Is Noetisexual a form of Asexuality?

[ArtsyTricks]

So I looked into Noetisexual and because it's new and very few self identified Noetis are using it, it's unsure if it fits in the Ace spectrum. 

 

Noetisexuality is like Demisexuality only a mental, instead of emotional connection. 

[Ceebs]

No.

[ArtsyTricks]

"

Noetisexual is a term for when one is only attracted to those they are mentally connected to. It can be considered an alternative to sapiosexual, though it is not purely based on intelligence. It is based on appreciating and being interested in one's opinions, point of view, perception of reality, how they see the world, and how their mind works. One may be attracted to someone based on shared perspectives, the ways their mind work together, the way the other person creates and hold space for them or others, or to the shape of your mental landscape. It may or may not be influenced by one's neurodivergence.

The knowing someone in a noetic way is noetilinking. It can involve sharing and co-creating noetiscapes, building worlds together, expressing oneself fully with another in ways not limited to or by sexuality and romance.

It can also be described as someone who does not experience sexual and/or romantic attraction to someone until they experience noetic or mental attraction to them. The term may or may not be considered part of the asexual spectrum, as well as somewhat connected to demisexuality.

 

 

Noetisexual was coined on October 28, 2016 by Michon Neal.[1] The flag was created at the same time. Black relates to the hidden, the secretive and the unknown. It relates to how the way one’s mind works is ambiguous, a mystery. White relates to the openness that one is looking for; to learn more about that mystery that is one’s significant others’ mind. Tan is for the stability in a closeness between people who have an attraction to the others’ mind.''

[Ceebs]

Sorry, but the term is absolutely bloody ridiculous -- and very elitist -- and I don't care if I'm crucified for that. All that is is a preference for who you're into sexually. Literally everyone has preferences. There's zero connection to asexuality. Do asexuals think that sexual people are constantly attracted to literally everyone of their preferred gender(s)??? Do you think we don't form mental attractions to the people we desire? It's just another way of saying that physical appearance isn't one of your criteria.

[ArtsyTricks]

3 minutes ago, Ceebs. said:

Sorry, but the term is absolutely bloody ridiculous -- and very elitist -- and I don't care if I'm crucified for that. All that is is a preference for who you're into sexually. Literally everyone has preferences. There's zero connection to asexuality. Do asexuals think that sexual people are constantly attracted to literally everyone of their preferred gender(s)??? Do you think we don't form mental attractions to the people we desire? It's just another way of saying that physical appearance isn't one of your criteria.

Wouldn't demisexuality be considered a preference by that logic? I mean, they're already frequently told that, often told it's ridiculous as well. The distinction is that attraction doesent happen without mental attraction vs a simple preference that often only vaguely determines attraction. 

 

Wouldn't Demisexuality often be twisted to be elitist by that logic because you don't get attracted by people you don't know/have a connection with? Just food for thought. 

[MarRister]

30 minutes ago, Ceebs. said:

No.

 

 

(just to be clear I am laughing at Ceebs response not the OP)

[Ceebs]

6 minutes ago, ArtsyTricks said:

Wouldn't demisexuality be considered a preference by that logic?

It sure would, and it is.

 

Demisexuality is a legitimate thing, sure. I'm not going to argue against that. It's a way in which one feels sexual attraction/desire, but it's not an orientation on its own. Orientation is who you're attracted to in terms of gender, and that's why people are things like heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc., and why you have to clarify 'demisexual' by mentioning your gender preference as well (because not all demisexual people are attracted to any and all genders).

 

(There's also stuff like objectum sexual/romantic, which is attraction to inanimate objects, but for the purposes being discussed here, we're talking about humans attracted to humans. Which involves gender preferences, and that's what orientation describes.)

[MarRister]

I think a 'mental' connection is the basis for most connections to other people and therefore will often be what leads to attraction of various forms... I am definitely more likely going to form friendships/relationships on the basis of enjoying one's mind, which is pretty much literally who someone is. Maybe I am missing something here?

 

I don't really see it as being something different. I certainly don't feel attraction without some level of 'mental' connection to someone. Some people can experience attraction solely on a physical basis, but for many many people this is just not the case. 

 

Demisexuality (in my mind anyways) is about how it takes a lot longer on average to form that bond that turns into sexual attraction. I don't think there is a split between emotional and mental connection. 

[idlelark]

From what I can tell Noetisexual is just one of many micro-labels that will continue to appear. Whether or not it fits within the ace label, I don't know. Its somewhat similar to demi-sexuality, and therefore might fit within the spectrum, but really many of these micro-labels are fleeting and rarely used. Whether or not they fit under the ace label is probably not going to affect the larger ace community. 

 

It really depends on if you consider the ace spectrum to encompass all labels who deviate from allosexuality, or you have a specific criteria for what constitutes ace-ness other than simply "not being allo". 

 

I don't really have a strong opinion on microlabeling, to be honest, but I know other people do. 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, ArtsyTricks said:

"

Noetisexual is a term for when one is only attracted to those they are mentally connected to. It can be considered an alternative to sapiosexual, though it is not purely based on intelligence. It is based on appreciating and being interested in one's opinions, point of view, perception of reality, how they see the world, and how their mind works. One may be attracted to someone based on shared perspectives, the ways their mind work together, the way the other person creates and hold space for them or others, or to the shape of your mental landscape. It may or may not be influenced by one's neurodivergence.

The knowing someone in a noetic way is noetilinking. It can involve sharing and co-creating noetiscapes, building worlds together, expressing oneself fully with another in ways not limited to or by sexuality and romance.

It can also be described as someone who does not experience sexual and/or romantic attraction to someone until they experience noetic or mental attraction to them. The term may or may not be considered part of the asexual spectrum, as well as somewhat connected to demisexuality.

 

 

Noetisexual was coined on October 28, 2016 by Michon Neal.[1] The flag was created at the same time. Black relates to the hidden, the secretive and the unknown. It relates to how the way one’s mind works is ambiguous, a mystery. White relates to the openness that one is looking for; to learn more about that mystery that is one’s significant others’ mind. Tan is for the stability in a closeness between people who have an attraction to the others’ mind.''

This is definitely me but I am not asexual. It's extremely common for people to need some form of mental connection before they can desire sex with someone else, even more common than requiring an emotional connection! You have to be able to at least chat and engage with each other on a mental level (even if that's just flirting) before you can definitely want to jump into bed with someone. If you're not 'feeling' them mentally that's usually a very quick turn-off even if they look very aesthetically appealing to you.

[ArtsyTricks]

2 minutes ago, idlelark said:

From what I can tell Noetisexual is just one of many micro-labels that will continue to appear. Whether or not it fits within the ace label, I don't know. Its somewhat similar to demi-sexuality, and therefore might fit within the spectrum, but really many of these micro-labels are fleeting and rarely used. Whether or not they fit under the ace label is probably not going to affect the larger ace community. 

 

It really depends on if you consider the ace spectrum to encompass all labels who deviate from allosexuality, or you have a specific criteria for what constitutes ace-ness other than simply "not being allo". 

 

I don't really have a strong opinion on microlabeling, to be honest, but I know other people do. 

That's a good thing to point out. I suppose to me, I just consider Asexuality to be any sort of lack of sexual attraction to genders/orientations which includes Grey Ace spectrums where it's rare. 

[Ceebs]

Also...

 

31 minutes ago, ArtsyTricks said:

It is based on appreciating and being interested in one's opinions, point of view, perception of reality, how they see the world, and how their mind works. One may be attracted to someone based on shared perspectives, the ways their mind work together, the way the other person creates and hold space for them or others, or to the shape of your mental landscape. It may or may not be influenced by one's neurodivergence.

The knowing someone in a noetic way is noetilinking. It can involve sharing and co-creating noetiscapes, building worlds together, expressing oneself fully with another in ways not limited to or by sexuality and romance.

'Limited to or by'??? Do some people think that's all sexual/romantic people do -- be romantic and shag each other all the time, and there's nothing more to the connection? Do you not think we're also friends with our partners, simply enjoy and love and feel interest in who they are as people, that we don't do activities with them and have conversations with them that have nothing whatsoever to do with romance and/or sex, that we don't support them emotionally, etc.? 

[Guest]

Just now, ArtsyTricks said:

That's a good thing to point out. I suppose to me, I just consider Asexuality to be any sort of lack of sexual attraction to genders/orientations which includes Grey Ace spectrums where it's rare. 

but it's kind of (well, quite) elitist to suggest that anyone who needs a mental connection before they can desire sexual intimacy/experience sexual attraction must be some form of asexual. 'average sexual folks' aren't all hornmongers who just want to bang everything that looks good to them. Most of us need to at the very least be able to respect or at least appreciate each other mentally before we can make that leap, whether or not we are particularly physically appealing to each other! If the mental connection isn't there, then often there is no spark!

[idlelark]

27 minutes ago, Ceebs. said:

Also...

 

'Limited to or by'??? Do some people think that's all sexual/romantic people do -- be romantic and shag each other all the time, and there's nothing more to the connection? Do you not think we're also friends with our partners, simply enjoy and love and feel interest in who they are as people, that we don't do activities with them and have conversations with them that have nothing whatsoever to do with romance and/or sex, that we don't support them emotionally, etc.? 

To my knowledge, no one thinks that, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. If someone does think that, then likely that person hasn't been around a lot of people and has plenty to learn. 

 

I'm not "Noetisexual" nor do I ascribe to any micro-label that is currently being used. But, I will say that most of those labels are meant to descibe highly specific experiences. Many times, those label's definitions overlap with other identities so closely that reading them might make you ask, "we already have a word for this, why not identify with the larger label?". Really, the answer is just that people don't feel represented by a label that is in use, they feel their experience is unique enough that they decide to coin a word for it. 

 

The invention of microlabels doesn't usually speak to the larger community's feelings on other subjects, just like how Noetisexual doesn't describe ace people's understanding of allo people. If you really want to know what noetisexuals think of allosexuals, you'd have to find one and ask. Maybe they do think you all experience indiscriminate physical sexual attraction, but I doubt that. 

  

[Mandragora]

I can understand why such a term was created: someone or some people wanted their exact reasons for attraction to be understood and they didn't feel like they were before. But I don't think it's really that useful of a label. This basically is just demisexual. The only difference is that it appears to be heavily based on sharing ideas. More than likely the person or persons who coined this term have felt it is very hard to connect with others and therefore experience attraction to them before. That's okay. I just don't think it's really a hugely different preclusion from demisexuality or, really, even just plain ol allosexuality. Depending on how complete it is. I don't begrudge the existence of any microlabels like this and I think it's good people want to understand exactly how their attraction works. But I also think we have terms that work perfectly well to explain this already. I do worry about people fighting over very slight distinctions in terms or trying to make the person fit the label instead of vice versa. Basically...I think the feelings this term describes apply to both demi and allosexuality and I'm not so sure it's a term we really need. 

[Arctangent]

I certainly feel like sharing a mental/intellectual connection with someone is important for my attraction, generally... but that's pretty common for both sexual and asexual people, I think. I don't see much utility in having a specific word for that aspect of myself, personally. I understand the desire for people to label and communicate their experiences, but at some point, it gets so granular and reductive that the communication function begins to be lost, IMO.

[Morays]

33 minutes ago, Law of Circles said:

I understand the desire for people to label and communicate their experiences, but at some point, it gets so granular and reductive that the communication function begins to be lost, IMO.

👆 This.

 

If you intensely emphasize intellectual connection well beyond what would be considered common, then... you really should just say that in plain English if you'd like folks to understand you. But I doubt the experience you're describing is so uncommon. Most people aren't interested in forming a serious relationship with someone who doesn't harbor compelling opinions or some degree of intellect.

 

And, frankly, nothing sets off alarm bells for me like a comparison to "sapiosexuality"...

[Arctangent]

After looking a little bit more into this term, it seems it was coined in part because "sapiosexual" is considered problematic. I'm not a fan of "sapiosexual" either, but I don't think "noetisexual" adequately deals with all of the problems that "sapiosexual" has. Even though I consider mental and intellectual connection to be really important for my relationships, I wouldn't use terms like this. I feel that by centering my identity around being attracted to someone's intelligence or inner life, I would be implying that I myself am more intelligent, invested, and/or discerning than the average person about these qualities, and... I honestly don't think that highly of myself. 😄

 

I'm sure that people using those terms don't mean to come across that way, but... hm... I think if I heard someone use this term IRL, I would probably feel it reflects more on how they see themselves than how they experience attraction to other people.

[Ceebs]

1 minute ago, Law of Circles said:

After looking a little bit more into this term, it seems it was coined in part because "sapiosexual" is considered problematic.

😂

 

I absolutely find it equally as problematic.

[Ceebs]

The stated supposed connection to neurodiversity bugs me too. I am neurodivergent. I do not want to be associated with these terms. Many neurotypical sexual people experience the same type of attraction.

[timewarp]

You can coin as many new labels as you like. I pay by card, thank you.

[everywhere and nowhere]

2 hours ago, ArtsyTricks said:

Noetisexuality is like Demisexuality only a mental, instead of emotional connection. 

I don't accept a distinction between "intellectual" and "emotional". It's all part of the same continuity of experience and do we have to cut it into pieces and pigeonhole every tiniest aspect? For me "thoughts" always have an "emotional" aspect, and "felings" - an "intellectual" aspect.

 

So let's put it apart anyway. If noetisexuality is like demisexuality, than no, it's not "a form of asexuality", but it could be considered "on an asexual spectrum". Yes, strictly speaking demisexual people aren't asexual, but they do have a lot in common with asexuals. In absence of a bond they are effectively asexual. Unlike allosexual people who only accept sex within a relationship - with whom they are sometimes confused (or rather this confusion makes some insist that "most people are demisexual!") - they won't even miss sex in the absence of a bond. Because of this, while I don't consider demisexuality "a form of asexuality", I also reject the "zero is not a spectrum!!!!!!" rhetoric.

It could also be said that sapiosexuality is just a preference, not an orientation. Which could, perhaps, classify noetisexuality as a preference within demisexuality. But neverthless, regardless of this, I think it's time to acknowledge that there are people for whom choice of partner is based on other criteria than gender. Does it make them technically pansexual? Likely. But still they should have a way of talking about their experiences without making it seem like they are trying to artificially inflate the system of orientations. And, on the other hand, we shouldn't take the map for the territory and assume that every experience can be neatly pigeonholed.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, idlelark said:

But, I will say that most of those labels are meant to descibe highly specific experiences. Many times, those label's definitions overlap with other identities so closely that reading them might make you ask, "we already have a word for this, why not identify with the larger label?". Really, the answer is just that people don't feel represented by a label that is in use, they feel their experience is unique enough that they decide to coin a word for it. 

In my experience the supposed "unique experience" that people are trying to describe with microlabels are actually incredibly common, and the reason there is not a label for that specific experience is because most people do not feel the need to label and build identities around experiences that a large proportion of the population find too normal to even comment on. The microlabels are based on either genuine ignorance of the normal variation of human experience, or the need to have some special unique identity which is common amongst teenagers, which they normally grow out of by their mid-twenties.

 

Edit: to actually address the question in the title... no that is definitely not a form of asexuality.

[Karekare]

I was gonna try and think of an actual response to this as a demisexual person but reading over the definition of noetisexual all I can really think is...

 

What?

 

The explanation of the term just seems convoluted.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

This is, frankly, offensive to just about everyone. It's stating that this orientation is different because it alone has a basis in a mental connection which... everyone who isn't a literal sex crazed horn dog cares about.

[Libellule]

I was going to write a thorough response when I first read this, but as everything I was going to say has been covered, I'll just share this gif, which describes my facial expression while reading this thread:

[Guest]

I... dont get it. Unless you want to bang everyone you see, most people need this. I suppose it means even the casual sexual attraction that doesn't lead to actual desire doesn't happen but... so? "I'm more into personality than looks" has been a common enough thing to say to explain this for decades? And people will understand it a lot better. 

[Ceebs]

Sometimes I wonder just how far these sorts of terms extend, too.
 

Let's say you identify as sapiosexual or noetisexual. Perhaps you meet someone online and start chatting and feel attracted to them before you know what they look like. Then at some point they send you a photo, and you think they're hideously ugly. Like, so ugly you can barely look at the photograph without cringing. Do you still want to be sexually intimate with them?

 

Or, let's say you meet someone in an offline atmosphere. They're smart, they make you laugh, you share some views or interests, whatever. But god, they're ugly. Do you still feel inclined to get naked and do sexy things with them?

 

I'm a sexual person who develops interest in actually having sex with someone based on how we connect. I can also see people and think they're very physically attractive, in a way that I'm well aware is connected to my sexuality, but I'm not actually going to follow through on that attraction unless I like who they are well enough. (And no, I'm not demisexual, because it doesn't take me a much longer than average amount of time after connecting mentally/emotionally to feel that I'm interested in them sexually. It all happens together, and I actually tend to develop non-platonic feelings rather quickly.) My physical requirement for a romantic/sexual partner is basically 'don't be something I consider hideous' -- because if I liked someone's character well enough but I found them very unpleasant to look at, I would be too put off to consider getting sexually intimate with them. Otherwise, if I'm attracted to who you are, even if you're very average-looking, I will start to find you physically attractive. (Again, this doesn't mean I can't find people 'hot', it's just that I'm not motivated to act solely upon that.)

 

Anyway. I am very sceptical that people who identify as sapiosexual or noetisexual wouldn't still have some sort of an appearance-based limit on who they'd fuck.

[Grumpy Alien]

10 hours ago, Ceebs. said:

Do asexuals think that sexual people are constantly attracted to literally everyone of their preferred gender(s)??? Do you think we don't form mental attractions to the people we desire?

I’m exhausted by the amount of lust I suffer from. I can’t even leave my house. Just the scent of the postman is intoxicating. I’m basically a rabid dog in heat. I don’t care if it’s dead or alive, as long as the person is of my preferred gender I will shag it silly.

 

Oh. Wait. No. Ha I get this confused, sorry. I meant to say I would be horrified at the thought of sex with 99.98% of Earth’s population. (I haven’t met many aliens so I don’t have the statistics for other planets.) I wouldn’t even consider a date with most people of my preferred gender? Zero preferences and standards is just not a thing. That’s a sign of severe illness, not an orientation. 
 

I wouldn’t hang out with someone I don’t get along with. Why would I be attracted to them? I mean some people are aesthetically more appealing than others, sure. And that’s subjective, absolutely. But who is out there looking for a partner with no criteria? Just completely happy with literally anyone willing to fill the role? The old homeless guy living in the dumpster, the scrawny spotty college kid who thinks giving laxatives to birds is the epitome of funny, or the 7 foot tall widow who killed her 6 previous spouses: all perfectly fine candidates. Please introduce me to this elusive species of sex addict. I’ll wait.

[Anthracite_Impreza]

I'm just gonna come right out and say it - if an asexual saying that their love is special/different because it's based on intellect/personality rather than physicality is considered elitist... how is this any different?