still have no desire to have sex of any kind with a partner. It's also more that specific acts/scenarios arouse me than the people involved, which is why I like written erotica and the people in my fantasies tend to be kind of vague and faceless. Once there's too much detail, I start to get turned off so I steer clear of most visual media like traditional porn. My fantasies also never include myself, only ever in third person perspective, and trying to insert myself into a sexual fantasy is an instant arousal-killer.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, Alejandrogynous said:

It's also more that specific acts/scenarios arouse me than the people involved

Is this more common amongst asexuals who do get aroused from watching porn? Because I feel like both aces and sexuals who like to watch porn focus more on the specific acts/scenarios than the people, but I guess it's possible that sexuals are interested in certain porn stars? 

[Alejandrogynous]

47 minutes ago, LibraGirl said:

Is this more common amongst asexuals who do get aroused from watching porn? Because I feel like both aces and sexuals who like to watch porn focus more on the specific acts/scenarios than the people, but I guess it's possible that sexuals are interested in certain porn stars? 

I honestly don't know, you'd have to ask people (sexual and asexual) who watch porn, I guess. I imagine a number of people are like that regardless of orientation but I don't know enough about it to say how many.

[Brittany_1]

4 hours ago, GlamRocker said:

the clitoris should be universal, it's full of nerve endings and incredibly adept at producing pleasure.

While that may be true, I guess for some people it takes more than touch for the person to feel anything. I asked a question on another forum site about my lack arousal/ability to experience sexual pleasure. There, the consensus was that my mind had to be turned on and that just touching wouldn't yield a response.

[Rhyn Corinn]

Personally, while I can say that sometimes I can be aroused by nothing more than physical stimulation, most of the time it has to start with mental stimulation. I don't know if that's always the case for everyone, but it does mean that physical stimulation isn't always guaranteed to work.

 

I honestly don't know how you could arouse yourself if nothing so far has had that effect on you. In my case, the thoughts that arouse me just kind of happened, so I never really had to experiment or anything to find out what worked. And while sexual things (like porn, erotica, etc.) do seem to work for a lot of people, including some aces, they definitely never worked for me and aren't necessarily guaranteed to work for everyone. I guess my point is, I don't think there's any universal method to getting aroused. It's possible that for some, nothing works. (Though I'm not trying to discourage you from trying to find something that works, if that's what you want to do.)

[Janus the Fox]

12 hours ago, Hanas said:

You're not wrong. (And I was gonna mention the safe search thing but was legit lazy to type lol.)  

 

I actually didn't even know that was A Thing (... I probably should cuz Transformers and all that but) but that's cute. Much less did I know the fandom was "related" smh to furry ; ; ; turns out I'm old huh 

Nah when I search just “Furry” it brings up information but not porn, furries are often misunderstood and the sex scene is tiny and not like it was is this whole culture emerged in the early 1980s.  I’m an Asexual Furry in my 30s, sex isn’t part of the puzzle for me 😛

[GlamRocker]

10 hours ago, R_1 said:

But, this raise a question. Isn't the desire of having sex with x-person is the only thing that matters in terms of attraction, or is the only good definition of attraction?

As long as I've been hearing the debates around asexuality... NO ONE has been able to define where aesthetic attraction ends and sexual attraction begins (or even make a believable case that aesthetic attraction ISN'T sexual attraction.) Also, romantic attraction is based on genitals (or else why would the romantic attractions specify what SEX the object of attraction is) so it doesn't make sense that there isn't at least a psychosexual element to it.

 

Basically, asexuals "don't feel sexual attraction" only in the most technical sense... because how can it be sexual attraction if you lack desire to have sex with them? But that brings us back to the point I've made. Asexuality is about lacking sexual desire, PERIOD. And sexual attraction is not only a 100% moot point... but no one can clearly define what makes something sexual attraction from a purely emotional/feeling standpoint, anyway... they just have to fall back on the fact that the asexual just naturally lacks sexual desire for that person anyway, so no matter how they FEEL about the person, it "can't be sexual attraction." So even mentioning sexual attraction as having anything to do with asexuality is superfluous, meaningless, and, let's be honest, downright inaccurate information.

 

Also, so many asexuals enjoy porn. YES, I have personally concluded that porn DOES reflect sexual attraction. But, to me, they are still asexuals... because I've concluded that all one needs to be an asexual is to naturally lack sexual desire (sexual desire meaning, the desire to engage in sexuality with another party. Naturally meaning, they didn't CHOOSE it, like celibacy... it just happened to them somehow at ANY point in their life.) Therefore, I've concluded asexuality isn't an orientation. Because it doesn't matter in the slightest WHAT attraction a person feels.

 

This really does seem to be the way asexuality actually presents in human beings. As, no, I don't believe it is asexuality if one is comfortable with having sex. That's sexuality, that's a sexual. There would be no point in trying to distinguish one's self from sexual people if one is comfortable with having sex.

[GlamRocker]

7 hours ago, Brittany_1 said:

While that may be true, I guess for some people it takes more than touch for the person to feel anything. I asked a question on another forum site about my lack arousal/ability to experience sexual pleasure. There, the consensus was that my mind had to be turned on and that just touching wouldn't yield a response.

lol they're wrong. I get off the treadmill and am like, "Oh, it's time," feel NOTHING, and but after I've started touching for a minute, oh NOW I feel something, OKAY!

 

Anyway, I'm sure there are exceptions to this, there are always exceptions to everything. BUT, those people are STILL WAY FUCKING WRONG. lol

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Janus DarkFox said:

Nah when I search just “Furry” it brings up information but not porn, furries are often misunderstood and the sex scene is tiny and not like it was is this whole culture emerged in the early 1980s.  I’m an Asexual Furry in my 30s, sex isn’t part of the puzzle for me 😛

Really? I said that precisely because of what I said before (Wanted to cosplay Amy Rose for a furry con, don't know sh about furry, googled it and uh no this is not what I meant lol). But English isn't my first language so maybe it is more a local thing too ... ? 

 

Also if you'd like to enlighten me I'd be actually thankful

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, GlamRocker said:

As long as I've been hearing the debates around asexuality... NO ONE has been able to define where aesthetic attraction ends and sexual attraction begins (or even make a believable case that aesthetic attraction ISN'T sexual attraction.) Also, romantic attraction is based on genitals (or else why would the romantic attractions specify what SEX the object of attraction is) so it doesn't make sense that there isn't at least a psychosexual element to it.

... This POV makes me so happy because I can't seem to wrap my head around the concept of romantic orientation and aesthetic attraction I find a bit less alien but still pretty confusing/unnecessary? And I like the way you put it because it makes me feel less innately dumb, thanks 

 

I wouldn't say uncomfortable though, maybe not actively desire it? As some aces in relationships with allos might not be uncomfortable about it, just bored or not particulary excited I think

[Snao Cone]

2 hours ago, GlamRocker said:

As long as I've been hearing the debates around asexuality... NO ONE has been able to define where aesthetic attraction ends and sexual attraction begins (or even make a believable case that aesthetic attraction ISN'T sexual attraction.) Also, romantic attraction is based on genitals (or else why would the romantic attractions specify what SEX the object of attraction is) so it doesn't make sense that there isn't at least a psychosexual element to it.

I think it can be hard for sexual people to put it into words, but there are some cases where aesthetic attraction ends and no sexual attraction follows. But overall it doesn't feel the same. Perhaps their solely aesthetic attraction is more like a sense of attractability, or it could be more impersonal like a piece of art instead of a full person.

 

But you're right that in cases with both aesthetic and sexual attraction, it's all one and the same for most sexual people, at least when they're turned on by their aesthetic tastes. The presence of a desire to have sex with another person is where things separate between asexual and sexual people. 

[Janus the Fox]

2 hours ago, Hanas said:

Really? I said that precisely because of what I said before (Wanted to cosplay Amy Rose for a furry con, don't know sh about furry, googled it and uh no this is not what I meant lol). But English isn't my first language so maybe it is more a local thing too ... ? 

 

Also if you'd like to enlighten me I'd be actually thankful

Ahh local google languages probably then

[Philip027]

Quote

As long as I've been hearing the debates around asexuality... NO ONE has been able to define where aesthetic attraction ends and sexual attraction begins (or even make a believable case that aesthetic attraction ISN'T sexual attraction.)

It begins when some part of you starts desiring sexual activity with the person (even if in practice you wouldn't actually follow through with it, for whatever reason).  Not sure how that's supposed to be complicated.

 

Quote

Also, romantic attraction is based on genitals (or else why would the romantic attractions specify what SEX the object of attraction is) so it doesn't make sense that there isn't at least a psychosexual element to it.

Again, no; "genitals" are not the only thing that is influenced by a person's sex, and therefore "genitals" are not the only thing that might influence one's romantic orientation (and in the case of an asexual romantic, I would dare say they almost never are)

 

You can keep spouting this stuff in as many threads as you like but that still doesn't make it reflect reality.

 

Quote

This really does seem to be the way asexuality actually presents in human beings. As, no, I don't believe it is asexuality if one is comfortable with having sex. That's sexuality, that's a sexual. There would be no point in trying to distinguish one's self from sexual people if one is comfortable with having sex.

Sorry, but asexuality =/= sex repulsion.  That's only what many non-aces think it means.

[N8ty L3asT]

20 hours ago, Brittany_1 said:

As an asexual, my main question is how to become aroused

I’m not sure if it matters or not if a person is asexual everyone can be aroused by different forms of stimuli.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Philip027 said:

Honestly, when it comes to porn, I think observers are generally more into seeing the acts they're doing than they are into the people doing them.  This is probably particularly true for aces that view it, but I bet it even applies to a good chunk of sexual people too.

A huge chunk pick specific people to look up, even to the point a lot of male sex toys are molds of their favorite porn stars anus or vagina so they can pretend to have sex with them. They claim its "the acts" but I don't see how you google a person by name cause they turn you on best and yet it "isn't about the person". If it wasn't then any porn star doing those acts would do it. However, I have met few people without actor preference. "They do it better, but it isn't about the person" sounds about as believably not about attraction as "I am not attracted to my bf but I love sex with him" 

[Guest]

22 hours ago, Brittany_1 said:

As an asexual, my main question is how to become aroused

For me it's a combination of physical and mental stimulation. I can only think of sex in order for me to feel aroused in addition to having that physical stimulation i.e. masturbation. I cannot continue feeling aroused if I only rely on physical stimulation if that makes sense? I might get slightly aroused with just the physical stimulation but I wouldn't be interested in continuing further without that mental picturing. I need to be picturing a sexual situation to get more aroused. This is just my experience and it differs between people.

 

@Philip027 Conversely I think you can be sexual and be sex repulsed, no? That being uncomfortable with sex doesn't equate to asexuality.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CBC said:

I... I'm not sure about that, at least for everyone. I agree with you and I don't, however that works haha. I'm pretty sure that's based on my own experiences, though. Romantic attraction for me (and sexual attraction, because they're entirely connected in my head) is based on human connection, the ability to connect intimately with someone. Emotionally, mentally, whatever. People just happen to have genitals... and I'm sexual so I like sex with people I'm romantically/sexually attracted to, so it's a good thing that they do have 'em, haha. Can't have sex without genitals.

 

But let's say that someone is 100% heterosexual or homosexual. Is it about genitals? I guess? But it seems like more than that as well. What about asexuals who are 100% one or the other? (My ex was like this, no interest in other men ever.) Isn't it about more than genitals, then? Gender roles, perhaps? But then that brings up questions regarding attraction (or lack thereof) to people who are trans. Can a case be made for asexuality not really being an orientation so much as just an innate lack of interest in sexytimes with other people (which is my theory, tbh)? That brings it back to it is about genitals. I'm basically just thinking as I type haha, so I don't know where I'm going with this. Human sexuality is fascinating, really. Obviously people can be very different. Reminds me of something I was listening to a while ago about how to tell if you're bisexual, and it comes down to whether you get the dopamine rush associated with sexual/romantic attraction when interacting with people. If you've experienced that with people of both sexes, you're bisexual. That's just how your brain is wired. Are bisexual people just attracted to all genitals then? Maybe? To me, the reality feels more like not giving a shit what particular bits someone has. But that could just be semantics... explaining it by way of human emotions and how we perceive our own feelings, more than basic-level biological instincts.

 

(I still have no idea what I'm trying to say and this is a mess of a post. 😂)

I think now is a good time to ask seeing as there is someone with a sort of diametrically opposite view and experience in life than me, then. Please don't take it personally, I just wanted to ask: 

If it's not a sexual orientation then, to you, what does a sexual orientation MAKES? If it's not the desire or lack thereof of having sexytimes/doing the do/etc with anyone else? 

 

Now my POV. Seems like some people - perhaps the majority - see sexuality as some sort of built up innate mechanism, which isn't my case. Personally I think it is more of a byproduct of environmental and biological responses just like, say, the onset of a mental illness or anything of those sorts of subjective experiences. As it has been proven in the case of mental illnesses smh. 

To me sexuality is just this and, to me, it wouldn't be weird if one day enlightenment came to us and we came to the realization that 1/4 people are biologically homosexual, 1/4 are heterosexual, 1/4 are bisexual and 1/4 are asexual like in a genetic way ; but the 1/4 asexuals and homosexuals are trying hard to fit the bill, the 1/4 bisexuals are just repressing/ignoring/not acting upon the attraction to the same gender (which honestly wouldn't be hard) and the only people actuaaally happy 'bout all this societal shit is the heterosexual 1/4 lol 
Of course IF it was genetic makes sense for it to be skewed and maybe there are in fact far more heterosexuals/bisexuals or whatever. Also sorta makes sense for younger generations to be more queer? But ... It's just a pseudoscientific hypothesis to entertain the brain. My point is: I *do* think if there wasn't repression of any kind people's sexual preferences would be quite the diverse. So yeah. I am also kinda sorta radical feminist (please educate yourself no not all radfems are angry terfs,) so if you tell me it's attraction to gender roles, I don't accept that as a final answer and WILL bug you - but what about a biological male who happens to be delicate and/or submissive and/or androgynous and/or do housework, is that a potential romantic partner for you? Or a woman who happens to be a built/taller angry short haired career woman lumberjack or whatever. How do you feel? So if you tell me "but that's still a woman!" or whatever, then it is about the genitals. Or maybe the biological apparatus? Pheromones? But if you don't care about interacting with the genitals then what are you gonna tell me? How are you going to convince me it is, in no way, societal? 

 

Of course that would bring us to a plethora of wonderful questions and thoughts - And if it IS societal (too), why are you so angry when we (as people who don't quite fit the bill) want to be "cured" / changed or whatever? Anyway, this is derailing lol. Back to before. Which is why I don't like labels and I am likely to believe in axis to a big spectrum; especially because, thinking about it, if your identity is an "a" then anything that deviates from that is suddenly not an a anymore and makes you bad about self-identification. And surely your initial evaluation could be wrong but can it not also be that is a deviant point just like an otherwise 100% heterosexual person could have that 01 case where they thought "hmm, I could perhaps go for this person of the same sex? ..." and I don't think that a bisexual makes. 

 

Thats longgg shit. As yall can tell Im procrastinating now. Sorry 

[Philip027]

Quote

Conversely I think you can be sexual and be sex repulsed, no? That being uncomfortable with sex doesn't equate to asexuality.

Yes.  Seen a few of them here on this forum even.  Often these people feel very at odds with their own desires and it needs to be worked out through a therapist or some equivalent before they can approach sexuality in a "healthy" way.

 

(post #11111!)

[Brittany_1]

2 hours ago, N8LV3y said:

I’m not sure if it matters or not if a person is asexual everyone can be aroused by different forms of stimuli.

I just feel like it's harder for me because I am asexual 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, CBC said:

Imo, orientation is who you have the capacity to be attracted to. Non-platonically (which should go without saying really, but on AVEN we seem to talk about platonic attraction like it's an orientation thing, soooo). 'Non-platonic' encompasses both sexual and romantic attraction. So by my way of thinking, you're either hetero, homo, bi (or pan; I know that's a preferred term for some folks), or... no attraction. Aro-ace, essentially. Romantic asexuals just don't seem to have the capacity for sexual desire but they still connect romantically, and aromantic sexuals don't have the capacity for romantic feelings for people despite desiring partnered sex.

 

Speaking as someone who's struggled with mental health issues all my life and knows a thing or two on the topic... mental illness is a mixed bag. Some of it is very much genetic. You are, essentially, born that way. Sometimes there are environmental/experiential factors more at play (experiencing abuse, for example). For many people who deal with mental health issues, it's an interplay of the two. You're born with a predisposition to such things, runs in the family or whatever, you have some life experiences that deeply affect your psychological wellbeing, and mental health issues are the result. (That's how it's been for me.) 

 

Sexuality is a complicated one. My personal belief is that we're probably innately one thing or the other and most of the time that's how life plays out, but I'm definitely aware that sometimes experiences play into how we end up identifying, the attractions we act upon, etc. One example would be someone who identifies as a lesbian and has relationships only with women, yet experiences attraction to men sometimes as well but is averse to actually engaging in such relationships because she had some sort of negative experience in her formative years. Perhaps a very abusive father, for example. And that's coloured her whole view of relationships with men, on a deep level, so she truly doesn't feel a desire to form non-platonic relationships with them. And who am I to say she can't call herself a lesbian? Do the reasons matter? For practical purposes, that's what she is.

 

Are you saying they'd be more diverse if repression wasn't a thing? Your wording is confusing me a little. If so, I think I agree there.

 

Honestly I'm trying to pick this apart and I'm a bit confused, but maybe that's my fault. I don't think it's all about attraction to gender roles of course, no. With the examples you gave, are you asking me personally? I know the categories of people I don't ever seem to be attracted to are hypermasculine dudebros (SPORTS! CARS! POWER TOOLS! PLAYBOY BUNNIES!), extremely stereotypical feminine women, and very masculine, butch women. I don't suppose I've ever thought about whether I could be into a guy who was extremely effeminate, however literally all men that I've met who are in that category are very very gay. I definitely know men who are overall masculine but still in touch with their emotions, can be submissive, enjoy things like baking or whatever (and lol, doing housework is just a basic human thing to do; men who refuse to do housework are straight-up assholes)... to me that's just being a well-rounded person.

 

I don't know, I can't speak to that experience since, as a sexual person, I do, um, "care about interacting with the genitals". Like I said in my post above, I'm sure what bits people have does play into it. That indicates some sort of biological inclination. I don't know if that's the whole of it though, plus I think my brain gets stuck on the concept of whether people are outright attracted to genitals themselves, in a disembodied sort of way. I'm attracted to the idea of sexual acts that involve the genitals of whoever I'm having sex with. (I'm pretty sure I'm picking this apart to a degree one really shouldn't, tbh.) If you're not attracted to people who radically defy societal gender norms despite having genitals that are the same as people you'd generally be attracted to, then probably their gender presentation is confusing your brain and you're not quite perceiving them as whatever they biologically are.

 

Me? I'm not angry. I couldn't care less what people want. I think trying to change who you innately are is not exactly healthy, though... like in the case of conversion therapy. I'm confused here, tbh...

 

On a very technical level, it does make them bisexual though. Even if they've spent their life shagging people of the opposite sex, if they suddenly truly desire to be sexually involved with a same-sex partner, if their brain responds to that person the same way it's responded to all the opposite-sex partners they've had, they are biologically bisexual. In a more socially-nuanced way, if they want to keep identifying as heterosexual for practical purposes, whatever, I don't personally care. There are certainly bisexual people who lean very heavily one way or the other.

Sorry it's kinda hard to type on my phone so I am gonna encompass each point in a diff paragraph, ok? 

 

Pretty much agree on the first paragraph really. Which is why I think asexuality is an orientation - defined by a lack sure but still. But again, as it is kinda alien to me - what IS romantic orientation? "You" say it is the desire to cuddle/etc but not engage in partnered sexual activity and then I ask, at which point is it one or another? I find that to be highly subjective and I think only oneself may be able to answer that. "You" say it is being able to feel affection, but don't like 99% of us? You say it's ability to engage in romance as viewed by society, I ask: isn't THAT societal? 

Speaking of which I am not cuddly/kissy/whatever at all but am very able to fall in love or feel affection or whatever, not sure where it puts me on a romantic spectrum. 

On the second, yes agreed. It's exactly what I meant as a professional and sufferer - it's interplay  and kinda agreed on the second part although I do think society plays a much bigger role - I think that is because of my own experiences as well. 

 

That's what I meant, sorry! 

 

The second part on gender roles wasn't personal I just derailed lol. But these questions I wanted to ask to anyone who is asexual but has a clearly gendered romantic orientation and doesn't think society plays any roles in all of it. I mean I think gender roles are societal/political and if you think that factors in sexual attraction then there's plenty of discussion and musings to be done. But yes sure I get it that as a sexual person you like some people, which doesn't have necessarily anything to do with sex and then you're more prone to being attracted to them in other ways. It's just normal - agreed too. I mean to me I probably wouldn't naturally approach these kinds of people either because we probably wouldn't have many shared experiences to talk about, so. Um. Not a problem? 

 

This part I think I can't discuss properly because some concepts are positively subjectively alien to me so lol sorry. 

 

Again, not you ... Theoretical "you" . But I guess we diverge exactly on to which extent we believe sexuality is innate or not? Sure that's just repressing if you want X but go for Y - agreed too? 

 

Dunno, wouldn't it be weird? Let's say that person doesn't act on it - never had any partners of the opposite sex/gender, never felt interested except for that one time after thinking cleeearly. Let's switch figures - it's a gay person that's been kinda attracted to someone of the opposite gender ONCE in their lifetime. This is mere speculation, I ain't sure I know anyone who fits these bills. But, like, where's the sense in calling them bisexual ... ? If not some societal expectative. Would they go in a dating app and say they're bisexual ... ? If that's not their thing why would they put themselves through such trouble? Y'know. 

 

This is what I meant by axis. Sorry if I explained ... Not so well. 

 

[Guest]

Forgot to mention one thing. When I said sure that's just repressing... 

 

Here I suppose you CAN get X ; sometimes you CAN'T and I guess this is how I factor in society. If you're innately a bisexual woman but you're living in a land where there's only women and no men in sight surely you'll be homosexual theoretically? On to a more realistic example in some cultures marriages are arranged before puberty or sexual awakening between people of opposite genders. It is probably possible you would be a bisexual woman in another culture, but you take what was presented to you and enjoy it and, well, it's what you have. Who am I to say "no but wait, you are enjoying that but Biologically you shouldn'..." . y'know? 

 

In other words, yeah it's innate but it is also societal - it depends on what you are able to do. Maybe some people who could be naturally homosexuals are not because the repression leads to anxiety which makes them unable to enjoy partnered sex with people of the same gender ... Who knows? 

 

Thats #deep and I should be working cuz work is late. Sigh. Bye lol 

[N8ty L3asT]

30 minutes ago, Brittany_1 said:

I just feel like it's harder for me because I am asexual 

Which you can be, like for me I don’t get aroused even by people I consider appealing  but I can’t say for sure if that’s because of my asexuality or some other factor. I just think arousal is difficult beast to understand since a bunch of different things come into play like libido, personalities, pheromones and other sciencey stuff.