Sexuals... does your attraction feel different depending on the target?

[Guest]

I've been pretty vocal about how I think that there shouldn't be a distinction between feeling sexual attraction toward a person vs. toward a scenario. For example, I feel sexual attraction toward my girlfriend, but I also feel "attracted", if you will, to certain sexual scenarios, like men masturbating. For me, I don't really feel like there's a difference. So I'm wondering, guys, what's it like for you? Do I experience sexual feelings differently from everyone else, or is it true that feeling sexually compelled is feeling sexually compelled, regardless of what you're compelled toward?

I just can't help but to think that the distinction between sexual attraction to a person and sexual attraction to sex itself is... well, a false distinction.

EDIT:Ok, so the question is:

Say there's two friends standing next to each other, Bill and Dave. A girl walks past them. Bill says "damn she's hot". Dave says "damn she has great breasts!".

According to AVEN, Bill just experienced sexual attraction but Dave didn't.

I think that's stupid. You?

[The Great WTF]

*pokes head in, looks around, and settles in with caramel corn* I've been wondering about this for a while, actually.

[Data]

Hm but you aren't even personally involved when looking at man masturbating so doesn't that make a difference? If you don't feel like helping him out, then isn't that different then wanting to be personally in the act?

[Lady Girl]

I've also been wondering about this...it seems different to me somehow. But I can't really explain why. Maybe it's like the difference between reading a book and reading a book on your phone or some other device.

Perhaps it's different means to a similar end.

[Data]

What when you stimulate yourself physically, and you don't think about anything, or about how it feels like, does that feels different then masturbating when being attracted to sexual scenario.

I don't think that there is any difference for me, watching porn, not thinking about anything, and focusing on how it feels are the same other then the last being little better but it also requires a little extra effort.

[never odd or even]

ummm. i'm looking at this on the flip side of things. an asexual can get turned on without experiencing sexual attraction, right? they can experience sexual desire, arguably *if* in the right situation. so where am i going with this?

i think my next thought is that you want to have sex with your girlfriend... do you want to have sex with those people in the picture/fantasy/porn flick/dude wanking?

[Lucinda]

And why do you think this distinction is made in the first place?

Lucinda

[Beachwalker]

I just can't help but to think that the distinction between sexual attraction to a person and sexual attraction to sex itself is... well, a false distinction.

I just considered myself not interested in sex until I found Aven. I had never considered myself not sexually attracted to anyone in fact I had never even given much thought to sexual attraction. Since finding Aven and copious amounts of reading later, I understand that I dont feel sexual attraction. Whether not feeling sexual attraction results in a lack of interest in sex or vice a versa I don't know, and why this distinction is made in the first place I dont know either.

[Jillianimal]

Well I know in that sexual attraction sticky you pointed out it doesn't really have to do with sexual arousal. When I'm "attracted" to an activity I'm reading about I only become sexually aroused by it. There is no urge or appeal to become a part of that scenario or anything. I think a distinction can be made between "attracted to" & "aroused by", but of course I'm not really the best person to ask.

[Narval]

I once had a friend of mine complaining about how pissed off she was that she caught her boyfriend looking at porn. She said that it felt as if he were cheating on her by lustfully pursuing other women. I, and another female friend, assured her that it was nothing of the kind. We said that he was simply using it as a means to an end and that he was most definitely not lusting after the women in the flicks any more than he was after the men. He wasn't, we said, fantasizing about those women in particular but simply using the act itself to arouse him. If he was fantasizing, it was likely that he was doing it about her and not those porn stars, we insisted. We told her that there was no way that he would cheat on her with them, even if he had the chance to get away with it. She was placated but still felt as if her boyfriend was doing something wrong.

If sexual attraction is the same as arousal by a situation, were we wrong?

Is it "cheating" for one's SO to look at and enjoy porn?

Or maybe this situation completely inapplicable.

[Waterbottle20]

Yes the scenario and their personality/ attitude changes everything for me. Someone's body that seems really attractive to me on first glance may all of a sudden turn into a turn off if they're flamboyant, or too forward.

It's weird, I find women doing sexual acts to be attractive, but on men I find them more attractive if they're not doing sexual acts.

i.e. for me a woman masturbating would be more attractive than a man.

Wait... was this even the question? I couldn't really tell.

[Guest]

Ok, so the question is:

Say there's two friends standing next to each other, Bill and Dave. A girl walks past them. Bill says "damn she's hot". Dave says "damn she has great breasts!".

According to AVEN, Bill just experienced sexual attraction but Dave didn't.

I think that's stupid. You?

[Guest]

ummm. i'm looking at this on the flip side of things. an asexual can get turned on without experiencing sexual attraction, right? they can experience sexual desire, arguably *if* in the right situation. so where am i going with this?

i think my next thought is that you want to have sex with your girlfriend... do you want to have sex with those people in the picture/fantasy/porn flick/dude wanking?

No no, I'm not talking about desire at all. Take that completely out of it. Lets take the girlfriend out of it too because its true that I do want to have sex with her. All I'm saying is that the feeling of being attracted to a person is the same feeling as being attracted based on a body part of that person, or seeing a sex scene or something. Wanting to act on it is completely separate.

[Guest]

And why do you think this distinction is made in the first place?

Lucinda

No idea. I mean really no idea. I have no idea why the definition of sexual attraction is limited to people. It makes zero sense to me. I have no idea why it matters if you're attracted to breasts or cactuses or whole people.

[Narval]

I'm writing as someone wanting to know more, not criticizing your views, because I really have no idea...

But then, is there a difference between arousal and attraction?

What about stimulated arousal and attraction?

[Lucinda]

Doesn't this all stem from the "sexual orientation" notion?

Lucinda

[Data]

ummm. i'm looking at this on the flip side of things. an asexual can get turned on without experiencing sexual attraction, right? they can experience sexual desire, arguably *if* in the right situation. so where am i going with this?

i think my next thought is that you want to have sex with your girlfriend... do you want to have sex with those people in the picture/fantasy/porn flick/dude wanking?

No no, I'm not talking about desire at all. Take that completely out of it. Lets take the girlfriend out of it too because its true that I do want to have sex with her. All I'm saying is that the feeling of being attracted to a person is the same feeling as being attracted based on a body part of that person, or seeing a sex scene or something. Wanting to act on it is completely separate.

What if homosexual gets physically aroused seeing heterosexual scene, this can;'t happen to homosexual, or there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual , and if there is then what makes that difference?

[Guest]

Doesn't this all stem from the "sexual orientation" notion?

Lucinda

I think so, but I don't see it as necessary. Yes, other orientations probably talk about "people", but they don't mean it the way that the asexuals seem to take it. I have 0% doubt in my mind that a guy who gets turned on by penises could be considered gay even if he doesn't reference the entire person. And I know a bunch of people who are fetishists, and they dont' consider themselves asexual just because they care more about the scene than the gender of the person participating in the scene. So far as I can tell, asexuals are the only group that seem to make this weird person distinction in practice.

[Waterbottle20]

Ok, so the question is:

Say there's two friends standing next to each other, Bill and Dave. A girl walks past them. Bill says "damn she's hot". Dave says "damn she has great breasts!".

According to AVEN, Bill just experienced sexual attraction but Dave didn't.

I think that's stupid. You?

I still don't quite understand what you're trying to say :P

I mean, you could say someone has great breasts from an aesthetic viewpoint without sexual attraction... Or it could be sexually a turn on...

[Guest]

ummm. i'm looking at this on the flip side of things. an asexual can get turned on without experiencing sexual attraction, right? they can experience sexual desire, arguably *if* in the right situation. so where am i going with this?

i think my next thought is that you want to have sex with your girlfriend... do you want to have sex with those people in the picture/fantasy/porn flick/dude wanking?

No no, I'm not talking about desire at all. Take that completely out of it. Lets take the girlfriend out of it too because its true that I do want to have sex with her. All I'm saying is that the feeling of being attracted to a person is the same feeling as being attracted based on a body part of that person, or seeing a sex scene or something. Wanting to act on it is completely separate.

What if homosexual gets physically aroused seeing heterosexual scene, he is no longer homosexual, or there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual , and if there is then what makes that difference?

Data, I don't mean to be a dick, but I'm asking for people with actual sexual experiences to tell me how they experience attraction. It really doesn't matter to me if you don't like the implications. Something doesn't cease to be true just because you don't prefer the implications of the truth.

[Cakey]

In my innocence, I lent my laptop out several times to people, within a few minutes, they were looking at porn, I was completely astonished, obviously with my thought processes, it would never have occurred to me. I did learn a lesson from that, especially as it was a company computer!

What I have noticed over the years, is sexual people, when they are in my company, often seem to adjust their attitude subconsciously, (even before they knew I was asexual). So to see them acting naturally, whipping their libido like a feverish lasso above a herd of baying sexuals, is quite fascinating and fun too.

I have even had people making friends with me, just to get at the person I'm hanging around with. When this happened, I was puzzled at first, thinking that people were rather friendly around here. What made it harder to understand, was that I didn't actually realise the person I was hanging around with, was that physically attractive.

One time in DV8, this guy came up to me and started talking excitedly, after a while he exclaimed, " you know why I am talking to you," I replied nonchalantly, "Yes, you want to get to my friend." ..... I think I should have gone into PR. :)

The only person who seemed to act the same all the time around me, was a special friend, who I used to be really really close to, she never hid anything. The innumerable times we went out and she met a guy, then repaired back to his house, leaving me kicking my heels on the sofa, talking to his friend about man and God and law, whilst upstairs, they discussed the language of love and its inner fineries, the exchanges were sometimes quite heated, that audible, I could tell her what she did! :)

I do find the interactions between people riveting and it is great to people-watch on a night out. I am always surprised and intrigued by the goings on around me. Sometimes, when talking to a girl in a toilet, a guy comes in, she stops talking, they make eyes, she starts rubbing up against him, both moving sensually in heavy sexual tones, . Then they break off and he shouts back, 'hey babe, see you later,' then our conversation continues.

(Some of the nightclubs in Birmingham, like CHIC, are relaxed about men going into the ladies. Some clubs like The Nightingale, have shared female/male toilets downstairs, great for seeing life from a different perspective:)

[Guest]

I mean, you could say someone has great breasts from an aesthetic viewpoint without sexual attraction... Or it could be sexually a turn on...

And does that sexual turn on count as sexual attraction?

[Vampyremage]

I'm not sure that I agree that there is any real difference in the above two examples given. In my mind, sexual attraction is based upon being, in some way, attracted to another human being. So to say she's got great breasts is still, in some way, to say that you are attracted to her for the reason that she has great breasts. If the primary attraction is based upon some quality of another person, I consider that to be sexual attraction.

Consider another scenario, however. We've got the same woman, this time not wearing many clothes. She is being tied up and bound. Person A is still focused upon how hot she is. Person B is still focused on her breasts but person C isn't focused on any quality of her at all, but rather on the fact that she is being tied up. The ropes are an external quality and it is not any quality of the woman that person C is attracted to, but is attracted to the ropes themselves and the act of the ropes tying someone up.

For me, the differentiation is whether or not that attraction is focused on a person, for whatever reason, or focused on an external thing, whether or not a person is tangentially related to that thing.

[Guest]

I'm not sure that I agree that there is any real difference in the above two examples given. In my mind, sexual attraction is based upon being, in some way, attracted to another human being. So to say she's got great breasts is still, in some way, to say that you are attracted to her for the reason that she has great breasts. If the primary attraction is based upon some quality of another person, I consider that to be sexual attraction.

Consider another scenario, however. We've got the same woman, this time not wearing many clothes. She is being tied up and bound. Person A is still focused upon how hot she is. Person B is still focused on her breasts but person C isn't focused on any quality of her at all, but rather on the fact that she is being tied up. The ropes are an external quality and it is not any quality of the woman that person C is attracted to, but is attracted to the ropes themselves and the act of the ropes tying someone up.

For me, the differentiation is whether or not that attraction is focused on a person, for whatever reason, or focused on an external thing, whether or not a person is tangentially related to that thing.

Right. I think differentiating between a whole person or a quality of a person is more... nitpicking at the way someone describes their attraction and less about the actuality of their attraction.

Now your example:

I still think that's sexual attraction. Why? Because it is sexual, and there is a draw toward the thing that activated the sexual feelings.

EDIT: Wait, let me ask the question... would the ropes be a turn on alone, or do the ropes have to be tying someone up to be sexually alluring?

[Data]

ummm. i'm looking at this on the flip side of things. an asexual can get turned on without experiencing sexual attraction, right? they can experience sexual desire, arguably *if* in the right situation. so where am i going with this?

i think my next thought is that you want to have sex with your girlfriend... do you want to have sex with those people in the picture/fantasy/porn flick/dude wanking?

No no, I'm not talking about desire at all. Take that completely out of it. Lets take the girlfriend out of it too because its true that I do want to have sex with her. All I'm saying is that the feeling of being attracted to a person is the same feeling as being attracted based on a body part of that person, or seeing a sex scene or something. Wanting to act on it is completely separate.

What if homosexual gets physically aroused seeing heterosexual scene, he is no longer homosexual, or there is no difference between homosexual and heterosexual , and if there is then what makes that difference?

Data, I don't mean to be a dick, but I'm asking for people with actual sexual experiences to tell me how they experience attraction. It really doesn't matter to me if you don't like the implications. Something doesn't cease to be true just because you don't prefer the implications of the truth.

"A study by Northwestern University measured women's sexual arousal. It is long known that heterosexual men are predominantly aroused by images with women and homosexual men are aroused by images of just men. This is not the case with women.

The researchers looked at genital and psychological arousal and found that both lesbian and heterosexual women were aroused by pornographic movies featuring lesbians. They say this shows that male and female brains differ.

However, the study states that most of the heterosexual women aroused by lesbian porn prefer sex with men than with women. But, because of the similarities in arousal, this suggests women may be more flexible in their sexual orientation."

So why the preference? I am not trying to be a dick either I am actually interested in how you solve that problem. The problem isn't with me liking or not liking the implications, but with them being a logical deduction.

Lets get the claims together:

1)Seeing somebody, and getting physically aroused = sexual attraction.

2)No difference between sexual attraction, and attraction to sexual acts

3)Hence physical arousal to porn = sexual attraction.

4)Women have the same physical arousal to heterosexual, and homosexual acts.

5)Some are bi some homosexual, some heterosexual.

You can't agree with all 5 as 5th doesn't follow so I was asking what you disagree with.

[Narval]

I'm not sure that I agree that there is any real difference in the above two examples given. In my mind, sexual attraction is based upon being, in some way, attracted to another human being. So to say she's got great breasts is still, in some way, to say that you are attracted to her for the reason that she has great breasts. If the primary attraction is based upon some quality of another person, I consider that to be sexual attraction.

Consider another scenario, however. We've got the same woman, this time not wearing many clothes. She is being tied up and bound. Person A is still focused upon how hot she is. Person B is still focused on her breasts but person C isn't focused on any quality of her at all, but rather on the fact that she is being tied up. The ropes are an external quality and it is not any quality of the woman that person C is attracted to, but is attracted to the ropes themselves and the act of the ropes tying someone up.

For me, the differentiation is whether or not that attraction is focused on a person, for whatever reason, or focused on an external thing, whether or not a person is tangentially related to that thing.

As far as my views on this subject go, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

[Waterbottle20]

I mean, you could say someone has great breasts from an aesthetic viewpoint without sexual attraction... Or it could be sexually a turn on...

And does that sexual turn on count as sexual attraction?

Of course! What else would it be considered?

[Vampyremage]

I'm not sure that I agree that there is any real difference in the above two examples given. In my mind, sexual attraction is based upon being, in some way, attracted to another human being. So to say she's got great breasts is still, in some way, to say that you are attracted to her for the reason that she has great breasts. If the primary attraction is based upon some quality of another person, I consider that to be sexual attraction.

Consider another scenario, however. We've got the same woman, this time not wearing many clothes. She is being tied up and bound. Person A is still focused upon how hot she is. Person B is still focused on her breasts but person C isn't focused on any quality of her at all, but rather on the fact that she is being tied up. The ropes are an external quality and it is not any quality of the woman that person C is attracted to, but is attracted to the ropes themselves and the act of the ropes tying someone up.

For me, the differentiation is whether or not that attraction is focused on a person, for whatever reason, or focused on an external thing, whether or not a person is tangentially related to that thing.

Right. I think differentiating between a whole person or a quality of a person is more... nitpicking at the way someone describes their attraction and less about the actuality of their attraction.

Now your example:

I still think that's sexual attraction. Why? Because it is sexual, and there is a draw toward the thing that activated the sexual feelings.

EDIT: Wait, let me ask the question... would the ropes be a turn on alone, or do the ropes have to be tying someone up to be sexually alluring?

I'm thinking specifically the idea of the ropes being around someone but the someone not mattering. That someone could be of virtually any shape or gender, its the ropes themselves that are the turn-on.

[Guest]

I'm thinking specifically the idea of the ropes being around someone but the someone not mattering. That someone could be of virtually any shape or gender, its the ropes themselves that are the turn-on.

But the someone does matter to the extent that a someone is required, right?

And then a follow up question: is someone who practices bestiality asexual?

"A study by Northwestern University measured women's sexual arousal. It is long known that heterosexual men are predominantly aroused by images with women and homosexual men are aroused by images of just men. This is not the case with women.

The researchers looked at genital and psychological arousal and found that both lesbian and heterosexual women were aroused by pornographic movies featuring lesbians. They say this shows that male and female brains differ.

However, the study states that most of the heterosexual women aroused by lesbian porn prefer sex with men than with women. But, because of the similarities in arousal, this suggests women may be more flexible in their sexual orientation."

So why the preference? I am not trying to be a dick either I am actually interested in how you solve that problem. The problem isn't with me liking or not liking the implications, but with them being a logical deduction.

Lets get the claims together:

1)Seeing somebody, and getting physically aroused = sexual attraction.

2)No difference between sexual attraction, and attraction to sexual acts

3)Hence physical arousal to porn = sexual attraction.

4)Women have the same physical arousal to heterosexual, and homosexual acts.

5)Some are bi some homosexual, some heterosexual.

You can't agree with all 5 as 5th doesn't follow so I was asking what you disagree with.

As far the the studies, all I think they prove is that people are less strict about their gender preferences than they think they are. I don't really see how that's relevant to asexuality. Personally, I identify as gay because it makes it easier for people to understand, but I also consider myself to be attracted to guys because I do like watching guys in porn. Even if I never want to act on that in real life, I still consider my attraction to straight porn to have relevance in my orientation.

[Vampyremage]

Someone is necessary because the turn-on is the act of tying or being tied up but the someone doesn't matter.

Conversely the turn-on might be the act of being tied up themselves. Someone is still necessary to actually do the tying but, again, that someone doesn't matter.