Jump to content

What is 'Sexual attraction'?


Guest member25959

Recommended Posts

@Tar... I might be able to see it that way if it were merely a detached (philosophical) discussion about some random term. The problem that I just can't ignore is, that term is presented as "the official" defining factor in defining not only asexuality, but every sexual orientation ever. If "what is the meaning of life?" starts getting authoritatively used as the criterion for defining what important group-identity you belong to*, I would indeed start to lean towards Skulls' position, and invalidate the question as one that is a possibly dangerous waste of time asking.

* That really makes me think of the factions in Planescape, if anyone is old & geeky enough to remember the reference. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody pointed out that 42 was the answer to life the universe and everything yet? SERIOUSLY guys? I'm highly disappointed in this thread.

But seriously, I'm not sure the concept of sexual attraction can be defined. I'm starting to realize it's like asking "how do you explain red to a blind man". And I can, but in the end, they'll only understand what I personally associate with the color red, not what red is. Saying "red is the taste of a strawberry and it is the feeling of a tango" doesn't really do much but it's the closest to describing the color I can get to. And I feel like trying to explain the concept of sexual attraction is similar. I can try to explain it but no matter how I explain it, something will be lacking because it is something that needs to experienced to be understood. And by that statement (since I will have to clarify it) I mean that some people don't have the ability to experience sexual attraction, not that people should go out and look for it.

As a sexual, I think it is way more than just qualia. It's interconnected mechanisms that could be modeled and understood to a very rough degree. As an analogy (this time for real), maybe you can't explain to someone what the color red looks like, but you could probably explain to them how you react to seeing blood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tar... I might be able to see it that way if it were merely a detached (philosophical) discussion about some random term. The problem that I just can't ignore is, that term is presented as "the official" defining factor in defining not only asexuality, but every sexual orientation ever. If "what is the meaning of life?" starts getting authoritatively used as the criterion for defining what important group-identity you belong to*, I would indeed start to lean towards Skulls' position, and invalidate the question as one that is a possibly dangerous waste of time asking.

* That really makes me think of the factions in Planescape, if anyone is old & geeky enough to remember the reference. :P

I don't think in terms of group-identity. I made a post a pretty good while ago explaining why I'm not going to bother with any of the official definitions of asexual and aromantic in future. The definition no longer matters to me; The experiences people relate, as Snow Cone has already done in this thread, do matter to me. You might also notice there hasn't been a single poster here who conflated sexual attraction with the defining criterion for asexuality.. except you and the others arguing against discussing the term at all, ironically.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think in terms of group-identity. I made a post a pretty good while ago explaining why I'm not going to bother with any of the official definitions of asexual and aromantic in future. The definition no longer matters to me; The experiences people relate, as Snow Cone has already done in this thread, do matter to me. You might also notice there hasn't been a single poster here who conflated sexual attraction with the defining criterion for asexuality.. except you and the others arguing against discussing the term at all, ironically.

But we all still live under the weight of that banner up there, in every thread we can post in. Some of us have long since started to find its weight crushing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tar... I might be able to see it that way if it were merely a detached (philosophical) discussion about some random term. The problem that I just can't ignore is, that term is presented as "the official" defining factor in defining not only asexuality, but every sexual orientation ever. If "what is the meaning of life?" starts getting authoritatively used as the criterion for defining what important group-identity you belong to*, I would indeed start to lean towards Skulls' position, and invalidate the question as one that is a possibly dangerous waste of time asking.

* That really makes me think of the factions in Planescape, if anyone is old & geeky enough to remember the reference. :P

^^ Yes this!

I'd just like to separate asexuality and sexuality into: does not innately desire partnered sex/does innately desire partnered sex.. And ''sexual attraction'' is just the type of attraction some people get to certain people for various reasons, regardless of whether or not they desire partnered sex with those people. Many asexuals say they feel what they believe would be sexual attraction towards specific people, they just don't desire sex with anyone regardless of how attracted to them they are. And this attraction is often directed toward a specific gender over another, or two genders or whatever. It is also separate from ''romantic attraction'' although the two often go together.

So, a heteroasexual would experience all the same feelings and emotions towards people of the ''opposite'' (hate that term) gender as a heterosexual person does, minus any desire to actually have sex with those people. Some people don't experience that at all, so prefer to go with ''hetero-romantic'' ,,. I know my ''feelings'' towards certain people are a lot more than romantic, so I don't like defining my orientation purely by who I am romantically attracted to personally. I would be panasexual grey-romantic I guess, hah,

''Sexual attraction'' is just a type of attraction that defines some peoples feelings towards certain people, regardless of whether or not they desire partnered sex.

All I'm trying to do is agree that it's very annoying that ''sexual attraction'' is the official defining factor in all sexual orientations, because sexual attraction does not define sexuality, only the direction and type of feelings some people have for certain other people. It's really not really important in the grand scheme of things (when it comes to whether you are ace or not anyway) yet it's taken so seriously.. What is important, is whether or not someone has an innate desire to connect sexually with other people, this is what is important in defining sexuality or lack thereof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait up, I'm just putting two and two together here...

I would indeed start to lean towards Skulls' position, and invalidate the question as one that is a possibly dangerous waste of time asking.

But we all still live under the weight of that banner up there, in every thread we can post in. Some of us have long since started to find its weight crushing.

"possibly dangerous waste of time asking" :) Can you see the irony in that? In the context of self-determined and smart beings discussing, if it's a waste of time, it's not dangerous. If it's dangerous, it's not a waste of time. Dangerous ideas are only dangerous because they are convincing, and if they are, it is all the more important to discuss them at length and take them apart.

I don't think the concept of sexual attraction is dangerous at all. We just need to keep telling people that, no, it doesn't apply, it's not a good way to define asexuality. The banner is the actual thing doing harm here, because it'll keep supplying us with people who need this explained to them. However, we should keep explaining, we should keep discussing, and we shouldn't be afraid to deepen our understanding of the difference between asexuals and sexuals, just because someone might jump the gun and assume that now they've found the secret formula to 100% determine what makes an asexual asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual attraction is the desire to get jiggy with it.

Sorry not sorry.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait up, I'm just putting two and two together here...

I would indeed start to lean towards Skulls' position, and invalidate the question as one that is a possibly dangerous waste of time asking.

But we all still live under the weight of that banner up there, in every thread we can post in. Some of us have long since started to find its weight crushing.

"possibly dangerous waste of time asking" :) Can you see the irony in that? In the context of self-determined and smart beings discussing, if it's a waste of time, it's not dangerous. If it's dangerous, it's not a waste of time. Dangerous ideas are only dangerous because they are convincing, and if they are, it is all the more important to discuss them at length and take them apart.

I don't think the concept of sexual attraction is dangerous at all. We just need to keep telling people that, no, it doesn't apply, it's not a good way to define asexuality. The banner is the actual thing doing harm here, because it'll keep supplying us with people who need this explained to them. However, we should keep explaining, we should keep discussing, and we shouldn't be afraid to deepen our understanding of the difference between asexuals and sexuals, just because someone might jump the gun and assume that now they've found the secret formula to 100% determine what makes an asexual asexual.

This, my tarry friend, is excellently put. I agree. :cake:

(Of course, I still don't see a good argument not to consider inherent/"primary" desire for partnered sex to actually be that determining criterion, as I think it does that job exceedingly well. :P )

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you see the irony in that? In the context of self-determined and smart beings discussing, if it's a waste of time, it's not dangerous. If it's dangerous, it's not a waste of time. Dangerous ideas are only dangerous because they are convincing, and if they are, it is all the more important to discuss them at length and take them apart.

I don't think the concept of sexual attraction is dangerous at all. We just need to keep telling people that, no, it doesn't apply, it's not a good way to define asexuality. The banner is the actual thing doing harm here, because it'll keep supplying us with people who need this explained to them. However, we should keep explaining, we should keep discussing, and we shouldn't be afraid to deepen our understanding of the difference between asexuals and sexuals, just because someone might jump the gun and assume that now they've found the secret formula to 100% determine what makes an asexual asexual.

I don't know what angle you're coming from that makes dangerous and waste of time two mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories. The danger often is that continued discussions are a waste of time. I don't necessarily believe we need to give up on explaining to people why the definition at the top of the page is misleading and incomplete, but it's our choice to waste our time by jumping onto the minefield of opening brand new discussions on this old classic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

(Of course, I still don't see a good argument not to consider inherent/"primary" desire for partnered sex to actually be that determining criterion, as I think it does that job exceedingly well. :P )

Well, this is what we keep telling you!! What the hell is "inherent" / "primary" desire for sex?! I couldn't tell you! Most of the things I thought was that, some asexual or other experiences as well. The only thing I know is that, the point at which I actually in the moment physically want sex right now, that's where asexuality stops. Everything else, from finding someone attractive to fantasizing about sexual encounters with them, seems to be fair game for asexuals.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

(Of course, I still don't see a good argument not to consider inherent/"primary" desire for partnered sex to actually be that determining criterion, as I think it does that job exceedingly well. :P )

Well, this is what we keep telling you!! What the hell is "inherent" / "primary" desire for sex?! I couldn't tell you! Most of the things I thought was that, some asexual or other experiences as well. The only thing I know is that, the point at which I actually in the moment physically want sex right now, that's where asexuality stops. Everything else, from finding someone attractive to fantasizing about sexual encounters with them, seems to be fair game for asexuals.

This is why it took me until 31 to contemplate the possibility I'm asexual. I've found people attractive my whole life but fell short of wanting to do anything. It took several visits to the site's FAQs to convince me to join the forum. Y'all would've met me even earlier if the definition were clearer :D

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is what we keep telling you!! What the hell is "inherent" / "primary" desire for sex?! I couldn't tell you!

Who's "we"? If you mean sexuals, it's been pretty cleat that they do tend to agree with this definition (or at least, find it one heckuvalot less misleading than the "attraction" based one). Sexual long-timers on here - Skulls, LG, Geo (while he was still around) - all strongly lean(ed) towards that.

Most of the things I thought was that, some asexual or other experiences as well. The only thing I know is that, the point at which I actually in the moment physically want sex right now, that's where asexuality stops. Everything else, from finding someone attractive to fantasizing about sexual encounters with them, seems to be fair game for asexuals.

Erm. You said you couldn't tell me, but you just did, right there. That feeling of physically wanting/desiring partnered sex? That is the exact thing that makes sexuals sexual, and lacking it makes aces ace. It is the exact thing we "desirists" mean when we say inherent desire for partnered sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, wow. Looks like you guys are at it again! Always gotta blow up a thread with your discussions (no lie, I love it).

I think that you're being far too dismissive of the definition of asexuality and the discussion on it, though. Like you, I've used thousands and thousands of words to try to describe asexuality and the definition, but to say that the discussion doesn't matter because only asexuals discuss it is far too dismissive of the point. The point being why we discuss it. Asexuality is a fairly new and misunderstood term. Really, many asexuals don't really know what it is, and most of us don't know how to explain it. However, if we're going to ever get recognition in the sexual community, we have to settle on a definition. If we want to discuss it outside of AVEN, we have to reach a concensus amongst ourselves. Otherwise, the media and sexuals won't take us seriously. They'll think that we're just making up a term or using an already created term and sticking a random definition on to be special snowflakes. Granted, I'll be the first to say that sexual attraction, like many feelings, isn't one that can be explained and understood by those that don't experience it. It's simply not something that you can understand if you haven't felt it yourself, as I've mentioned a thousand times as well.

I think that the three definitions of asexuality all go hand-in-hand.

1) lack of sexual attraction

2) lack of desire for partnered sex

3) lack of libido

I simply think that some definitions are more complex understandings than others. If you don't have a libido, you might not experience sexual attraction. If you don't experience sexual attraction, chances are that you might not desire partnered sex. Which is why I fully embrace the multiple definitions.

However, to say that the definition of asexuality isn't the lack of sexual attraction is simply dismissing the general definitions of sexualities. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same gender. Hetereoesexuality is sexual attraction to the opposite gender. Bisexuality is sexual attraction to two genders. Polysexuality is sexual attraction to more than two genders. Pansexuality is sexual attraction regardless of gender... You see the pattern. Therefore, would the logical conclusion not be that asexuality be sexual attraction to no gender? Granted some of these definitions in themselves may ary from person to person, but the pattern still remains that they all have to do who you are sexually attracted to. So I believe that asexuality should logically fit the pattern. This would allow for the definition to be more common sense as the broader spectrum of sexualities becomes more understood and easily accepted.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

I see sexual attraction as the interest/desire in someone, which is different from sexual desire in general. I do support a desire based definition for Asexuality and that's how AVEN defines sexual attraction anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, to say that the definition of asexuality isn't the lack of sexual attraction is simply dismissing the general definitions of sexualities. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same gender. Hetereoesexuality is sexual attraction to the opposite gender. Bisexuality is sexual attraction to two genders. Polysexuality is sexual attraction to more than two genders. Pansexuality is sexual attraction regardless of gender... You see the pattern. Therefore, would the logical conclusion not be that asexuality be sexual attraction to no gender? Granted some of these definitions in themselves may ary from person to person, but the pattern still remains that they all have to do who you are sexually attracted to. So I believe that asexuality should logically fit the pattern. This would allow for the definition to be more common sense as the broader spectrum of sexualities becomes more understood and easily accepted.

The problem with this kind of definition is again the "sexual attraction" element. I can find myself attracted to a man in a similar way to what many heterosexual women experience, yet because I fundamentally have no innate desire to have a sexual relationship (whether it be short-term fun or long-term intimacy) with that person or any person in general, I do not share a similar sexual orientation to them. If asexuality were sexual attraction to no gender (and if sexual attraction were any pull towards a specific person due to sexualized characteristics, which is how it's generally used outside of AVEN) then I wouldn't be asexual; I would likely be considered heterosexual but with a sexual deficiency of some kind, even though I simply do not desire sex.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

However, to say that the definition of asexuality isn't the lack of sexual attraction is simply dismissing the general definitions of sexualities. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same gender. Hetereoesexuality is sexual attraction to the opposite gender. Bisexuality is sexual attraction to two genders. Polysexuality is sexual attraction to more than two genders. Pansexuality is sexual attraction regardless of gender... You see the pattern.

Indeed, I reject/dismiss all of these definitions just as much as AVEN's definition of asexuality. None of them, not a single one, require "sexual attraction" to be defined. There may be a pattern, yeah, but the threads it's woven from are all worthless, IMO.

Homosexuality is the inherent desire to have sex with partners of the same sex/gender (etc.pp., mutatis mutandis). No need to bring whatever "sexual attraction" is into that. It's plain, simple, and clear, and defining asexuality as no inherent desire for partnered sex fits that pattern perfectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, to say that the definition of asexuality isn't the lack of sexual attraction is simply dismissing the general definitions of sexualities. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same gender. Hetereoesexuality is sexual attraction to the opposite gender. Bisexuality is sexual attraction to two genders. Polysexuality is sexual attraction to more than two genders. Pansexuality is sexual attraction regardless of gender... You see the pattern. Therefore, would the logical conclusion not be that asexuality be sexual attraction to no gender? Granted some of these definitions in themselves may ary from person to person, but the pattern still remains that they all have to do who you are sexually attracted to. So I believe that asexuality should logically fit the pattern. This would allow for the definition to be more common sense as the broader spectrum of sexualities becomes more understood and easily accepted.

The problem with this kind of definition is again the "sexual attraction" element. I can find myself attracted to a man in a similar way to what many heterosexual women experience, yet because I fundamentally have no innate desire to have a sexual relationship (whether it be short-term fun or long-term intimacy) with that person or any person in general, I do not share a similar sexual orientation to them. If asexuality were sexual attraction to no gender (and if sexual attraction were any pull towards a specific person due to sexualized characteristics, which is how it's generally used outside of AVEN) then I wouldn't be asexual; I would likely be considered heterosexual but with a sexual deficiency of some kind, even though I simply do not desire sex.

Actually, I haven't heard of someone saying something like that Before. Huh, you learn something new every day! After all my years on AVEN, I must have just missed all of the posts from people like you.

But you see, the thing here is that some people don't experience sexual attraction, but do desire sex. People could want sex for many reasons. Because it feels good. Because it makes their partner happy. Whatever. The point is, they want sex, but they simply don't have any sexual attraction. And you can't say that they do experience sexual attraction because sexual attraction is generally aimed at someone. No one (or few people) want sex in general and will have sex with anyone. Sexual attraction is a sexual desire towards a person.

I myself don't experience sexual attraction, though I'm quite neutral to the idea of sex. IF I have a partners that wants it, I may have sex, I honestly don't care. And I'll probably enjoy it, but my feelings will probably remain neutral. The point is, I still don't feel it. If I was single my whole life, I'd probably just remain a virgin forever. Why? Because I don't experience sexual attraction. I simply just don't see anyone in that way. I look at someone and think things like, "Oh, I bet they'd be a great cuddler" or "They're very pleasing to the eyes" but I don't really have the will to react to any of these thoughts in a sexual manner. for instance, If I'm in a relationship and the person I'm with is like, "I want sex." I'm like, WTF? Why? Because I don't feel that.or experience that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do occasionally experience arousal in response to seeing people(it's more about the posing/dancing than the people themselves, I probably wouldn't become aroused just from seeing people walking around naked, but that's another issue) I also like nudity. However, my mind just doesn't seem to work in a sexual way, if that makes sense. I don't fantasize about sex(at least not in the typical way) and I don't really see the appeal of sex. I may get slightly aroused by people sometimes, but not enough to be of any interest to me if I masturbate(I've tried, it doesn't work). From what I read on here I don't believe there is a consistent way that sexuals(or asexuals) experience sexual attraction. There are a variety of different experiences that could lead up to sex or a lack thereof.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

However, to say that the definition of asexuality isn't the lack of sexual attraction is simply dismissing the general definitions of sexualities. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same gender. Hetereoesexuality is sexual attraction to the opposite gender. Bisexuality is sexual attraction to two genders. Polysexuality is sexual attraction to more than two genders. Pansexuality is sexual attraction regardless of gender... You see the pattern. Therefore, would the logical conclusion not be that asexuality be sexual attraction to no gender? Granted some of these definitions in themselves may ary from person to person, but the pattern still remains that they all have to do who you are sexually attracted to. So I believe that asexuality should logically fit the pattern. This would allow for the definition to be more common sense as the broader spectrum of sexualities becomes more understood and easily accepted.

The problem with this kind of definition is again the "sexual attraction" element. I can find myself attracted to a man in a similar way to what many heterosexual women experience, yet because I fundamentally have no innate desire to have a sexual relationship (whether it be short-term fun or long-term intimacy) with that person or any person in general, I do not share a similar sexual orientation to them. If asexuality were sexual attraction to no gender (and if sexual attraction were any pull towards a specific person due to sexualized characteristics, which is how it's generally used outside of AVEN) then I wouldn't be asexual; I would likely be considered heterosexual but with a sexual deficiency of some kind, even though I simply do not desire sex.

Actually, I haven't heard of someone saying something like that Before. Huh, you learn something new every day! After all my years on AVEN, I must have just missed all of the posts from people like you.

But you see, the thing here is that some people don't experience sexual attraction, but do desire sex. People could want sex for many reasons. Because it feels good. Because it makes their partner happy. Whatever. The point is, they want sex, but they simply don't have any sexual attraction. And you can't say that they do experience sexual attraction because sexual attraction is generally aimed at someone. No one (or few people) want sex in general and will have sex with anyone. Sexual attraction is a sexual desire towards a person.

I myself don't experience sexual attraction, though I'm quite neutral to the idea of sex. IF I have a partners that wants it, I may have sex, I honestly don't care. And I'll probably enjoy it, but my feelings will probably remain neutral. The point is, I still don't feel it. If I was single my whole life, I'd probably just remain a virgin forever. Why? Because I don't experience sexual attraction. I simply just don't see anyone in that way. I look at someone and think things like, "Oh, I bet they'd be a great cuddler" or "They're very pleasing to the eyes" but I don't really have the will to react to any of these thoughts in a sexual manner. for instance, If I'm in a relationship and the person I'm with is like, "I want sex." I'm like, WTF? Why? Because I don't feel that.or experience that.

It's not about not wanting sex, it's about not innately desiring it independently from other factors such as reproduction and pleasing a partner.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

However, to say that the definition of asexuality isn't the lack of sexual attraction is simply dismissing the general definitions of sexualities. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same gender. Hetereoesexuality is sexual attraction to the opposite gender. Bisexuality is sexual attraction to two genders. Polysexuality is sexual attraction to more than two genders. Pansexuality is sexual attraction regardless of gender... You see the pattern. Therefore, would the logical conclusion not be that asexuality be sexual attraction to no gender? Granted some of these definitions in themselves may ary from person to person, but the pattern still remains that they all have to do who you are sexually attracted to. So I believe that asexuality should logically fit the pattern. This would allow for the definition to be more common sense as the broader spectrum of sexualities becomes more understood and easily accepted.

The problem with this kind of definition is again the "sexual attraction" element. I can find myself attracted to a man in a similar way to what many heterosexual women experience, yet because I fundamentally have no innate desire to have a sexual relationship (whether it be short-term fun or long-term intimacy) with that person or any person in general, I do not share a similar sexual orientation to them. If asexuality were sexual attraction to no gender (and if sexual attraction were any pull towards a specific person due to sexualized characteristics, which is how it's generally used outside of AVEN) then I wouldn't be asexual; I would likely be considered heterosexual but with a sexual deficiency of some kind, even though I simply do not desire sex.

Actually, I haven't heard of someone saying something like that Before. Huh, you learn something new every day! After all my years on AVEN, I must have just missed all of the posts from people like you.

But you see, the thing here is that some people don't experience sexual attraction, but do desire sex. People could want sex for many reasons. Because it feels good. Because it makes their partner happy. Whatever. The point is, they want sex, but they simply don't have any sexual attraction. And you can't say that they do experience sexual attraction because sexual attraction is generally aimed at someone. No one (or few people) want sex in general and will have sex with anyone. Sexual attraction is a sexual desire towards a person.

I myself don't experience sexual attraction, though I'm quite neutral to the idea of sex. IF I have a partners that wants it, I may have sex, I honestly don't care. And I'll probably enjoy it, but my feelings will probably remain neutral. The point is, I still don't feel it. If I was single my whole life, I'd probably just remain a virgin forever. Why? Because I don't experience sexual attraction. I simply just don't see anyone in that way. I look at someone and think things like, "Oh, I bet they'd be a great cuddler" or "They're very pleasing to the eyes" but I don't really have the will to react to any of these thoughts in a sexual manner. for instance, If I'm in a relationship and the person I'm with is like, "I want sex." I'm like, WTF? Why? Because I don't feel that.or experience that.

I can see where you're coming from here, and it would be great if things could be understood that simply. But "attraction" is such a vague word that it can't be depended on to communicate a definition. Some sexual people might disagree that they're sexually attracted to somebody if the way the relationship worked up to sexual activity wasn't based on an "a-WOOOOO-gah!" type reaction at first glance, while by your definition here it would qualify as sexual attraction if it's any kind of attraction that leads up to the point when sex with the person is desired. I don't really know if I side with one definition over the other, but the fact that it's not uniformly clear up front what sexual attraction is will cloud up a lot of discussions about asexuality.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tachyglossus

I thought the point of this thread was not to point out how every one else is wrong and just share experiences. So what if the person used the term 'sexual attraction'? Don't get hung up on those words, just go with the spirit of the original post.

As for me, I don't get much attraction... I think? I've felt the increase of blood flow to my nethers and a particular tingling sensation, but that is usually when I am half asleep, or playing some mindless puzzle game, and not really thinking about anything or anyone. So nothing external is stimulating me - I think it is just my brain sending a nerve impulse to check and see if my genitals are in working order. And it is also extremely infrequent or sporadic. I might go a year or more without such an experience, then have a cluster of said experiences close together, say, within the span of one week.

I don't tend to have any sexual desire for other people. I can find people aesthetic. But it's more of a 'I enjoy looking at this person' in the same was as 'I enjoy looking at this flower'. I can find personality traits or a person's demeanor attractive, in that I want to be around them more, but that is a social attraction, not a physical or sexual one.

Anyway, if this debate is so old, why is it being debated? Seems like beating a dead horse. But I'm new to AVEN, so this whole thing is new to me. Like I said, the original post just looked like an invitation to share experiences, regardless whether we call it sexual attraction, sexual arousal, sexual desire and so on. Not everyone is semantic.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pan's already hit on the definition I'd have posted. I do so like that we now agree on the definition. :P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We can define it in lots of different ways. I never said it had anything to do with the definition of asexual, but because we tend to argue about it I wanted a place where we could share and not be shot down. There are a few that I feel has done exactly this, but I won't go around pointing fingers. In the end, sexually attraction is just a word and people apply it to different things. There is no right or wrong.

Also you who feel the question never stops coming, as new asexuals come, feeling confused about it and about why they aren't supposed to feel any of it if they're asexual, the question is going to come again. If they get a lot of different answers that somehow give them a picture of what the community think about the definition of asexuallity and so on, it might not be so hard for them.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, wow. Looks like you guys are at it again! Always gotta blow up a thread with your discussions (no lie, I love it).

I think that you're being far too dismissive of the definition of asexuality and the discussion on it, though. Like you, I've used thousands and thousands of words to try to describe asexuality and the definition, but to say that the discussion doesn't matter because only asexuals discuss it is far too dismissive of the point. The point being why we discuss it. Asexuality is a fairly new and misunderstood term. Really, many asexuals don't really know what it is, and most of us don't know how to explain it. However, if we're going to ever get recognition in the sexual community, we have to settle on a definition. If we want to discuss it outside of AVEN, we have to reach a concensus amongst ourselves. Otherwise, the media and sexuals won't take us seriously. They'll think that we're just making up a term or using an already created term and sticking a random definition on to be special snowflakes. Granted, I'll be the first to say that sexual attraction, like many feelings, isn't one that can be explained and understood by those that don't experience it. It's simply not something that you can understand if you haven't felt it yourself, as I've mentioned a thousand times as well.

I think that the three definitions of asexuality all go hand-in-hand.

1) lack of sexual attraction

2) lack of desire for partnered sex

3) lack of libido

I simply think that some definitions are more complex understandings than others. If you don't have a libido, you might not experience sexual attraction. If you don't experience sexual attraction, chances are that you might not desire partnered sex. Which is why I fully embrace the multiple definitions.

However, to say that the definition of asexuality isn't the lack of sexual attraction is simply dismissing the general definitions of sexualities. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same gender. Hetereoesexuality is sexual attraction to the opposite gender. Bisexuality is sexual attraction to two genders. Polysexuality is sexual attraction to more than two genders. Pansexuality is sexual attraction regardless of gender... You see the pattern. Therefore, would the logical conclusion not be that asexuality be sexual attraction to no gender? Granted some of these definitions in themselves may ary from person to person, but the pattern still remains that they all have to do who you are sexually attracted to. So I believe that asexuality should logically fit the pattern. This would allow for the definition to be more common sense as the broader spectrum of sexualities becomes more understood and easily accepted.

Pretty much the opposite to everything I have said in my posts in my thread :p I want to write a response, but don't have time right now. My response would be.. everything I have already said though lol.

Just this

I think that the three definitions of asexuality all go hand-in-hand.

1) lack of sexual attraction

2) lack of desire for partnered sex

3) lack of libido

1) Lack of sexual attraction? As already explained, ''sexual attraction'' really means nothing in the grand scheme of things, and many asexuals experience what could well be defined as ''sexual attraction'' (finding certain people attractive in a 'sexually arousing' way) but my opinion on that can be read in my other comments. Actually..

However, to say that the definition of asexuality isn't the lack of sexual attraction is simply dismissing the general definitions of sexualities. Homosexuality is sexual attraction to the same gender. Hetereoesexuality is sexual attraction to the opposite gender. Bisexuality is sexual attraction to two genders. Polysexuality is sexual attraction to more than two genders. Pansexuality is sexual attraction regardless of gender... You see the pattern. Therefore, would the logical conclusion not be that asexuality be sexual attraction to no gender? Granted some of these definitions in themselves may ary from person to person, but the pattern still remains that they all have to do who you are sexually attracted to. So I believe that asexuality should logically fit the pattern. This would allow for the definition to be more common sense as the broader spectrum of sexualities becomes more understood and easily accepted.

My answer:

I'd just like to separate asexuality and sexuality into: does not innately desire partnered sex/does innately desire partnered sex.. And ''sexual attraction'' is just the type of attraction some people get to certain people for various reasons, regardless of whether or not they desire partnered sex with those people. Many asexuals say they feel what they believe would be sexual attraction towards specific people, they just don't desire sex with anyone regardless of how attracted to them they are. And this attraction is often directed toward a specific gender over another, or two genders or whatever. It is also separate from ''romantic attraction'' although the two often go together.

So, a heteroasexual would experience all the same feelings and emotions towards people of the ''opposite'' (hate that term) gender as a heterosexual person does, minus any desire to actually have sex with those people. Some people don't experience that at all, so prefer to go with ''hetero-romantic'' ,,. I know my ''feelings'' towards certain people are a lot more than romantic, so I don't like defining my orientation purely by who I am romantically attracted to personally. I would be panasexual grey-romantic I guess, hah,

''Sexual attraction'' is just a type of attraction that defines some peoples feelings towards certain people, regardless of whether or not they desire partnered sex.

All I'm trying to do is agree that it's very annoying that ''sexual attraction'' is the official defining factor in all sexual orientations, because sexual attraction does not define sexuality, only the direction and type of feelings some people have for certain other people. It's really not really important in the grand scheme of things (when it comes to whether you are ace or not anyway) yet it's taken so seriously.. What is important, is whether or not someone has an innate desire to connect sexually with other people, this is what is important in defining sexuality or lack thereof.

2) yes, asexuals lack an innate desire to connect sexually with other people for their own sexual and/or emotional pleasure, this is correct.

3) lack of libido??? Jesus hah, do you have any idea how many sexual people have libido issues or completely lack libido and are still sexual? They still have that innate desire within them and it can make them extremely depressed, suicidal even, when their body won't react according to the innate desire within them for sexual intimacy. Asexuality has nothing to do with libido or lack thereof, nothing, and it is completely misleading (and quite offensive, as many, many asexuals have very healthy libidos) to say otherwise. Sure there are asexuals with no libido (nonlib) but lack of libido is in no way a defining factor for asexuality in any way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3) lack of libido??? Jesus hah, do you have any idea how many sexual people have libido issues or completely lack libido and are still sexual? They still have that innate desire within them and it can make them extremely depressed, suicidal even, when their body won't react according to the innate desire within them for sexual intimacy. Asexuality has nothing to do with libido or lack thereof, nothing, and it is completely misleading (and quite offensive, as many, many asexuals have very healthy libidos) to say otherwise. Sure there are asexuals with no libido (nonlib) but lack of libido is in no way a defining factor for asexuality in any way.

Again, I did not know this. Huh, Learned two new things today. Though, on the grounds of being offensive, how? I have a very healthy libido. A very very active libido. Being one with no sexual attraction myself, I had simply thought that someone without a libido wouldn't desire sex. I honestly don't have enough experience with the sexual world to know that there are sexuals without a libido that are upset by this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You all know my opinion on the desire vs attraction thing (hint: I can basically copy Skull's quoting post)... so I won't join in here, as the OP didn't ask for that. :D

Sexual attraction is a varied thing. It depends on who you ask. Generally, if I ask people I know IRL, they'll say seeing someone hot and getting aroused. However, on AVEN that is often not sexual attraction, since it would mean pornography would count and so would fantasies. Other people say it is seeing someone across a room and wanting to bang them. Others say it is that feeling that pulls you towards sex when you feel that surge of "Man you're awesome" while talking/cuddling/just enjoying the other person's company and the emotional connection you have with them.

Personally ... I view it as attraction (I see attraction as simply attraction - can be based on looks, personality, whatever or a mix of whatever) with a sexual component. Meaning, that feeling of "Hey this person is cool..." but adding "Hey this person is cool AND arousing".

Link to post
Share on other sites

3) lack of libido??? Jesus hah, do you have any idea how many sexual people have libido issues or completely lack libido and are still sexual? They still have that innate desire within them and it can make them extremely depressed, suicidal even, when their body won't react according to the innate desire within them for sexual intimacy. Asexuality has nothing to do with libido or lack thereof, nothing, and it is completely misleading (and quite offensive, as many, many asexuals have very healthy libidos) to say otherwise. Sure there are asexuals with no libido (nonlib) but lack of libido is in no way a defining factor for asexuality in any way.

Again, I did not know this. Huh, Learned two new things today. Though, on the grounds of being offensive, how? I have a very healthy libido. A very very active libido. Being one with no sexual attraction myself, I had simply thought that someone without a libido wouldn't desire sex. I honestly don't have enough experience with the sexual world to know that there are sexuals without a libido that are upset by this.

This is whats very frustrating, so many people who have no real knowledge of many aspects of sexuality trying to define asexuality.. how can one define asexuality if one has very little understanding of so many aspects of sexuality? Massive fail on AVEN's part, needs so much more education on sexuality so the people who come can better understand asexuality.

Offensive because it infers that asexuals just have a medical condition (low libido) that can be fixed (a low libido is a treatable condition in many people)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've also heard there are a lot of straight women that feel aroused by seeing other women, yet have no desire to have sex with them. Some people might say they're actually bi, but they have no urge to have sex with women whatsoever, so this probably isn't a useful application of the term bi.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

3) lack of libido??? Jesus hah, do you have any idea how many sexual people have libido issues or completely lack libido and are still sexual? They still have that innate desire within them and it can make them extremely depressed, suicidal even, when their body won't react according to the innate desire within them for sexual intimacy. Asexuality has nothing to do with libido or lack thereof, nothing, and it is completely misleading (and quite offensive, as many, many asexuals have very healthy libidos) to say otherwise. Sure there are asexuals with no libido (nonlib) but lack of libido is in no way a defining factor for asexuality in any way.

Again, I did not know this. Huh, Learned two new things today. Though, on the grounds of being offensive, how? I have a very healthy libido. A very very active libido. Being one with no sexual attraction myself, I had simply thought that someone without a libido wouldn't desire sex. I honestly don't have enough experience with the sexual world to know that there are sexuals without a libido that are upset by this.

This is whats very frustrating, so many people who have no real knowledge of many aspects of sexuality trying to define asexuality.. how can one define asexuality if one has very little understanding of so many aspects of sexuality? Massive fail on AVEN's part, needs so much more education on sexuality so the people who come can better understand asexuality.

Offensive because it infers that asexuals just have a medical condition (low libido) that can be fixed (a low libido is a treatable condition in many people)

You said it was offensive because many asexuals had healthy libidos, implying that it's offensive to the asexuals not the sexuals. I apologize, but I was seriously just confused on the matter. As far as libido goes, it was seriously just a misunderstanding on my part. Where I live, there is no sex-ed, so I know absolutely nothing of sex. At least most people have the benefit of learning on their own when they start feeling attractions. Though I still don't think that sexuals should be the ones defining asexuality. If heteroesexuals defined homosexuality, they'd all be locked up in mental institutions. If sexuals defined asexuality thus far, we'd all be diagnosed with hypoactive sexual disorder. The issue is that in many places people aren't being taught about sex at all, and that's rally what needs to be fixed so that asexuals can have a better understanding. This would benefit everyone, because asexuals would be able to learn sooner that they are different rather than have to deal with the sexualized society and wonder why they don't get it, think there's something wrong with them because they don't get it, or have others think there's something wrong with them because they just don't get it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is what we keep telling you!! What the hell is "inherent" / "primary" desire for sex?! I couldn't tell you!

Who's "we"? If you mean sexuals, it's been pretty cleat that they do tend to agree with this definition (or at least, find it one heckuvalot less misleading than the "attraction" based one). Sexual long-timers on here - Skulls, LG, Geo (while he was still around) - all strongly lean(ed) towards that.

I also agree with it. But as far as definitions go, it doesn't add much clarity, as we still can't give you a definition of this "primary" / "inherent" desire that can be measured objectively (see Snow Cone's post below yours).

Erm. You said you couldn't tell me, but you just did, right there. That feeling of physically wanting/desiring partnered sex? That is the exact thing that makes sexuals sexual, and lacking it makes aces ace. It is the exact thing we "desirists" mean when we say inherent desire for partnered sex.

But whether you desire sex in the moment for one is hard to measure (for all I know, I could be asexual and just really like undressing my girlfriend), and for another it can change depending on circumstance. That's way too pragmatic and oversimplified to even approximate a complex part of someone's identity like their sexuality. You need lots of other hints and indicators to even get close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...