Jump to content

What is 'Sexual attraction'?


Guest member25959

Recommended Posts

So I guess if I find the appearance of girls to be attractive, but I have no desire to act on it, I would be physically attracted to them but not sexually attracted to them?

Alternatively you can say you are simply attracted to girls, but have no desire for or interest in sex.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. I read a couple of articles on the Huffington Post on asexuality and found this website.

I am a gay man, and when I see an attractive man, I don't think about having sex with him. I don't see why I would define myself as an asexual though, and I've never been confused one second about my sexuality or how I should label myself; it's just that I don't consider sex to be really important or the thought that will dominate my mind when I see an attractive man. It doesn't mean I don't want to have sex in general with men though. I also happen to enjoy having sex as well.

I think the definition provided is inadequate. Just because you're not thinking "I would fuck him all night long" when you see a physically attractive person doesn't make you an asexual person.

Also, if you find girls physically attractive, to me the label heterosexual is adequate, regardless of your level of sexual attraction. But of course it's up to people to use the label they are the most comfortable with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beachwalker

Hi. I read a couple of articles on the Huffington Post on asexuality and found this website.

I am a gay man, and when I see an attractive man, I don't think about having sex with him. I don't see why I would define myself as an asexual though, and I've never been confused one second about my sexuality or how I should label myself; it's just that I don't consider sex to be really important or the thought that will dominate my mind when I see an attractive man. It doesn't mean I don't want to have sex in general with men though. I also happen to enjoy having sex as well.

I think the definition provided is inadequate. Just because you're not thinking "I would fuck him all night long" when you see a physically attractive person doesn't make you an asexual person.

Also, if you find girls physically attractive, to me the label heterosexual is adequate, regardless of your level of sexual attraction. But of course it's up to people to use the label they are the most comfortable with.

Hi Tiktok and welcome to Aven! :)

Thankyou for contributing. This whole sexual attraction thing for me is baffling. I find some people more attractive than others from thier physical/mental attributes but I have no interest desire to have sex with anyone.

Some of my friends do have this internal want for having sex and will seek out people to have sex with. They have some criteria usually a male/female/appearance preference which is subject to change depending on how much alcohol they have consumed. It's like some people have this internal want for sex in the total absence of sexual attraction, but usually have some criteria as to who they will have sex with. Although sometimes things like incarceraction results in their want for sex changing their criteria of who they will have sex with.

Anyway back to this scenario of seeing someone and wanting 'to fuck them all night long', I am sure it happens to some people I just don't know anyone personally who has met someone who makes them feel this way and then had the opportunity to do it. The closest thing I can relate to sexual attraction is the reaction of some people to certain movie stars etc but it has always been unobtainable.

The reality from my perspective is more a case of person wants sex, person pursues sex with someone they already have an established relationship with like their partner or if they dont have a partner and can be bothered seeks a partner who meets some/most/sometimes none, of their criteria. Sexual attraction plays a nominal if any role in these real life scenarios.

I can get that some people want sex as much as I want icecream sometimes, heck sometimes they are even willing to pay for it. But sexual attraction still confuses me, it just seems really insignificant in the actual scheme of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's just that I don't consider sex to be really important or the thought that will dominate my mind when I see an attractive man. It doesn't mean I don't want to have sex in general with men though. I also happen to enjoy having sex as well.

I think the definition provided is inadequate. Just because you're not thinking "I would fuck him all night long" when you see a physically attractive person doesn't make you an asexual person.

Also, if you find girls physically attractive, to me the label heterosexual is adequate, regardless of your level of sexual attraction. But of course it's up to people to use the label they are the most comfortable with.

I see what you are saying. There are many gradients of desire for sexual activity among people who do experience sexual attraction. In the same vein, I don't think that sexual attraction would be that only when it "dominates the mind".

There are many of us here that do not experience any type of desire to have sex at all, no matter how attractive we find the person (some actually don't enjoy sex at all, and are repulsed by it). And there are others here that only feel the desire if they are attracted to that person, plus having had a substantial and emotional connection with that person. That's why we kind of categorize ourselves ad Ace or demi.

Maybe the definition we are looking for ACE is something like, having no desire to have sex with anyone that one might otherwise be attracted to in some way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's just that I don't consider sex to be really important or the thought that will dominate my mind when I see an attractive man. It doesn't mean I don't want to have sex in general with men though. I also happen to enjoy having sex as well.

I think the definition provided is inadequate. Just because you're not thinking "I would fuck him all night long" when you see a physically attractive person doesn't make you an asexual person.

Also, if you find girls physically attractive, to me the label heterosexual is adequate, regardless of your level of sexual attraction. But of course it's up to people to use the label they are the most comfortable with.

I see what you are saying. There are many gradients of desire for sexual activity among people who do experience sexual attraction. In the same vein, I don't think that sexual attraction would be that only when it "dominates the mind".

There are many of us here that do not experience any type of desire to have sex at all, no matter how attractive we find the person (some actually don't enjoy sex at all, and are repulsed by it). And there are others here that only feel the desire if they are attracted to that person, plus having had a substantial and emotional connection with that person. That's why we kind of categorize ourselves ad Ace or demi.

Maybe the definition we are looking for ACE is something like, having no desire to have sex with anyone that one might otherwise be attracted to in some way.

So is it possible to be a "sexual asexual"? I am the kind of individual that doesn't feel any sexual attraction/desire to a person until after a strong emotional connection has been established. I've had sex before and enjoyed it but that was after me and that individual were exclusive for a while. I know that there are gradients to asexuality and I'm just trying to get a general idea of where I am (this all is a bit confusing).

Link to post
Share on other sites
luvtheheaven
So is it possible to be a "sexual asexual"? I am the kind of individual that doesn't feel any sexual attraction/desire to a person until after a strong emotional connection has been established. I've had sex before and enjoyed it but that was after me and that individual were exclusive for a while. I know that there are gradients to asexuality and I'm just trying to get a general idea of where I am (this all is a bit confusing).

The word you're looking for seems to be demisexual. That's what people on this site tend to describe that kind of thing as.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's just that I don't consider sex to be really important or the thought that will dominate my mind when I see an attractive man. It doesn't mean I don't want to have sex in general with men though. I also happen to enjoy having sex as well.

I think the definition provided is inadequate. Just because you're not thinking "I would fuck him all night long" when you see a physically attractive person doesn't make you an asexual person.

Also, if you find girls physically attractive, to me the label heterosexual is adequate, regardless of your level of sexual attraction. But of course it's up to people to use the label they are the most comfortable with.

I see what you are saying. There are many gradients of desire for sexual activity among people who do experience sexual attraction. In the same vein, I don't think that sexual attraction would be that only when it "dominates the mind".

There are many of us here that do not experience any type of desire to have sex at all, no matter how attractive we find the person (some actually don't enjoy sex at all, and are repulsed by it). And there are others here that only feel the desire if they are attracted to that person, plus having had a substantial and emotional connection with that person. That's why we kind of categorize ourselves ad Ace or demi.

Maybe the definition we are looking for ACE is something like, having no desire to have sex with anyone that one might otherwise be attracted to in some way.

So is it possible to be a "sexual asexual"? I am the kind of individual that doesn't feel any sexual attraction/desire to a person until after a strong emotional connection has been established. I've had sex before and enjoyed it but that was after me and that individual were exclusive for a while. I know that there are gradients to asexuality and I'm just trying to get a general idea of where I am (this all is a bit confusing).

Yeah, I think that's entirely possible.

Like EmilyK said, there are many people who need to develop a strong emotional bond before feeling sexual desire for that person. So that's not unusual at all, and probably takes as significant period of time before they would be able to enjoy any kind of sexual activity. Although I can't tell you from experience what exactly is that like, it would be good if someone who is a demi can give you some more advise in this area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can look at someone like an Olympic diver. He has a beautiful body, muscular, well trained, beautiful. Same with the female divers. I don't feel sexual attraction towards either. I can't imagine having sex with either, no matter how gorgeous the bodies, no matter how much I appreciate the aesthetics.

For a long time, I found this confusing. Was I really asexual or bisexual? Then the key hit. I appreciated their bodies but didn't have the sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is as good of a place as any to bring this up, but what do you think of the new proposed definition of sexual attraction? (The thread is in site comments)

Sexual attraction: desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them.

I personally think the definition is way off, but at the same time believe that desire to have sexual contact with someone else is a much better description of asexuals. Also are sexual attraction and desire for partnered sex synonymous according to AVEN now?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is as good of a place as any to bring this up, but what do you think of the new proposed definition of sexual attraction? (The thread is in site comments)

Sexual attraction: desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them.

I personally think the definition is way off, but at the same time believe that desire to have sexual contact with someone else is a much better description of asexuals. Also are sexual attraction and desire for partnered sex synonymous according to AVEN now?

Going by the revised FAQ, these terms are indeed synonymous, yup.

I'm glad that there's a clear definition now. While it's perfectly possible that the world outside AVEN defines attraction completely differently, at least we'll know what the definition of asexuality means on here: Asexuality = no desire for partnered sex/sexual interaction. That's a huge improvement, if you ask me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

I guess this is as good of a place as any to bring this up, but what do you think of the new proposed definition of sexual attraction? (The thread is in site comments)

Sexual attraction: desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them.

I personally think the definition is way off, but at the same time believe that desire to have sexual contact with someone else is a much better description of asexuals. Also are sexual attraction and desire for partnered sex synonymous according to AVEN now?

I like it. It makes much more sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is as good of a place as any to bring this up, but what do you think of the new proposed definition of sexual attraction? (The thread is in site comments)

Sexual attraction: desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them.

I personally think the definition is way off, but at the same time believe that desire to have sexual contact with someone else is a much better description of asexuals. Also are sexual attraction and desire for partnered sex synonymous according to AVEN now?

Well, I guess if there is a difference, it would be awfully difficult to tell apart.

It's possible that someone has this desire and and would like to share this aspect of his/her life with someone. But by some misfortune, he/she never finds that person who is compatible and that he/she is sexually attracted to. This is a highly unlikely scenario, that someone never finding anyone that they feel attraction toward. But if that does happen, would that make that person asexual?

I think that's probably that's not the case. If there was a difference between the definition of desire for sex with a partner, and sexual attraction to someone; then we would have to say that above person would not have sexual attraction toward anyone, so is an asexual. That doesn't really sound right to me.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is as good of a place as any to bring this up, but what do you think of the new proposed definition of sexual attraction? (The thread is in site comments)

Sexual attraction: desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them.

I personally think the definition is way off, but at the same time believe that desire to have sexual contact with someone else is a much better description of asexuals. Also are sexual attraction and desire for partnered sex synonymous according to AVEN now?

Well, I guess if there is a difference, it would be awfully difficult to tell apart.

It's possible that someone has this desire and and would like to share this aspect of his/her life with someone. But by some misfortune, he/she never finds that person who is compatible and that he/she is sexually attracted to. This is a highly unlikely scenario, that someone never finding anyone that they feel attraction toward. But if that does happen, would that make that person asexual?

I think that's probably that's not the case. If there was a difference between the definition of desire for sex with a partner, and sexual attraction to someone; then we would have to say that above person would not have sexual attraction toward anyone, so is an asexual. That doesn't really sound right to me.

Yeah. Attraction and desire are separate are distinct things. I'm highly sexual and have quite a strong desire for sex, but imagine a world in which everyone else is hideously ugly, and/or the wrong gender. In that world I would never experience sexual attraction, even though I'm no different than I am in this world.

The problem with defining asexuality in terms of attraction is that it relies on external factors and says nothing about what's going on inside a persons head.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is as good of a place as any to bring this up, but what do you think of the new proposed definition of sexual attraction? (The thread is in site comments)

Sexual attraction: desire to have sexual contact with someone else, to share our sexuality with them.

I personally think the definition is way off, but at the same time believe that desire to have sexual contact with someone else is a much better description of asexuals. Also are sexual attraction and desire for partnered sex synonymous according to AVEN now?

Well, I guess if there is a difference, it would be awfully difficult to tell apart.

It's possible that someone has this desire and and would like to share this aspect of his/her life with someone. But by some misfortune, he/she never finds that person who is compatible and that he/she is sexually attracted to. This is a highly unlikely scenario, that someone never finding anyone that they feel attraction toward. But if that does happen, would that make that person asexual?

I think that's probably that's not the case. If there was a difference between the definition of desire for sex with a partner, and sexual attraction to someone; then we would have to say that above person would not have sexual attraction toward anyone, so is an asexual. That doesn't really sound right to me.

Yeah. Attraction and desire are separate are distinct things. I'm highly sexual and have quite a strong desire for sex, but imagine a world in which everyone else is hideously ugly, and/or the wrong gender. In that world I would never experience sexual attraction, even though I'm no different than I am in this world.

The problem with defining asexuality in terms of attraction is that it relies on external factors and says nothing about what's going on inside a persons head.

Definitely; I think circumstances in life beyond your control should not be factored into what is defined as sexual attraction. The scenarios that you described definitely make sense.

I was thinking of a scenario where there is a shipwreck or plane crash (something like the scenarios in Robinson Crusoe, or the show Lost), where a person, or a small group of people land on an uninhabited island; where there is no human contact outside of that small group, or maybe just from passing pirates/criminals, etc. One would only have interaction with a very limited; or maybe even a situation like Blue Lagoon, where a small group of people grow up in isolation.

In those cases, even for most sexual people, there is a very good chance that you would not be able to find anyone sexually attractive given the very small number of people. Only maybe the hyper-sexual ppl that "have to have it" all the time would be guaranteed to have some attraction to someone; but most of sexual people in the normal range might or might not end up with any attraction. It seems that it would not be appropriate to describe those otherwise normal sexual individuals as asexual, just because of the peculiar situation that they end up in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hm... I'm trying to distinguish between atheistic attraction and the physical, does anyone else get a certain gut feeling, that sudden jolt of excitement when seeing someone attractive? It's just that, I does not come with any desire for contact or anything else.

The way I like to distinguish aesthetic attraction is how it's very much like admiring a piece of art; I am immediately drawn to acrobatics during their performances, particularly when the lighting accentuates their muscles (typically a spotlight from the ceiling). I love seeing how, when in motion, one can see the way the muscles, sinews and tendons move to hold their body and make their performance look so effortless. It is absolutely fascinating.

For otherwise everyday life, it's usually when I notice that (for example) a girl looks cute because of her rosy cheeks, or I like the lines/gesture of someone's body (I guess the way they hold themself?). There was one particular fellow I was strongly (aesthetically) attracted to: he had great lines (he had slight bow-legs, which for some reason I really like), a good-looking face, I loved to watch him move (he worked out, so it was easy to see how his muscles moved) and he also had somewhat curly hair. I didn't have a crush on him, nor did I wish for things to become sexual between us (although I did have urges to play with his hair, which I did indulge occasionally). He was just really nice to look at and to admire from afar.

As for the jolt of excitement, I would have to be somewhat skeptical about whether that falls under aesthetic attraction. Again, for me aesthetic attraction usually doesn't induce any physical reaction, more like an intense mental focus on someone; much like a painting. I would think physical attraction entails some form of sexual attraction, since it implies a sexual nature behind the attraction. YMMV though. I do think you should try to be calm and go along for the ride though... it's usually those transitional periods that really suck. Hang in there!

Thanks for the posts :cake: maybe TMI for some, but I think crossing that line is necessary when you need to get nitty-gritty. I, for one, am not afraid of the nitty-gritty stuff. smile.gif

I found this really interesting and helpful - but one thing that I experience differently is that 'jolt' to something purely aesthetic. For example, when listening to a piece of beautiful music or viewing stunning scenery, I often get a jumpy feeling in my stomach, which I have also experienced when I see someone who I think is particularly beautiful. I think we often forget that aesthetics means beyond discrimination on a sensory level - but rather the emotions or reactions we feel when we see or interact with something. Occasionally, when I see someone who appeals to me, I feel a strong emotional connection to them in an instant and my body responds. I don't think this is sexual for me at all (perhaps sensual? I have no idea on that front).

^_^ :cake:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this really interesting and helpful - but one thing that I experience differently is that 'jolt' to something purely aesthetic. For example, when listening to a piece of beautiful music or viewing stunning scenery, I often get a jumpy feeling in my stomach, which I have also experienced when I see someone who I think is particularly beautiful. I think we often forget that aesthetics means beyond discrimination on a sensory level - but rather the emotions or reactions we feel when we see or interact with something. Occasionally, when I see someone who appeals to me, I feel a strong emotional connection to them in an instant and my body responds. I don't think this is sexual for me at all (perhaps sensual? I have no idea on that front).

^_^ :cake:

Yeah, this is so well put.

It pretty much sums up how I feel about attraction toward some ppl in most instance where I do feel that attraction. It is not just purely visual or otherwise sensory, but something so beautiful that it moves or hurts you inside; like something you can't afford to miss; or something you would regret the minute you stopped staring at. There is nothing sexual at all, but it is something that tugs your heart-strings at some level, that connects to the visual image somehow. It's likely seeing an extraordinarily beautiful view of the ocean, or a divine looking sun-set over the plains, watching a exceptionally moving dance performance, or a song that makes your heart rise through your throat.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
SpadeofAces

I define sexual attraction as the desire to have sexual relations/intercourse with another person. If that is lacking, then I would call one an Ace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It pretty much sums up how I feel about attraction toward some ppl in most instance where I do feel that attraction. It is not just purely visual or otherwise sensory, but something so beautiful that it moves or hurts you inside; like something you can't afford to miss; or something you would regret the minute you stopped staring at. There is nothing sexual at all, but it is something that tugs your heart-strings at some level, that connects to the visual image somehow. It's likely seeing an extraordinarily beautiful view of the ocean, or a divine looking sun-set over the plains, watching a exceptionally moving dance performance, or a song that makes your heart rise through your throat.

Oh man, this made me a little bit teary because it is exactly what I feel and it's what I've been confusing for too long as sexual attraction.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I define sexual attraction as the desire to have sexual relations/intercourse with another person. If that is lacking, then I would call one an Ace.

No, I wouldn't call that sexual attraction. What you described is what I'd call sexual desire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It pretty much sums up how I feel about attraction toward some ppl in most instance where I do feel that attraction. It is not just purely visual or otherwise sensory, but something so beautiful that it moves or hurts you inside; like something you can't afford to miss; or something you would regret the minute you stopped staring at. There is nothing sexual at all, but it is something that tugs your heart-strings at some level, that connects to the visual image somehow. It's likely seeing an extraordinarily beautiful view of the ocean, or a divine looking sun-set over the plains, watching a exceptionally moving dance performance, or a song that makes your heart rise through your throat.

Oh man, this made me a little bit teary because it is exactly what I feel and it's what I've been confusing for too long as sexual attraction.

Yes; I had been confused myself for a very long time as well; I guess that's why I know it well ^_^

Only in recent years, did I realize that there are many, many ppl who don't consider (solely) this to be physical attraction. It really made me understand why sometimes I act so different from most people; it was so eye opening when I came to that realization.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
alison.wonderland

I find a lot of things pleasurable, exciting, heart-flutter-worthy, emotive, SENSUALLY delightful...and yet, never in my life has it ever spontaneously occurred to me to want to put anything into my lady parts in fulfillment of some sexual thing. And for people, the only ones I can be attracted to, I have to know in some way -- even if it's just watching the way they move through space, the sound of their voice, their smell -- but photos/videos of strangers do absolutely nothing for me, I wouldn't even call them beautiful...they are "attractive illusions" at best.

I have made out with boyfriends who I found totally beautiful (before I knew there was a word for asexual) and every.single.time it ended when they would try to touch me down below - it was ALWAYS the shock of a lifetime, much to the chagrin of the boy, and jolted me right out of the dreamy place I was in with the kissing and what have you.

Sometimes in my life I've had periods of time where I've been bored or depressed and thought that orgasms might help (there are plenty of studies to suggest that regular orgasms help balance brain chemistry, endocrine system and even prolong fertility/stave off menopause in women). So anyway, I can do that just as often as anyone but the entire time it's happening my mind is blank or else I'm thinking only of myself (little asexual narcissist, I know ;-) If anyone I know happens to come to mind for some reason during masturbation (which has never happened ever) I would just need to stop immediately. Because, uh...I'm actually truly asexual. Whew.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Is it possible for nonlibidoist sexuals to exist? I know sexual attraction is not sexual arousal but is some amount of sex drive required to find someone sexually attractive? I've read conflicting things on here which is pretty problematic, considering how many members are asexual & all.

That's an excellent question and I'm very curious about people's answers. I'd say that yes,I don't see why there couldn't be an attraction even if acting on it may be difficult.

I don't want to open a new can of worms, but this fits perfectly (weeeeee!) with my theory of General Inclination Toward SexTM.

actually that may be me! i can look at porn and not be disgusted, and sometimes even a bit turned on, but i never really feel the need to have sex with someone. i never see a person and get that same feeling, i only think "wow they are nice i like them"

i think its a thing. low sex drive. hmm...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Asexuality = no desire for partnered sex/sexual interaction.

Here's what I don't get, though I guess it's just a matter of definition more than anything else...

I understand why a person would want to disclose that they have no interest to have sexual interactions, if only to find a compatible partner but... If a person desires to have a romantical partner, why is the label asexual used over homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual? Some couples have no desire to travel together, or go to the restaurant together, or (insert anything a couple can do). Are they going to refer themselves as atravelsomething or arestaurantsomething rather than gay/straight/bi? You could say that sex is in theory more important in most relationships than other 'activities', but it doesn't really negate the argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asexuality = no desire for partnered sex/sexual interaction.

Here's what I don't get, though I guess it's just a matter of definition more than anything else...

I understand why a person would want to disclose that they have no interest to have sexual interactions, if only to find a compatible partner but... If a person desires to have a romantical partner, why is the label asexual used over homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual? Some couples have no desire to travel together, or go to the restaurant together, or (insert anything a couple can do). Are they going to refer themselves as atravelsomething or arestaurantsomething rather than gay/straight/bi? You could say that sex is in theory more important in most relationships than other 'activities', but it doesn't really negate the argument.

Because while those other things are activities you can take or leave, having sex with each other is very, very often seen as a must-have. To the majority of folks, "no sex" equals "no couple". And starting a romantic relationship with someone without disclosing to them that you (generic you) don't ever intend to have sex with them... well, that's a recipe for disaster. Nine times out of ten, they'll be pissed at you when finding out, and accuse you of leading them on. And I'd say they have a damn good point there.

Also - why on earth would someone call themselves or their preferred type of relationship heterosexual if it doesn't involve wanting to have sex with people of the different genital anatomy? It's just false advertising to go by that label. A guy and a gal in a 'ship without sex are very obviously not having a heterosexual relationship, for the simple reason that they don't boink each other; so if they call it a heterosexual 'ship, they're lying, whatever the reason for choosing that lie may be.

So the question is, is it correct to assume "straight = heterosexual", "gay = homosexual", "bi = bisexual"? Most folks would probably spontaneously say yes... but of course, knowing that a person's romantic and sexual orientations need not be the same, this is nowhere near as clear cut as the example above. So, you could call the guy-gal sexless relationship above a "straight" ship, in a way, despite it not being a heterosexual one. I don't think I could be completely comfy with that, myself - for me personally, there'd always be that nagging "lie of omission" feel to it - but yeah, I could see why someone could see that label as convieniently fuzzy in order to avoid having to come out to third parties. However, while still seeking a relationship, it's a horribly bad idea to use word like "straight" or "gay" to express to a potential partner what it is you're looking for; see my first paragraph about the pitfalls of leading people on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Asexuality = no desire for partnered sex/sexual interaction.

Here's what I don't get, though I guess it's just a matter of definition more than anything else...

I understand why a person would want to disclose that they have no interest to have sexual interactions, if only to find a compatible partner but... If a person desires to have a romantical partner, why is the label asexual used over homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual? Some couples have no desire to travel together, or go to the restaurant together, or (insert anything a couple can do). Are they going to refer themselves as atravelsomething or arestaurantsomething rather than gay/straight/bi? You could say that sex is in theory more important in most relationships than other 'activities', but it doesn't really negate the argument.

Yeah, like Mysticus already said, the definition is not something that the ace community made up; just in the name of the different orientations themselves, therein lies the implication that "sex" is a part of it. This is not to say that the wider society views any long term, committed relationships between two individuals as only defined by sex, but by the very names that are given, and by all the conversations and cultural references you see around us, it is considered a baseline requirement for that relationship to exist.

So the ace community in a sense is actually trying to put more nuance into these mutually committed relationships, so that the terms like aromantic, hetero-romantic, homoromantic, etc, are a way to distinguish them from other relationship types. We recognize that these relationships are internally complex, and have multiple components, some of which may or may not exist, depends on the person's internal constitution with regard to these issues. So that sexuality is only one component, and not an essential component that every one of these relationship must have, but something that could be separated out while the rest of the relationship remains intact. I think the sexual world usually only has understanding of this in terms of "friends with benefits", with the absence of romance but not the absence of sex in that relationship, but not the other way around. We are trying to say, with these terms, that there are more ways to dice a melon.

I mean, even romanticism is not always necessary for such relationships, that's why there are descriptions such as "squish" (as opposed to a romantic crush) to describe relationships that are not fully romantic, etc; although the descriptions here is probably less well developed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not false advertising. Homosexuality or heterosexuality refer as much to romance than sexual behavior according to most definitions. Taken straight from Wikipedia: "As an orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions." And I think this is how it is generally understood by society; I don't think sex is considered a baseline requirement, what's considered a requirement is sex OR romance.

True it's a recipe for disaster if you don't disclose right away your lack of interest for sex, but... It's true for a lot of other things as well (whether you smoke or not, for example). If you want to find the right person, you have to show who you are right away, this isn't specific to the level of interest to sex only. I don't think it's an argument to reject mainstream labels.

Anyway people are free to use whatever label they prefer, but I think it's counterproductive to reject mainstream labels if they already include the nuance that sex is not a requirement for a relationship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not false advertising. Homosexuality or heterosexuality refer as much to romance than sexual behavior according to most definitions. Taken straight from Wikipedia: "As an orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions." And I think this is how it is generally understood by society; I don't think sex is considered a baseline requirement, what's considered a requirement is sex OR romance.

True it's a recipe for disaster if you don't disclose right away your lack of interest for sex, but... It's true for a lot of other things as well (whether you smoke or not, for example). If you want to find the right person, you have to show who you are right away, this isn't specific to the level of interest to sex only. I don't think it's an argument to reject mainstream labels.

Anyway people are free to use whatever label they prefer, but I think it's counterproductive to reject mainstream labels if they already include the nuance that sex is not a requirement for a relationship.

I think the definition of the terms of whatever-sexuality if pretty obvious, given the terminology that is chosen. And believe me, there are definitely a lot of times that becomes an issue in my own experience, and in experience of other aces, when going out with someone that does not have that inclination; in part due to the assumption of most ppl in the society that in any such relationship, at least at some point in the future, sex does become a part of that (whether it's after seeing each other a few times, after some mutual gesture of commitment, after marriage, etc). I'm also not sure why would you consider wikipedia authoritative; especially considering that most ppl that are non-ace would not even consider it worth defining.

I do agree with you that we shouldn't define someone being sexual, as you put it:

thinking "I would fuck him all night long" when you see a physically attractive person

is probably not an adequate description. It sounds more like a caricature than reality. It's probably good to see sexuality-asexuality as a continuum, kinda like Kinsey originally intended, in which asexuality is one extreme end of that. But I do think that there is a more important distinction between those that have no sexual attraction/interest/desire at all and those that have some; versus between those that have some and those that have something of a maximum amount (whatever the society defines that to be). Having some versus having none in terms of attraction/desire/arousal is a distinction that carries huge implications with how you approach relationships and see others around you, even if both have the same romantic/aesthetic attractions and the same desire for a fulfilling relationship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could "sexual attraction" be a series of mental/physical reactions combined together, and most people experience all, a small number of people experience none, and a small number of people experience some, but not all?

Do I make any sense at all?

You make complete sense, and honestly I think that the interplay of reactions you described is something sorely missing in the "sexual attraction" definition of asexuality. The insistence upon the official definition being based upon the absence of sexual attraction is clearly lacking, seeing as many people here who identify in some way with asexuality frequently try to suss out what EXACTLY their feelings are(are they...GASP...bisexual attraction?!). This has led to a really strained, frayed definition of sexual attraction which alternately is separate from sexual desire, or synonymous with it. Some people classify an attraction based upon physical attributes to be sexual, others call it 'aesthetic attraction' if thoughts of sex are not directly included. Of course, then what about sexuals who don't necessarily undress people with their eyes every time they're attracted to someone?

What gets lost in these pages upon pages of the blind leading the blind in pinning down an exact definition of sexual attraction, is whether the definition of asexuality even works in the first place. I don't feel it does, and threads like this are evidence of that. I think it would be far more useful to look at the way different aspects of sexuality interact. From my vantage point, it seems that what truly separates aces from sexuals isn't one aspect of sexuality(attraction, desire, arousal, etc.), but how they interact. In sexuals, there is SOME sort of interplay between all of these aspects. One may not always trigger another, nor may the third one be a frequent or important aspect of ones sexuality; but they all exist, and interact with each other, in some capacity. Most asexuals, however, seem to experience a fundamental disconnect between the same attributes. Whether that is because one doesn't experience sexual attraction, or because one almost NEVER experiences sexual desire as a result of sexual attraction, is immaterial. The point is the presence of a SOME SORT of fundamental disconnect between SOME aspects of their 'sexuality.'

While I'm not entirely sure how to succinctly phrase that, I feel it's a better starting off point than the assumption that asexuality is defined by the lack of sexual attraction and only that. It covers the majority of asexual-identified folks without having to be twisted around to do so, and also gets straight to the heart of the major difference between sexuals and asexuals. (Slightly off-topic side note: I feel it's analogous to the difference between defining a trans person as someone who experiences genital dysphoria, and defining it as a person who does not identify fully with their assigned gender. One describes a small subset of the community to the T, while excluding others; the other describes the fundamental experience of being trans shared by nearly all trans folk. )

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
WhenSummersGone

I define sexual attraction as the desire to have sexual relations/intercourse with another person. If that is lacking, then I would call one an Ace.

No, I wouldn't call that sexual attraction. What you described is what I'd call sexual desire.

If it's with a specific person then I would consider that sexual attraction, but if it's just anyone I agree that it's just sexual desire for sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I define sexual attraction as the desire to have sexual relations/intercourse with another person. If that is lacking, then I would call one an Ace.

No, I wouldn't call that sexual attraction. What you described is what I'd call sexual desire.

If it's with a specific person then I would consider that sexual attraction, but if it's just anyone I agree that it's just sexual desire for sex.

It's always sexual desire, in both situations. If it's with a specific person then that's attraction directing the desire at that person.

  • Like 1
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...