Jump to content

Sexual Attraction Debate 101


Naosuu

Recommended Posts

This 'aesthetic checking out' other people is what a lot of sexual people are going to consider sexual attraction...I agree with Qute in that it may very well be instinctual, but who says sexual attraction isn't instinctual? It really seems that noticing specific body parts that are generally considered sexual body parts is at the very least beginning to be sexually attracted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This 'aesthetic checking out' other people is what a lot of sexual people are going to consider sexual attraction...I agree with Qute in that it may very well be instinctual, but who says sexual attraction isn't instinctual? It really seems that noticing specific body parts that are generally considered sexual body parts is at the very least beginning to be sexually attracted.

It may be the beginning of being sexually attracted, but no more so than waking up to 'morning wood'. Instinctive response =/= cognitive attraction.

Edit: BTW, I not expressing to argue the point of whether or not the definition should be changed. Frankly, I think modifying to include sexual desire makes a lot of sense. I'm just expressing some of my thoughts on what is and isn't sexual attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

You are confusing attraction to mean the same as arousal. What about men who can get turned on by other men/gay porn sometimes? Or me who watches lesbian porn? Are you saying everyone is sexually attracted to everything? I enjoy being touched because it feels good, does that mean I could be sexually attracted to an alien if it touched me?

I can't see a feeling. Just because I can picture myself being touched doesn't mean I want them. Sexual attraction has to do with what you see sexually, external factors, not what you feel which is arousal.

I experience aesthetic attraction, where I can see where a person looks good or I have a preference on what looks better because I also experience physical attraction. I look at attractive people as art paintings, not sexual beings. I also experience sensual attraction like being touched.

I belive there is a difference between sexual arousal, sexual attraction and sexual desire.

Arousal = turned on, hard on, Viagra etc.

Attraction = liking someone, being flirty etc sexual chemistry.

Desire = wanting to follow through with your attraction towards someone.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100715020515AA0s4sv

I personally can become aroused by turn ons, not people specially, but I can't enjoy sex because I'm not sexually attracted to anyone/anything and I'd much rather do it myself. Turn ons are turn ons, they are not based on a specific person, they are just a feeling of good and arousal.

People who say 'visual arousal' are referring to being aroused by visual stimuli.

People who say 'physical arousal' are referring to being aroused by tactile stimuli.

In other words, you could get aroused wearing a blindfold if someone was touching you the right way. - http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120106151353AA4q9xb

This is why some asexuals can still enjoy sex, being intimate, even though they don't have the attraction or desire to have it, like myself.

Hmm, perhaps I wasn't clear before, but I agree that if one becomes aroused from touch, then that's just a response to a physical stimulation. However, if one experiences arousal by simply looking at something, like porn, I consider that sexual attraction. Getting turned-on by standing close to someone you love? That's also sexual attraction. Does it matter if the acts, the people, the setting or the mood arouses you? No, I don't think so. I think, as SM has pointed out, these are natural variations in what is "sexually attractive".

To answer your question: yes, if a guy feels "genital tingliness" or feels "turned-on" from gay porn, he is sexually attracted to gay porn. It doesn't matter if it was to the situation, the people, the setting... whatever it was, it caused him to react in a sexual way without touch. Something in his reptilian brain saw the stimuli (porn), marked it off as sexual and made his body react appropriately to the information. I think this is what "sexual attraction" is trying to explain.

However, this doesn't invalidate his sexual orientation in any way. It is merely a facet of his sexuality, just like heterosexual women getting turned on by lesbian porn. Or if a gay man likes looking at women's butts it doesn't make him bi or straight. I don't see why noticing anything sexual should invalidate an asexual's identity either. Of course, this gets a bit complicated with deeply closeted gay men consciously identifying as straight... but let's put that aside.

No, not everything should fall under the "sexual attraction" omnibus. People can still appreciate people who look good, or they think looks pretty. However, if one's focus is on the target's breasts, butt, broad shoulders/thick neck... I'm less inclined to call it aesthetic appreciation.

I also agree that asexuals can enjoy sex for many and the same reasons as a sexual: increased emotional and physical intimacy, like making their partner feel good, like knowing it makes their partner happy... but these reasons don't make an asexual a sexual and vice versa. Just looking at those alone, it appears there is no difference between a sexual and an asexual, but clearly there is. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here, right? That's why I think it runs a bit deeper than that. It's simply just that: asexuals lack sexual desire or the want for sexual relations.

Think of it this way: I am totally neutral to movies and I wouldn't go out of my way to watch them. I actually like watching movie trailers because they tend to be really interesting and I like how they build up tension (analogous to sexual attraction). However, watching the trailer is generally not enough to make me haul my lazy ass to the nearest movie theatre (lacking sexual desire). When I do get pulled into a movie theatre, I know that I generally have a good time (liking sex). Still, the experience isn't enough to make me chase after every new movie that comes out (neutral/indifferent feelings overall).

Just to play hard ball... (and in no way am I trying to invalidate you or anything, but merely pointing this out)

Did you notice that you're jumping through hoops to prove you don't experience sexual attraction in a "sexual" way (i.e. get turned on by the turn on and not to people)? Why does it threaten your identity? It really doesn't and shouldn't. It's part of AVEN's death hold on the definition, throwing any asexual who dares to say they experience "sexual attraction" in a sexual way off the boat and into the "Gray" sea.

I can agree that sexual attraction may be a catch all term that includes anything sexual. Looking at porn doesn't always mean you are sexually attracted to the people involved though. You are attracted to the acts themselves and feelings you get from looking at it, not a specific person. It does matter what specific thing has turned you on. Feelings and emotions are different that looks. I do not look at any specific person when watching porn and say I am turned on by them (man or woman). Like I said visual stimuli. is different than physical stimuli. Also picturing yourself enjoying these acts from porn doesn't really mean sexual attraction either as there isn't a specific person that has turned you on. I could be blind and still enjoy these acts.

Just because breasts and other features are common to those who experience sexual attraction doesn't mean they are in fact sexual. I happen to notice breasts a lot in public just because I happen to see them, not because I'm attracted to them. Same with any other feature you just happen to like in a none sexual way.

You said you liked

shapely butts

, which in my opinion is physical attraction. It would only be sexual attraction if you imagine doing anything sexual with this person because of this feature. Desire would be to act on that attraction.

I am not jumping through hoops to prove I don't experience something. I know something is missing compared to sexual people and that's sexual attraction. I never look at anyone in a sexual way when I'm out in public. Even when I was romantically attracted to guys in high school I never pictured myself having sex with them, let alone the desire to chase after them for it.

Please look at this link which explains the different attractions: http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Attraction

Also Physical attraction on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness

Sexual arousal does not always mean there was sexual attraction that happened to cause it. Believe it or not you can become aroused without attraction. I would say arousal is more linked to libido/sex drive compared to attraction.

With all this said though, I still do believe sexual desire should be added since that is pretty big on what asexuality means as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

This 'aesthetic checking out' other people is what a lot of sexual people are going to consider sexual attraction...I agree with Qute in that it may very well be instinctual, but who says sexual attraction isn't instinctual? It really seems that noticing specific body parts that are generally considered sexual body parts is at the very least beginning to be sexually attracted.

Oh I agree...

And this is why I find "sexual attraction" so problematic, and consider desire a more important factor, personally.

Going back to my paranoid ex-girlfriend example: Let's assume that she was right, and that there was some danger to me "straying" from checking out other people. How does it happen? What really matters is the concrete desire, the follow through. If I'm simply checking out other girls (or dudes for that matter) and there is no follow through desire to do anything with them which leads me to cheat, then you can just write it off as meaningless aesthetic appreciation of nice-looking people.

It's the fact that there is ZERO chance of me hooking up with any random person, no matter how good looking, that really matters in that particular scenario. I know, we're going back into "openness to casual sex" territory here, which isn't really my intent. It's more about that process of how aesthetic appreciation can have follow-through sexual thoughts or not - or of varying intensities of connection between the two. This is what I think people on the sexual-grey-asexual spectrum probably experience differently, at least to some extent. How much aesthetic appreciation triggers concrete sexual desire. It's one of many factors though of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at porn doesn't mean you are you attracted to the people involved though. You are attracted to the acts themselves and feelings you get from looking at it, not a specific person. It does matter what specific thing has turned you on. Feelings and emotions are different that looks. I do not look at any specific person when watching porn and say I am turned on by them (man or woman). Like I said visual stimuli. is different than physical stimuli. Also picturing yourself enjoy these acts doesn't mean sexual attraction either as there isn't a specific person that has turned you on. I could be blind and still enjoy these acts.

You said you liked

shapely butts

, which in my opinion is physical attraction. It would only be sexual attraction if you imagine doing anything sexual with this person because of this feature. Desire would be to act on that attraction.

I am not jumping through hoops to prove I don't experience something. I know something is missing compared to sexual people and that's sexual attraction. I never look at anyone in a sexual way when I'm out in public.

Please look at this link which explains the different attractions: http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Attraction

Also Physical attraction on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness

Sexual arousal does not mean there was sexual attraction that happened to cause it. Believe it or not you can become aroused without attraction.

Hmm, I would argue that thinking about sex can entail some level of sexual attraction as well. It's exactly like thinking about food when you're not totally full. What happens? You think about tasty food, maybe the aroma of certain dishes, the memories involved with those foods (like grandma's awesome shrimp and pork soup)... that's why it's funny whenever the host/guest of a cooking show exclaims, "man, now I'm hungry!". They may not have been hungry when they started, but in the presence of or thinking about delicious foods has finally incited them to salivate.

On one hand, I think about sex when I'm on AVEN and when I'm working on the essay. Is that sexual attraction? I'm personally inclined to say no, since I'm treating the subject of sex in a purely intellectual matter, nor am I thinking about the "down and dirty" details of sex. On the other hand, if I were to think about a sex scene, where I keep thinking about this sex scene and it causes my body to react, I'm more inclined to call it sexual attraction.

Hmm, I'm not entirely sure where you've got this idea, but I thought I made it clear that I agree arousal can happen in the absence of sexual attraction (particularly through physical stimulation). I'm personally more concerned about why one's body gets the same reactions when no touching was involved. This is why I brought porn into the discussion. It's the same idea with food and the cooking show: in this case, it is mostly through smell that can cause someone to salivate or think about other foods. With porn, it is mostly through sight that can cause someone to get "turned on" or think about sexual imagery.

If a group of people watch porn and you ask them what turned them on, you'll get entirely different answers: the acts; the sounds; the situation; a specific action like the woman/man doing X; etc. According to your assertions so far, Steve and Mark, who was turned on by sound and the situation respectively, can be asexual since they was not "sexually attracted" to the people in it. Even if both are a sexual partner in a mixed relationship.

I'm also not entirely sure why there's this idea that sexual people mostly get "turned on by people" and asexuals simply do not. What constitutes as getting "turned on by people" anyway? Is it a sum of all their parts (face, hair, body, lighting)? Is it a specific recipe, like personality, body and expression versus body and expression? In which case, I'd have to say not many sexuals get "turned on by people" from watching porn either.

One can also arguably say that this varies from asexual to asexual, but there is also a serious perception problem. Anyone off AVEN will tell any asexual with a turn on, "that's sexual attraction." Then the asexual in questions goes through different hoops, saying, "I'm not attracted to the people, but to the situation" and leave the other person scratching their head. There is some undue confusion because this "unique" experience is actually perfectly normal.

I'm not sure why a sexual orientation hangs by a thread on these two little words when the scientific community can't even come to an agreement. How does that make me, you, or anyone on AVEN any more qualified to know what this is? I freely admit that my interpretation could be entirely wrong and mercilessly picked apart by experts, but at the same time what I've put forward is more concrete and relatable than saying, "sexual attraction is a feeling that sexual people get that causes them to desire sexual contact with a specific other person." In fact, the more I discuss what is and isn't sexual attraction, the more convinced I am that the definition needs to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Looking at porn doesn't mean you are you attracted to the people involved though. You are attracted to the acts themselves and feelings you get from looking at it, not a specific person. It does matter what specific thing has turned you on. Feelings and emotions are different that looks. I do not look at any specific person when watching porn and say I am turned on by them (man or woman). Like I said visual stimuli. is different than physical stimuli. Also picturing yourself enjoy these acts doesn't mean sexual attraction either as there isn't a specific person that has turned you on. I could be blind and still enjoy these acts.

You said you liked

shapely butts

, which in my opinion is physical attraction. It would only be sexual attraction if you imagine doing anything sexual with this person because of this feature. Desire would be to act on that attraction.

I am not jumping through hoops to prove I don't experience something. I know something is missing compared to sexual people and that's sexual attraction. I never look at anyone in a sexual way when I'm out in public.

Please look at this link which explains the different attractions: http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Attraction

Also Physical attraction on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness

Sexual arousal does not mean there was sexual attraction that happened to cause it. Believe it or not you can become aroused without attraction.

Hmm, I would argue that thinking about sex can entail some level of sexual attraction as well. It's exactly like thinking about food when you're not totally full. What happens? You think about tasty food, maybe the aroma of certain dishes, the memories involved with those foods (like grandma's awesome shrimp and pork soup)... that's why it's funny whenever the host/guest of a cooking show exclaims, "man, now I'm hungry!". They may not have been hungry when they started, but in the presence of or thinking about delicious foods has finally incited them to salivate.

On one hand, I think about sex when I'm on AVEN and when I'm working on the essay. Is that sexual attraction? I'm personally inclined to say no, since I'm treating the subject of sex in a purely intellectual matter, nor am I thinking about the "down and dirty" details of sex. On the other hand, if I were to think about a sex scene, where I keep thinking about this sex scene and it causes my body to react, I'm more inclined to call it sexual attraction.

Hmm, I'm not entirely sure where you've got this idea, but I thought I made it clear that I agree arousal can happen in the absence of sexual attraction (particularly through physical stimulation). I'm personally more concerned about why one's body gets the same reactions when no touching was involved. This is why I brought porn into the discussion. It's the same idea with food and the cooking show: in this case, it is mostly through smell that can cause someone to salivate or think about other foods. With porn, it is mostly through sight that can cause someone to get "turned on" or think about sexual imagery.

If a group of people watch porn and you ask them what turned them on, you'll get entirely different answers: the acts; the sounds; the situation; a specific action like the woman/man doing X; etc. According to your assertions so far, Steve and Mark, who was turned on by sound and the situation respectively, can be asexual since they was not "sexually attracted" to the people in it. Even if both are a sexual partner in a mixed relationship.

I'm also not entirely sure why there's this idea that sexual people mostly get "turned on by people" and asexuals simply do not. What constitutes as getting "turned on by people" anyway? Is it a sum of all their parts (face, hair, body, lighting)? Is it a specific recipe, like personality, body and expression versus body and expression? In which case, I'd have to say not many sexuals get "turned on by people" from watching porn either.

One can also arguably say that this varies from asexual to asexual, but there is also a serious perception problem. Anyone off AVEN will tell any asexual with a turn on, "that's sexual attraction." Then the asexual in questions goes through different hoops, saying, "I'm not attracted to the people, but to the situation" and leave the other person scratching their head. There is some undue confusion because this "unique" experience is actually perfectly normal.

I'm not sure why a sexual orientation hangs by a thread on these two little words when the scientific community can't even come to an agreement. How does that make me, you, or anyone on AVEN any more qualified to know what this is? I freely admit that my interpretation could be entirely wrong and mercilessly picked apart by experts, but at the same time what I've put forward is more concrete and relatable than saying, "sexual attraction is a feeling that sexual people get that causes them to desire sexual contact with a specific other person." In fact, the more I discuss what is and isn't sexual attraction, the more convinced I am that the definition needs to change.

I think the word can is a good way to put it, since it doesn't always happen. I agree with you on the fact that some of these are sexual feelings, however I got the idea that sexual attraction when talked about means you want to have sexual contact with a specific or any person (male or female). When I look at lesbian porn I do not want to have sex with them, at all, however because they are doing something stimulating to me I can picture how good that would feel and I get turned on. What exactly is sexual attraction? Is it sexual attraction towards the male or female body (visual) or is sexual attraction towards feelings and emotions (physical)? AVEN, and society, don't really explain exactly what sexual attraction is so it is confusing. So yes I agree that sexual desire is important for the definition of asexuality.

Basically what I'm trying to say is when people say "oh this person is sexy" or "I really want to have sex with this person", I don't feel that. I don't understand why certain features would make someone sexy other than they look good in a none sexual, aesthetic, way. I find myself not sexually interested to male models, even though society is telling me I should find them attractive or I should want to have sex with them. Does this mean I don't experience sexual attraction like others? Is this what sexual attraction would mean if I was sexually interested in male models?

Also I seem to get more aroused by the idea of doing things rather than me doing them myself. Is that still sexual attraction even though there wasn't anyone specific I was thinking about? It could be half of what sexual attraction means but not 100% in my opinion.

If it's true that what sexual attraction means varies from person to person, then yes it is quite useless to add sexual attraction to the definition of asexuality. If this was the point you are trying to make then I would say I understand completely now, but I wouldn't say all asexuals feel sexual attraction/feelings like those who don't masturbate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Significant Form
I am not jumping through hoops to prove I don't experience something. I know something is missing compared to sexual people and that's sexual attraction. I never look at anyone in a sexual way when I'm out in public. Even when I was romantically attracted to guys in high school I never pictured myself having sex with them, let alone the desire to chase after them for it.

That's a massive leap of reasoning. I know that I too am missing something compared to sexuals, but since it's missing, absent, outside of my experience, to claim that I know exactly what it is beyond any possible doubt would require me to use quite a few logical fallacies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone
I am not jumping through hoops to prove I don't experience something. I know something is missing compared to sexual people and that's sexual attraction. I never look at anyone in a sexual way when I'm out in public. Even when I was romantically attracted to guys in high school I never pictured myself having sex with them, let alone the desire to chase after them for it.

That's a massive leap of reasoning. I know that I too am missing something compared to sexuals, but since it's missing, absent, outside of my experience, to claim that I know exactly what it is beyond any possible doubt would require me to use quite a few logical fallacies.

Well I am just going by what the general public considers sexual attraction, I always have, and I never felt what they felt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

I don't understand why people want to break up ideas and compartmentalise. We have feelings, we have individual ways of relating to every individual or object, sight, idea that crosses our path. Nobody has a blanket response to everything they come across.

Well, it depends on what's important to you...

For example: You have a fairly clear idea of what a partner versus a friend means to you, and you said that fuzzy relationships in the grey area between them make you angry. That's clearly compartmentalising. Well, at least it is to me - because I'm pretty much blind to why the distinction even has to exist - given my combination of demi/asexuality and poly-friendliness. In fact: I'm downright stressed out by the idea of formally having to sit down with someone and draw that line. I'd rather a relationship just evolve organically without having to be categorised. I'd rather be able to just say "We're us! We're not some abstract category called Friends or Lovers, but just us!". Of course, at some point it helps to have a way to explain what you're doing to others, but that's exactly it - that's the point of these compartmentalisations.

Now granted, that's a bit of an edge case example, but a lot of these things are fuelled by exactly what we're talking about here - by the idea that attractions (especially with asexuals) are not this holistic and obvious package deal that society can immediately clearly categorise (ie "Wanting a partner means wanting X, Y, Z and sex from that relationship"), but rather can happen on different levels for different people in different ways. It's good to be able to put that into words.

Personally: I'm avoiding a LOT of headaches, and have broken a lot of bad patterns, by coming to understand myself better through these discussions on AVEN. The trouble with being on the ace spectrum is precisely that thing that you said makes you angry - many of us almost by definition fall into grey areas between these different categories of how people process attractions and thus relate to each other. It's good to be able to put some words to that, rather than constantly lead people on and have messed up relationships without even knowing why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

I just think there's a big difference between who you are sexually attracted to compared to what you are sexually attracted to. Actions and feelings are not people or objects.

If you want to group this all together and call it sexual attraction then I honestly have no clue if I experience it or not, unless there's a term for people who experience half of what this thread says about sexual attraction.

I really hope someone reading this can understand what I'm trying to explain here

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty Spoon Train

Granted but I am talking about categorizing one' response across all relationships, as if the way you relate to eveyone is the same. But as you seem to be fuzzy about boundaries, maybe you do relate the same to everyone? Is there just you in your headspace and the world is one big lump, such that you must compartmentalise your sensations rather than the outside world? I don't mean to sound offensive, so sorry, I don't know how else to put it. Do you not see relationships as the thing you really interact with, that you and the other person are only contributors to a play you both share in writing? That you really never know that other person above a superficial level, nor they you? Sorry I'm probably being irritating again.

Ahh, I think I get what you mean....

The categorisation of particular responses across relationships is useful when you can identify a pattern that your mind drifts into with particular people. For example: in the past I used to find myself very attracted to someone romantically and sensually, but the sexual compatibility was totally off (ie Mostly me not really being into it, lol). And I couldn't really grok why it mattered so much because everything else was so good, and in my head it seemed like that should be more than a compensating factor. But when you separate Romantic, Sensual and Sexual attractions/desires out, then it makes sense - because clearly as someone towards the asexual end of the spectrum it was easy for me to put the Sexual component aside, but to the other person it wasn't.

Granted, there isn't much more to the above scenario than simply "asexual visibility", but it's useful to know about the separate aspects of attraction and desire and put them into words. That way there aren't any of these kinds of assumptions and misunderstandings happening.

OTOH, I guess you could also say that good communication could do the same thing just as well. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the people who feel sexual desire, in general, but not directed towards anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

What about the people who feel sexual desire, in general, but not directed towards anyone?

I think this is almost exactly what I'm trying to say, so thank you for asking this :)

If the need/want to masturbate is sexual desire then yes I experience sexual desire, but not directed towards anyone.

However according to the OP it's aparently subconscious so I guess I'm sexually attracted to anything that could help me with my libido/arousal <_<

I would say I can relate to the replies said in this AVEN thread here: http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/topic/69810-what-is-sexual-attraction/

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the people who feel sexual desire, in general, but not directed towards anyone?

I think this is almost exactly what I'm trying to say, so thank you for asking this :)

If the need/want to masturbate is sexual desire then yes I experience sexual desire, but not directed towards anyone.

However according to the OP it's aparently subconscious so I guess I'm sexually attracted to anything that could help me with my libido/arousal <_<

Not necessarily, many people have sex in the absence of sexual attraction for many different reasons. These may include reproduction, employment, pleasing a partner, a sense of duty/obligation or simply because they desire sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

I think what would be better as the definition is to say "lack of interest in sex", whether it's because you don't experience sexual attraction or you don't experience sexual desire. This is already added to Wikipedia but AVEN could add this as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the people who feel sexual desire, in general, but not directed towards anyone?

You could technically say "sexual desire" means a want for sexual release, in which case yeah, masturbating and wanting sex fall in the same category. But one should take into consideration that you don't masturbate because you want to be sexually intimate with yourself (not that this doesn't happen for some). Generally, people masturbate as a way to take care of a bodily function, just like how people need to excrete or urinate. Somewhere in the monstrous 36 page poop-storm, I believe a sexual (SkulleryMaid?) posted how her need to masturbate and her need for sex are separate. If I recall correctly, according to her masturbating is only good if one just wants sexual release. It's a different game when she wants to have that connection with her partner.

This is why I think sexual desire is, essentially, "a libido with a direction". If you could choose between men, women, both or no one, which category would you want to scratch your itch? Straight folks go for the opposite sex; gay/lesbians go for the same sex; bisexuals go for both/either; and asexuals go for no one. In this regard, saying, "no want to have sexual relations with other people" is the same, so personally I'm just as happy with both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Replying from my phone at the moment and when I have the time I'll try to formulate a more in depth reply.

If one brings sexual desire into the equation of what is and is not asexuality, then what does or does not fall under the term sexual attraction becomes far less relevant. Personally, I think when any kind of sexual arousal results from a non-physical stimulus that is sone degree or facet if sexual attraction. The primary difference between sexual and aesthetic attraction is that there is no accompanying arousal or expectation of future arousal with aesthetic attraction and wiry sexual attraction there us.

I have said before that I experience aesthetic attraction quite strongly; so strongly in fact that it might be said to border on sexual attraction. There are physical traits and looks that invariably catch my eye and I desire to watch. Sometimes I even make up scenarios involving g the individual in my head. The difference, however, is there is no arousal at all not any thoughts of arousal or sexual activity.

With all that said, it's my lack of sexual desire that really hits home why I am asexual and not sexual. If I desired sexual activity then the specific form of attraction I experienced really wouldn't make a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

I'd still like to see proof that sexual attraction is subconscious just because it's absent. Just because someone experiences sexual desire doesn't mean subconsciously they really think a person or something is sexy. Just because a few scientists believe so doesn't mean it's true, it's just their opinion.

It is still quite possible to be sexually aroused by porn but not sexually attracted to people as some people have said in this thread: http://www.asexuality.org/en/index.php?/topic/78769-do-you-experience-sexual-arousal/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in the monstrous 36 page poop-storm, ...

... which this thread ISN'T going to turn into a clone of, right people? I'm beginning to see the same repetition of arguments that plagued that last thread.

I'm encouraging folk to make their point ONCE and then let it stand. If others fail to be convinced, that's okay. You don't have to be convinced by their points, either.

Qutenkuddly,

Asexual Musings and Rantings Moderator

Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor Changes:

  • Minor spelling and grammar corrections in Part II.
  • Added a mini "table of contents" at the beginning of each part.

Part III: The Sexualities "In-Between"

Part III contains:

3.1 Demisexuality

What is demisexuality in relation to sexual desire? Why does it get so much flack to begin with?

3.2 The "Gray" zone

The fuzziest area in sexuality. Why the subforum came into existence, what does it say about sexuality in general?

----------------------------------------------

3.1 Demisexuality

The Definition and Discussion Flack

Let's start off with AVEN's definition of "demisexual":

Demisexual: a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone.

It's normally supported by self-identified demisexuals using the Primary vs. Secondary sexual attraction model developed by Rabger/~Forbidden Fury~. Using this model, some demisexuals explain that they do not experience"primary sexual attraction".

There is some murky areas with these though:

  1. Its definition of "sexual attraction" is based on hypersexuals.
  2. A majority of sexuals technically fit the definition, even with the Primary vs. Secondary sexual attraction model.
  3. The definition does not take into account sexual desire.

I've been pretty explicit about sexual attraction in parts I and II, so I'll address points 2 and 3.

2. A majority of sexuals technically fit the definition, even with the Primary vs. Secondary sexual attraction model.

Before demisexuals cry "blasphemy!", hear me out. Please

First: Considering that AVEN's idea of "sexual attraction" is based on hypersexuals, it's fair to say a majority of sexuals do not experience "bar room" attraction. In fact, it's somewhat common for people to date others whom they don't necessarily find attractive at first. It is only through gradual exposure and growing intimacy that they start to find someone more attractive. Technically, these sexuals would fit the demisexual label.

Second: Not everyone likes casual sex. In fact, there are some people who only find sex enjoyable only if it's with someone they love. Back in 2.1 Sexual Desire and Sexuals I explained the correlation between the need for sexual intimacy and emotional attachment. Again, on this front, a demisexual sounds like a regular sexual.

Third: Based on sexual attraction meaning, "a subconscious, involuntary response to sexual stimuli in the absence of manual/physical stimulation", one could say there's very little difference between an asexual, a sexual and a demisexual. Demisexuals can have fetishes too, right? So can asexuals and sexuals. If asexuals can also experience "primary" and "secondary" sexual attraction (notice cleavages and think their partner's chest hair is sexy, respectively), technically they're sexual or demisexual. But this also happens to sexuals who represent a good chunk of the population. What about sexuals who don't experience sexual attraction but still want sexual intimacy? What's the point of all of this? To an outsider, demisexuality sounds like a cry for a "special snowflake" status. I don't blame them.

That's three strikes. What's really going on here?

3. The definition does not take into account sexual desire.

Just like sexual desire plays a major role in asexuality, I think it plays an equally big role in demisexuality. As I've mentioned in the conclusion of Part II, there seems to be some cognitive assertion that "sexual attraction" means the want or desire to seek out partnered sex. This is, in fact, erroneous. At this point, hopefully I've demonstrated that "sexual attraction" isn't what people think it is. Many people are actually talking about sexual desire disguised in "sexual attraction" clothing.

I'll admit, it was kind of hard to dig deep on this subject: various topics, posts and blogs mostly skirted around this topic, talking about "libido" and "sexual attraction" and generally throwing the same vocabulary as AVEN; or they'd sound like a sexually-conservative sexual. It really wasn't easy. That was, until, I read this little gem. A little lightbulb came on.

The definition itself isn't wrong, but perhaps there should be a minor change:

Demisexual: someone who does not experience sexual desire unless there is an emotional bond.

Or:

Demisexual: someone who does not want sexual relations unless there is an emotional bond

Or, a more "gross" definition:

Demisexual: someone who is SOsexual.

Note: SO stands for "Significant Other".

So how are they different from "regular" sexuals? For this discussion, I've developed two "types" of demisexuals for comparison: "Personality" demisexual / Conservative sexual and "textbook" demisexual.

First, I'll make a list without taking sexual desire into consideration:

Personality Demisexual / Conservative Sexual:

  1. Can only be attracted to people once they know them.
  2. Does not see the point in casual sex (either due to religious beliefs, principles other factors)
  3. Thinks sex should only be done in a relationship or is only fulfilling when it's with someone you love.

Textbook Demisexual:

  1. Can only be attracted to people once they know them.
  2. Does not see the point in casual sex, due to strong emphasis on the emotional connection.
  3. Thinks sex is an extension of the emotional bond between them and their partner.

Right then. I almost wanted to be facetious and just copy and paste, but I decided not to. Anyway, notice how a "textbook" demisexual can sound a lot like a conservative sexual if one only talks about attraction. It almost sounds like it is a po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to situation, which is partly why it gets so much flack.

Let's bring sexual desire into the mix:

Personality Demisexual / Conservative Sexual:

  1. Still interested in having sexual relations.
  2. Can think about how wonderful a relationship would be, especially using sex as a way to strengthen the emotional bond.
  3. May, in fact, crave and desire sex if only to feel that connection.

Textbook Demisexual:

  1. Generally has a complete disinterest towards sexual relations.
  2. May want affection specific to relationships, but does not necessarily think about the sexual aspect.
  3. Does not crave or desire partnered sex outside the context of a relationship.

Aha, suddenly a demisexual is starting to look different from a sexual.

You could technically say demisexuals are like an asexual/sexual hybrid: outside the context of a relationship, they really do not have any interest in sexual relations. Just like asexuals, it doesn't ping on their radar. Their libido, for the lack of better word, remains "directionless". A conservative sexual has a subtle undercurrent that brings up their desire for the emotional connection unique to partnered sex.

In the context of a relationship, a demisexual's libido then has the potential to "gain a direction".... specifically towards their partner. They still have a complete disinterest in having sexual relations with other people. Essentially, their sexuality is directed towards their partner. (NOTE: the link is only for giggles. Please don't take it seriously :D) I'd imagine a conservative sexual might experience the same difficulties as other sexualities with sexual infidelity. From my understanding, I don't think demisexuals normally worry about that.

Demisexuality walks an extremely fine line. By only taking sexual attraction into account, demisexuality is easily lost into the sea of regular sexuals and can be criticised for being a "special snowflake". On the other hand, by looking at it through the "sexual desire" lens, it becomes clear that demisexual does have its differences from "regular" sexuals.

There's also a kind of.. hrm, a dangerous line demisexuality draws. Considering demisexuals are essentially "asexuals with options", I think it supports the criticism, "you just haven't met the right person yet". Not that there is a right person, but I think the idea that one requires a deep, emotional bond (seemingly unique to romantic relationships) before sexual desire appears seems to be somewhat justifiable in this case. Either way, the existence of demisexuality casts a small but reasonable doubt on asexuality, but doesn't necessarily throw it into the vortex of non-existence.

3.2 The "Gray" Zone

Talking about the Gray forums is a tricky tightrope walk with a rusty unicycle. This is probably the section I've struggled with the most, with lots of intellectual vomit, small, stray thoughts and trying to link them together. Not only does it delve in the "in-between the categories', but I think it also brings up a lot of interesting points and questions. Also, I know that the Gray forums are Birdwing's mark on AVEN and I want to respect that.

For those who don't know, Birdwing was a former member whom proposed the "Gray" subforums. I remember reading her posts and I really appreciated her honesty, willingness to help and her penchant for putting everything on a graph. At the same time, my penchant for analysing everything brings up a lot of questions and criticisms. Please understand that I am not bashing the subforum, nor am I suggesting that it should be removed. I am merely sharing my thoughts about the concept of "gray".

I like to imagine human sexuality on a bell curve. On one end of the bell curve there are the hypersexuals. As one goes closer to the middle, there are a majority of people who don't feel their sexuality as intensely. As one goes towards the other side of the graph, one enters the "asexual" zone. I suspect that, somewhere closer to the asexual end is where demisexuality lies. Gray, I suspect, lies around the middle-lower half of the sexual spectrum.

I had one friend explain to me that "Gray" was an umbrella category where "you could feel sexual attraction, but only under certain circumstances," and placed demisexuality under the gray label. To which, I jokingly said, "So you mean I can only be sexually attracted to people if they have green hair and purple pants on a full moon in the middle of a humid July?" We both laughed, but I think there's a kernel of truth. I have seen some topics and other people identify or ask about being a "gray demisexual", so perhaps these labels don't have a parent-child relation like my friend thinks. I thought maybe I can figure it out as I write this, so this section will probably be more philosophical than hard-fact persuasion.

First I thought, maybe I can get some answers by looking into what brought Birdwing to propose the "gray" forum. I could be historically inaccurate here, so I do apologise. It is also more difficult to go through her old posts since her account has been deleted(maybe?) and she has deleted the content of most of her posts.

Without getting into too much detail, my understanding is Birdwing was a repulsed asexual. It was her choice to slowly, but gradually, desensitizes herself to sexual content. During her process, she slowly started to experience sexual attraction (i.e. saw a guy and image flash of him handcuffed to her bed, stark naked). I think this was a confusing time for her; she was still in the middle of desensitizing herself, but sexual thoughts and feelings started to show up. I can't say exactly what it was like, but I wouldn't be surprised if she found this disorienting to say the least.

In this regard, she didn't quite fit into any category: according to AVEN, she couldn't be asexual by virtue of experiencing sexual attraction. On the other hand, these feelings were still not enough to incite a drive for sexual gratification, also according to AVEN's "bar-room attraction norm". So, what are you?

As I read more into the gray forums, some questions/observations pop up:

  1. Grays/Demisexuals have some reference point about what is a "sexual"... but never quite explain it.
  2. Does "wanting sex" a handful of times invalidate an asexual's identity? Does "wanting sex" not often enough invalidate someone as a "sexual"?
  3. The Gray zone seems to show that people don't often fit a category down to the last letter.
  4. Birdwing's coming-to process shows that sexuality is not strictly an "in-born" trait, but it is greatly shaped, influenced and formed by her feelings and experiences.

For organization/discussion purposes, I'll couple points 1 and 2 together and 3 and 4 together.

Points 1 and 2:

It is rather unfortunate, but at times I feel that the "Gray" forums are being used as (a)sexuality's "catch-all" subgroup or "dump" subgroup (particularly when talking about "sexual attraction"). Folks who feel are are neither here nor there and need to be put in a category. A place that welcomes them, so to speak. In that regard, I ask myself: have I ever heard of a gray heterosexual? A gray homosexual? Usually I spot topics with "gray demisexual" or a "gray asexual". In that regard, I think "gray" is referring to how often one experiences the want for sexual relations and not its direction. I have a feeling those who identify with the "gray" label specifically say, "well, I don't want to have sex a lot..."

So far that makes sense. However, consider this: what is a "normal" frequency to have sex? Perhaps hypersexuals are the implicit reference point for "sexual". However, I think it is also clear that hypersexuals are merely one end of the sexual spectrum and do not represents sexuals as a whole. In any case, ultimately it is difficult to say what is considered "below average" beyond the personal scale. Statistically, it ranges from age group to marital status to social/living circumstances. I suppose with English AVEN's younger demographics (early teens to mid twenties) and its unusually large female population, it always seems the sexual male always wants more sex. Something about society perpetuating that men have higher sex drives and its attachment to their manliness or something like that. Just a thought.

I think a lot of "sexuals" and asexuals are actually grays and demisexuals (be it "personality" or actually related to their "on/off" switch). I suppose whether they fit closer to the "sexual" end or the "asexual" end is a personal choice, but on the bigger scale it makes "gray" a hard category to define. "Someone who wants sex sometimes"... but then it brings back the question of, "what's the average?" and that's not a consistent variable either. That being said, I think there are a couple of implicit ideas that go into this whole "Gray" idea.

Points 3 and 4:

I feel like I'm opening a whole can of worms by talking about this. But, considering the topic, I think this is relevant.

Most concepts are categorised neatly in different boxes: heterosexual; homosexual; bisexual; asexual; etc. Part of the sexual revolution and gay rights is the idea that sexuality is an in-born trait. While it has its powerful message (i.e. you can't change us to be heterosexual), supports and propagates biological determinism (i.e. organisms are the sum of their genes and DNA), it carries some scary implications. Isn't it scary to think that there could be a gene that tells people if they're gay or not? It's just as easy to say, then, that there are genes for kindness; short-temperedness; left-wing; right-wing; socialism.... just how far does this go? It's the stuff of science fiction: you give that kind of power over to some crazy hetero-normative people and they can start manufacturing heterosexuality like bunnies. I mean, ethical issues aside, it's pretty easy to change the DNA of a fly, right? All that needs to happen is to figure out how to change human DNA at will and pass a law that states all fetuses must have a dominant heterosexual gene. Boom.

Sci-fi nerdiness aside *packs Stargate SG-1 episodes away*, pointing the finger at a "gay gene" is giving a high-five to "nature" arguments and it is almost an insult to social sciences / "nurture" arguments. Humans are much more complex than their DNA and genes. If anything, I think anyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows that humans rarely ever fit a category to a "T".

On the other hand, you bring in arguments where there is, in fact, a "good" or "bad" "cause" for (homo)sexuality: "I'm gay because I was assaulted by men," "I've only had bad experiences with women," "women scare me," "I never had a strong father figure," etc etc. At that point, there is the implication that there are "bad" points of origins and "good" points of origins. It also assumes that, perhaps through some "rehabilitation" process, a sexuality can be changed. Maybe that's why the "in-born trait" angle was an attractive message: no matter what happened, they would be gay whether they went through some negative experience or not.

I think, as human beings, people try to be rational and try to pin-point what made them the way they are. It would be so easy to point the finger at nature or nurture (blame your genes or blame your parents, apparently), but human beings are much more complex than being entirely shaped by either category.

I personally think it's a bit of both: "nature" provides a blueprint of possibilities and/or inclinations. "Nurture" sees whether these possibilities and/or inclinations are enforced, discouraged, or fully realized. Of course there are some things that have been proven to be hardwired, like introversion and extraversion, but I have yet to see scientists nailing a "kindness" or "short-temperedness" gene.

A less technical way of saying it is like this: let's take baking. If you have flour, eggs, butter, sugar and milk, there are a whole bunch of things you could make that may or may not use all of the ingredients: cakes; custard; meringue; hollandaise sauce; pancakes; crepes; shortbread cookies, etc. If you compare cakes and pancakes, they technically use the same ingredients right? It is, however, through the recipe that makes them come out differently. I think people are like this too: many people have the same "ingredients", but it is through their own, personalized recipe that creates who they are. You could also be like the custard and meringue (made from egg yolk and egg white respectively) and only have one ingredient be fully utilized. The other stuff waits for an opportunity to be used, if at all.

If one considers that a person is a sum of their feelings and experiences, then "bad" and "good" origins are not as relevant. That isn't to say traumatic experiences or extremely good experiences don't matter, or traumatic experiences should happen (some really shouldn't), but both of these can have the same effect as the other and motivate one into one direction or another. Just as there are bad people with good backgrounds, there are good people whom come out of horrific experiences. Each of these experiences and feelings mark us; change us; shape us in some way that creates the individual that you are today.

If you take Birdwing's story, it was through her process of desensitizing herself that opened the possibility of sexual feelings to enter the picture. Whether she was actually sexual underneath the repulsion or whether she would simply not be repulsed both assume that sexuality is an in born trait ("oh, she's sexual!" or, "oh, she's asexual!" respectively). One could arguably say, well, her personal process was like a "rehabilitation" method. Doesn't this imply that some repulsed asexuals are like Birdwing?

First, let's look at "rehabilitation". Rehabilitation assumes that there is some "original state" one has to "return to", just like a homosexual being "rehabilitated" to "become heterosexual". I really don't think this was the case with Birdwing. If one takes the cooking analogy, it is like saying she's a cake when she really should be a chicken sandwich.

It sounds really silly, but consider this: she had the ingredients and the recipe to be a cake. In order to make a chicken sandwich, you need an entirely different recipe and ingredients: chicken, bread, mayonnaise, lettuce, tomatoes, honey dijon... in this regard, "rehabilitating" herself doesn't make any sense. What an "original state" of sexuality is varies from person to person, whether that means their personal recipe means they're homo, bi or heterosexual.

What did happen with Birdwing? Sticking with the cooking analogy, I think her project brought in a different ingredient that changed her recipe. Remember how some ingredients could just be sitting in the background or in the cupboard? Just to be silly, maybe she was a chocolate cake but with her project she became a red velvet cake. Maybe, with more experience, she'll become a red velvet cake with whipped cream on top or even be tiramisu. Who knows?

I'm not saying that every repulsed asexual are really sexuals, nor am I saying every new experience will bring in a different ingredient. What I am saying is that it can, but whether or not it actually does cannot be predicted. This is why I also think experiences are terribly underrated in AVEN, especially sexual experience. Unless one is sexually repulsed or strongly adverse, I think experience can only help an individual refine their own personal recipe. Who knows, you might be pleasantly surprised.

After all of this talk of nature vs. nurture and human beings, what are grays in relation to (a)sexuality? I think this subgroup only points out sexuality isn't as neat and tidy as studies and sex education make them out to be. By virtue of its "fuzzy" nature, I find it equally hard to pin-point a more accurate definition aside from, "only want sex occasionally". Just like analyzing a sexual, there is a lot of intricate networks and connections between sex, personality, perceptions/beliefs/values, environment, relationships and sexuality when one talks about the "gray" area. It shows, as a colleague likes to say, the power of the "brainz".

In part IV, I'll sum up everything... or something like that. I'm still thinking about it. :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a name for the 'Cult of Attraction' followers.... 'The Attraction Faction?'

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find what you have to say about grey asexuality interesting. I agree that it seems to be, to a large degree, a place for people who don't fit any kind of clear category?

In my case, I have a directionless sex drive, pretty much. Sometimes I feel very mild sexual attraction (I think?) and there were, like, two people I can say with certainty I was attracted to, but I don't (and have never had) any interest in any kind of sexual contact, and at this point think it highly unlikely that I ever will. I'm fully capable of non-sexual romantic feelings, however. So, I tend to identify as grey-A.

I'm not sure how you're going to sum up... but if you do, I will certainly read it. I don't know that I agree with all your exact definitions, but I think most of what you say here is really good, and pertinent, and is really helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting food for thought!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well done, Naosuu! :cake: I'm so glad you brought both nature and nurture because whenever people accuse greys and demis of slut-shaming or "special snowflake syndrome", I bring up that there is a genetic aspect to sexuality. My lab studies pheromone response in fruit flies, and I've been examining their courtship habits. Some mutants are hypersexual, and some will actually court the same sex. Others just won't attempt to mate all, and then you've got the mutants who show a statistically significant decrease in time and frequency of courtship.

I see greys as being like the last group of flies (except we're definitely more complex, plus as you mentioned, there is no average frequency of sex). They don't experience the complete disconnect with sex/lack of desire that asexuals do, but it's still there and no amount of learning how to have better sex, finding the "right" partner, or changing one's views will alleviate that disconnect. To bring in a specific example, I consider myself grey-a (I add the "a" since I see myself as being closer to the asexual end of the curve) because I suddenly lose all interest in sex even if I was horny and really into it at first. It would be interesting if someone was able to determine an average to human sexual desire, but there are way to many extraneous factors.

I was going to incorporate demisexuality and repression into my analogy, but it was starting to turn into a big genetics lecture. ^^; This is what I get for thinking about your post in lab.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good series!

I'm sorry to bring this up again after a new installment has been posted but there has been one bit of the debate that has been bothering me as I read it and it appears I came to the table a little late. I haven't read the other thread so I hope I'm not reiterating a point there.

I agree that if one becomes aroused from touch, then that's just a response to a physical stimulation. However, if one experiences arousal by simply looking at something, like porn, I consider that sexual attraction.

I think there is a real problem in delineating the issue into a binary one. Stimulation / attraction is not either "touching" or "looking", there are a number of other senses involved plus a complex neural network. Ignoring the network for now we have to look at the other senses including scent for example. A lot of sexual stimuli are not visual or tactile, but pheromones. Separating porn from real life, looking at someone in meatspace is always more than just looking, we just aren't consciously aware of how the other senses play into our conclusions largely because human evolution has favored vision over all other senses. So what is the functional difference between someone (including yourself) rubbing your crotch and someone stuffing hormones up your nose that primes your brain to expect a crotch rub? In both situations the resulting physiological stimulation is equally uncontrollable, the only difference is that one never says "Oh my what arousing pheromones!" Instead one usually reports "(s)he is HOT!" -- even though there has been research that links pheromone release to perceived attractiveness in humans.

In the case of porn, we have to start looking at higher neural processes, which clarify things even less. Since we have to rely on anecdotal evidence from sexuals, I'll include that I have talked to sexuals which claim that it isn't the porn itself that is arousing but rather the ability to roleplay in it -- watching two people doing stuff and then imagining themselves and/or their SO/crush/etc in the place of the people. So I think it is fallacious to assume that sexuals "simply look at porn" and always/usually find it physically arousing on its own. Everyone has sort of agreed that it is more complex for aces, but really its probably just as complex for sexuals.

And finally, what has really been bothering me is this chicken-or-egg issue. What comes first? The neural response or the act? Why is the mechanical physical process more valid than the equally mechanic neural process? Human brains are a lot more complex in their operation than this, because even if we remove all the senses I mentioned earlier, humans never "simply look" at something. We're always relating visual stimuli to pre-existing memory, to other associations, to what we read yesterday, to what we saw in that movie, to our ex, to art, to... For example, one could look at a nicely shaped (body part) and have it remind them of (such person that they care about) and experience relative arousal, but if you asked them why, they would just say "they have a nice (body part)?" because the associative loop is not a conscious process.

But more importantly, one could also be plugged into a computer in a neurology lab and experience arousal based on what buttons the researchers are pressing - releasing small amounts of electricity to different parts of the brain. So, does it matter which comes first, when we can't even tell in our own experience?

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...