Jump to content

What is 'Sexual attraction'?


Guest member25959

Recommended Posts

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.

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.

I *was* implying (well, I was saying outright) it was/is offensive to asexuals, because saying asexuality can be defined as having lacking libido 1) disregards all the asexuals *with* a libido (and you yourself say you have a libido so I don't know why you said that) and 2) makes it sound like asexuality is a medical disorder that can be treated.

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.

I never said sexuals should define asexuality, where did you get the impression I said that? I said people on AVEN need a better understanding of sexuality before they go throwing definitions of asexuality around.

I am (grey) asexual, but I have experienced sexual attraction and I also know what it feels like to want to connect sexually with another person (they both feel different, though obviously for many people they are experienced simultaneously) and I have spent over two years here now in long, in-depth conversations with sexuals as well as asexuals, learning everything I can about sexuality and the sexual experience, as well as already having a vast knowledge about sexuality due to situations I have been involved in the past. I am an asexual, defining asexuality, based on full knowledge of sexuality. This in no way means I am saying sexual people should define asexuality, I am saying asexuality should only be defined based on a full understanding of sexuality, not defined based on total misunderstandings, offensive myths, and conclusions based on how sexuality is presented in the media, as is the norm for defining asexuality on AVEN currently.

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.

And yes I have been saying for ages now (said in this thread even) AVEN needs better education available about sexuality so people who come here can know whether they are asexual or just a regular sexual person who doesn't look at people get horny and want sex with them based on their appearance (which is what so many on AVEN believe defines sexuality, and if you don't experience that, you are asexual) ..and most places have shit sex-ed. I was told in sex ed at 14 that women can't orgasm and had to slide a condom onto a hammer handle in the woodworking room, that was literally the extent of sex ed in my class aside from some basic info about avoiding pregnancy and diseases (which was mainly 'don't have sex until you're married' lol) but I did my own reading about sex, constantly, learned everything I could from a very young age (I've always been fascinated by sex) and had the opportunity to ask hundreds of sexual people what it is that drives them and what makes them sexual, when I was trying to figure out what was different about my own sexuality in my late teen (at the time I was defining myself as a ''bisexual without the sexual part'')

So yeah I'm a (grey) asexual, but I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to sexuality. This also means, I am defining asexuality based on real experience and full knowledge of sexuality, not just based on ideas, impressions and interpretations I have made based on some vague idea that I can't fully comprehend (as is the case so often on AVEN when it comes to sexuality)

Link to post
Share on other sites
newMasturbator

The meaning of life never comes up outside of philosophical discussions. There will also never be anything close to a consensus on what the meaning of life is. Does this render all discussion on the meaning of life irrelevant?

Interesting analogy.

My reply will be along the lines of what Ficto said here:

The ''meaning of life'' is relevant to literally every single human being on the planet, as we are all alive and many don't know ''why'' or what will happen when we die.

...but with a bit of a different slant. "What is the meaning of life/why are we here (and for what)" is a question nearly everyone will have asked themselves at least at some point of their lives, so even when no consensus can be reached, at least we can go the epistemic approach and compare our different answers. Finding out how another person answers the question for themselves is useful insofar as it helps me understand them better.

"What is sexual attraction" is completely different from that. I had never asked myself anything remotely like that before finding AVEN. And even after being more or less forced into endlessly and futilely debating it on here, the concept still has no applicability in my life, and doesn't have applicability in understanding others, either. I understood other orientations just fine before AVEN tried to make it all about "sexual attraction". The term still is just as unneccessary for me for understanding asexuality or any other orientation as it was on the day I first found AVEN. I've simply grown more vocal in those four years about being fed up with it.

"Meaning of life" is, while totally subjective (which by itself leads some folks, like Skulls, to consider discussing it pointless), at least a solid part of the human experience in general. "Sexual attraction" is some super-vague thing a few hundred folks on one specific website inexplicably obsess over, that has no applicability to life at large.

So, IMO, a better analogy might have been discussions about specific intricacies in fiction, say, e.g. how exactly the Heisenberg Compensator works in Star Trek transporters. Completely irrelevant to the vast majority of people, even to casual watchers of Trek, and even more so to everyone who doesn't even watch the show. Now, of course we can discuss and theorize about it, nonetheless. It can even be fun to do so. But we shouldn't pretend that discussion is in any way relevant or interesting for the overwhelming number of people, who will most likely just roll their eyes and go "OMG, supernerd alert"... and will have a dang good point in doing so. ;)

I don't agree. Sexual attraction is a real thing and it's apllicable to everyone, including asexuals (because sexual attraction is absent in most of them).

Sexual attraction means the feeling that you get aroused by a person's body (for example, getting an erection because you see a girl undress, from a hetero-guy point of view). If you have this feeling, you probably want to act on it (for instance, touching boobs) because it increases arousal more. Then comes sex to achieve orgasm.

I agree with your definition of asexuality, that is, an asexual is a person who does not desire partnered sex. But that is usually because they don't experience sexual attraction (not always! some people experience sexual attraction but don't desire real partnered sex, but I think that's quite rare).

I can speak for myself that I only desire partnered sex because I experience sexual attraction. If I didn't, I would just masturbate (if i had a normal libido).

I have a strange quirk in my sexuality. That is, I experience sexual attraction but PIV sex is unarousing to me. Which is like a chunk of asexuality in my sexuality, despite sexual attraction.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree. Sexual attraction is a real thing and it's apllicable to everyone, including asexuals (because sexual attraction is absent in most of them).

Sexual attraction means the feeling that you get aroused by a person's body (for example, getting an erection because you see a girl undress, from a hetero-guy point of view). If you have this feeling, you probably want to act on it (for instance, touching boobs) because it increases arousal more. Then comes sex to achieve orgasm.

I agree with your definition of asexuality, that is, an asexual is a person who does not desire partnered sex. But that is usually because they don't experience sexual attraction (not always! some people experience sexual attraction but don't desire real partnered sex, but I think that's quite rare).

I can speak for myself that I only desire partnered sex because I experience sexual attraction. If I didn't, I would just masturbate (if i had a normal libido).

I have a strange quirk in my sexuality. That is, I experience sexual attraction but PIV sex is unarousing to me. Which is like a chunk of asexuality in my sexuality, despite sexual attraction.

This perspective also fits with my own understanding of "sexual attraction" and asexuality. Thanks for sharing!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sticking with the coffee analogy that was mentioned previously.

Indeed, and I think it works pretty well. I mean, it's conceivable that someone likes the smell of coffee and *feels* like they want to have some coffee, but then when they actually have it, they realize they hate the actual taste of coffee.

Well, that made more sense before I typed it out, but I hope you get what I mean..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't someone make a status update about coffee overdose recently? It's our fault. ._.

Link to post
Share on other sites
newMasturbator

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

So a man turns you on, then why don't you want sex with him?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So a man turns you on, then why don't you want sex with him?

Uhm.. don't know what kind of answer you expect to that? How do you explain a lack of a causation?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual attraction means the feeling that you get aroused by a person's body (for example, getting an erection because you see a girl undress, from a hetero-guy point of view). If you have this feeling, you probably want to act on it (for instance, touching boobs) because it increases arousal more. Then comes sex to achieve orgasm.

I agree with your definition of asexuality, that is, an asexual is a person who does not desire partnered sex. But that is usually because they don't experience sexual attraction (not always! some people experience sexual attraction but don't desire real partnered sex, but I think that's quite rare).

As one of the people who does experience sexual attraction (or attraction to sexualized characteristics) but no desire to act on them, I'm curious if that really is as rare as you think. Perhaps it's because people who are similar to me have more to discuss to clarify their a/sexuality that I get a sense they're more common among the asexual population, based on who is vocal more than a formal headcount.

It is a good point you make, and I can see it being a useful way to explain things to people who are unaware of or unclear on asexuality if they don't understand the "no innate desire for partnered sex" bit. But it might make it more confusing, so this is something that needs so be considered on a case-by-case basis.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So a man turns you on, then why don't you want sex with him?

Isn't there a difference between a man turning me on and me finding him attractive? A lot of asexuals on AVEN distinguish between aesthetic and sexual attraction, but my draw to a good-looking person is different from my appreciation of architecture so I hesitate to use the same words. The reasons I appreciate the beauty and charm of a person are the same reasons other people want to have sex with them. That's why it's hard to make that distinction sometimes.

"Attractive" doesn't mean "makes me want to approach them" either. Otherwise why would we describe celebrities and other people at a distance as being "attractive? It's a generalized quality.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Attractive" doesn't mean "makes me want to approach them" either. Otherwise why would we describe celebrities and other people at a distance as being "attractive? It's a generalized quality.

Oh.. But I generally avoid attraction to female actors, because then I do get a wish to be able to get to know them, which I know will go unfulfilled. Male actors, though, yeah I do see the appeal in finding them attractive. <3

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't someone make a status update about coffee overdose recently? It's our fault. ._.

While I don't usually give him much credit (as I consider most of his theories woefully outdated), let me paraphrase and modify a quote from Freud: Sometimes a cup of coffee is just a cup of coffee. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
newMasturbator

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

So a man turns you on, then why don't you want sex with him?

Isn't there a difference between a man turning me on and me finding him attractive? A lot of asexuals on AVEN distinguish between aesthetic and sexual attraction, but my draw to a good-looking person is different from my appreciation of architecture so I hesitate to use the same words. The reasons I appreciate the beauty and charm of a person are the same reasons other people want to have sex with them. That's why it's hard to make that distinction sometimes.

"Attractive" doesn't mean "makes me want to approach them" either. Otherwise why would we describe celebrities and other people at a distance as being "attractive? It's a generalized quality.

There are different kinds of attractions, sure. But sexual attraction implies you want sex with a person. Attraction - pull towards, attracted to Sexual - sexual acts.

So, basically, Sexual Attraction means a pull towards sexual acts with a person. So you're saying you experience a pull towards sex but then you don't want sex because the actual act is not satisfying/arousing to you. I can understand that, like I said actual PIV sex isn't very arousing to me even though I experience sexual attraction ( I do enjoy giving and receiving oral sex, for instance ).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Attractive" doesn't mean "makes me want to approach them" either. Otherwise why would we describe celebrities and other people at a distance as being "attractive? It's a generalized quality.

Oh.. But I generally avoid attraction to female actors, because then I do get a wish to be able to get to know them, which I know will go unfulfilled. Male actors, though, yeah I do see the appeal in finding them attractive. <3

I find female actors attractive too, but because of heteronormative socialization (i.e. being told from the beginning that unless I'm gay I'm straight) it feels very different for me in how I appreciate their attractiveness. It sounds similar to your distinction between the sexes too.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So a man turns you on, then why don't you want sex with him?

Isn't there a difference between a man turning me on and me finding him attractive? A lot of asexuals on AVEN distinguish between aesthetic and sexual attraction, but my draw to a good-looking person is different from my appreciation of architecture so I hesitate to use the same words. The reasons I appreciate the beauty and charm of a person are the same reasons other people want to have sex with them. That's why it's hard to make that distinction sometimes.

"Attractive" doesn't mean "makes me want to approach them" either. Otherwise why would we describe celebrities and other people at a distance as being "attractive? It's a generalized quality.

There are different kinds of attractions, sure. But sexual attraction implies you want sex with a person. Attraction - pull towards, attracted to Sexual - sexual acts.

So, basically, Sexual Attraction means a pull towards sexual acts with a person. So you're saying you experience a pull towards sex but then you don't want sex because the actual act is not satisfying/arousing to you. I can understand that, like I said actual PIV sex isn't very arousing to me even though I experience sexual attraction ( I do enjoy giving and receiving oral sex, for instance ).

That definition of sexual attraction isn't clear or universal, is what I'm saying. Yours makes sense when you describe it, but it isn't understood that way by everyone. I'm inclined to use words like "sexy" or "hot" because it's how attractive features are understood to be defined. It's not reflective of my desires, per se.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So a man turns you on, then why don't you want sex with him?

Isn't there a difference between a man turning me on and me finding him attractive? A lot of asexuals on AVEN distinguish between aesthetic and sexual attraction, but my draw to a good-looking person is different from my appreciation of architecture so I hesitate to use the same words. The reasons I appreciate the beauty and charm of a person are the same reasons other people want to have sex with them. That's why it's hard to make that distinction sometimes.

"Attractive" doesn't mean "makes me want to approach them" either. Otherwise why would we describe celebrities and other people at a distance as being "attractive? It's a generalized quality.

There are different kinds of attractions, sure. But sexual attraction implies you want sex with a person. Attraction - pull towards, attracted to Sexual - sexual acts.

So, basically, Sexual Attraction means a pull towards sexual acts with a person. So you're saying you experience a pull towards sex but then you don't want sex because the actual act is not satisfying/arousing to you. I can understand that, like I said actual PIV sex isn't very arousing to me even though I experience sexual attraction ( I do enjoy giving and receiving oral sex, for instance ).

It just doesn't mean this at all. Only asexuals think that being attracted to someone means you want to have sex with them. NO ONE off this site thinks that. Probably because everyone off this site has experienced attraction many times to people they have zero interest in or are totally grossed out by the thought of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So a man turns you on, then why don't you want sex with him?

Isn't there a difference between a man turning me on and me finding him attractive?

No, he wouldn't turn you on if you didn't find him attractive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So a man turns you on, then why don't you want sex with him?

Isn't there a difference between a man turning me on and me finding him attractive?

No, he wouldn't turn you on if you didn't find him attractive.

I would think turning me on would mean "makes me want to have sex, preferably with that person." Like, turning me on to the idea of sex then and there or (nearby and soon). That very rarely applies to me (hence greyness).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So why do all sexual humans mean something totally different than all asexual humans? Why can't you guys get turned on and be like "ughhhh no thanks?" Why do only sexuals feel OK saying "attracted but no thanks"?

If it wasn't drilled into your head that asexual=no sexual attraction, do you think it'd be easier to simply say "attracted but don't wanna?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

So why do all sexual humans mean something totally different than all asexual humans? Why can't you guys get turned on and be like "ughhhh no thanks?" Why do only sexuals feel OK saying "attracted but no thanks"?

If it wasn't drilled into your head that asexual=no sexual attraction, do you think it'd be easier to simply say "attracted but don't wanna?"

Iz itself party line, komrad Skullsova.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

So a man turns you on, then why don't you want sex with him?

Isn't there a difference between a man turning me on and me finding him attractive?

No, he wouldn't turn you on if you didn't find him attractive.

I would think turning me on would mean "makes me want to have sex, preferably with that person." Like, turning me on to the idea of sex then and there or (nearby and soon). That very rarely applies to me (hence greyness).

That's not a contradiction. Skulls said that being turned by a man implies finding him attractive. But the other way around, what you're talking about, of whether attraction implies being turned on, Skulls didn't say anything about that.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So why do all sexual humans mean something totally different than all asexual humans? Why can't you guys get turned on and be like "ughhhh no thanks?" Why do only sexuals feel OK saying "attracted but no thanks"?

If it wasn't drilled into your head that asexual=no sexual attraction, do you think it'd be easier to simply say "attracted but don't wanna?"

Iz itself party line, komrad Skullsova.

I know, I know. I'll step out before I get into trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I know. I'll step out before I get into trouble.

I'm glad there are "dissidents" like you.

I find it baffling that the voices of sexuals - especially American sexuals, who can safely be assumed to be quite keenly aware of how words get used in casual English (much more so than second-language folks like me) - get dismissed so easily, over and over again, when they say, "no, feeling sexual attraction is not what makes us sexual". That may well be the most frustrating bit to me in all these neverending discussions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

I think finding someone attractive is different from being attracted to them. Or would that just be appreciating their looks?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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
So a man turns you on, then why don't you want sex with him?
Isn't there a difference between a man turning me on and me finding him attractive?
No, he wouldn't turn you on if you didn't find him attractive.I would think turning me on would mean "makes me want to have sex, preferably with that person." Like, turning me on to the idea of sex then and there or (nearby and soon). That very rarely applies to me (hence greyness).That's not a contradiction. Skulls said that being turned by a man implies finding him attractive. But the other way around, what you're talking about, of whether attraction implies being turned on, Skulls didn't say anything about that.

Yeah, I figured that's what Skullz meant, but my question was intended to go both ways (i.e. are they synonyms and one is always the other). I agree that sexual attraction is part of getting turned on because it comes first in that order of events. But for asexual people it doesn't get to that level. I think we all mean the same thing here. :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know a single regular who still says that asexuality == lack of sexual attraction. So it's kind of strange that it's still at the top of the site.

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...