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

[Guest]

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.

I definitely think tying oneself up is different, for sure, and needing someone to do the tying is sufficiently removed for me to consider that non-person related.

[Data]

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.

Then what do you think sexual desire is based on? Why desire only females sexually when you are sexually attracted to males as well?

[Guest]

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.

Then what do you think sexual desire is based on? Why desire only females sexually when you are sexually attracted to man as well?

I think it's largely psychological, but in any case I think the categories of "gay" and "straight" are political and don't reflect the reality of sexuality.

EDIT: In my case I think its just that I know the actual experience won't be as good with guys as with girls, so I only hook up with guys when they're my only option. But it would be foolish to suggest that I'm not attracted to men.

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?

My point exactly.

[Member33070]

x

[Beachwalker]

Ok this is totally over my head and I am 100% winging it but I am interested and i do think there is a difference between being turned on and attracted. I am admittedly making a big assumption here that by turned on you mean aroused???? I am capable of arousal but it just feels like a physiological response there is no attraction that I am aware of, to do anything with it. Manual stimulation can make me aroused as can porn or seeing animals at it. But none of these things has made me attracted to them or made me want to seek them out. It's like a physiologic reaction like a sneeze, it comes it goes.

So is that what the difference is? If it causes a reaction that you like and want to repeat it's attraction and if not it is just arousal ????

[Data]

Ok this is totally over my head and I am 100% winging it but I am interested and i do think there is a difference between being turned on and attracted. I am admittedly making a big assumption here that by turned on you mean aroused???? I am capable of arousal but it just feels like a physiological response there is no attraction that I am aware of, to do anything with it. Manual stimulation can make me aroused as can porn or seeing animals at it. But none of these things has made me attracted to them or made me want to seek them out. It's like a physiologic reaction like a sneeze, it comes it goes.

So is that what the difference is? If it causes a reaction that you like and want to repeat it's attraction and if not it is just arousal ????

Yeah that is the problem that I am having with it as well, why define sexual attraction in the way that disregards the attraction part, it is similar to aesthetic attraction, I use the term aesthetic appreciation because I feel no attraction to good looking people.

[Cakey]

I use the term aesthetic appreciation because I feel no attraction to good looking people.

May I ask, do you feel attraction to people who are not good-looking.

I find it interesting, because I am attracted to the personality, if I think someoene is a really, nice and genuine person, and we get on, I can go weak at the knees at their niceness.

Many times, I have not realised someone is attractive and when people have been mean about two people, saying one is good-looking and the other is ugly. I have got them mixed up and even when it has been pointed out to me, I still see the perceived unattractive one, as the one who is attractive....

[Janus the Fox]

Ok this is totally over my head and I am 100% winging it but I am interested and i do think there is a difference between being turned on and attracted. I am admittedly making a big assumption here that by turned on you mean aroused???? I am capable of arousal but it just feels like a physiological response there is no attraction that I am aware of, to do anything with it. Manual stimulation can make me aroused as can porn or seeing animals at it. But none of these things has made me attracted to them or made me want to seek them out. It's like a physiologic reaction like a sneeze, it comes it goes.

So is that what the difference is? If it causes a reaction that you like and want to repeat it's attraction and if not it is just arousal ????

This I can relate to, I am 100% interested and I do get attractions of sorts. Attractions to girls feel different and accompany with a suttle fantasy that gets me aroused, on the other hand the attractions to guys are stronger that is accompanied with a fantasy which is quite a power sexual situation, arousal comes quite quickly. It is more of a psycological resposence, rather than actual arousal to people. This backs up my claim when porn does nothing for me, but later if I come away from the porn, the fantasies manifest themselves in those particular situations with people.

[Data]

I use the term aesthetic appreciation because I feel no attraction to good looking people.

May I ask, do you feel attraction to people who are not good-looking.

I find it interesting, because I am attracted to the personality, if I think someoene is a really, nice and genuine person, and we get on, I can go weak at the knees at their niceness.

Many times, I have not realised someone is attractive and when people have been mean about two people, saying one is good-looking and the other is ugly. I have got them mixed up and even when it has been pointed out to me, I still see the perceived unattractive one, as the one who is attractive....

Nah I am aromantic, I often have hard time seeing much of the difference but when I see it, then it stays as objective probably because it doesn't make me interested in socializing or doing anything with that person, how somebody looks is irrelevant to that so if I would learn something that would make me dislike that person I would still see him/her as physically good looking as before.

[Member33070]

x

[Guest]

Regarding whether I mean if turned on = aroused...

I guess so? But also, not exactly. Perhaps I was using the wrong words to describe it. But I'm not sure what to call what it feels like. For me, whenever I said "turned on" up there, I meant that I got little warm shooting feelings in my abdomen and I became aware of my downstairs (maybe it gets more sensitive, but in a subtle way, not stirrings really) and I crave sexual contact with the person or in the manner the situation describes. It's like a prelude to arousal instead of actual arousal. For me to be actually aroused I have to observe the thing for a long time usually (longer than just a glance), and be focusing on the idea of sexual contact/pleasure (since admittedly I am also turned on by normal things that people are exposed to all the time with my fetish). Usually it also means that I have to stimulate down there, even if it's just applying a little pressure. If I don't do that, I'm not aroused, but I'm still interested sexually. So when I say "turned on" it's sort of like "noticeably experience sexual attraction and desire" although I think for other people it probably equals arousal.

Yeah kinda maybe? Sometimes it's full on arousal but a lot of times its not... the best word to call it is attraction. Something makes you take notice in a particular way. It may or may not actually draw you to the person or scene, but there's at least a fleeting moment of feeling... connected or drawn. And then other times it's just a blip of arousal and that's it. That's why, personally, I don't really see it making sense to talk about asexuality without talking at least a little bit about desire. I see a lot of "well, I get aroused by porn, but that doesn't mean I'm sexually attracted to it", and my response is "yes, it does." I certainly consider arousal while watching porn to be sexual attraction. Am I attracted to the DVD? No. Am I attracted to the people in the porn? No. Am I attracted to the scenario and/or actions being portrayed? You bet. I don't see how its possible to call that anything but sexual attraction. I'm not saying this to claim that all asexuals who watch and are aroused by porn aren't actually asexual... just that the language of sexual attraction may not be sufficient to fully encapsulate the qualities of asexuality.

Aug... would you consider the arousal or whatever you feel toward guys masturbating as sexual attraction? I do for myself and I'm curious how other sexuals view this. My point in raising this thread is to question whether sexuals have a different idea of what sexual attraction is than asexuals do.

[Vampyremage]

As an asexual who masturbates, I don't watch porn and it baffles me a little why I would want to. I've tried to watch it in the past and simply got nothing out of it. Hell, I've tried to watch BDSM porn in the past (since I do have a BDSM interest) and as soon as it moved from the bondage and more directly masochistic scenese, I completely lost all interest. For that matter, just recently I went to a sex convention and trade show in my area and watched the dungeon display for a while. There was a guy who was spanking and whipping a woman while she was tied up and I found the whole scene to be rather entrancing. As soon as it moved to more sexual themes, however, all interest was gone just like that.

For that reason and more, I don't think my BDSM interest is sexual in nature, so perhaps its not the best example. I love the idea of a lot of it, the fantasy of it and I want to explore it a lot further than I have had the opportunity to do thus far, but its a different kind of attraction for me.

When I masturbate its not about any sort of fantasy or attraction, it doesn't go beyond the physical sensations. I enjoy the feeling and the feelings themselves certainly do turn me on but there's no attraction there because the feelings aren't directed towards anything. I have tried to fantasize while masturbating and with very rare exceptions, it simply doesn't work. As soon as I start getting into it any fantasy vanishes from my mind as if it had never been there. I have read erotic fiction of BDSM themes but, again, the majority of the more overtly sexual things I prefer to skim over and it doesn't really turn me on at all.

[SFX]

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

Ah, not the first time this has come up. The wording of your question is a bit unfortunate though. First, you say "practices", which kinda suggests that behavior defines orientation which not many people will agree with here. Second, a person being sexually attracted to animals doesn't mean they can't be sexually attracted to humans as well. So lets say the question is this: if a person is only sexually attracted to animals, does that mean they're asexual?

Currently, the definitions of sexual orientations only work with sexual attraction to humans, and only adult humans at that (that's why pedophilia is considered a paraphilia instead of an orientation). Zoophilia is a paraphilia as well.

From this point on, there can be two school of thoughts:

1. Shove every strictly paraphiliac person into the category of asexuality, since it is true that these people don't feel sexual attraction to the same/opposite/both/every sex.

2. Remove paraphilias from the dimension of sexual orientations entirely.

Option 1 means that yes, those people are asexuals, while option 2 means that the sexuality of those people can't be interpreted in the dimension of the four (five if you count pansexuality) sexual orientations.

I see a lot of "well, I get aroused by porn, but that doesn't mean I'm sexually attracted to it", and my response is "yes, it does." I certainly consider arousal while watching porn to be sexual attraction. Am I attracted to the DVD? No. Am I attracted to the people in the porn? No. Am I attracted to the scenario and/or actions being portrayed? You bet. I don't see how its possible to call that anything but sexual attraction. I'm not saying this to claim that all asexuals who watch and are aroused by porn aren't actually asexual... just that the language of sexual attraction may not be sufficient to fully encapsulate the qualities of asexuality.

I think this is the most important part of your posts in this thread, especially the bolded part. This is certainly something to think about, even if I can't see the current definition of asexuality changing anytime soon.

[Guest]

I said practices bestiality because I first typed "is a bestialitist" and that looked stupid. :lol: Again, lack of good language shouldn't be confused with the reality of things.

And isn't there an option # 3? Who says sexual orientations are limited to those 5? Until about 30 years ago they were limited to 2, so there's certainly nothing magical about 2, or 3, or 4, or 5. Why not just make sexual orientation match human experience, instead of trying to jam human experience into pre-existing categories?

[Vampyremage]

I said practices bestiality because I first typed "is a bestialitist" and that looked stupid. :lol: Again, lack of good language shouldn't be confused with the reality of things.

And isn't there an option # 3? Who says sexual orientations are limited to those 5? Until about 30 years ago they were limited to 2, so there's certainly nothing magical about 2, or 3, or 4, or 5. Why not just make sexual orientation match human experience, instead of trying to jam human experience into pre-existing categories?

I think you may be onto something in regards to the limitations of the currently established labels. Sexuality takes so many varieties and forms that its true that no two are going to be exactly alike.

With that said, however, I think that labels do have a purpose and do fulfill a role. Not only do they give a (relatively) accurate and succinct definition of something, in this case sexuality, but they also give commonality to others who choose to assume the same label. That commonality goes far beyond the idea of belonging to a club or social circle and enters into the realm of emotional support which is sometimes very necessary and important to some individuals.

There may very well be a difference between those who are incapable of any form of sexual attraction and those who are sexually attracted to sexually aroused by an object or situation. However, it could be argued that there are enough commonalities between the two that having the same label allows them to band together to share experiences and support.

As an asexual, I know there are things that I have had to deal with that most sexuals do not have to deal with, or at least not to the same degree. Coming to terms with being unable to feel that sort of attraction towards others, knowing that sex is an experience entirely devoid of emotion to me, dealing with the expectation that sex be something predominantly positive when I really don't view it that way. Were I to leave AVEN right now and never speak to another asexual I don't think it would matter much to my psyche, but it sure as hell mattered when I was going through that chaotic period of self discovery. Simply having others who could relate to my experiences and who had gone through similar experiences themselves went a long way towards being able to come to terms and accept my newfound asexuality.

I would venture to surmise that the same could be said of any minority group. I am sure, for example, that there are just as many varieties of sexuality under the umbrella term gay but there is enough commonality and shared experience that the label of gay is a beneficial one. I am sure that for many there is just as much internal chaos in discovering that one might be gay and having others around who share in similar experiences can help to get through that confusing period of time.

Thus my conclusion is that while labels are imperfect and it can sometimes be hard to fit into one or one might not fit entirely comfortably into one, I do think they are beneficial. If we got rid of the sexual labeling paradigm that he have currently, while there might be some benefits to doing so I think there would also be some fairly significant detriments that would certainly have to be considered.

[Guest]

I guess that's what I don't understand. If ya'll asexuals think that people that I would consider very sexual have more in common with you than with me, so be it. It's almost like asexuality fits nearly everyone... you can be aroused by people, as long as its body parts or actions, and you can experience sexual attraction as long as its only to people you love or it's "infrequent", and you can be sexually interested in kids, or dogs, or slaves and be asexual. You can love watching porn and get off on it. So really, who isn't asexual? Just people who feel sexual attraction to strangers? Is that really the line that's being drawn here? Because I have to say, people like me aren't the majority... I have a much higher level of sexual interest than most people. It has gotten me into all kinds of trouble in my relationships over the years. So if people like me are the only people who AREN'T asexual, I think the term is diluted to be meaningless.

Lots of people have a hard time with relationships, or understanding general culture, or commonly perceived sexuality, but that doesn't make them the same. I think there's a huge similarity between gays and asexuals, but that doesn't make all gay people asexual, right? We don't relate to society's idea of sexuality. We had a hard time figuring out who we are. We face extreme opposition. We have a much harder time forming and maintaining relationships (this is very recently changing, but they still don't fit into our society's standard idea of relationships). Yet none of those things have anything to do with being or not being sexual. None of those things make me asexual. Right? So why do those things matter for some people but not for others? Why does person A's discomfort with society make them asexual when person B's discomfort doesn't? And why would discomfort with society have anything to do with it anyway?

EDIT: by the by, one doesn't have to completely dismantle labels to accommodate for paraphilia. It could just be its own orientation.

[Vampyremage]

I guess that's what I don't understand. If ya'll asexuals think that people who, I would consider are very sexual, have more in common with you than with me, so be it. Personally I don't see it. Lots of people have a hard time with relationships, or understanding general culture, or commonly perceived sexuality, but that doesn't make them the same. I think there's a huge similarity between gays and asexuals, but that doesn't make all gay people asexual, right? But every one of your arguments would apply to gay people. We don't relate to society's idea of sexuality. We had a hard time figuring out who we are. We face extreme opposition. We have a much harder time forming and maintaining relationships (this is very recently changing, but they still don't fit into our society's standard idea of relationships). Yet none of those things have anything to do with being or not being sexual. None of those things make me asexual. Right? So why do those things matter for some people but not for others? Why does person A's discomfort with society make them asexual when person B's discomfort doesn't? And why would discomfort with society have anything to do with it anyway?

You bring up some very good points, but I think there are different ways in which gays and asexuals have issues with relationships. There is a vast amount of ground that could be covered in saying that someone has difficulties with sex and relationships but just because two people have difficulties doesn't mean that the nature of those difficulties are the same.

I see sexuality as a spectrum and different people exist at different points on that spectrum. I don't see the spectrum just in 2 dimensions, however, but in several dimensions. There is the gay/straight/bi/pan dimension, the strength of attraction dimension, the strength of libido dimension and probably a few others that I just can't think of off the top of my head. The available labels I see encompassing people that are bunch up together in that part of the spectrum. Some of those people, however, are going to be on the border between one label's aspect and another, there are always going to be outliers and it might be a little more difficult for those people to choose which label best fits them, or choose no label at all if they prefer.

When I think of what defines asexuality, I don't necessarily think of the phrase does not experience sexual attraction, though of course that is the core of what it means. I think of what it means to not experience sexual attraction. I think of that disconnect that I feel when considering sex, sexual attraction and sexual desire. I think of the emotional differences pertaining to sex compared to most people. I think of the shear boredom of sex that so many of us asexuals experience. These are, for me, the different dimensions of asexuality that all stem from that first initial statement, does not experience sexual attraction.

When talking about those who are attracted to non-human fetishes, I think that's where you start talking about those outliers, the people that could be one of a couple of different labels depending on what they feel closest to. Consider the bondage fetish I am so fond of bringing up. One person might decide that, even though they are sexually aroused at the thought of bondage and seeing people tied up, they are asexual. Perhaps its because they don't desire actual sex to go along with that and perhaps they experience many of the same mental and emotional issues that so many asexuals experience. Person two, with the same fetish, might consider themselves sexual perhaps because they don't see their lack of interest in actual sex to be as big a deal or perhaps because they don't suffer from as many of the traditional difficulties that many asexuals have.

I think there are always going to be grey areas when it comes to sexuality because, as you yourself have mentioned, labels are limited and there are so many variations and gradients that no number of labels are ever going to fit everyone perfectly. The label that people decide to choose goes beyond a few words in the descriptor of that label, it goes into those unstated things that are all tied up in what that label means.

[Vampyremage]

I now see the edit that appeared while I was typing so I'll also add a couple things. I do agree that AVEN's definition of sexual attraction seems a little bit funny. It baffles me how watching and getting off on porn is not considered sexual attraction or that being attracted to a specific body part is not considered sexual attraction. To me, if it you are attracted sexuality because of anything directly to do with another person, that seems like sexual attraction and its quite hard for me to wrap my head around how that is not considered sexual attraction.

I very much understand the difference between being attracted to a person or being attracted to a paraphelia. I very much get the differentiation between being able to be aroused and/or having a libido and experiencing sexual attraction. I do not get the differentiation between being aroused by porn and being sexually attracted.

[Guest]

Of course you know that I totally agree with you.

I think you hit the nail on the head with "I think of what it means to not experience sexual attraction".

[zoidberger]

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?

Using that question, personally I would say that you couldn't tell whether either one was asexual or not. Asexuality to me would mean that the person was specifically sexually attracted and basically because "she's damn hot" OR because "she has great breasts" they would want to have sex with that person. Only they can know that, even when such comments are made. I personally don't understand the "she's hot" concept but I don't think that is an inherently asexual phenomenon but rather a byproduct.

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?

My point exactly.

I would say that being turned on in that scenario also has nothing to do with asexuality. It is the inherent "I am sexually attracted" ~ "I want to have sex with that" line of thinking that I believe is sexual attraction.

In this way, one can be interested sexually in people, body parts and situations, but only asexual if they do not experience specific sexual attraction (or do not WANT/need to have sex with someone because of those).

----

As you pointed out a bit earlier SkulleryMaid, sexuals have definitely experienced what it is like to be asexual. Sexuals are not sexually attracted to everyone, or even anyone who is involved in a situation they find sexual. But only asexuals are not sexually attracted in EVERY situation, and that includes those that might turn them on.

This is why subgroups such as demisexuality (those who are sexually attracted only to those they form a strong emotional/romantic/relationship connection with) and grey-A (those that experience very little sexual attraction or aren't completely sure how they define sexual attraction within their lives but can very much relate to asexuality mostly) have popped up. [Correct me if I am wrong on these definitions. I do know that's a rather simplified definition of both of those.]

Edit: Finally I don't think asexuality has anything to do with having a discomfort with society. I think the way asexuality has been discussed in this thread has simplified it crazily and used a lot of stereotypes to explain asexuality away as essentially the "you're just like everyone else"-type of deal.

[Data]

I have a feet kink, once I got physically aroused because of that, but I felt no drive to do anything with them, it just felt like any other erection that I could just get by physical stimulation. So in what way I was attracted to those feet or her if I didn't feel like doing anything with them or her? Attraction is defined by wanting to be near, or with I was neither.

[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?

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.

Right... I've often pondered this myself, and I really dont know, I dont watch porn....

[Narval]

I do agree that AVEN's definition of sexual attraction seems a little bit funny. It baffles me how watching and getting off on porn is not considered sexual attraction or that being attracted to a specific body part is not considered sexual attraction.

...

I do not get the differentiation between being aroused by porn and being sexually attracted.

Even though I most definitely don't want to, I think that I am leaning towards agreeing with you. I think that there may be a distinction about what exactly it is in the porn that one finds arousing, however. The person's body? Yeah, I think that I'd probably call it sexual attraction (towards a person.). The sexual act itself, I think that it may be more paraphilia-ish. Though it would be a paraphilia that either most people innately have or one that most people develop. But then again, I may just be making excuses. Overall, though, I definitely think that you're right.

[Guest]

I have a feet kink, once I got physically aroused because of that, but I felt no drive to do anything with them, it just felt like any other erection that I could just get by physical stimulation. So in what way I was attracted to those feet or her if I didn't feel like doing anything with them or her? Attraction is defined by wanting to be near, or with I was neither.

But its not, and that's been talked about, and accepted. Sexual attraction has nothing whatsoever to do with wanting to act on it.

Zoid, you keep saying this too... that asexuality is not wanting to act on sexual attraction. That's cool, but that's desire, not attraction. Not wanting to do anything about your attraction... even thinking that acting on it would be horrible, gross, disturbing, or traumatising, does not in any way erase the original attraction.

And as much as you want to tell me that asexuals aren't trying to hide their sexual attraction, that's exactly what I see. In what way is getting aroused by someone's feet NOT sexual attraction? In what was is getting aroused by porn NOT sexual attraction? You may not have any desire or drive to act on it, but then its the drive / desire that's the key and not the initial attraction.

EDIT: Here's another conundrum. I was just told that the difference between sexuals and asexuals is that sexuals get some sort of emotion out of sex. Ok. here's my counterargument:

The only time I get emotion out of sex is when I have sex with someone I love. And when I have sex with someone I love, I am behaving like a demisexual, and they count as asexual. So does that make me asexual then?

[never odd or even]

ummm. on this note, how then is arousal possible at all without some sort of sexual attraction if you are going to take that line?

i mean, you can get aroused. that doesnt actually mean you want sex, or are even aroused by anything in particular.

in an ace context and from an ace perspective ... i can get aroused by my ace partner, but i dont notice it, dont want to have sex, i'm not thinking of their body, i'm not thinking sexually. if anything its because we're mucking around with gender[we're both trans], BDSM and wrestling,. i really dont know where the turned on bit comes into it. i'm not sure where i'm supposed to have experienced sexual attraction. i'm not sure how to identify this concept. in fact, i've only managed to cop that i'm aroused by some of the stuff we do very recently. and even then, i'm not sure how that came about or why i am aroused...

this kinda points to there being a [null] hypothesis of there being no connection between sexual attraction and arousal...

[Data]

Wanting to act on what? Again it doesn't make sense to me to say that I had felt something that I didn't wanted to act on, if all that I had felt was erection, and all that I wanted to do about is either to masturbate or for it to go away.

But its not, and that's been talked about, and accepted. Sexual attraction has nothing whatsoever to do with wanting to act on it.

No what was accepted is that you might feel sexual attraction but not want to act on it. It wasn't agreed that physical arousal = sexual attraction.

[Guest]

ummm. on this note, how then is arousal possible at all without some sort of sexual attraction if you are going to take that line?

i mean, you can get aroused. that doesnt actually mean you want sex, or are even aroused by anything in particular.

in an ace context and from an ace perspective ... i can get aroused by my ace partner, but i dont notice it, dont want to have sex, i'm not thinking of their body, i'm not thinking sexually. if anything its because we're mucking around with gender[we're both trans], BDSM and wrestling,. i really dont know where the turned on bit comes into it. i'm not sure where i'm supposed to have experienced sexual attraction. i'm not sure how to identify this concept. in fact, i've only managed to cop that i'm aroused by some of the stuff we do very recently. and even then, i'm not sure how that came about or why i am aroused...

this kinda points to there being a [null] hypothesis of there being no connection between sexual attraction and arousal...

I don't know, that all sounds like sexual attraction to me. And, IMO, if asexuality weren't tethered exclusively to sexual attraction, there'd be far less fear of copping to it, right? If desire is a huge component of what makes asexuals asexual, then maybe that should be acknowledged. Right?

I've used this example before. Lets say some guy is super right-wing and extremely religious. He is aroused by men. He absolutely abhors the thought of acting on it. In no way, shape, or form does that guy want to be near guys, touch guys. But he's still gay, right? Or at least he still has gay inklings, right? Why? Because sexual attraction is not dependent upon desire. Every other sexual orientation is based on the idea that sexual attraction isn't dependent upon sexual desire. Asexuality is, to my knowledge, the only orientation that says that one is dependent upon the other.

I don't understand the "no connection between sexual attraction and arousal" so I can't comment on that.

[Guest]

Wanting to act on what? Again it doesn't make sense to me to say that I had felt something that I didn't wanted to act on, if all that I had felt was erection, and all that I wanted to do about is either to masturbate or for it to go away.

But its not, and that's been talked about, and accepted. Sexual attraction has nothing whatsoever to do with wanting to act on it.

No what was accepted is that you might feel sexual attraction but not want to act on it. It wasn't agreed that physical arousal = sexual attraction.

It sure is agreed that desire and attraction are separate.

No, it wasn't agreed that arousal = sexual attraction. Nor do I think that's true.

Desire, arousal, and sexual attraction are 3 separate things. They are related, but none of them is wholly dependent upon the other.

[never odd or even]

ummm. on this note, how then is arousal possible at all without some sort of sexual attraction if you are going to take that line?

i mean, you can get aroused. that doesnt actually mean you want sex, or are even aroused by anything in particular.

in an ace context and from an ace perspective ... i can get aroused by my ace partner, but i dont notice it, dont want to have sex, i'm not thinking of their body, i'm not thinking sexually. if anything its because we're mucking around with gender[we're both trans], BDSM and wrestling,. i really dont know where the turned on bit comes into it. i'm not sure where i'm supposed to have experienced sexual attraction. i'm not sure how to identify this concept. in fact, i've only managed to cop that i'm aroused by some of the stuff we do very recently. and even then, i'm not sure how that came about or why i am aroused...

this kinda points to there being a [null] hypothesis of there being no connection between sexual attraction and arousal...

I don't know, that all sounds like sexual attraction to me. And, IMO, if asexuality weren't tethered exclusively to sexual attraction, there'd be far less fear of copping to it, right? If desire is a huge component of what makes asexuals asexual, then maybe that should be acknowledged. Right?

I've used this example before. Lets say some guy is super right-wing and extremely religious. He is aroused by men. He absolutely abhors the thought of acting on it. In no way, shape, or form does that guy want to be near guys, touch guys. But he's still gay, right? Or at least he still has gay inklings, right? Why? Because sexual attraction is not dependent upon desire. Every other sexual orientation is based on the idea that sexual attraction isn't dependent upon sexual desire. Asexuality is, to my knowledge, the only orientation that says that one is dependent upon the other.

I don't understand the "no connection between sexual attraction and arousal" so I can't comment on that.

hmmm. i'm speaking in very specific terms in which arousal might occur, which i must point out have never happened before in my life...but my own experience aside, you are right, sexual attraction is not dependant on sexual desire. i'm still not sure if i get the former though.

yes, they can go together, but they do not equate to each other.

and where does asexuality say that one is dependant on the other?

[Vampyremage]

ummm. on this note, how then is arousal possible at all without some sort of sexual attraction if you are going to take that line?

i mean, you can get aroused. that doesnt actually mean you want sex, or are even aroused by anything in particular.

in an ace context and from an ace perspective ... i can get aroused by my ace partner, but i dont notice it, dont want to have sex, i'm not thinking of their body, i'm not thinking sexually. if anything its because we're mucking around with gender[we're both trans], BDSM and wrestling,. i really dont know where the turned on bit comes into it. i'm not sure where i'm supposed to have experienced sexual attraction. i'm not sure how to identify this concept. in fact, i've only managed to cop that i'm aroused by some of the stuff we do very recently. and even then, i'm not sure how that came about or why i am aroused...

this kinda points to there being a [null] hypothesis of there being no connection between sexual attraction and arousal...

I would partially disagree with this. I do not think sexual arousal = sexual attraction, but I do think there is usually a strong correlation between the two of them. While it is possible to be sexually aroused without sexual attraction, I think its fair to say that sexual attraction often causes sexual arousal or that one can fuel and feed upon the other.

From an asexual perspective, the way I explain my own ability to become sexually aroused is that all the parts still work. For myself, it takes physical stimulation in order to achieve sexual arousal. Aside from that physical stimulation, there is no external trigger for it. I am never (or at least I never have to date) going to become sexually aroused by looking at someone, fantasizing about someone or watching sexual acts being committed, it simply doesn't work that way. In other words, there isn't any real direction for my arousal, its just sort of there.

As I've mentioned before, when I masturbate I have no fantasies or aids outside of a vibrator. They physical sensations of doing so are very pleasant and I enjoy them quite a bit but in some ways its hard for me to even relate them as something sexual because I don't think about sexual things while doing so and I certainly don't have any interest in engaging in activities with others.

Similarly, when I have been sexually active in the past, I have been aroused by my partner. Certain types of physical acts can cause sexual arousal because, again, all the parts work as they are supposed to. A certain type of touch in a certain area can definitely cause sexual arousal but there still isn't really a direction to that arousal. Even in those instances, my arousal isn't really directed at my partner even though my partner may have been the one responsible for that arousal.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I imagine that with a sexual, arousal and attraction feed upon one another. There is initial attraction which makes arousal easier and once arousal starts it is fueled and expanded by the fact that the individual is sexually attracted to their partner. Not so for myself (and I imagine other asexuals as well) at all. I feel no initial spark of attraction and so when arousal occurs it is only through the continuation of those physical acts that caused it that will allow it to continue. Furthermore, I think sexual attraction is an important component in the psychology of sex. One of the major problems I have with sex is that, even when sexually aroused, I get bored with it extremely quickly and in fact, that boredom, is one of the major reasons why I have a very strong preference for masturbation. I don't experience the excitement of having a partner I'm sexually attracted to with me and I don't feel that draw towards my partner at all.

Innately, sexual gratification seems like it should be a solo activity. Of course I am not saying that this should be the case for anyone else, but sex doesn't seem natural to me. When I have sex, it always seems forced because even when my body is physically aroused, my head isn't there at all. It is personally puzzling to me why I (or anyone else for that matter) would prefer partnered sex to masturbation. Through a great deal of study and asking a great many personal questions, I do of course know that I am by far in the minority to this and that most sexuals have a fairly strong preference to partnered sex, at least some of the time. But my puzzlement regarding why I would even want it is part of the reason why I am so convinced that sexual arousal and attraction can occur separately, although they often don't. If it was considered acceptable to do so, on the occasions when I become aroused (which generally takes quite a bit of effort) I'd really prefer to just go into my room alone for 10 or 15 minutes, deal with myself on my own and then come back out for some lovely cuddles. Even when strongly aroused, if it takes any longer than that I get bored and would rather do almost anything else which, again, I think is a direct symptom of not experiencing that attraction that so often comes with arousal.