Another question about sexual attraction

[binary suns]

Please feel comfortable posting your thoughts below! I appreciate every reply

 

The questions - 

 

1) Zed feels attraction to Pom's physical appearance. Zed wants to express this attraction through sex. Would their appreciation of Pom's appearance be Aesthetic attraction, sexual attraction, both, or neither?

2) Zed feels romantic attraction for Pom and wants to date her, give gifts to her, support her in every possible way, and - they want to express their feelings for her through sex. Would that mean that their romantic attraction is merged with sexual attraction?

3) The split attraction model splits attraction according to what is appreciated or desired. Thoughts?

[Guest Queerdo]

Alternative option, people should focus on describing how they, as individuals, do or do not experience sexual attraction and not coerce others into categories if we do it differently. 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Guest Queerdo said:

Alternative option, people should focus on describing how they, as individuals, do or do not experience sexual attraction and not coerce others into categories if we do it differently. 

unfortunately people are vehement about their beliefs on what is acceptable from differnet perspectives despite this.... 

[Philip027]

Attraction is really just attraction; we only call it sexual, romantic, etc. based on what we want as a result of it.  The underlying feeling is not necessarily different -- the notion that it is different feeds the suggestion that asexual people cannot necessarily care for, love, etc. other people in the same way sexuals can, which is very "othering" language and doesn't really do anyone any good.

 

Therefore, your examples to me are still sexual.

 

"Appreciation" is not the same thing as "attraction" to me.  Attraction to me implies a level further beyond mere appreciation; something that's more personal and deeply felt.

 

"Arousal" to me has both physical and mental components, and I've come to understand that the physical component is not necessarily always welcome or desired (in other words, it's missing the mental component, otherwise known as arousal non-concordance).  In my opinion, the mental component is required (and that component to be directed toward another actual person) for it to potentially be indicative of one's orientation; otherwise you could be making potentially incorrect snap judgments on one's sexuality simply from them physically responding from sitting on a running washing machine, or them being given a "lap dance" they never wanted, or something.

 

If you do experience that "complete" experience of arousal (both components) toward a specific person without any sort of outside prompting or coercion (in other words, it's your own innate experience), to me that is sexual attraction, even if you don't necessarily do or want to do anything with it.  Attractions are not things that necessarily need to be acted on to be legitimate.

If someone experiences this but has no intention of acting upon it, then to me it's fine if they call themselves ace.  I don't subscribe to orientations being based solely on attraction; it's too nebulous of a term and doesn't necessarily carry one's behavior or intention.

 

Both of the conclusions you offer at the end seem plausible to me.  They may be reason enough for people who experience them to place themselves under the grey umbrella, but that's up to them.

[nanogretchen4]

I abstained on the last question because attraction that does not cause a desire for sex with the object of the attraction is not sexual attraction. So a person who does not desire sex with any other person is asexual, and by definition they don't experience sexual attraction. But if it's important to them to define whatever attraction they may be feeling as sexual attraction they are welcome to believe that, and also, they are still asexual.

[Monke Jimmy]

People describe their feelings by whatever label they think makes the most sense for them. That means that experiences and therefore definitions change depending on the person. I am not one to judge what someone considers romantic, sexual or otherwise. However, I think that it is important to note that:

Arousal does not necessarily mean someone is feeling sexual attraction,

Arousal does not necessarily mean someone wants to or can have sex, and most importantly, 

Signs of arousal do not equal consent. 

[Guest Queerdo]

1 hour ago, nanogretchen4 said:

I abstained on the last question because attraction that does not cause a desire for sex with the object of the attraction is not sexual attraction. So a person who does not desire sex with any other person is asexual, and by definition they don't experience sexual attraction. But if it's important to them to define whatever attraction they may be feeling as sexual attraction they are welcome to believe that, and also, they are still asexual.

I think that's a tautology that erases the distinctions between emotion (sexual attraction), urge (momentary desire), volition (voluntary desire), and action (sex with people). Kind of like saying that attraction that does not cause a desire to drive to McDonalds for a McRib isn't really hunger. Thankfully, us allosexual people have a lot more on the menu when we experience attraction than just sex with others or McRibs. 

 

For most people, sex with people is motivated by sexual attraction. But it does not follow that sexual attraction ONLY motivates sex with other people. We can talk it out, make it a part of imaginary fantasies, surf the urge, do an outreach call, negotiate boundaries, and a dozen potential other actions.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

Some of my thoughts:
Aesthetic attraction could have appreciation but doesn't have any desire to do anything else by itself, but it can lead to other attractions in some cases. Lots of people experience aesthetic attraction by itself too. I'd suggest that 'appreciating the aesthetics' is the desire associated with it.

Since someone can experience sexual attraction for diverse reasons, be it aesthetic, emotional, intellectual, romantic or anything, it's not really the same kind of attraction.

And it's not that it has to be 'acted on' to count but that it's a pull 'towards' desiring sex.

That's how I feel about sensual attraction in my case, that it's a pull towards (desiring) touching or being physically close with what or who I'm attracted to. And romantic attraction is a pull towards romance. And infatuation means being attracted from being smitten, so it's not an 'end' of the attracion.

 

 

Aesthetic and a few other attractions are special in that the word in it is what's liked, not something that's wanted. If sexual attraction followed that type of thing then it would be a pull towards appreciating people having sex or something like that, not a pull to a person towards having sex.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Aesthetic attraction could have appreciation but doesn't have any desire to do anything else by itself

for me it does; my attraction can be based on looks, and when I see someone attractive I feel a need to look at them - it is true that when I look at them I am appreciating their looks, but the desire to look is there. 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

2 minutes ago, hois said:

for me it does; my attraction can be based on looks, and when I see someone attractive I feel a need to look at them - it is true that when I look at them I am appreciating their looks, but the desire to look is there. 

I would consider that part of it yeah :D. Someone beautiful is hard not to want to look at
Can be rude to stare too long tho xD

[Ceebs]

Attraction is attraction (solely platonic interest in someone is not attraction), what people want to do as a result of that attraction varies widely, I don't personally believe in the split attraction model (but understand why it exists and if someone wants to use it to explain their sexuality, go for it), sexual people desire partnered sexual activity, asexuals do not desire partnered sexual activity... aaaaaand I think I covered it all.

 

I find the nitpicking confusing. I'm pretty sure it makes others confused. And I firmly believe it has the potential to be distressing and actually harmful to some people.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

15 minutes ago, Ceebs said:

Attraction is attraction (solely platonic interest in someone is not attraction), what people want to do as a result of that attraction varies widely, I don't personally believe in the split attraction model (but understand why it exists and if someone wants to use it to explain their sexuality, go for it), sexual people desire partnered sexual activity, asexuals do not desire partnered sexual activity... aaaaaand I think I covered it all.

 

I find the nitpicking confusing. I'm pretty sure it makes others confused. And I firmly believe it has the potential to be distressing and actually harmful to some people.

I think the split attraction model has caused much more understanding than confusion, and for me I find it makes sense to see the attractions differently since they do feel differently to me. But I think also that desire should feature the most when it comes to orientation. I kinda wonder how like some sexuals mention not feeling wanted by someone and if all it is is the desire that feels missing or if there's more to it (with attraction).

[Ceebs]

51 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

I think the split attraction model has caused much more understanding than confusion

Mm well I said I find the nitpicking confusing, not the split attraction model. The SAM is not particularly confusing and I totally get how it's useful even if it isn't necessary for my own understanding of attraction and sexuality in general (very much including asexuality; I find asexuality easy enough to understand without splitting attraction into different types).

 

The comment about nitpicking was more general, in reference to all the overanalysis and definition debate stuff.

[Guest Queerdo]

That was a bit abrupt. So one side of this is that I'm a transfeminine person on HRT for less than a year. At least for me, the flavor of sexual attraction has been changing in subtle ways from month to month. At least for me, I need to have a broader space and vocabulary to talk about that beyond, "do you desire sex with other people Y/N." And I've never liked true/false questions.

 

And hoo boy, do I desire sex with other people? For now, the answer (for now) is a deep "heck no." I need time, space, and most importantly, complete bodily autonomy while I go through these emotionally messy changes. To people who want to get naked with me, I need to be able to unequivocally say, "I don't want sex for now." (And I'm not going to give them a timeline either.) I also need to say "I don't want sex for now" to doctors and therapists because that does make a difference in health and wellness. At the same time, I also need to be explicit about how I'm bi/pan/omni because that also makes a difference even when I'm not sexually active. Minority stress doesn't give a damn about a person's relationship status.

 

If you're still confused about how an allosexual person can also be ARC and/or not want sex, it's not really my job to justify it to you and straighten out your definitions. If your definitions don't work with our diversity, it's not us who need to adapt to your definitions. 

[Ceebs]

6 minutes ago, Guest Queerdo said:

If you're still confused about how an allosexual person can also be ARC and/or not want sex

I was uncomfortable with and sometimes outright disgusted by sex when I was younger and I'm not ace. That's how I ended up here years ago. Countless sexual people have issues with sex and don't want it or are conflicted by their desires.
 

Also many asexuals don't find that model necessary and/or have a very straightforward conceptualisation of the definition of asexuality, i.e. not desiring partnered sex. There are certainly many members on AVEN I can think of who fit in that category.

 

These are all theories, not hard science. People view things in different ways. No one is required to view something like someone else does.

[Guest Queerdo]

3 minutes ago, Ceebs said:

I was uncomfortable with and sometimes outright disgusted by sex when I was younger and I'm not ace. That's how I ended up here years ago. Countless sexual people have issues with sex and don't want it or are conflicted by their desires.

Curiously, this only seems to be an issue for those deeply involved in internet defdebs or holding to certain stereotypes about human sexuality. Unfortunately I've run into the latter as healthcare providers. So it's useful to draw a bright line and say, "I don't do sex," possibly followed by, "I don't need to explain why."

[Ceebs]

2 minutes ago, Guest Queerdo said:

Curiously, this only seems to be an issue for those deeply involved in internet defdebs or holding to certain stereotypes about human sexuality.

How do you mean 'seems to be an issue for'? Like doesn't believe it's possible for sexual people to have aversions or not want sex? Because yeah, that's silly if someone thinks that.

[Kimi_gata]

9 hours ago, Philip027 said:

Attraction is really just attraction; we only call it sexual, romantic, etc. based on what we want as a result of it.

I agree with this.

 

Also, the “targeted arousal” part is interesting. I’ve experienced arousal because of a person’s voice, but it was their voice and not them that caused the arousal, and it was purely a physical sensation. It’s cool to know that that is an actual thing.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

1 hour ago, Ceebs said:

Mm well I said I find the nitpicking confusing, not the split attraction model. The SAM is not particularly confusing and I totally get how it's useful even if it isn't necessary for my own understanding of attraction and sexuality in general (very much including asexuality; I find asexuality easy enough to understand without splitting attraction into different types).

 

The comment about nitpicking was more general, in reference to all the overanalysis and definition debate stuff.

ok gotcha. I understand over-analysis, and have done it at some times for my gender identity but not sexuality, I think the most important is just to know ourselves, but if some people are able to do that or accept themselves more from thinking a lot or micro-labels then maybe they're useful at times. Not all the time tho xD

 

[Guest Queerdo]

38 minutes ago, Ceebs said:

How do you mean 'seems to be an issue for'? Like doesn't believe it's possible for sexual people to have aversions or not want sex? Because yeah, that's silly if someone thinks that.

Well, for example:

 

8 hours ago, nanogretchen4 said:

I abstained on the last question because attraction that does not cause a desire for sex with the object of the attraction is not sexual attraction. So a person who does not desire sex with any other person is asexual, and by definition they don't experience sexual attraction. But if it's important to them to define whatever attraction they may be feeling as sexual attraction they are welcome to believe that, and also, they are still asexual.

 

2 hours ago, Ceebs said:

... sexual people desire partnered sexual activity, asexuals do not desire partnered sexual activity ... 

And it's not just creating definitions that fail to recognize celibate and averse allosexual people (who are not always the same thing, and don't always have "issues"). It's also limiting the concept of sexual attraction and expression to only one crayon in our box. I still experience sexual attraction. What I do with it is I talk it out with my partner, and if I'm in a particularly creative mood, blend that into fiction. The reduction where attraction ~ desire for partnered sex leaves us really out in the cold when it comes to talking about eroticism in art.

 

But all of this is getting into over-explaining.

 

I don't desire partnered sex.

 

That statement should stand alone just on the basis of bodily autonomy. It doesn't need an explanation or justification. It does not define our sexual orientation or identity. It is not incongruent with being straight, bi, gay, lesbian, pan, etc...  It is merely a statement of life goals as currently experienced.

[Ceebs]

No one of any orientation is ever required to have sex or even explain why they don't want sex, certainly agree there. No means no and all that.

 

When I say sexuals desire partnered sex and asexuals don't, I'm definitely talked about long-standing patterns and also recognise it doesn't automatically have anything to do with what someone does. Asexual people can have sex willingly and some find it pleasant enough. Sexual people can choose celibacy for many reasons and do so entirely voluntarily and be happy about that choice. Some sexual people are struggling with issues that cloud the feelings they might have in a healthier mindset, and of course shouldn't force themselves to have sex they don't want. Etc.

 

But when you take away those factors to try to define what makes someone sexual or asexual... the simple difference is that asexuals don't have that intrinsic drive to behave sexually with other people. Sexual people do (under the right circumstances for them personally, and of course not at all times).

[Guest Queerdo]

6 minutes ago, Ceebs said:

But when you take away those factors to try to define what makes someone sexual or asexual... the simple difference is that asexuals don't have that intrinsic drive to behave sexually with other people. Sexual people do (under the right circumstances for them personally, and of course not at all times).

Sure, just don't expect everyone to agree with AVEN-endorsed definitions of the meaning of sexual orientations. I've said my peace, take what you can use and leave the rest if you can't. There's no reason why we all have to use exactly the same definitions.

[Ceebs]

5 minutes ago, Guest Queerdo said:

Sure, just don't expect everyone to agree with AVEN-endorsed definitions of the meaning of sexual orientations.

Oh, I don't. I don't agree with AVEN-endorsed definitions of most things, soooo...

 

(The SAM is quite AVEN-endorsed and I don't find it useful in understanding (a)sexuality, for example.)

[Sarah-Sylvia]

blasphemous 😮

[RileyA]

1 hour ago, Kimi_gata said:

I agree with this.

 

Also, the “targeted arousal” part is interesting. I’ve experienced arousal because of a person’s voice, but it was their voice and not them that caused the arousal, and it was purely a physical sensation. It’s cool to know that that is an actual thing.

 

Their voice is part of them. You were attracted to the person with the sexy voice.

[nanogretchen4]

They were *aroused* by a person's voice. There is no indication that they had a desire to have sex with this person as a result. 

[RileyA]

10 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

They were *aroused* by a person's voice. There is no indication that they had a desire to have sex with this person as a result. 

 

Attracted to doesn't mean "want to have sex with". But the person with the sexy voice is a complete person of which their voice is one of their features. Separating it so fiercely seems weird to me, like just admitting you're attracted to someone is sooooo wrong that you have to pretend that you're not into the person, just that thing they have. 

 

This is when I personally start to think "yeeeeaaaaaahhhhh maybe some therapy or sex positive education might be warranted here".

[nanogretchen4]

If we are going to use attraction based definitions of sexual orientations, then sexual attraction is attraction that makes you desire sex with the person you are attracted to and attraction that does not make you desire sex is a different type of attraction. I agree that sexual attraction can be attraction to literally anything about a person, including their voice, body language, personality, or whatever, as long as it makes you desire sex with that person.

 

Arousal is frequently triggered by sexual relevance rather than sexual desire or sexual attraction. AFAB people are especially likely to become aroused in response to stimuli that are correlated with sex or suggest that sex might be about to happen, whether or not they desire sex or consent to it. Basing sexual orientations on arousal would not be a good idea.

 

 

[Lilibulero]

Phew. Glad not to be interested in it. It's just a circle.

[RileyA]

10 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

If we are going to use attraction based definitions of sexual orientations, then sexual attraction is attraction that makes you desire sex with the person you are attracted to and attraction that does not make you desire sex is a different type of attraction. I agree that sexual attraction can be attraction to literally anything about a person, including their voice, body language, personality, or whatever, as long as it makes you desire sex with that person.

 

Arousal is frequently triggered by sexual relevance rather than sexual desire or sexual attraction. AFAB people are especially likely to become aroused in response to stimuli that are correlated with sex or suggest that sex might be about to happen, whether or not they desire sex or consent to it. Basing sexual orientations on arousal would not be a good idea.

 

 

 

This is totally irrelevant. If I speak  and you hear my velvety tones, and you get aroused, I caused that arousal by speaking. Me. With my voice that you like. You are aroused by me. 

 

Doesn't mean you want to have sex with me. Maybe despite being aroused, you're monogamous, and I have 3 whole partners plus a bag of casual ones too. Maybe that doesn't seem worth acting on arousal. Maybe that's enough to repel you from sex with me. Maybe you never want sex with anyone. 

 

Either way, MY voice does it for you. 

 

And just think, you haven't even heard me sing yet.