Jump to content

What is sexual attraction in its relation to defining asexuality?


Beachwalker

  

3 members have voted

  1. 1. Does the current definition of asexual convey a shared understanding of what asexuality is?

    • Yes
      38
    • No
      30
  2. 2. Should the current definition of asexual be added to something along the lines of 'does not experience sexual attraction and/or has no desire for partnered sex?

    • Yes
      36
    • No
      32
  3. 3. Does it matter that there is no shared understanding of what sexual attraction is?

    • Yes
      38
    • No
      30


Recommended Posts

I never LOOK at people and THINK I want to have sex with them. I don't experience this magical sexual attraction. I am attracted to different people yes, but I suspect IN THE SAME WAY that asexuals are. I DO experience a desire for sex based on factors internal (that is, FEELING I want sex now that this, this, and this has happened).

I'll just quote myself for purposes of clarity. I still suspect that I am attracted to people in the same way that asexuals are attracted to people. I think my sexual desire prompts me to want to eventually have sex with them...not the attraction part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly

The first one points out I can't look at someone and think "Hey he's hot." which EVENTUALLY leads to "I'd do him because he's hot."

the second one points out no one looks at a person and automatically thinks "Hey, that's a nice price of ass, I'd tap that."

They weren't being contradicting.

In my conversations with, and through my observations of, sexuals through the years, I'm actually inclined to believe that, actually, a great many WOULD be inclined to 'tap that' based purely on physical appearance. *shrugs*

Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

If you separate the negative connotations from the word frigid, is it not a word that is similar to asexual? And couldn't it possibly be used interchangeably with the word asexual in some circumstances? The only reason the word has negative connotations is because being averse to having sex is considered abnormal, and that if someone rejects sex there must be something wrong with them. Isn't asexual visibility about normalizing being disinterested in sex, and that asexuals are normal and ok just the way they are? Surely this visibility work would require removing the negative connotations from words such as frigid and virgin,and say hey being frigid is ok?

Wow, those are great questions Beachy! My impulse is to say yes but what a huge and almost impossible task. Mind you, the word gay used to hold very negative connotations, and now it doesn't so much, and hopefully will continue to lose any stigma associated with it. You'd have to get asexuality and frigidity mentioned a lot in the media, and asexuals would have to adopt that term, reinvent its meaning. Its what they call appropriation. At present I think many asexuals would reject that word but perhaps they really ought to embrace it and reinvent its meaning? I'm seeing T-shirts: "F*** you, I'm frigid", "Frigid guy coming through but not on you"..... please stop me now :D

:lol:

Please dont stop, they are hilarious, I want the first one!

Okay just for you :)

"Fantastically frigid"

"Make my next one frigid"

"Frigid to the max"

"For frigid's sake!"

"Frigid is the new sexy"

I'm sure we could do this with enough funding :lol:

OMG they are bloody marvelous, I really think the concept of being frigid is cool could catch on, how many people would love it if the stigma was taken out of frigid?

*DexM pops his head above the parapet to deliver a new slogan and dissapears quickly*

"Rigid.But stayin Frigid"

Yay another one!

I love the idea of taking the stigma out of the word frigid. Maybe asexuality and frigidity aren't exactly the same (I don't know) but being "gay" in the old sense of the word (happy or playful) and being homosexual aren't exactly synonymous either. They came.to be because people used the word differently.

And while we're at it, how does "homosexual" come to mean attraction to ones own gender? Homo means "human" in the broad sense of "man" doesn't it, like "homosapiens" or "homoerectus" (no sniggering please)? So strictly speaking we are all homosexuals except those who aren't attracted to other humans? What does "hetero" mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

If you separate the negative connotations from the word frigid, is it not a word that is similar to asexual? And couldn't it possibly be used interchangeably with the word asexual in some circumstances? The only reason the word has negative connotations is because being averse to having sex is considered abnormal, and that if someone rejects sex there must be something wrong with them. Isn't asexual visibility about normalizing being disinterested in sex, and that asexuals are normal and ok just the way they are? Surely this visibility work would require removing the negative connotations from words such as frigid and virgin,and say hey being frigid is ok?

Wow, those are great questions Beachy! My impulse is to say yes but what a huge and almost impossible task. Mind you, the word gay used to hold very negative connotations, and now it doesn't so much, and hopefully will continue to lose any stigma associated with it. You'd have to get asexuality and frigidity mentioned a lot in the media, and asexuals would have to adopt that term, reinvent its meaning. Its what they call appropriation. At present I think many asexuals would reject that word but perhaps they really ought to embrace it and reinvent its meaning? I'm seeing T-shirts: "F*** you, I'm frigid", "Frigid guy coming through but not on you"..... please stop me now :D

:lol:

Please dont stop, they are hilarious, I want the first one!

Okay just for you :)

"Fantastically frigid"

"Make my next one frigid"

"Frigid to the max"

"For frigid's sake!"

"Frigid is the new sexy"

I'm sure we could do this with enough funding :lol:

OMG they are bloody marvelous, I really think the concept of being frigid is cool could catch on, how many people would love it if the stigma was taken out of frigid?

*DexM pops his head above the parapet to deliver a new slogan and dissapears quickly*

"Rigid.But stayin Frigid"

:lol:

'Being frigid is cool'

:lol: You beat me to it!

Oh! I think I just got Dex's one :blush:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first one points out I can't look at someone and think "Hey he's hot." which EVENTUALLY leads to "I'd do him because he's hot."

the second one points out no one looks at a person and automatically thinks "Hey, that's a nice price of ass, I'd tap that."

They weren't being contradicting.

In my conversations with, and through my observations of, sexuals through the years, I'm actually inclined to believe that, actually, a great many WOULD be inclined to 'tap that' based purely on physical appearance. *shrugs*

Isn't it kind of rude to call all those people pigs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

Oh that's interesting. So if I'm attracted to anything different from me I'm hetero sexual. So that gives me a name for my sexual attraction to aliens, animals, and gardening tools. Just kidding!! But how weird is language! Words change meaning depending on how they're used and who uses them.

Edit: or in fact hetero sexual could be attraction to anyone who isn't me I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if I stay any longer, I'll get in trouble with Ith up there.

FYI, I mod Hot Box <_< Why do you think you'd get in trouble with me? (My name is at the bottom of the index of this forum 'cause I need to keep working on the Aro Thread index). Quten is mod here <3

And while we're at it, how does "homosexual" come to mean attraction to ones own gender? Homo means "human" in the broad sense of "man" doesn't it, like "homosapiens" or "homoerectus" (no sniggering please)? So strictly speaking we are all homosexuals except those who aren't attracted to other humans? What does "hetero" mean?

The word homosexual is a Greek and Latin hybrid with the first element derived from Greek ὁμός homos, 'same' (not related to the Latin homo, 'man', as in Homo sapiens), thus connoting sexual acts and affections between members of the same sex, including lesbianism.

Heterosexuality (Greek έτερος [héteros] hetero meaning "different") is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly

And if I stay any longer, I'll get in trouble with Ith up there.

FYI, I mod Hot Box <_< Why do you think you'd get in trouble with me? (My name is at the bottom of the index of this forum 'cause I need to keep working on the Aro Thread index). Quten is mod here <3

You can worry about getting into trouble with me, if you like. (And, yes, I'm being silly. :P )

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to add that, as far as I can tell, no one is really policing another's orientation. Although I do think the definition needs to be looked over again. I'm not openly ace, nor do I plan to be, since my understanding of sexual attraction is, at best, extremely shaky. I do like talking about it though!

Kaoru, as far as I can tell, I don't think LG was, in any way, policing your orientation. I do think, however, she is trying to point out that "sexual attraction" and "sexual desire" are still terms that get confused... whether it is by themselves or with each other. I think it also points out that what was once taken for granted is now being examined much more closely.

I'd have to disagree that sexuals do think, "man I'd tap that" with the majority of attractive people they encounter. If I were to show a picture of a man's six-pack to a group of heterosexual women, they might end up in a giggling frenzy saying, "that's hot", "I want to eat him up!", act playful and coy, whatever.

I think it works on a bell curve: the majority of folks are "grays" and/or "demis" while very few people are extremely sexual or extremely... asexual (I'm thinking straight up aromantic/asexual/non-libidoist). But I think it's unfortunate that most asexuals do tend to compare themselves to the very sexual... sexuals and then cry out, "OH MY GOD IS EVERY SEXUAL LIKE THIS?!! WHAT HAS HAPPENED MY ENTIRE PERSPECTIVE OF THE WORLD HAS CHANGED I CAN'T EVEN my brain broke". They then have a tendency to base the difference on the extremely sexual's experience: "man I'd tap that. And that. And that. And that. And that. And that. With a side order of fries." (to be fair, I went through this phase as well.)

The more I read about the experiences between an ace and a sexual, the more it seems to be much more than just "Oh I don't feel sexual attraction/desire/donkeyhorsebutt". I honestly think asexuality delves much more deeply than those two words alone. I agree that this strong emphasis on "sexual attraction" is extremely shaky, and perhaps the weight should be placed more on the internal drive for sex. This seems to be the strongest difference in a mixed relationship: sexual says, "I want sex but my asexy partner never throws me down and have their way with me! I feel unattractive, unloved, etc" asexual says, "I don't feel any motivation to do anything sexual with my partner. I'd love it if my partner baked me cookies instead. Mmm, cookies. Chocolate chips are the best. And maybe a foot rub. That would be awesome! Oh, wait, they want sex? Where did that come from?"

This talk about removing this social stigma reminds me of SlutWalk. It started in Toronto as a response to a cop's off hand remark and gained a lot of momentum very quickly. Its mandate is to spread awareness about sexual assault, specifically rape cases with female victims (although has since became broader), victim-shaming and sex-shaming. They've trying to reclaim the word "slut" and trying to change its derogatory term from a "sexually 'easy' woman" to a someone who isn't ashamed of sex and their bodies.

Could this work for asexuality? It arguably could, but I don't think that's the point. Even if you do remove the baggage associated with frigidity, it's always used in a social context. At that point, to reclaim "frigid as the new asexuality" promotes asexuality as a social movement and not as a sexual orientation. I think therein lies the fatal flaw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

I don't think I understand what you're saying about orientation vs social movement. Didn't homosexuality have a social movement in reclaiming "queer"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
test account

oh, and I meant to add, for those who may be offended by the "I'd tap that" thing, yes, sexual people like myself see a fine body and think "I wouldn't mind some of that" but its mostly fantasy. I wouldn't dream of helping myself as if the person had no choice in it, and I certainly wouldn't make myself obnoxious with unwanted attention. Its more a sense of "if I was so lucky to find myself in a situation with that person, and there was no reason to avoid sex, I would enjoy having it." Which is sometimes why people take care not to get into situations that may lead to insurmountable temptation--because there is a reason they should avoid sex with that person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly

oh, and I meant to add, for those who may be offended by the "I'd tap that" thing, yes, sexual people like myself see a fine body and think "I wouldn't mind some of that" but its mostly fantasy. I wouldn't dream of helping myself as if the person had no choice in it, and I certainly wouldn't make myself obnoxious with unwanted attention. Its more a sense of "if I was so lucky to find myself in a situation with that person, and there was no reason to avoid sex, I would enjoy having it." Which is sometimes why people take care not to get into situations that may lead to insurmountable temptation--because there is a reason they should avoid sex with that person.

Thank you for that elaboration! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.... I guess sexual attraction and sexual desire seem clean cut to me because I understand them in my situation. Not everyone is the same so their situation is the same.

For me, sexual attraction is like the ability to be physically attracticed to someone. Like looking at a person and thinking "Oh he's cute/handsome/sexy/hot." I can't do that. My brain doesn't do that. So I can't look at someone and go "He's sexy... I'd probably do him if I could" or something like that.

And sexual desire would be the desire for sex. Like, if I go to my boyfriends house and get aroused. I didn't get aroused because he looks hot. I got aroused because me and him click (I'm demiromantic) in a certain way. He makes me feel good.

That attraction to him, the ability for me to just look at him and feel something/get aroused isn't there. And that's what sexual attraction is.

Maybe that sounds like a lot of BS to you. And maybe it's not like that for everyone, but that's why I like the current definition. Because it makes sense TO ME. All this internal/external stuff is too psychological for me and I'd stop identifying as asexual if it was changed to that. I'd stop using the label and tell people "I'm just not attracted to people." Which is exactly what it is.

--edit--

And going back up and reading. I know a lot of gay people who when asked we'll say the words "I'm attracted to guys." But I guess the people I know are more classy than the people other people know because if someone told me "I want to bang other dudes" I'd probably walk away and never talk to them again because I'm tired of sex crazed friends.

It's who you're attracted to. Heteros are attracted to the opposite gender, homosexuals to the same gender and so on and so forth. Take out the word "Sexual" in "Sexual attraction" and that's it. You're ATTRACTED. But it seems like everyone here is overanalyzing because the word sexual is there. Of course, if you overanalyze ANYTHING it'll suddenly not make sense.

And not I feel like, by your definition, everyone will tell my I'm demi and not a.

Well, I guess I'm done here.

The manner in which you are using the conceptions of sexual attraction and sexual desire is something that is exclusive to AVEN, in that there is too much focus on the word 'desire' in the literal sense here, especially in regards to personal will, and the nonsensical attempt to treat the two terms as somehow being separate and yet one and the same in the current wording of the definition. When it is the case that sexual attraction and sexual desire are simply two different terms for the same phenomenon, where the former is often more formal a term than the latter. Let me explain clearly once again: these are not ambiguous or complex terms or concepts, they are very simple and very easy to over-think and confuse, thanks to an evident misuse of language on this site.

Attraction is merely attraction, that which catches your attention. How it is defined can only come after the initial attraction (e.g. think of how many users here use the terms aesthetic or romantic to distinguish their attraction to something or someone, such a thing can only be determined after either one rationalizes the attraction, or recognizes what feelings or thoughts are involved with it). So, in order for an attraction to be a sexual one, there has to be some element of libido involved, that is to say, there has to be sexual cravings in some form (sexual arousal, thoughts, fantasies or feelings could be examples: it does not require one to actually want to have sex, and they do not have to be strong thoughts, feelings, etc. either). A directed sexual craving, one that is tied up with a particular subject (person, animal, etc.) or object (things such as cars, or particular body parts, etc.), this is what would formulate a sexual desire, whether the person is willing to have that directed craving or not, or willing to have sex or not, some part of them craves sexual interaction involving that particular subject/object.

Now, the reason why these two seemingly separate terms of sexual attraction and sexual desire are synonymous, is that the latter is impossible without some form of attraction, and the former is impossible without a sexual craving to make it a sexually based attraction. There can be no directed sexual craving without that which it is directed towards or tied up with, otherwise it would merely be libido or a craving in itself. Something has to draw attention in order for there to be desire, and there has to be sexual cravings, willing or not, for the attraction to be considered sexual. A person who merely has sexual cravings that are not tied up with any particular subjects/objects, or lacks any sexual cravings at all, would therefore be asexual.

I think some of the greatest confusion lies in how the word attraction is often used by sexuals. Often it is implied that any kind of attraction (especially concerned towards others) must necessarily be sexual attraction. This is evidently false however, as we do have asexuals who are attracted to others (those who are or have been in relationships for example), yet have no sexual cravings tied up with the person they are attracted to. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that an attraction based on something other than a sexual craving (aesthetic, intellectual, romantic, etc.), might lead to sexual cravings later on once a relationship has become more involved, in what is often referred to as being a romantic relationship, or rather one based in love of the other person (this chain of events would bring us to what AVEN refers to as a demisexual).

Somehow I find it difficult to believe that asexuals and sexuals somehow experience attraction differently, when it is rather likely that the only difference involved is the feelings and thoughts associated with the attraction. There seems to be a kind of disconnection in sexual cravings, that is if there are any at all, in asexuals towards their partners or any other particular subjects/objects, which sexuals do not possess. It has little to do with motivation or what one is willing or not willing to do, but primarily with cravings and what they may or may not be tied up with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Asexuality as a sexual orientation says that people experience an extreme, if not total, disconnect between romantic love and sex (and, for some, a disconnect between platonic love and romantic love). The implicit message of other sexual orientations is that most sexual people gain some form of sexual gratification from having sex with another person. In fact, masturbating a lot is like talking to yourself. A lot. It's not fulfilling, it's not what the person needs because you don't get that intimate exchange when you're talking with another person. It doesn't satiate the need to have the connection with another person (preferably one's partner).

Stepping short of the gray area, romantic asexuals with a libido (sex repulsion aside) are the fuzziest aces. Romantic aces still feel the desire to be in a romantic relationship, to feel that connection with someone. This love can be expressed in different ways: physically (cuddling <3); emotionally; verbally; I-don't-know-whatsitz....ally... but sexually expressing themselves never comes up, even in a romantic relationship with sex. While they experience a need for sexual contact, most romantic aces are perfectly fine with masturbating by themselves. It's just an itch to be scratched. There is no deeply rooted need for connection tied with the itch. It's just something one's body does sometimes, like urinating. (Sorry for the gross comparison)

Asexuality as a social movement challenges a lot of norms about romantic relationships. Since AVEN tries to be so open with its definition, a lot of people slap it onto anything that shows someone is squicked out, disinterested or alienated by sex. You think genitals are weird? Asexual. You think sex is weird? Asexual. Does your sexual expression not line up with your friends and the media? Asexual. Are you thinking about North America's obsession with sexualizing the body? Asexual. Notice how these thoughts have very little to do with one's deeper relationship with sex and romantic love. They're more about social commentary on or how one feels about North America's (or the western world) perspective of sex and love.

I hope that helped. ^^

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Not all people are alike. Just because you want to group all the like people under one cute little category, doesn't mean it'll work. And it won't work because people think and feel too differently.

So not all people are alike, therefore you cannot group people, therefore the phrase asexual should not exist because there's no such grouping. I'm fine with that. No more labels! But then you go right ahead and say "I'm asexual", so you're throwing yourself into a group. In order to be asexual, you have to have that (at least) one key component that is asexuality. So yes, no two people are exactly the same, but no one is saying they are... all we're saying is that all asexuals should probably share whatever trait it is that constitutes asexuality.

Bookworm, if you think sexual attraction must be based on physical appearance, you're wrong about that. Many people, me included, aren't particularly attracted to physicality. I'm attracted to people's personalities, brain power, way of expressing themselves... voices mean a lot to me. That doesn't make me asexual. That just means the things I'm attracted to aren't physical.

As for the "he's hot, I'd bang him!" thing... some people probably do feel that way, but most don't. I say shit like that all the time, but it's just an acknowledgment of someone else's hotness. It doesn't actually mean I want to go have sex with them. Sure, in my fantasy I would, because in my fantasy I can make that person whoever I want... they can be smart and funny and silly and dorky and sweet... but in real life, no, i don't actually want to do anything. People say stupid shit ALL THE TIME. If you're basing your concept of global sexuality on stupid bullshit 16-24 year olds say to their friends, you're going to have a very skewed concept of sexuality. As much as people talk big, how many people do you actually know who go out and have completely random sex with frequency? Probably very, very few.

I agree completely with Naossuu that the majority of people are gray/demi. I've been saying that since I arrived on AVEN. Focusing on sexual attraction, therefore, makes little sense. I also agree with Beachy that continuing to say that sexual attraction is clear when it's obvious that it's not clear is a slap in the face to everyone who's confused about it.

EDIT: I just read Hap's post and I wholeheartedly agree (assuming I understand). First there is attraction. There's no difference between aesthetic, romantic, or sexual... attraction is attraction. If one develops some sort of sexual desire, that sexual desire is paired with the attraction and it becomes sexual attraction. Right? I agree that sexuals and asexuals experience attraction the same. It certainly appears that many asexuals experience sexual attraction... arousal directed toward a specific object... but that never translates into a craving or a draw toward sex with that person. So, which is more important?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly

Now, the reason why these two seemingly separate terms of sexual attraction and sexual desire are synonymous, is that the latter is impossible without some form of attraction, and the former is impossible without a sexual craving to make it a sexually based attraction. There can be no directed sexual craving without that which it is directed towards or tied up with, otherwise it would merely be libido or a craving in itself. Something has to draw attention in order for there to be desire, and there has to be sexual cravings, willing or not, for the attraction to be considered sexual. A person who merely has sexual cravings that are not tied up with any particular subjects/objects, or lacks any sexual cravings at all, would therefore be asexual.

...

Somehow I find it difficult to believe that asexuals and sexuals somehow experience attraction differently, when it is rather likely that the only difference involved is the feelings and thoughts associated with the attraction. There seems to be a kind of disconnection in sexual cravings, that is if there are any at all, in asexuals towards their partners or any other particular subjects/objects, which sexuals do not possess. It has little to do with motivation or what one is willing or not willing to do, but primarily with cravings and what they may or may not be tied up with.

Your description makes a great deal of sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I understand what you're saying about orientation vs social movement. Didn't homosexuality have a social movement in reclaiming "queer"?

"Queer" was a derogatory term used to refer to homosexuals. "Frigid" is not used to refer to asexuals. Honestly the closest we have to an ace-specific insult is 'broken'.

Also, 'frigid' will always have connotations of cold because that's where it originated and is still a large portion of its use. By attempting to 'reclaim' that word we would intentionally be associating asexuality with coldness and distance (potentially even harshness) and I don't think we as a community want that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

Well.... I guess sexual attraction and sexual desire seem clean cut to me because I understand them in my situation. Not everyone is the same so their situation is the same.

For me, sexual attraction is like the ability to be physically attracticed to someone. Like looking at a person and thinking "Oh he's cute/handsome/sexy/hot." I can't do that. My brain doesn't do that. So I can't look at someone and go "He's sexy... I'd probably do him if I could" or something like that.

And sexual desire would be the desire for sex. Like, if I go to my boyfriends house and get aroused. I didn't get aroused because he looks hot. I got aroused because me and him click (I'm demiromantic) in a certain way. He makes me feel good.

That attraction to him, the ability for me to just look at him and feel something/get aroused isn't there. And that's what sexual attraction is.

Maybe that sounds like a lot of BS to you. And maybe it's not like that for everyone, but that's why I like the current definition. Because it makes sense TO ME. All this internal/external stuff is too psychological for me and I'd stop identifying as asexual if it was changed to that. I'd stop using the label and tell people "I'm just not attracted to people." Which is exactly what it is.

--edit--

And going back up and reading. I know a lot of gay people who when asked we'll say the words "I'm attracted to guys." But I guess the people I know are more classy than the people other people know because if someone told me "I want to bang other dudes" I'd probably walk away and never talk to them again because I'm tired of sex crazed friends.

It's who you're attracted to. Heteros are attracted to the opposite gender, homosexuals to the same gender and so on and so forth. Take out the word "Sexual" in "Sexual attraction" and that's it. You're ATTRACTED. But it seems like everyone here is overanalyzing because the word sexual is there. Of course, if you overanalyze ANYTHING it'll suddenly not make sense.

And not I feel like, by your definition, everyone will tell my I'm demi and not a.

Well, I guess I'm done here.

The manner in which you are using the conceptions of sexual attraction and sexual desire is something that is exclusive to AVEN, in that there is too much focus on the word 'desire' in the literal sense here, especially in regards to personal will, and the nonsensical attempt to treat the two terms as somehow being separate and yet one and the same in the current wording of the definition. When it is the case that sexual attraction and sexual desire are simply two different terms for the same phenomenon, where the former is often more formal a term than the latter. Let me explain clearly once again: these are not ambiguous or complex terms or concepts, they are very simple and very easy to over-think and confuse, thanks to an evident misuse of language on this site.

Attraction is merely attraction, that which catches your attention. How it is defined can only come after the initial attraction (e.g. think of how many users here use the terms aesthetic or romantic to distinguish their attraction to something or someone, such a thing can only be determined after either one rationalizes the attraction, or recognizes what feelings or thoughts are involved with it). So, in order for an attraction to be a sexual one, there has to be some element of libido involved, that is to say, there has to be sexual cravings in some form (sexual arousal, thoughts, fantasies or feelings could be examples: it does not require one to actually want to have sex, and they do not have to be strong thoughts, feelings, etc. either). A directed sexual craving, one that is tied up with a particular subject (person, animal, etc.) or object (things such as cars, or particular body parts, etc.), this is what would formulate a sexual desire, whether the person is willing to have that directed craving or not, or willing to have sex or not, some part of them craves sexual interaction involving that particular subject/object.

Now, the reason why these two seemingly separate terms of sexual attraction and sexual desire are synonymous, is that the latter is impossible without some form of attraction, and the former is impossible without a sexual craving to make it a sexually based attraction. There can be no directed sexual craving without that which it is directed towards or tied up with, otherwise it would merely be libido or a craving in itself. Something has to draw attention in order for there to be desire, and there has to be sexual cravings, willing or not, for the attraction to be considered sexual. A person who merely has sexual cravings that are not tied up with any particular subjects/objects, or lacks any sexual cravings at all, would therefore be asexual.

I think some of the greatest confusion lies in how the word attraction is often used by sexuals. Often it is implied that any kind of attraction (especially concerned towards others) must necessarily be sexual attraction. This is evidently false however, as we do have asexuals who are attracted to others (those who are or have been in relationships for example), yet have no sexual cravings tied up with the person they are attracted to. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that an attraction based on something other than a sexual craving (aesthetic, intellectual, romantic, etc.), might lead to sexual cravings later on once a relationship has become more involved, in what is often referred to as being a romantic relationship, or rather one based in love of the other person (this chain of events would bring us to what AVEN refers to as a demisexual).

Somehow I find it difficult to believe that asexuals and sexuals somehow experience attraction differently, when it is rather likely that the only difference involved is the feelings and thoughts associated with the attraction. There seems to be a kind of disconnection in sexual cravings, that is if there are any at all, in asexuals towards their partners or any other particular subjects/objects, which sexuals do not possess. It has little to do with motivation or what one is willing or not willing to do, but primarily with cravings and what they may or may not be tied up with.

This is a post that I think deserves t be stickied somewhere. I think part of the confusion lies in the fact that most of the people trying to come up with these definition and/or explain these definitions are people that don't experience sexual attraction or desire to begin with. Therefore, its easy to overthink something that you don't really experience for yourself. Sometimes I think there should be more weight put on the description sexuals give us because they would tend to have the better understanding of such things simply due to the fact that they actually experience some things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The manner in which you are using the conceptions of sexual attraction and sexual desire is something that is exclusive to AVEN, in that there is too much focus on the word 'desire' in the literal sense here, especially in regards to personal will, and the nonsensical attempt to treat the two terms as somehow being separate and yet one and the same in the current wording of the definition. When it is the case that sexual attraction and sexual desire are simply two different terms for the same phenomenon, where the former is often more formal a term than the latter. Let me explain clearly once again: these are not ambiguous or complex terms or concepts, they are very simple and very easy to over-think and confuse, thanks to an evident misuse of language on this site.

Attraction is merely attraction, that which catches your attention. How it is defined can only come after the initial attraction (e.g. think of how many users here use the terms aesthetic or romantic to distinguish their attraction to something or someone, such a thing can only be determined after either one rationalizes the attraction, or recognizes what feelings or thoughts are involved with it). So, in order for an attraction to be a sexual one, there has to be some element of libido involved, that is to say, there has to be sexual cravings in some form (sexual arousal, thoughts, fantasies or feelings could be examples: it does not require one to actually want to have sex, and they do not have to be strong thoughts, feelings, etc. either). A directed sexual craving, one that is tied up with a particular subject (person, animal, etc.) or object (things such as cars, or particular body parts, etc.), this is what would formulate a sexual desire, whether the person is willing to have that directed craving or not, or willing to have sex or not, some part of them craves sexual interaction involving that particular subject/object.

Now, the reason why these two seemingly separate terms of sexual attraction and sexual desire are synonymous, is that the latter is impossible without some form of attraction, and the former is impossible without a sexual craving to make it a sexually based attraction. There can be no directed sexual craving without that which it is directed towards or tied up with, otherwise it would merely be libido or a craving in itself. Something has to draw attention in order for there to be desire, and there has to be sexual cravings, willing or not, for the attraction to be considered sexual. A person who merely has sexual cravings that are not tied up with any particular subjects/objects, or lacks any sexual cravings at all, would therefore be asexual.

I think some of the greatest confusion lies in how the word attraction is often used by sexuals. Often it is implied that any kind of attraction (especially concerned towards others) must necessarily be sexual attraction. This is evidently false however, as we do have asexuals who are attracted to others (those who are or have been in relationships for example), yet have no sexual cravings tied up with the person they are attracted to. Furthermore, it is entirely possible that an attraction based on something other than a sexual craving (aesthetic, intellectual, romantic, etc.), might lead to sexual cravings later on once a relationship has become more involved, in what is often referred to as being a romantic relationship, or rather one based in love of the other person (this chain of events would bring us to what AVEN refers to as a demisexual).

Somehow I find it difficult to believe that asexuals and sexuals somehow experience attraction differently, when it is rather likely that the only difference involved is the feelings and thoughts associated with the attraction. There seems to be a kind of disconnection in sexual cravings, that is if there are any at all, in asexuals towards their partners or any other particular subjects/objects, which sexuals do not possess. It has little to do with motivation or what one is willing or not willing to do, but primarily with cravings and what they may or may not be tied up with.

Wow. That really... made a lot of sense.

I never understood why some aces would feel kind of outraged for sexuals to identify them... if aces experience the lack, isn't it better to know what it all means to someone who has it? It's really hard to explain something you never felt before!

I totally second Vamp's suggestion. Sticky please? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think there should be more weight put on the description sexuals give us because they would tend to have the better understanding of such things simply due to the fact that they actually experience some things.

The problem is, just like Hap says, attraction is attraction. so asexuals read the descriptions of sexuals' attraction and say "I feel that too, but i'm asexual, so that must not be sexual attraction", and then carry on as if there's some mystical secret thing called sexual attraction that we're hiding from them. But there's not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BookwormKaoru

I don't know what a sticky is, but if it includes my post, please take it out an just use her post. I don't approve of my posts being anywhere otherthan where I put them.

--edit--

Nevermind, I figured it out, and now I really don't agree with having it done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly

Pinning threads to the top of a folder is generally reserved for more official admod communications and, as such, I'm not certain this thread would be entirely appropriate.

However, that doesn't stop anyone here from further discussing and refining a definition of sexual attraction that could be proposed for use in other parts of the site, such as the FAQ. (In fact, I rather encourage you to do so.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

Sometimes I think there should be more weight put on the description sexuals give us because they would tend to have the better understanding of such things simply due to the fact that they actually experience some things.

The problem is, just like Hap says, attraction is attraction. so asexuals read the descriptions of sexuals' attraction and say "I feel that too, but i'm asexual, so that must not be sexual attraction", and then carry on as if there's some mystical secret thing called sexual attraction that we're hiding from them. But there's not.

Which goes back to streamlining the definition to make it more clear what being asexual does and does not mean. If sexual attraction, or at least being sexual, incorporates some sort of drive towards partnered sex, that clarifies what these things actually mean. Beyond clarifying what being asexual and, in comparison sexual, actually means, there's little we can do to prevent people from trying to force the definition to match their specific traits. We cannot prevent people from believing their something they're not or from trying to convince people they're something they may not actually be.

I make no statement about who is asexual and who isn't, but I will say that simply wanting to be asexual isn't enough and trying to force the meaning of what it is to be asexual to one's specific make-up, when it might not actually naturally fit, doesn't make one any more or less asexual. Definitions are there for a reason and if a given definition is so broad that it can apply to virtually anyone, its not a particularly useful definition. If that definition is narrowed to only apply to a more concentrated segment of people, that means it won't apply to some that it might previously have applied to. It doesn't change what those people are or are not internally, but it does clarify which labels they can honestly adapt to themselves or not adapt to themselves.

Labels are never going to be perfect when it comes to something as complicated as human sexuality. With that said, however, I think there is something that can be done about at least improving upon some of the labels we use. Streamlining and clarifying definitions would go a long way not only in establishing who is and is not asexual and why, but also in improving visibility and outside understanding of what asexuality actually is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vampyremage

Pinning threads to the top of a folder is generally reserved for more official admod communications and, as such, I'm not certain this thread would be entirely appropriate.

However, that doesn't stop anyone here from further discussing and refining a definition of sexual attraction that could be proposed for use in other parts of the site, such as the FAQ. (In fact, I rather encourage you to do so.)

Do you think we might be able to open some sort of semi-formal or formal discussion of such?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to point out that, during the election, I did suggest a thread such as this be pinned. So as to have one central 'what Asexual means' debate thread, instead of numerous ones every so often.

Aside from that: Because I experience arousal every now and then, I'm not actually Asexual? That I can only truly be Asexual if I'm 'broken'? As that's what I'm getting from some posts: That arousal=sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pinning threads to the top of a folder is generally reserved for more official admod communications and, as such, I'm not certain this thread would be entirely appropriate.

The Aromantic thread is pinned and that is for general communication on Aromanticism, not admod communication. Same with the PM a member you've never PMed before and the Asexual Parents thread. Etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to point out that, during the election, I did suggest a thread such as this be pinned. So as to have one central 'what Asexual means' debate thread, instead of numerous ones every so often.

Aside from that: Because I experience arousal every now and then, I'm not actually Asexual? That I can only truly be Asexual if I'm 'broken'? As that's what I'm getting from some posts: That arousal=sexual attraction.

Ah, interesting question! Arousal focused on a specific object is sexual attraction IMO. What else would it possibly be? I've gotten into trouble because sexual attraction can be much less than that... arousal need not occur. Thinking about someone all the time, wanting to be close to them, butterflies in the stomach... all these things are sexual attraction. They are also found in other forms of attraction as well. Arousal is one of the few things that you find in sexual attraction that you don't find elsewhere.

Does that make you not asexual? I don't know. My personal opinion on the subject is that, no, that shouldn't have any relevance to one's asexuality. So, in my opinion, is it sexual attraction? Yes (if it's brought on by a specific object rather than appearing out of thin air). Does the existence of that sexual attraction mean you're not asexual? In my opinion, no, because sexual attraction is the wrong test for asexuality.

Again, just my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Qutenkuddly

Pinning threads to the top of a folder is generally reserved for more official admod communications and, as such, I'm not certain this thread would be entirely appropriate.

The Aromantic thread is pinned and that is for general communication on Aromanticism, not admod communication. Same with the PM a member you've never PMed before and the Asexual Parents thread. Etc etc.

I did use the word 'generally' for a reason.

Pinning threads to the top of a folder is generally reserved for more official admod communications and, as such, I'm not certain this thread would be entirely appropriate.

However, that doesn't stop anyone here from further discussing and refining a definition of sexual attraction that could be proposed for use in other parts of the site, such as the FAQ. (In fact, I rather encourage you to do so.)

Do you think we might be able to open some sort of semi-formal or formal discussion of such?

Could you clarify what you mean by 'formal' in this context?

You could certainly open a thread titled something like 'Defining sexual attraction' with the stated purpose of doing so.

Let me think on the whole idea for a bit. I'll see what other solutions are feasible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...