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

[Guest]

So what would be the difference between visual stimulation causing arousal versus manual stimulation of sexual organs causing arousal?

There's a difference when your brain makes something happen vs. when it is physically caused. Geez... hysterical pregnancies... totally different from actual pregnancies. Being able to mentally raise or lower your body temperature... totally different than just sitting in a bucket of ice... being able to bring yourself to orgasm mentally... different than being manually stimulated.

Oh, how about this example. Lets say you're a straight guy. You do not feel sexual attraction to men. Visually, you do not reach any sort of arousal or whathaveyou to men. Ok. Does that mean that a straight guy can't be manually stimulated by a man? No, of course not. No one thinks that manual stimulation has anything to do with sexual orientation, right? It would be ridiculous to claim that simply orgasming when a guy manually compels you to orgasm makes you gay. But if you get aroused by guys, that's completely different.

[Guest]

Your PC-ness has been preserved for now, Narval. You successfully both agreed with us and chided us in the same post. Congrats on taking such a difficult stand.

Oh come on. I agreed with the idea that standard AVEN interpretation of asexuality may be too broad and in need of "streamlining."

I was clear in my disagreement with the way in which you (And not so much Vampyremage, I was wrong to say "both of you") are going about the streamlining. It's entirely possible to restrict the definition of asexuality to be more reasonable in exclusivity without demonizing those you wish to exclude.

If I'm demonizing, I apologize, but I did go back and read both my and Vamp's responses and I don't see a difference in our language. If its just the "can't get a date" statement, then I withdraw that. I didn't mean it to be offensive, I was just venting, but I do apologize. The hardest part of all of this is that no one wants to hurt anyone else's feelings. That's why the situation is what it is right now. Where that line is between being realistic and having a difficult talk and being openly offensive is somewhat subjective. What some people think is "over the line" is totally OK to others. I admit that I generally try to be sensitive, but in this situation I already know there's no way to avoid hurt feelings, and that may have led me to be less... diplomatic with my phrasing than I should be. For that I apologize.

And as I said before, for those things I'm glad people like Vampyremage are here, because they're good at restating people's positions in less offensive terms.

[Beachwalker]

So what would be the difference between visual stimulation causing arousal versus manual stimulation of sexual organs causing arousal?

There's a difference when your brain makes something happen vs. when it is physically caused. Geez... hysterical pregnancies... totally different from actual pregnancies. Being able to mentally raise or lower your body temperature... totally different than just sitting in a bucket of ice... being able to bring yourself to orgasm mentally... different than being manually stimulated.

Oh, how about this example. Lets say you're a straight guy. You do not feel sexual attraction to men. Visually, you do not reach any sort of arousal or whathaveyou to men. Ok. Does that mean that a straight guy can't be manually stimulated by a man? No, of course not. No one thinks that manual stimulation has anything to do with sexual orientation, right? It would be ridiculous to claim that simply orgasming when a guy manually compels you to orgasm makes you gay. But if you get aroused by guys, that's completely different.

I don't see the difference, if arousal occurs, surely differentiating between what stimulation causes the arousal is irrelevant, surely it is the thoughts if any, and desires that occur simultaneously with the arousal which determines orientation???

[Guest]

So what would be the difference between visual stimulation causing arousal versus manual stimulation of sexual organs causing arousal?

There's a difference when your brain makes something happen vs. when it is physically caused. Geez... hysterical pregnancies... totally different from actual pregnancies. Being able to mentally raise or lower your body temperature... totally different than just sitting in a bucket of ice... being able to bring yourself to orgasm mentally... different than being manually stimulated.

Oh, how about this example. Lets say you're a straight guy. You do not feel sexual attraction to men. Visually, you do not reach any sort of arousal or whathaveyou to men. Ok. Does that mean that a straight guy can't be manually stimulated by a man? No, of course not. No one thinks that manual stimulation has anything to do with sexual orientation, right? It would be ridiculous to claim that simply orgasming when a guy manually compels you to orgasm makes you gay. But if you get aroused by guys, that's completely different.

I don't see the difference, if arousal occurs, surely differentiating between what stimulation causes the arousal is irrelevant, surely it is the thoughts if any, and desires that occur simultaneously with the arousal which determines orientation???

Differentiating what stimulation causes the arousal is exactly what sexual orientation is. That's actually a great way to put it... that is, 100%, exactly what differentiates various sexual orientations.

What if I said I was telekinetic and then got up and turned the light switch on by hand? In that case would the difference between mental and physical manipulation be more clear?

[Data]

So what would be the difference between visual stimulation causing arousal versus manual stimulation of sexual organs causing arousal?

For me, there's a mental difference. Physical stimulation can be just that: purely physical. To put things bluntly and possibly TMIly, if you're female bodied, you have a clitoris and if you touch that clitoris you will get physical pleasure from it. Similarly, a male bodied individual has a penis and if that penis is touched, there will be physical sensations that will generally register as pleasure. The human body is physiologically designed to receive pleasure when certain parts of the body are touched in certain ways.

Visual stimulation is all about where you're head is at. Assuming there is no accompanying physical stimulation, the pleasure gained or not gained is entirely psychological. The body is not being stimulated and thus the physiological pleasure response isn't being elicited. In that case, there has to be something mental going on inside that individual's head, something that is arousing them. That something would translate as sexual attraction and sometimes, though not always, accompanying sexual desire.

What about thinking about getting aroused, wouldn't that make you physically aroused? Is that also sexual attraction? Why do you think about how it feels isn't that mental?

There is always a mental aspect, it isn't literally touching the same places in the same way, and always getting the same response.

I don't think that visual stimulation means that there must be attraction to cause arousal. Take the arousal to monkey sex study I doubt that they were attracted to monkeys, or that they were attracted to idea of being a monkey doing monkey business but the information was hold off from they consciousness because they are speciesist or had monkey throw poop at them when they were young or something. So what they were attracted to?

[Vampyremage]

So what would be the difference between visual stimulation causing arousal versus manual stimulation of sexual organs causing arousal?

For me, there's a mental difference. Physical stimulation can be just that: purely physical. To put things bluntly and possibly TMIly, if you're female bodied, you have a clitoris and if you touch that clitoris you will get physical pleasure from it. Similarly, a male bodied individual has a penis and if that penis is touched, there will be physical sensations that will generally register as pleasure. The human body is physiologically designed to receive pleasure when certain parts of the body are touched in certain ways.

Visual stimulation is all about where you're head is at. Assuming there is no accompanying physical stimulation, the pleasure gained or not gained is entirely psychological. The body is not being stimulated and thus the physiological pleasure response isn't being elicited. In that case, there has to be something mental going on inside that individual's head, something that is arousing them. That something would translate as sexual attraction and sometimes, though not always, accompanying sexual desire.

What about thinking about getting aroused, wouldn't that make you physically aroused? Is that also sexual attraction? Why do you think about how it feels isn't that mental?

There is always a mental aspect, it isn't literally touching the same places in the same way, and always getting the same response.

I don't think that visual stimulation means that there must be attraction to cause arousal. Take the arousal to monkey sex study I doubt that they were attracted to monkeys, or that they were attracted to idea of being a monkey doing monkey business but the information was hold off from they consciousness because they are speciesist or had monkey throw poop at them when they were young or something. So what they were attracted to?

First, while I would agree that the mental aspect probably does factor into it to some degree most of the time, I don't necessarily think it does to the same degree for most asexuals. In my own case, for example, I have been pretty open about the fact that there really isn't a mental aspect for me. If I'm feeling bored I can pretty much just take out my vibrator and help myself out almost entirely regardless of what I'm thinking about or what's going on in my life. There are certain states that will be antithesis to doing so, usually completely unrelated to the act itself, but little if anything actually improves the experience as far as the mental part goes.

When it comes to other sorts of visual stimulation enhancing the physical stimulation, I'm not sure its possible or even practical to separate sexual attraction from being attracted to the idea of sex. The majority of porn, for example, is very human-centric. The focus of the porn is on the people who are the stars plus whatever kinks and events they are engaging in. I'm not saying its not possible, but I don't understand how its possible to seriously compartmentalize what's being watched in saying that the thought of the act causes arousal but the still deny that there is any sort of sexual attraction going on.

I have all ready made the differentiation between sexual attraction making one sexual and only being sexually attracted to a non-human fetish. So I understand, for example, being sexually attracted to the idea of rope bondage and thus watching rope-bondage porn and getting off on it. The differentiation there, for me, is the fact that without the ropes being a part of it, there would be no interest in the players or the other acts. The rope bondage is what makes it appealing and the players are largely irrelevant. I can conceptualize the idea of watching porn and not considering it sexual attraction to be similar in nature to that, but I can't honestly comprehend how it is even possible to separate the concepts.

[Lucinda]

Nah I don't think that makes sense either, I think if you were to see a sex scene in a movie or read a sex scene in a book that caused a physical reaction that doesn't have any conscious connect whatsoever with it, it's meaningless. Anyone seen that movie 'click' where the couple see their dog humping a Teddy and it motivates them to have sex, well if it doesn't cause any conscious thought to masturbate or have sex I don't see how it could be called attraction. That scene in the movie didn't cause me any arousal or 'turn on' but if it had it would only have been a physical reaction.

If sexual attraction is the desire to masturbate and/or have sex, what's your definition of sexual desire? Surely they aren't the same thing?

Nope, she said "cause any" desire.

Differentiating what stimulation causes the arousal is exactly what sexual orientation is. That's actually a great way to put it... that is, 100%, exactly what differentiates various sexual orientations.

Nope, the couple was aroused in the movie. What caused the arousal? The dog humping a stuffed toy. Yet, they had sex with each other. Why? Because they had no interest or desire in having sex with dogs or teddy bears. :)

A guy gets turned on while watching gay porn. Does that mean he is gay? Can you be sure of your answer?

Lucinda

[Vampyremage]

Nope, the couple was aroused in the movie. What caused the arousal? The dog humping a stuffed toy. Yet, they had sex with each other. Why? Because they had no interest or desire in having sex with dogs or teddy bears. :)

A guy gets turned on while watching gay porn. Does that mean he is gay? Can you be sure of your answer?

Lucinda

So if I am understanding your point correctly, what you are trying to say is that for some porn isn't directly tied to sexual attraction, but is more so something of a trigger for sexual arousal?

[Data]

I have all ready made the differentiation between sexual attraction making one sexual and only being sexually attracted to a non-human fetish. So I understand, for example, being sexually attracted to the idea of rope bondage and thus watching rope-bondage porn and getting off on it. The differentiation there, for me, is the fact that without the ropes being a part of it, there would be no interest in the players or the other acts. The rope bondage is what makes it appealing and the players are largely irrelevant. I can conceptualize the idea of watching porn and not considering it sexual attraction to be similar in nature to that, but I can't honestly comprehend how it is even possible to separate the concepts.

I am even confused on where I would place in this physical arousal to outsource stimuli. I do actually have to be make myself physically aroused first, but I can get erection by thinking about getting it as well (but I don't bother with that as that is just more effort for the same effect). The only exception would be once with the feet kink, but my feet kink is not even interactive I just like something about seeing feet from POV, watching somebody worship them is a turn off, footjob is a complete turn off. I can't say that the person doesn't matter because she must have nice feet, and be attractive to not cause a turn off, but on the other hand that is a single person that doesn't even do anything sexual.

The mot sexual thing that I watch is oral in specific dom scenarios, but I guess that it is really hard for me to say how it even affect me because I get bored of it too fast, literally seconds, better dom scenario can me watch a bit more, but I could never watch a single clip of any kind to ejaculation before getting bored, makes it hard to get excited about it, so maybe I just have very weak sexual desire, but it seem very strange to experience sexual attraction, and never experience sexual desire yeah one doesn't automatically cause the other but there is a correlation. I am not even sure if watching soft core has anything to with it it being physically arousing, not much else to do when I masturbate anyway, and I find some people aesthetically appealing, there are also feet there but there isn't enough focus on them.

Could be some learned behavior as well seems normal to look at porn or attractive people during masturbation so I didn't even through about not watching any before AVEN. I had tried it, and I often do it without visual stimuli now (often some time with some without when I get bored with it), and I don't really a difference other then finding something weird or funny in kinky porn or somebody physically appealing, and I think that it helps me staying aroused because I don't need to think about how it feels at all with porn, without I sometimes need to focus on the sensations, but that makes it feel better as well but for more effort.

When it comes to other sorts of visual stimulation enhancing the physical stimulation, I'm not sure its possible or even practical to separate sexual attraction from being attracted to the idea of sex. The majority of porn, for example, is very human-centric. The focus of the porn is on the people who are the stars plus whatever kinks and events they are engaging in. I'm not saying its not possible, but I don't understand how its possible to seriously compartmentalize what's being watched in saying that the thought of the act causes arousal but the still deny that there is any sort of sexual attraction going on.

But that isn't a fetish, most females are physically aroused watching monkeys go at it. Isn't that the case where you should separate response to visual sexual stimuli, and attraction?

[Beachwalker]

But that isn't a fetish, most females are physically aroused watching monkeys go at it. Isn't that the case where you should separate response to visual sexual stimuli, and attraction?

Yes I think it is. It would make life simpler if it wasn't, everyone could just go and have an arousal test and voula your sexual orientation could be diagnosed.

[Guest]

You guys seem to be confusing the difference between the existence of sexual attraction and what the target of the attraction is. I imagine most of the time we can't tell what exactly about a video, picture, or person the subject is aroused by, but we know there is something. The fact that there is a something is what's at question with asexuality. Even if we could never know what they were turned on by, we know they were turned on by something.

EDIT: Sorry, guys, sometimes I forget I'm talking to asexuals. Ok. So does the dog and the monkey thing seem really weird and confusing to you? It makes complete sense to me. The dog maybe not as much, but monkey sex actually is one of those things that's known for being a turn on for people. You know why, right? It's a really strong reminder of the animalistic side to sexuality, and that is very hot. Monkeys aren't sexy, but watching monkey sex makes people think of / remember hot animalistic sex, and that's what they're responding to. I apologize that it didn't occur to me earlier to mention that.

Now that we're on the topic, there are things other than just watching porn that turns on some people. The sound of a bed creaking in that "we're having sex" kinda way; a repetitive thrusting motion; the visual of a penis-esque thing moving back and forth... just the slight imagery is sometimes sufficient to work as a turn-on. The reason it works is because sexual people like sex, and things that remind them of sex turn them on. That's all sexual attraction... it's all a part of sexuality.

But that isn't a fetish, most females are physically aroused watching monkeys go at it. Isn't that the case where you should separate response to visual sexual stimuli, and attraction?

Yes I think it is. It would make life simpler if it wasn't, everyone could just go and have an arousal test and voula your sexual orientation could be diagnosed.

A guy gets turned on while watching gay porn. Does that mean he is gay? Can you be sure of your answer?

Lucinda

He may not be attracted to the men... it could be the erections, the taboo nature... but regardless of what exactly he's attracted to, he is attracted.

[Alan Degas]

I don't really understand how you can differentiate between getting turned on by animal sex and getting turned on by human sex as two totally different things.

Person A gets turned on by watching Bonobo chimpanzees getting frisky - they are just turned on by the idea of sex.

Person B gets turned on by watching humans getting frisky - they are either consciously, or unconsciously, attracted to the people they are watching.

Did I get that right?

[Vampyremage]

I don't really understand how you can differentiate between getting turned on by animal sex and getting turned on by human sex as two totally different things.

Person A gets turned on by watching Bonobo chimpanzees getting frisky - they are just turned on by the idea of sex.

Person B gets turned on by watching humans getting frisky - they are either consciously, or unconsciously, attracted to the people they are watching.

Did I get that right?

In the case of person B, I think it can be both example one and example two. Person B may very well be turned on by the idea of having sex but I think to be turned on by the idea of having sex, there must also be an implicit idea that someone else is involved in that action. Sex, after all, is not a solo activity.

[Alan Degas]

I don't really understand how you can differentiate between getting turned on by animal sex and getting turned on by human sex as two totally different things.

Person A gets turned on by watching Bonobo chimpanzees getting frisky - they are just turned on by the idea of sex.

Person B gets turned on by watching humans getting frisky - they are either consciously, or unconsciously, attracted to the people they are watching.

Did I get that right?

In the case of person B, I think it can be both example one and example two. Person B may very well be turned on by the idea of having sex but I think to be turned on by the idea of having sex, there must also be an implicit idea that someone else is involved in that action. Sex, after all, is not a solo activity.

So basically you are saying that if you are turned on by the idea of having sex you experience sexual attraction?

Sorry if I'm being redundant I'm just finding this whole thing difficult to fully get my head around. It seems the more I think about sexual attraction, and what it really is, the less I seem to understand it :P

[Data]

EDIT: Sorry, guys, sometimes I forget I'm talking to asexuals. Ok. So does the dog and the monkey thing seem really weird and confusing to you? It makes complete sense to me. The dog maybe not as much, but monkey sex actually is one of those things that's known for being a turn on for people. You know why, right? It's a really strong reminder of the animalistic side to sexuality, and that is very hot. Monkeys aren't sexy, but watching monkey sex makes people think of / remember hot animalistic sex, and that's what they're responding to. I apologize that it didn't occur to me earlier to mention that.

Again you are presenting your speculations as facts. This intuitive thinking have big tendency to turn out to be bs when we actually get ability to test it. Could as easily be because visual stimuli don't need to be connected with attraction but mind could recognize oh sex start the physical arousal, or oh that situation can lead to sex start the physical arousal that doesn't mean that brain must generated any attraction as well. All that is evolutionary needed is for this response to be statistically useful for many people to have it, no matter if it triggers any more complex things like attraction it must only be statistically connected with triggering them.

[Beachwalker]

Could as easily be because visual stimuli don't need to be connected with attraction but mind could recognize oh sex start the physical arousal, or oh that situation can lead to sex start the physical arousal that doesn't mean that brain must generated any attraction as well. All that is evolutionary needed is for this response to be statistically useful for many people to have it, no matter if it triggers any more complex things like attraction it must only be statistically connected with triggering them.

Yes that makes a lot more sense to me.

If it was as simple as arousal and attraction were the same, asexuality would be easy to test, I guess you would either get aroused or you wouldn't. But if this was the test for being asexual then probably I wouldn't pass because I can get a physical arousal from a visual stimuli. So if that was the test I wouldn't be asexual. But I wouldn't be celibate either because celibacy to me means someone who has a libido or sexual desire but is choosing not to act on them. I have no libido or sexual desire attached with the arousal, it's not an itch that needs to be scratched in any way. I don't dislike it but I don't like it either, it just happens then it goes, i doubt i even notice it most of the time. If this is all attraction is I think I want my money back :(

[sexualwithasexual]

Could as easily be because visual stimuli don't need to be connected with attraction but mind could recognize oh sex start the physical arousal, or oh that situation can lead to sex start the physical arousal that doesn't mean that brain must generated any attraction as well. All that is evolutionary needed is for this response to be statistically useful for many people to have it, no matter if it triggers any more complex things like attraction it must only be statistically connected with triggering them.

Yes that makes a lot more sense to me.

If it was as simple as arousal and attraction were the same, asexuality would be easy to test, I guess you would either get aroused or you wouldn't. But if this was the test for being asexual then probably I wouldn't pass because I can get a physical arousal from a visual stimuli. So if that was the test I wouldn't be asexual. But I wouldn't be celibate either because celibacy to me means someone who has a libido or sexual desire but is choosing not to act on them. I have no libido or sexual desire attached with the arousal, it's not an itch that needs to be scratched in any way. I don't dislike it but I don't like it either, it just happens then it goes, i doubt i even notice it most of the time. If this is all attraction is I think I want my money back :(

Don't turn in your "asexual" card just yet.

This thread is amazing. It's very political, and very helpful for someone living in a mixed relationship for 17 years!! It's important to hash this stuff out and we should not be afraid.

As I think there's value in being "bi-curious".. in fact, even though as a self-identified queer (my favorite identifier) I'm kinda bi myself, it's a bit discomfiting, especially when said person ends up living the straight life that is so much easier, I still see value in an "ace-curious" phase!! Asexuals need a community, much as gays, to be sure. But I really think the real awareness necessity lies in mixed relationships. Even on AVEN, many aces note there is not a compelling reason to "come out". Why is that? Because there's little pain in living secretly non-sexual lives. I've always thought it makes more sense to come out, but I get that line of thinking too.

The real pain is in relationships, mixed or just in facing that you may not get to the point where you'll couple off as an asexual, as there's a rare chance you'll find another asexual to couple with. If you like to be alone, fine, but if not, you face some serious pain. I've seen the threads, and OUCH!

I think newbies should be told that they need to decide for themselves, but be open to the fact that this could be a "phase." Hell, I sure didn't like the idea of sex for a long time. It seemed icky, messy, germy. But the psychology of it, (as vampy described) can make all those things fall away for a sexual being, and I'm sure many newbie aces here will find that out at some point. Heck, many even talk about how they really had to grapple with NOT being ace, and how they didn't like that phase.

But to have a coolness to aceness may actually help those few geniune aces like Vampy, and my partner, feel better about themselves. It's okay to find yourself on the spectrum. I do think that Skullery's precise assessment is spot on, even if I'm still not quite sure that arousal = attraction, I do get what she's saying. It took my brain I while to see that. I still imagine a baby boy and his hard on and I can't see that he's attracted to anything though. So as Vampy says, there are just bodily things that can happen, and it does not mean that you are attracted to something. (I noticed Skullery agreed 100% to Vampy's long response, but left off the 1st paragraph where Vampy says she believes that sexual arousal is not the same as sexual attraction. I agreed with 100% of the whole post.)

I don't feel like there are clubs or any disrespect, but I do sense the need to hold on to definitions. It's so valuable to RANT in respectful ways. That's how we make real progress, and if Skullery had opened the thread with her RANT, I would really have gotten a lot of where the line of inquiry was coming from, as I do now! I appreciate the boldness! YES!

[Guest]

Don't turn in your "asexual" card just yet.

I think newbies should be told that they need to decide for themselves, but be open to the fact that this could be a "phase." Hell, I sure didn't like the idea of sex for a long time. It seemed icky, messy, germy. But the psychology of it, (as vampy described) can make all those things fall away for a sexual being, and I'm sure many newbie aces here will find that out at some point. Heck, many even talk about how they really had to grapple with NOT being ace, and how they didn't like that phase.

But to have a coolness to aceness may actually help those few geniune aces like Vampy, and my partner, feel better about themselves. It's okay to find yourself on the spectrum. I do think that Skullery's precise assessment is spot on, even if I'm still not quite sure that arousal = attraction, I do get what she's saying. It took my brain I while to see that. I still imagine a baby boy and his hard on and I can't see that he's attracted to anything though. So as Vampy says, there are just bodily things that can happen, and it does not mean that you are attracted to something. (I noticed Skullery agreed 100% to Vampy's long response, but left off the 1st paragraph where Vampy says she believes that sexual arousal is not the same as sexual attraction. I agreed with 100% of the whole post.)

I don't feel like there are clubs or any disrespect, but I do sense the need to hold on to definitions. It's so valuable to RANT in respectful ways. That's how we make real progress, and if Skullery had opened the thread with her RANT, I would really have gotten a lot of where the line of inquiry was coming from, as I do now! I appreciate the boldness! YES!

1. (first bolded section) I think that's an excellent way to put it. It's not unusual at all for sexuals to be afraid, wary, or nervous of sex... but that psychological drive toward it will almost always prevail. :)

2. (second bolded section) Sometimes I cut stuff out because I don't like huge quotes... so I probably pulled it because I figured it was universally agreed. I definitely don't think arousal = sexual attraction... and where that line is, I'm not 100% sure, but there seem to be aces who really don't understand just how sexual certain sexual feelings are, like when watching porn, etc.

3. I'm going to try to stay out of this for a bit, because I said my piece and I think I said it well enough, and I don't want to beat it into the ground. I hope others will hop on to voice their opinions and I will try to leave ya'll to it!

** Yes the whole thing was leading up to the rant... but I think I didn't necessarily know it at the time. In retrospect that would have been a better opener.

[Data]

2. (second bolded section) Sometimes I cut stuff out because I don't like huge quotes... so I probably pulled it because I figured it was universally agreed. I definitely don't think arousal = sexual attraction... and where that line is, I'm not 100% sure, but there seem to be aces who really don't understand just how sexual certain sexual feelings are, like when watching porn, etc.

Or maybe others don't feels different about it. To me physical arousal = physical arousal, feels the same to me. Why not just describe the difference in how it feels between physical arousal caused by physically stimulating the organ with no sexual throughs vs watching porn, and masturbating.

[Guest]

2. (second bolded section) Sometimes I cut stuff out because I don't like huge quotes... so I probably pulled it because I figured it was universally agreed. I definitely don't think arousal = sexual attraction... and where that line is, I'm not 100% sure, but there seem to be aces who really don't understand just how sexual certain sexual feelings are, like when watching porn, etc.

Or maybe others don't feels different about it. To me physical arousal = physical arousal, feels the same to me. Why not just describe the difference in how it feels between physical arousal caused by physically stimulating the organ with no sexual throughs vs watching porn, and masturbating.

I have no idea what you just said.

obviously physical arousal = physical arousal. This is a fun game! banana = banana, and chair = chair, and your mama = your mama.

Damn data, yer on fire.

EDIT: your theory that the "why" behind physical arousal doesn't matter is ridiculous. I understand that, for you, asexuality is based on desire, not sexual attraction. For you, it doesn't matter if you experience sexual attraction, so long as you don't feel compelled to act on it. Grow some balls and just say that, for you, the issue is desire, and stop trying to create a definition of sexual attraction that makes no fucking sense. Because let me tell you, dear, that creating a definition of sexual attraction where the "why" behind your attraction is irrelevant is, well, completely nonsensical. I know you must understand that on some level. Lets look at other orientations, shall we? If the "why" behind arousal was completely meaningless, how would any of the other orientations be determined? By who the person wants to date? You know that's not what sexual orientation means, Data. I know you know that. Sexual orientation = what turns you on. You can twist yourself into as many pretzels as you want to twist yourself into trying to come up with a definition of sexual attraction that is completely independent of what turns a person on, but I guarantee you that the definition you will end up creating is the definition of desire. So you just let me know when you've grown tired of running 'round the track and have finally settled on "to me, asexuality is based on desire".

[Data]

2. (second bolded section) Sometimes I cut stuff out because I don't like huge quotes... so I probably pulled it because I figured it was universally agreed. I definitely don't think arousal = sexual attraction... and where that line is, I'm not 100% sure, but there seem to be aces who really don't understand just how sexual certain sexual feelings are, like when watching porn, etc.

Or maybe others don't feels different about it. To me physical arousal = physical arousal, feels the same to me. Why not just describe the difference in how it feels between masturbating the organ with no sexual throughs, and without watching anything vs watching porn, and masturbating.

I have no idea what you just said.

obviously physical arousal = physical arousal. This is a fun game! banana = banana, and chair = chair, and your mama = your mama.

Damn data, yer on fire.

Replace it with masturbation = masturbation. I was thinking that it will be obvious to what I was referring to:

Why not just describe the difference in how it feels between masturbating with no sexual throughs, and without watching anything vs watching porn, and masturbating.

And your game doesn't work anyway, there are different chairs, and bananas.

[Vampyremage]

Why not just describe the difference in how it feels between masturbating with no sexual throughs, and without watching anything vs watching porn, and masturbating.

I thought that was part of the point? That masturbating with no sexual thoughts IS different than masturbating while watching porn.

[Guest]

Why not just describe the difference in how it feels between masturbating with no sexual throughs, and without watching anything vs watching porn, and masturbating.

I thought that was part of the point? That masturbating with no sexual thoughts IS different than masturbating while watching porn.

Because, Data, it doesn't matter if it feels different. A penis is a penis is a penis. The penis doesn't care why its stimulated. That doesn't mean that the "why" is irrelevant to the discussion of asexuality, however.

Masturbating with no sexual thoughts IS different... but not because it feels different. It's different because it was instigated by the mind instead of the body.

EDIT: My game sure does work. There may be different chairs, but each one of the varieties is STILL A CHAIR.

[Hap2]

This bloody problem of language again, sometimes I swear it makes people think too literal about the technicalities when things are much too complex for language to be accurate. I like the word Sally used, permutations. How many permutations there are of 'sexuality' I wonder. Regardless, I can see what Skullery is trying to get at, and the main reason for it is likely due to asexuality not being as taboo in common culture in the same manner that homosexuality has been. Hence why there's going to be lots of people willing to attach the label 'asexual' to themselves. But as PiF always said, some are going to be life long, some aren't. I'm going to go through my little spiel again, but only because I believe it helps me make a particular point.

As Data I believe was trying to point out, sexual arousal or desire, or whatever you want to call it, can also be triggered by thinking directly of it. In my case for instance, it is only if I consciously make an effort to think about being aroused in itself, that I can trigger anything down there, outside of doing anything physical manually, (my guess is that this is likely easier for males to do than females due to hormonal differences). Otherwise if I haven't done anything for awhile, libido and arousal stay really low to non-existant, and there is no desire, no longing, and I am far from being repulsed. And, I'm content in such a state, it feels normal, (I only started experimenting with masturbation last year out of curiosity, and have stopped since, as it doesn't do anything for me but spike the libido which annoys me). Now, if someone is reminded into thinking about arousal, and becomes as such, I still wouldn't consider it attraction to anything. As the reminder might not necessarily be a consistent one (in my case it never has, just the direct thinking). In this case, there is a trigger, but an internal one. I've tried fantasizing to see whether or not that would get me interested in either sex, but to no avail, there's just nothing there. No arousal, no sexual interest, nada.

To make things more confusing, I am attracted to girls, but not in a sexual manner. That "butterfly feeling" that people sometimes mention, I get that once in awhile, though not consistently enough that I've been able to figure out what causes it, my guess it's personality since it happens most often after I've been talking with the person. Haven't had that with any guy. Sometimes a desire to hug as well, but again, not that often. I prefer the appearance of women to that of men, and I think that also plays a factor somewhere. However, there is no interest, no feeling, no physical reactions to the thought of having sex with women, nor to any person I have met thus far.

If it were the case that there is a consistency in what external factors arouse a person, especially if said factors are of another being, then yes, I would agree, that person is not very likely an asexual by the sheer technicality of it. But, as you have demonstrated yourself Skullery, and as I hope I have too, it's not so clear cut. The lines are very hard to distinguish, if there are such lines to be distinguished at all, and are not being placed by us. I'm still attracted to women, albeit not in the typical way, hence why I distinguish it from what is commonly referred to as sexual attraction, and call myself asexual, more or less as a matter of convention, as any relationship I would be comfortable and natural in would be as such. You have what you consider a particular attraction to men, but still refer to yourself as gay because of the nature of the relationships you've had, therefore, you also use a term as a matter of convention. We both seem to use the label for convenience sake in conversation, rather than literally list out all the excess of terms this site has a fancy with.

So what of others? It is quite possible that some are using the term to fit in somewhere, or to provide some sort of consistency in their lives. Therefore the first question would be, "so what?", "why does it matter?" I suppose if one was considering the political aspect of visibility, such people don't exactly help appearances, but I've never been much for visibility, the less attention to me, the better. I very much have a foot in Foucault's camp to be honest, sexuality is not a core aspect to who I am, there's just bodies, pleasures, and interactions. The promotion of separate sexualities and a focus on them as the core of identiy, rather than a promotion of the attributes outside of the labels, seems to be more of a cause of problems than anything, such as the ones you're having with the definition, (and a quite a few social problems in society too). Everybody trying to fit themselves within a certain label and trying to fit their behaviour to coincide with that label, or stereotypes of, shaping their identity based on one aspect of their relationships with others. Seems very problematic.

If there is a problem with labels, then, rather than trying to fix the label, or fix oneself to the label, why not concentrate on something else and use the labels as conventional terms only when required? I recognize how difficult this is, but perhaps it might be a better direction?

[Guest]

First, I agree with all you've said. Second, i would agree that merely being able to arouse oneself mentally by concentrating on your own arousal is definitely something... different than arousal being brought about by an external stimuli, particularly if you're really just concentrating on your arousal, as you say, and not simply fantasizing about other people.

Third, I want to make it clear that when given the opportunity, which is most of the time, I am specific about my orientation and very clearly state that I'm bisexual with a preference for dating girls. The reason I try to be so clear is because I don't think it does anyone any favors by hiding reality. I believe in "living out loud", so to speak. If people think that most sexuals are obsessed with sex, reach adolescence and just dive right in, then its because most of us aren't "living out loud". We're hiding parts of ourselves that we don't want the public to see. The problem is, that creates generation after generation of people who think they're experiencing something for the very first time, even though what they're experiencing is, in fact, exceptionally common. You know all those studies that show that people think their facebook friends are happier and more successful than they are? That's because people present themselves unrealistically. I think there's a huge downside to that. Now everyone thinks they are less happy and less successful. When people have a traumatic experience, they think they're alone... but they're not alone! We've all been thru it, we just don't talk about it. It has the effect of isolating us and making us feel more weird, more different, more ostracized than we actually are. I keep saying, and I firmly believe it, that the vast majority of people are demi/gray. The only reason its not more apparent is that its, well, not more apparent. We don't share stuff like that about ourselves.

So now we have AVEN. And instead of "living out loud" and fostering an accurate understanding of sexuality, we have a billion stereotypes floating around, very little accurate information about sexual development, and a ton of people trying to jam their mismatched experiences into a tiny little box just so they have somewhere to belong.

But goddamn it, we're not all so different! We do all belong. Everyone doesn't have to be asexual to fit in somewhere... and if people started being a hell of a lot more honest about themselves, I don't think people would spend nearly as much time trying to force an orientation onto themselves that doesn't necessarily fit.

[SFX]

In the end, yes I think it may be damaging to the community as a whole and, more specifically, asexual visibility and education to basically include everyone under the sun who is in some way not quite as sexual as most under the asexual umbrella. I think some major thought needs to be put into expanding the definition of what it means to be asexual. Its not a matter of not wanting to include people because this isn't some club where you need some special membership. This is a matter of having the label of asexual actually mean something because, quite honestly, in some ways right now it doesn't and that has the potential to hurt the whole community in the long run.

On a different but related note: what are your thoughts on grey-asexuality and the inclusion of grey-As to the asexual community?

[never odd or even]

hmmmm. maybe we need to have two levels of orientation, as if you are romantically attracted to one or both sexes then you are by definition have a sex preference. Aro Aces do not have this, so their desire is simply not there. is this truly asexuality? we need to look at romantic aces.

romantic aces have a sex preference, but no driving desire for sex. does this still fit a mould of asexuality?

what this seems to boil down to is whether you have a sex preference, and then if you are desirous of sex.

i dont have the answers as to what this means for clarifying orientation. if you have neither, then it would seem that you are asexual. if you have a sex preference but no desire does that still make you asexual? i'm going to go with yes. if you are desirous of sex without sex preference... i'm going to go with not asexual. HOWEVER, if this is interpreted as having a libido but not desirious of sex this invalidates my premise of desiring sex. if you are both desirous of sex and have a sex preference then you are not asexual.

where is the problem with what i have just said? i think it comes down to the sticky topic of arousal and masturbation. if aroused without thoughts in mind and simply by touching then your body works. if you incorporate a desire/another stimulation/fetish into that, does it matter if you are sexual or not? you are still aroused... i'm really not sure what this has to do specifically with orientation and sexuality [and here i stop knowing what i'm talking about cause i dont experience this or understand it], it seems to me that masturbation and desiring sex are very different, some times linked, sometimes not. like a regularly cleaned house doesnt mean it will be tidy; the two tend to go together, but are explicitly linked. as someone [vamp or skul] said earlier, its a broken wire, a kink in the chain where things dont quite work.

now why are we still agonising over this issue? why are labels and categories so damn important, when we could just admit we dont know and stop trying to sound intelligent when we dont have a clue. do feel free to pick apart what i have just said :)

[Guest]

I have nothing to pick apart here. :)

I think the masturbation stuff came up specifically because of Data. They were making the point that masturbation (or sub in erection or genital stimulation of any kind) feels the same whether or not it was sparked by sexual attraction, therefore, since the feeling is the same, there's no reason to differentiate based on why it was triggered in the first place. I disagree. I think that just because it feels the same doesn't mean that it doesn't have relevance to the discussion of sexual orientation. I can make the same argument Data makes, but in reverse. Say a straight guy gets nekked and closes his eyes. he gets jerked off by a man and a woman. It feels the same regardless of who did it. Does that mean he's pansexual? No, of course not. Why? Because the feeling one gets from stimulation isn't the relevant factor.

So that's why masturbation was brought up.

Other than that, I suppose the reason labels are important is because, when taken to a certain point, asexuality ceases to be a meaningful category, and it ceases to resemble, in any meaningful way, other sexual orientations, which then begs the question of whether it is an orientation at all... and it certainly hurts visibility and acceptance when the rest of the world looks at this mess and says "well that's ridiculous" and walks away. The importance of the label, in this case, has to do with validating asexuality generally and not so much validating any specific person. I, for one, would love to see asexuality be better embraced and understood, but the way its being represented right now, I just don't see how that's a realistic possibility.

[Beachwalker]

I think arousal to a visual stimuli is a biological response that probably everyone has whether they are aware of it or not. I think it would be interesting to see any studies on this. I would be genuinely surprised if the only people who didnt experience any arousal didnt have an underlying medical condition. Which I think would be a major flaw in the theory arousal is the same as attraction.

I still don't see the difference between visual stimuli causing arousal, and an unknown stimuli that gives the motivation to masturbate. Or is masturbation a planned event, like at 8pm tonight I am going to masturbate??? If however it is a random desire that occurs surely it has been triggered by something.

So I guess we either need to say arousal is not the same as attraction. Or the definition of asexuality needs to change to 'does not experience desire to have sex with another'

Yes it would make life a lot simpler if you could have an asexuality test but I am pretty sure things aren't that cut and dry. I may be wrong and I am certainly open to that possibility as well.

[Data]

I have nothing to pick apart here. :)

I think the masturbation stuff came up specifically because of Data. They were making the point that masturbation (or sub in erection or genital stimulation of any kind) feels the same whether or not it was sparked by sexual attraction, therefore, since the feeling is the same, there's no reason to differentiate based on why it was triggered in the first place. I disagree. I think that just because it feels the same doesn't mean that it doesn't have relevance to the discussion of sexual orientation. I can make the same argument Data makes, but in reverse. Say a straight guy gets nekked and closes his eyes. he gets jerked off by a man and a woman. It feels the same regardless of who did it. Does that mean he's pansexual? No, of course not. Why? Because the feeling one gets from stimulation isn't the relevant factor.

Yeah but surely when heterosexual man thinks that he is getting a bj from hot female then it feels different to him, then if he would know that she had actually switched with a man. So I am interested in knowing where is the difference there you had limited sexual attraction to physical arousal that always feel the same anyway, so what makes the difference?

You can say that this is because he is attracted to the idea of hot female giving him a bj, but what makes that idea attractive if sexual attraction is just an erection. What else makes it better then?