Jump to content

Archived

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

Xenopsyche

For Sexuals - Sex or Celibacy

Recommended Posts

*Judy*

thanks Harzel... this vector-theory came to my mind like two weeks ago. I think that there are some sexuals that can only comunicate about sexual feelings by using their body...at first I felt hurt because my partner wasn't able to speak about his needs but now I try to open my mind to the idea that I'll maybe sleep with him just to understand his bodylanguage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joesantus

I knew I should avoid this section to the rest of my life… It scares me to the death that there are a lot of sexuals who would fu*k literally anything. I don´t get it. I´m gray asexual and I would never even consider having sex with anyone except very rare super hot and super nice guys. Even if I was in a relationship with super nice and super hot guy, I would still prefer sexless relationship.

The weirdest thing is, if sexual person could have sex only with unattractive people, it would put him/her into the same position as asexuals, who are not sexually attracted to their spouses. But even in that situation, sexual would prefer sex over masturbation, while asexuals would prefer no sex even if they love their partners very much. It quite disproves current definition of asexuality.

Sexuals often say they´re sorry for asexuals, but from my point of view, asexuals are blessed people. It must be Hell to be ruled by one´s sexuality and horniness so much that one would sleep even with a person who is repulsive. It´s so crazy and sad...

I felt quite safe because I´m not attractive and I thought that even someone very desperate and horny would hardly want to rape me. But it seems that for desperate sexual, looks stop to play any role. How the Hell could I feel safe in this world, when guys who try to fu*k me are almost exclusivelly typical desperate losers? Considering their level of their despair and horniness, they could be dangerous. Do I have to lock myself at home and never go anywhere alone even if I like to spend my time alone?

Even desperate Sexuals aren't running amok so frenziedly that you have to assume you'll be raped any moment. Intense horniness may make a Sexual less choosy about how attractive a partner is, but, nonetheless, most Sexuals aren't interested in sex which they have to force on someone. Rape isn't usually about sex, anyway, but about power/control.

Y'know...it is reproductively logical that as a Sexual's need for sex intensifies, a partner's attractiveness matters less. Since the human species perpetuates by heterosexual reproduction, a parameter of " being able to seek sex with only preferably-attractive mates" would be biologically adverse in certain situations; for example, in a radical scenario in which extremely few of each gender remained following some widespread fatal epidemic or catastrophe. From a purely reproductive viewpoint, "choosiness" in that situation would endanger the continued survival of the species. Seems, then, that the humans species is wired to overcome that predicament with Sexuals' "the intenser the need, the less choosy about attractiveness". Ain't biology wunnerful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lady Girl

I knew I should avoid this section to the rest of my life… It scares me to the death that there are a lot of sexuals who would fu*k literally anything. I don´t get it. I´m gray asexual and I would never even consider having sex with anyone except very rare super hot and super nice guys. Even if I was in a relationship with super nice and super hot guy, I would still prefer sexless relationship.

The weirdest thing is, if sexual person could have sex only with unattractive people, it would put him/her into the same position as asexuals, who are not sexually attracted to their spouses. But even in that situation, sexual would prefer sex over masturbation, while asexuals would prefer no sex even if they love their partners very much. It quite disproves current definition of asexuality.

Sexuals often say they´re sorry for asexuals, but from my point of view, asexuals are blessed people. It must be Hell to be ruled by one´s sexuality and horniness so much that one would sleep even with a person who is repulsive. It´s so crazy and sad...

I felt quite safe because I´m not attractive and I thought that even someone very desperate and horny would hardly want to rape me. But it seems that for desperate sexual, looks stop to play any role. How the Hell could I feel safe in this world, when guys who try to fu*k me are almost exclusivelly typical desperate losers? Considering their level of their despair and horniness, they could be dangerous. Do I have to lock myself at home and never go anywhere alone even if I like to spend my time alone?

Even desperate Sexuals aren't running amok so frenziedly that you have to assume you'll be raped any moment. Intense horniness may make a Sexual less choosy about how attractive a partner is, but, nonetheless, most Sexuals aren't interested in sex which they have to force on someone. Rape isn't usually about sex, anyway, but about power/control.

Yup, just because we would, doesn't mean we do.

I totally agree MadRat...this thread kind of shows the bigger difference between sexuals and asexuals is quite possibly the innate desire to have partnered sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harzel174

I knew I should avoid this section to the rest of my life… It scares me to the death that there are a lot of sexuals who would fu*k literally anything. I don´t get it. I´m gray asexual and I would never even consider having sex with anyone except very rare super hot and super nice guys. Even if I was in a relationship with super nice and super hot guy, I would still prefer sexless relationship.

The weirdest thing is, if sexual person could have sex only with unattractive people, it would put him/her into the same position as asexuals, who are not sexually attracted to their spouses. But even in that situation, sexual would prefer sex over masturbation, while asexuals would prefer no sex even if they love their partners very much. It quite disproves current definition of asexuality.

Sexuals often say they´re sorry for asexuals, but from my point of view, asexuals are blessed people. It must be Hell to be ruled by one´s sexuality and horniness so much that one would sleep even with a person who is repulsive. It´s so crazy and sad...

I felt quite safe because I´m not attractive and I thought that even someone very desperate and horny would hardly want to rape me. But it seems that for desperate sexual, looks stop to play any role. How the Hell could I feel safe in this world, when guys who try to fu*k me are almost exclusivelly typical desperate losers? Considering their level of their despair and horniness, they could be dangerous. Do I have to lock myself at home and never go anywhere alone even if I like to spend my time alone?

The question is ultimately "Would you take a something over a nothing, even if that something could be negative?" I say "could" because attractiveness isn't the sole factor in sex, and this thread has been a bit nebulous on whether we're talking about a "not even if you were the last man on earth" situation or just someone you didn't find physically appealing (but not necessarily utterly repulsive). Regardless, it's pretty typical for someone to naturally shy away from the nihilistic choice.

And like others above me said, sexual frustration doesn't render us into violent, impulsive beasts. That's a pretty scary prejudice you're harboring there. If the question were "would you choose celibacy or raping someone" I would emphatically pick celibacy, hands down, no question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xenopsyche

Hi all, thanks for all the answers. Sorry for being vague, it wasn't intentional, for me I either think someone is aesthetically pleasing or I don't, very black and white, so it's hard for me to ask the question from a point of view with degrees of attractiveness. I also wouldn't know where to define the line between unattractive and repulsive.

I totally agree MadRat...this thread kind of shows the bigger difference between sexuals and asexuals is quite possibly the innate desire to have partnered sex.

This is very interesting to me and gets to the root of the question I was asking. At the moment I don't think the definition of asexual would apply to me as I'm sure I feel something like sexual attraction, but if the definition were worded as the lack of desire for partnered sex it would be spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Archaewok

I would choose celibacy. If someone is that repulsive, I'm sure there are plenty of toys I could buy that would give me more pleasure than someone who doesn't shower would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Law of Circles
I totally agree MadRat...this thread kind of shows the bigger difference between sexuals and asexuals is quite possibly the innate desire to have partnered sex.

This is very interesting to me and gets to the root of the question I was asking. At the moment I don't think the definition of asexual would apply to me as I'm sure I feel something like sexual attraction, but if the definition were worded as the lack of desire for partnered sex it would be spot on.

Some of us consider ourselves asexual based on lack of sexual desire. I think this is valid. Personally, I feel that this definition is more straightforward and easy to understand - it's unclear to me whether the way I experience attraction is actually all that different from the way sexual people do most of the time. Regardless, I can easily tell that I lack any innate desire for partnered sex - while it's possible I could be motivated by external factors (e.g. pleasing a partner) there's nothing internal that compels me to seek it out. Celibacy is an easy choice for me, but the responses in this thread indicate that this isn't so for many sexuals, who have indicated that they would experience frustration in this scenario. To me this suggests that attraction doesn't give the full story, since there seems to be some factor that draws many sexuals to want sex even in the absence of attraction.

Now, if you were to ask "would you rather never be able to satisfy your libido at all, or only be able to do so by having sex?" suddenly I'd be faced with a much more difficult choice. I'd be inclined to go with the second option, even though sex is much less preferable than masturbation for me. The thought of leaving that base desire forever unsatisfied sounds so frustrating that it nudges me toward an option I normally wouldn't consider. So it doesn't surprise me that many sexuals would be motivated to choose sex with unattractive people over celibacy.

Edit: I hope it's clear that I'm not attempting to speak for all sexuals or asexuals here. This is just my opinion based on my own experiences and observations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRose

That's really interesting, Law Of Circles. I suspect that there are four different tendencies in play here:

experiencing sexual attraction

experiencing romantic attraction

desire for sexual pleasure/relief

desire for partnered sexual activity

we could rate ourselves on each axis as far as how strong/frequent the experience/desire is. Then add gender, sex, and genital modifiers.

So someone could generally experience attraction at a 1 level (1-10) but tend to experience it more often (say 6) and frequently for women, female bodies, and female genitals. So you could write "sexual attraction 1 (+5 women +6 female bodies); desire for partner sex 3 (+5 female genitals)" or something.

At various times the term "asexual" has meant that any or some of the above are rare or absent, so even someone who experiences sexual attraction could consider themselves ace for rarely experiencing desire for partnered sex.

As a sexual I don't really understand sexual attraction either... I experience it as a combination of factors about someone that tends to make me think about sex/romance/dating/flirting with that person and/or makes me want to interact with that person in sexual ways.

Seems to me someone could never experience sexual attraction but still have a high drive for partner sex, and vice versa.

Someone who experiences sexual attraction with a low drive for partner sex would be very similar to asexuals in many ways and might consider themselves more ace.

Someone who never experiences sexual attraction but has a high drive for partner sex might think of themselves as sexual and might have similar problems or issues to sexuals.

While I do experience sexual attraction, it's very disconnected from my sex drive and desire for partner sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Now, if you were to ask "would you rather never be able to satisfy your libido at all, or only be able to do so by having sex?" suddenly I'd be faced with a much more difficult choice. I'd be inclined to go with the second option, even though sex is much less preferable than masturbation for me. The thought of leaving that base desire forever unsatisfied sounds so frustrating that it nudges me toward an option I normally wouldn't consider.

Oh gawd. That dilemma sounds absolutely horrifying, and one I'd likely end up solving violently and permanently. There's simply no way I would choose sex, even if it would mean that killing or castrating myself ended up the only way to ever "find my sweet release"... and I could see that third option becoming more tempting day by day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRose

Now, if you were to ask "would you rather never be able to satisfy your libido at all, or only be able to do so by having sex?" suddenly I'd be faced with a much more difficult choice. I'd be inclined to go with the second option, even though sex is much less preferable than masturbation for me. The thought of leaving that base desire forever unsatisfied sounds so frustrating that it nudges me toward an option I normally wouldn't consider.

Oh gawd. That dilemma sounds absolutely horrifying, and one I'd likely end up solving violently and permanently. There's simply no way I would choose sex, even if it would mean that killing or castrating myself ended up the only way to ever "find my sweet release"... and I could see that third option becoming more tempting day by day.

If you don't mind me asking... why? This is very foreign to me. That is, why would you never choose any form of sex, even as violent and painful options became more tempting? What about a situation where the person was behind a glory hole, so the sex was more impersonal / more like masturbation, or some similar scenario... would that make any difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Now, if you were to ask "would you rather never be able to satisfy your libido at all, or only be able to do so by having sex?" suddenly I'd be faced with a much more difficult choice. I'd be inclined to go with the second option, even though sex is much less preferable than masturbation for me. The thought of leaving that base desire forever unsatisfied sounds so frustrating that it nudges me toward an option I normally wouldn't consider.

Oh gawd. That dilemma sounds absolutely horrifying, and one I'd likely end up solving violently and permanently. There's simply no way I would choose sex, even if it would mean that killing or castrating myself ended up the only way to ever "find my sweet release"... and I could see that third option becoming more tempting day by day.

I feel the same way actually. Rather than participating in sex I don't want I'd rather give up masturbation. My libido bugs me anyways though so it would push me more into killing my libido.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

If you don't mind me asking... why? This is very foreign to me. That is, why would you never choose any form of sex, even as violent and painful options became more tempting? What about a situation where the person was behind a glory hole, so the sex was more impersonal / more like masturbation, or some similar scenario... would that make any difference?

Yeah, I guess we're pretty much exotic foreigners to each other in that regard, and that's ok. :) :cake:

I don't want to derail the thread by answering you in detail here. I can answer by PM, if you want to.

(Once these damn SQL server bugs die down again, anyway. Gah.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cbc

I don't really think I'm "sexual" enough to be considered part of the demographic to whom you were primarily directing this question, but I've felt rare enough interest such that I suppose I'm in the grey-a category (if I even need a label, that is). I have no real drive for sexual release, in that it never really randomly occurs to me to have sex with someone (or to masturbate), so in that sense, it would be quite easy for me to go without forever. Physical attraction doesn't really come into it either, because finding someone physically/aesthetically attractive (I'm not sure how to describe "sexual attraction", really...) isn't enough to make me decide to have sex with them. It's not particularly an expression of love to me, either. When trying to pin down the reasons I've chosen to have sex in the past (it's been about a year and a half since I last did so, I believe...), I can't really come up with any concrete reasons other than... erm... it seemed like the thing to do at the time? Haha. I mean, I'm capable of physical arousal, and in the right mindset I'm not averse to certain types of sexual activity and can find things to enjoy about it. That's about it, really.

So yeah, as someone in the grey-a realm, to whom having sex rarely occurs, I would easily choose celibacy over having sex with someone I found unappealing. If I have very little interest in the activity for its own sake, even though attractiveness isn't highly important to me, I can't really fathom why I'd opt to have sex with someone I found physically off-putting. That would be like eating some item of food put in front of me even though it looked unappetising and I wasn't hungry. The food equivalent of when I would have sex might be something along the lines of still not really being hungry, but being presented with a dish that I knew would taste good on an occasion where eating seemed like "the thing to do"... say, being offered a slice of decent-looking cake at someone's birthday party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jojo2003

This thread is a perfect illustration that sexual desire is more fundamental and important than sexual attraction for most sexuals.

Yeah alright, I'll take a shot at this. I do not belive that generalistations like this can be used in any way. In our own little sexual world, there are a lot of differences and judging by the answers I do not agree with this blunt point of view.

I did not react on this question, since to me it seems an academic issue and I do not like the multiple choice used. There is a broad spectrum of attraction between people that may or may not lead to sexual relations and there is a lot to be said for chosen celibacy. Way more than this original question leaves room for.

Therefore I doubt if it is a helpful question with regard to finding out where you stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lady Girl

This thread is a perfect illustration that sexual desire is more fundamental and important than sexual attraction for most sexuals.

Yeah alright, I'll take a shot at this. I do not belive that generalistations like this can be used in any way. In our own little sexual world, there are a lot of differences and judging by the answers I do not agree with this blunt point of view.

I did not react on this question, since to me it seems an academic issue and I do not like the multiple choice used. There is a broad spectrum of attraction between people that may or may not lead to sexual relations and there is a lot to be said for chosen celibacy. Way more than this original question leaves room for.

Therefore I doubt if it is a helpful question with regard to finding out where you stand.

I don't think it is any more of a generalization to say this, than it is to define asexuality based on attraction alone. Many asexuals and sexuals alike have noticed that the desire for sex (or lack of) seems to be the more noticeable difference between us.

I think it was just something some of us noticed as the thread received responses. I personally agree with the observation even though I know others do not. It just makes more sense to me. My husband has said he completely understands and has felt the connection between two people that most of us call sexual attraction...he just doesn't desire sexual interaction and that is the only reason what he feels is different from what any other sexual person feels is drawing them towards a potential sexual partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRose

This thread is a perfect illustration that sexual desire is more fundamental and important than sexual attraction for most sexuals.

Yeah alright, I'll take a shot at this. I do not belive that generalistations like this can be used in any way. In our own little sexual world, there are a lot of differences and judging by the answers I do not agree with this blunt point of view.

I did not react on this question, since to me it seems an academic issue and I do not like the multiple choice used. There is a broad spectrum of attraction between people that may or may not lead to sexual relations and there is a lot to be said for chosen celibacy. Way more than this original question leaves room for.

Therefore I doubt if it is a helpful question with regard to finding out where you stand.

I don't think it is any more of a generalization to say this, than it is to define asexuality based on attraction alone. Many asexuals and sexuals alike have noticed that the desire for sex (or lack of) seems to be the more noticeable difference between us.

I think it was just something some of us noticed as the thread received responses. I personally agree with the observation even though I know others do not. It just makes more sense to me. My husband has said he completely understands and has felt the connection between two people that most of us call sexual attraction...he just doesn't desire sexual interaction and that is the only reason what he feels is different from what any other sexual person feels is drawing them towards a potential sexual partner.

It's both: there's a divide between asexuals and sexuals (attraction), and a divide between partnersexuals and autosexuals (desire for partner interaction).

I'm not sure how people are clumped together, though... there may be a group of people who is fairly low on both scales (most asexuals, grey As, demis), who rarely or never experience either attraction and the desire for partner sex, and another group who experiences both fairly often.

There's also the question of whether what he feels is really the same as sexual attraction the way sexuals feel it. Intuitively it seems like it would have to be a different kind of attraction if it isn't associated with partner sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lady Girl

This thread is a perfect illustration that sexual desire is more fundamental and important than sexual attraction for most sexuals.

Yeah alright, I'll take a shot at this. I do not belive that generalistations like this can be used in any way. In our own little sexual world, there are a lot of differences and judging by the answers I do not agree with this blunt point of view.

I did not react on this question, since to me it seems an academic issue and I do not like the multiple choice used. There is a broad spectrum of attraction between people that may or may not lead to sexual relations and there is a lot to be said for chosen celibacy. Way more than this original question leaves room for.

Therefore I doubt if it is a helpful question with regard to finding out where you stand.

I don't think it is any more of a generalization to say this, than it is to define asexuality based on attraction alone. Many asexuals and sexuals alike have noticed that the desire for sex (or lack of) seems to be the more noticeable difference between us.

I think it was just something some of us noticed as the thread received responses. I personally agree with the observation even though I know others do not. It just makes more sense to me. My husband has said he completely understands and has felt the connection between two people that most of us call sexual attraction...he just doesn't desire sexual interaction and that is the only reason what he feels is different from what any other sexual person feels is drawing them towards a potential sexual partner.

It's both: there's a divide between asexuals and sexuals (attraction), and a divide between partnersexuals and autosexuals (desire for partner interaction).

I'm not sure how people are clumped together, though... there may be a group of people who is fairly low on both scales (most asexuals, grey As, demis), who rarely or never experience either attraction and the desire for partner sex, and another group who experiences both fairly often.

There's also the question of whether what he feels is really the same as sexual attraction the way sexuals feel it. Intuitively it seems like it would have to be a different kind of attraction if it isn't associated with partner sex.

That's your opinion and I respect that. However, when he and other asexuals have described it to me, I believe them.

I don't get an immediate "I want to have sex with you" type of reaction when I experience what I call sexual attraction...it's something more along the lines of, "we feel compatible and I could imagine this could turn into something". I think it depends on your definition of sexual attraction (and everyone's seems to be different), and I also think some asexuals experience a 'disconnect' between sexual attraction and the desire for sexual interaction. I wouldn't call my husband autosexual either. I understand that term to have two possible meanings and neither fits him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRose

This thread is a perfect illustration that sexual desire is more fundamental and important than sexual attraction for most sexuals.

Yeah alright, I'll take a shot at this. I do not belive that generalistations like this can be used in any way. In our own little sexual world, there are a lot of differences and judging by the answers I do not agree with this blunt point of view.

I did not react on this question, since to me it seems an academic issue and I do not like the multiple choice used. There is a broad spectrum of attraction between people that may or may not lead to sexual relations and there is a lot to be said for chosen celibacy. Way more than this original question leaves room for.

Therefore I doubt if it is a helpful question with regard to finding out where you stand.

I don't think it is any more of a generalization to say this, than it is to define asexuality based on attraction alone. Many asexuals and sexuals alike have noticed that the desire for sex (or lack of) seems to be the more noticeable difference between us.

I think it was just something some of us noticed as the thread received responses. I personally agree with the observation even though I know others do not. It just makes more sense to me. My husband has said he completely understands and has felt the connection between two people that most of us call sexual attraction...he just doesn't desire sexual interaction and that is the only reason what he feels is different from what any other sexual person feels is drawing them towards a potential sexual partner.

It's both: there's a divide between asexuals and sexuals (attraction), and a divide between partnersexuals and autosexuals (desire for partner interaction).

I'm not sure how people are clumped together, though... there may be a group of people who is fairly low on both scales (most asexuals, grey As, demis), who rarely or never experience either attraction and the desire for partner sex, and another group who experiences both fairly often.

There's also the question of whether what he feels is really the same as sexual attraction the way sexuals feel it. Intuitively it seems like it would have to be a different kind of attraction if it isn't associated with partner sex.

That's your opinion and I respect that. However, when he and other asexuals have described it to me, I believe them.

I don't get an immediate "I want to have sex with you" type of reaction when I experience what I call sexual attraction...it's something more along the lines of, "we feel compatible and I could imagine this could turn into something". I think it depends on your definition of sexual attraction (and everyone's seems to be different), and I also think some asexuals experience a 'disconnect' between sexual attraction and the desire for sexual interaction. I wouldn't call my husband autosexual either. I understand that term to have two possible meanings and neither fits him.

Yeah I wasn't sure what the right word to be. I meant "someone with no desire for partner sex." Is there a word for that? What are the two meanings for autosexual?

Yeah for me sexual attraction is more like "oh wow now all I can think about is sex." What makes it "sexual" specifically for you, as a feeling of compatibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

I've always heard "autosexual" mean "desiring a sexual relationship with ones self". I am curious what other definitions it has as well. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lady Girl

Yeah I wasn't sure what the right word to be. I meant "someone with no desire for partner sex." Is there a word for that? What are the two meanings for autosexual?

Yeah for me sexual attraction is more like "oh wow now all I can think about is sex." What makes it "sexual" specifically for you, as a feeling of compatibility?

Basically, it's the same issue as with asexuality...autosexuality can mean sexually attracted to oneself or desire for sex with oneself. The second meaning is more common I believe.

I am not unlike many females when it comes to sexual attraction. Not all of course experience it this way, but it's rather textbook as far as the different ways males and females might experience it...I feel more comfortable and excited about sex if I can build some kind of emotional bond with the person first. From there, the emotional bond and growing sexual attraction act together to contribute to a feeling of connection for me. I never think, wow, now all I can think about is sex.

The fact that my husband acted sexually with me for so many years (against his asexual nature) is part of the reason I still feel strongly connected to him. He has shown me love in a way that wasn't easy for him...and he's my best friend. It doesn't get much better than that in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Personally, I've never found "autosexual" a fitting description for myself, even though that was the result I ended up with on one of those "are you asexual?" online tests.

Masturbation, for me, has nothing to do with either attraction or desire directed at myself... it's more like compromise (to borrow the term from many ace-sexy 'ships) in the struggle between me and my physical libido. If my libido and/or erectile functionality disappeared tomorrow, I'd definitely not feel frustrated, more like relieved of an annoying regular chore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WhenSummersGone

Personally, I've never found "autosexual" a fitting description for myself, even though that was the result I ended up with on one of those "are you asexual?" online tests.

Masturbation, for me, has nothing to do with either attraction or desire directed at myself... it's more like compromise (to borrow the term from many ace-sexy 'ships) in the struggle between me and my physical libido. If my libido and/or erectile functionality disappeared tomorrow, I'd definitely not feel frustrated, more like relieved of an annoying regular chore.

I agree. I kept getting "self-sexual" on online tests and to me I just masturbate. A means to an end for me, and I doubt there's many asexuals who masturbate who are actually sexually attracted to themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
faintlymacabre

For my husband it would be the celibacy. He was single for several years and had very highly attractive females (seen pictures, still wondering why he chose me over sleeping with them!) throw themselves at him since he was a friend and they wanted a friends with benefits relationship. He was looking for long term or nothing. He was celibate for four years and he is a highly sexual person. So while I may blame him for thinking with the wrong head a lot, he was able to reign that head in for this situation ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qwair

For me, it really depends on how you define 'attractive'. I don't get visually attracted to people at all, so there is no such person that I would feel would be 'too unattractive' in that sense of the word. Looks just don't come into play when I think about wanting or not to have sex with someone.

However, if I define 'attractive' like I usually do (which has to do more with personality), then between celibacy and having sex with an unattractive person (one who is for example selfish, hurtful or uncommunicative) I'd choose celibacy every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joesantus

I am not unlike many females when it comes to sexual attraction. Not all of course experience it this way, but it's rather textbook as far as the different ways males and females might experience it...I feel more comfortable and excited about sex if I can build some kind of emotional bond with the person first. From there, the emotional bond and growing sexual attraction act together to contribute to a feeling of connection for me. I never think, wow, now all I can think about is sex.

I've been reluctant to mention my ideas regarding how gender substantially affects the OP's attraction question lest I be charged with speaking about what I as a male cannot experience as a woman; and, because I realize a rigid "male" and "female" gender distinction oversimplifies the issue of "what is my gender?"; so I'm glad Lady said it first...but...my observations have been that, generally-speaking, many more Sexual women than Sexual men would choose celibacy over sex-with-an-unattractive-partner for the very reason she gives. I believe it's because women's reproductive investment is biologically greater than a male's, so again, generally-speaking, women's instincts motivate them to a typically much-more complex definition of "attraction" than men's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

But, Lady Girl didn't pick celibacy over unattractive sex.

I'm pretty sure that if I had to choose between celibacy or sex with someone I wasn't super sexually attracted to I would choose sex.

I think that women are socialized to talk differently about sex. Studies about women's actual sexual practices and interests show little difference from men's.

People care about what they're taught to care about. That's why sex and romantic relationships are so different in different times and cultures. We think love is this evolutionary drive to form a stable family, right? Love wasn't considered relevant to marriages until the late 1800's, so, love and attachment weren't a feature of human reproduction or coupling until only very recently.

Women today display much more sexual experimentation than women did 30 years ago. Culture changes attitudes which change behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadRat

But, Lady Girl didn't pick celibacy over unattractive sex.

I'm pretty sure that if I had to choose between celibacy or sex with someone I wasn't super sexually attracted to I would choose sex.

I think that women are socialized to talk differently about sex. Studies about women's actual sexual practices and interests show little difference from men's.

People care about what they're taught to care about. That's why sex and romantic relationships are so different in different times and cultures. We think love is this evolutionary drive to form a stable family, right? Love wasn't considered relevant to marriages until the late 1800's, so, love and attachment weren't a feature of human reproduction or coupling until only very recently.

Women today display much more sexual experimentation than women did 30 years ago. Culture changes attitudes which change behavior.

I don´t believe it is truth. Yes, women todays are much more into sex than women in the past, when they were forced to be total puritans. But it doesn´t mean they are naturally as much into sex as men. They are not, usually. I think joesantus is right.

All females are more picky than males, it´s general rule in animals and people are animals too. Males rarely take care of their babies, while females cary their babies in their bodies, they have to give a birth, which can be dangerous, in many species it is ONLY female who takes care of youngsters.

But even in species who live in pairs or groups, females have to do the hardest job. So they are more picky or they want to know at first who is their partner and if he would be a good father etc. because it would be bad for them to have youngsters with wrong partner - it would cause probably death of youngsters, so all what female invested into them would be destroyed. In species who live in pairs or groups, emotional bond between individuals is very strong. It is not only cute, it increases a chance for the babies to survive.

And I think in this society there is a pressure of emancipation which is too much. Women can do many things as good as men, but they should not force themselves into things if they don´t feel they really want it that way - which is quite often the case of casual sex and FWB and OMG-how-it-is-all-called. Women too much try to be like men and they forget they are not men. Then they cry how they are not able to handle their "free and cool" lifestyle and they want to find good partner, strong love etc.

I saw a documentary about a woman who became a man. And what is the most interesting thing - during transition from woman to man, (s)he didn´t change only in appearance, but in mind too. (S)he talked about his feelings about sex. When (s)he was a woman, she was much more interested in emotional things around sex than sex itself. When she became man, he started to be more interested in sex itself, in visual side of sex, and emotional bond wasn´t very needed anymore. The same person changed his(her) view on sex so much! Scientists explain it simply - it´s because of level of testosterone.

Women who are genuinely into casual sex are probably those who have more testosterone than average woman. And nice guys who are focused on emotional side of relationships and not so much on sex are those with low teststerone level.

Hormones are damned little bastards who force us to do things we would not do without them. Just think about PMS and its influence on mood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

The thing with evolutionary psychology is that it's unverifiable made-up folk tales about our ancient, pure selves. For any evolutionary theory you propose, I can tell you a story that demonstrates the exact opposite. Here's one:

Men are naturally predisposed to monogamy while women are predisposed to polyamory. Just like in animals, its the men with the attractions to a single individual; women, on the contrary, are attracted to and ready to accept any man. You see this behavior played out very nicely amongst walruses. The males of the species are driven mad with sexual desire, but not for just any ladyrus, no, he has his eye on a specific one. He fights nearly to the death for the right to mate with her, while she just chillaxes and is all "to the winner, the spoils!". She is so attracted to them all that she doesn't care who wins.

This sexual openness in women came in handy when humans arrived. The human men went off hunting, and those dudes were basically just balding, slower chimpanzees, so they died with great frequency. It was typical for a hunting team to come home with only half the fellas, so the ladies had to "improvise" (va-va-voom!). The women grabbed themselves new men and soldiered on.

This hypersexual polyamorous instinct has continued to serve women well into modern times, since, as you noted, men be triflin'. When a gal has to kick out her man, her instincts kick in and she goes and grabs herself a replacement to help her raise her family.

**end of totally made-up but equally plausible contary evolutionary psych explanation for modern human behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRose

You guys realize evolution disfavors celibacy, right? Sure people evolved to choose better mates, but if they didn't make some choice, they wouldn't pass on their genes at all.

Skull, I detest absurd pop-culture gender based ev psych oversimplifications, but let's not knock the whole field. Much of ev psych isn't even about gender, and lots of it can be tested with psych experiments, cross-cultural surveys, and computer modelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid

Skull, I detest absurd pop-culture gender based ev psych oversimplifications, but let's not knock the whole field. Much of ev psych isn't even about gender, and lots of it can be tested with psych experiments, cross-cultural surveys, and computer modelling

I know it's not all about gender but I am under the impression that none of it is verifiable. May as well insomniac at some evolutionary psych.

As for celibacy, unless you're suggesting that celibacy is a gene and not a decision that could be made by people of any genetic makeup, it's totally irrelevant anyway. Evolution doesn't favor anything, not like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...