all 38 comments

[–][deleted] 36 insightful - 3 fun36 insightful - 2 fun37 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

People need to stop taking their cues from tumblr children who probably have zero independent life experience, very little sexual experience, and are still in school and not even in the working world of regular people. The stuff that comes from that site is literally garbage.

Same sex attraction is your body’s arousal response being activated by same sex. Period, that’s what it is. That’s why we pair together.

Edit: asexuals are exceptions because they are attracted in different ways sometimes, or it would seem different to the “norm.”

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I agree. The person who brought this up to me recently was a middle-aged adult, though (who works in an advisory capacity with young adults). Tumblr terminology is permeating multiple generations, unfortunately, even if it easy enough for people here to say "kids will be kids".

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Just because they are 40 doesn’t mean they are not idiots. Lol.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Most of the people who are laying down and affirming tumblr kids are middle aged. And also most of the LBL that believe in the comphet doc writing by a 21 year old. But this stuff starts with those tumblr kids.

[–]8bitgay 20 insightful - 3 fun20 insightful - 2 fun21 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

If one is to communicate their sensual interest towards another human being, such as by kissing or even holding another’s hand, their sexual interest is often automatically assumed to exist, whether it does or not.

If I kiss a guy, it doesn't mean I wanna have sex with him. But it means I feel sexual attraction at least in a basic level. I wouldn't kiss women, for starters.

You can also hug friends and family, you can also cuddle with friends and family. It's clear though that he isn't talking just about this type of hugging and cuddling, he means it in a erotic way, which is part of sexuality.

Sure, I get where he comes from: some people say "just cuddling", but cuddling is an act with its own value and because of that it fits a different type of attraction for him. But people also say "just oral". Does that mean that oral sex is now not to be considered sexual? Maybe I should create a new definition, oral attraction.

Gaining sensual gratification or being aroused by another human through sensory experiences of attraction and intimacy can exist independently from sex.

Frankly this sounds more like someone justifying that he's doing sexual activities without losing that special asexual label.

[–][deleted] 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Cuddling is horny for me, and it leads to more hornier stuff. I am not one of those women who randomly touches everyone so I find that whole idea whack. If I am cuddling it’s with someone where the cuddling is going to potentially lead to sex, or the cuddling is happening with my partner.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

If I kiss a guy, it doesn't mean I wanna have sex with him. But it means I feel sexual attraction at least in a basic level. I wouldn't kiss women, for starters.

I think this is a valuable distinction. The people who use these attraction terms often describe them in a way that is black-and-white-- "I never feel sexual attraction but I want to kiss X gender", etc.

It's clear though that he isn't talking just about this type of hugging and cuddling, he means it in a erotic way, which is part of sexuality.

I agree. If they did not distinguish it, they might as well just say "platonically cuddle like a family member" which would rule out sexual attraction. I think people are trying to avoid losing the asexual label and thus their QT+ membership.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Nowadays there easier way to stay in LGBTQ++, just dye hair and be enbie instead.

[–]8bitgay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He talks about how society views cuddling and kissing as "just" cuddling and kissing (as in, steps for sex, not valid acts on their own), but that is the basis of his vision too. If he actually saw cuddling and kissing as acts with their own independent relevance, then he'd see these acts as sexual expressions by themselves.

There are gay men that don't like penetration. The fact that they perform other types of sexual and erotic acts doesn't mean they are less gay, or that somehow the non-penetrative sexual acts they perform are less sexual. Hell, why can't these gay men say that these non-penetrative acts they perform aren't sexual? If this guy can arbitrarily decide that his sexual acts aren't sexual, then these men might as well set arbitrarily decide the same.

I mean, he evens uses the term "being aroused"! I really can't believe someone can intentionally perform erotic acts, become sexually aroused, and still claim that this sexual arousal isn't... You know, sexual.

[–]artetolife 19 insightful - 3 fun19 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

This categorisation is nothing new, all of these concepts were discussed in ancient texts. What's new is the idea that experiencing different levels of these different types of attraction make you a super unique and special person instead of just part of the normal human experience.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol, that's a good way to summarize it. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[–]Rosefield 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What ancient texts??

[–]RedditHatesLesbiansHomosexual Not Queer 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I think they're referring to types of love invented by ancient Greeks. E.g.

Pragma — Enduring Love. ...

Storge — Familiar Love. ...

Eros — Romantic Love. ...

Ludus — Playful Love. ...

Mania — Obsessive Love. ...

Philautia — Self Love.

Etc. Just copied and pasted these but it gives you an idea

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It all still love and based on sexuality or lack of it. In general all of this is just "sexual attraction in different ways", "friend/family relationships" and "narcissism".

[–]Shinjin_NanaNopes faster than an Aeldari Jetbike 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

This is just balkinization of different feelings that asexuals can have.

Asexuality only means that a person doesn't feel sexual attraction, but they can want another asexual partner for a what basically is a very close friendship, and this can be either same or opposite sexed as a pair. This usually was, at least back in the day, called romantic/aromantic asexual.

I don't know what platonic (sounds like a variation of romantic?) or sensual are. They're probably just tumbleratti BS.

I understand aesthetic attraction, but I don't see why it needs a genderfeelz term either.

Apart from romantic/aromantic (which can signal if you want an asexual partner or not) it's all just LoOk At Me I'm SpEsHuL IdEnTiTy.

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

Liking stuff and things, but make it woke.

[–]Shinjin_NanaNopes faster than an Aeldari Jetbike 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

it's like reducing people to a sound bite. You're not a person anymore you're a flag and a symbol.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That is what bothers me about it the most. It reminds me of "personality fundamentalism", another failed concept IMO (the idea that you are a single "personality type" and cannot change). It's very stereotyped. In this day and age, gender is basically a proxy for personality.. which is ridiculous in and of itself, but it's pressuring people to put themselves in boxes. (Not to mention the suffocating ideology.)

[–]Shinjin_NanaNopes faster than an Aeldari Jetbike 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's supposed to be woke and liberating and valid... but you're just building higher sides onto the box you're shoved in.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It sounds like these terms ought to stick with asexuals, then. For asexuals, "romantic partner" really does sound like an intense platonic, emotionally intimate relationship. Ironically maybe, the term "queer platonic relationship" is understandable (apart from the vague catch-all "queer") because it acknowledges that it's platonic at least.

edit: I agree with you about "sensual attraction" (lol) and aesthetic attraction. Colloquially, people just say "a platonic relationship" in a variety of contexts to mean someone with whom you have no sexual component to your relationship.

[–]Shinjin_NanaNopes faster than an Aeldari Jetbike 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Yeah, there's no reason to announce to anyone other than another asexual that you're aromatic or romantic. That's just weird and should be just to let other asexual people that you're open to an emotional relationship.

The only time I really let people know IRL is usually when a male friend tests the water. It ends that conversation really fast.

The rest of the words are just tumblr mouth diarrhea. Everyone gets a symbol, a flag, a trophy to declare how different they are....

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Isn't aromantic asexual just friendship?

[–]Shinjin_NanaNopes faster than an Aeldari Jetbike 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

No, aromantic means you don't want a close relationship. Asexuals that pair off are called romantic asexuals. :)

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Friendship is close but not romantic relationship.

[–]Shinjin_NanaNopes faster than an Aeldari Jetbike 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't get what you're asking or not understanding.

Paired off asexuals are called romantic asexuals. It insinuates a close emotional bond deeper than a friendship but not sexual.

[–]MezozoicGayoldschool gay 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I called aromantic asexuals, not romantic ones, thought.

[–]INeedSomeTimeAsexual Ally 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

These types of attractions were made for asexuals since somehow asexuality is supposed to be a spectrum. As an asexual I am very skeptical of it and it feels like asexuality community focuses more on validating people, who aren't actually asexual but have low libido, than on actual asexuals... so you have that weird crap.

According to their way of thinking I'm asexual aromantic and to be fair I wish asexual meant asexual aromantic not basically anything else like that weird thing of sex-positive heteroomantic asexual, who has sex everuday and loves it, lmao. Straight but with extra steps and labelling.

I'm cofused how sexual, romantic and sensual attraction aren't related to each other. I don't experience these. Platonic attraction seems like a way to validate that aromanticism is also a spectrum so an aromantic can somehow form something stronger than friendship but not romance. I don't get it. I just wanna good friends at most not that weird stuff.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks so much for sharing your perspective! I admit, I pretty much always assume "asexual" means aromantic asexual, or no desire to have sex whatsoever.

I'm cofused how sexual, romantic and sensual attraction aren't related to each other.

I think they all are. Possibly in some contexts "romantic" means an intense non-sexual platonic relationship. Otherwise.. sexual attraction is a component of all of them.

Platonic attraction seems like a way to validate that aromanticism is also a spectrum so an aromantic can somehow form something stronger than friendship but not romance.

Ah, I can get how that might allow people to bend the definition of asexual.

From an outsider's perspective, it really seems to me as well that the asexual community is more focused on validating each other. I'm sorry you're having to deal with that as well!

[–]RedditHatesLesbiansHomosexual Not Queer 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Only sexual, platonic and aesthetic have any meaning in the real word imo. Sexual and platonic for obvious reasons (if platonic means desiring friendship) and aesthetic because you can find someone beautiful and not want to fuck them, however I wouldn't call that attraction. Aesthetic appreciation?

[–]SeasideLimbs 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's just mental illness. That's literally it.

If you feel sexual attraction towards a category of people but never romantic attraction, it means you were either traumatized or you've fried your brain with too much porn or you have too little experience with sexual matters to know what your actual feelings are.

That's literally it. Every single person who has ever been like "I really badly wanna cuddle [Group X] but I don't feel sexually attracted to them, I only feel sexually attracted to [Group Y] but I don't feel romantically attracted to those [...]" has been a severely screwed up person, usually trans in some way, usually porn-addicted and spending way too much time on the internet.

[–]unexpectedly_local 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

unsorted thoughts-

I think a person can kiss or even engage in sex with a person they're not sexually attracted to, but then that's more of a question of their self esteem and mental health.

I'm a pretty tactile person, I find touching people (regardless of attraction, also not their genitals) to be interesting and sometimes comforting. humans are social beings. I didn't read the link but maybe "sensual attraction" is something about being in close contact with another person. like hugging a person who is naturally a great hugger.

if I were to run with it: - platonic: wanting to hang out without necessarily touching - sensual: wanting to non-sexual touch but not necessarily hang out with - romantic: both platonic and sensual and maybe also sex - sexual: the obvious - aesthetic: what OP said.

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think a person can kiss or even engage in sex with a person they're not sexually attracted to, but then that's more of a question of their self esteem and mental health.

I agree.

[–]fuck_reddit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They're absurd and created by people who don't know what "sexual," "romantic," "platonic," "sensual," or "aesthetic mean," let alone what they feel like. Also, its the same crowd that says "I don't like labels" in response to "straight" and "LGB" but then make 10,000 "gender" and "sexuality" labels to describe their personality. Generally, it's people that have no ability to examine themselves and think introspectively.

[–]Feather 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Their "introspection" is literally the opposite of introspection: it's contemplating what and how to make other people think of them.

[–]xanditAGAB (Assigned Gay at Birth) 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

you left out money attraction... don't leave the goldiggers hanging

[–]reluctant_commenter[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Right you are! The most legitimate attraction of all. Lol

[–]writerlylesbian 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think the fact that young people get exposed to porn so much probably feeds into the creation of all these extra labels and concepts. A lot of the time, they're told that porn = sex, and so for those who don't find that appealing, they think they must not want sex, or feel sexual desire. So then they come up with this whole language trying to describe what they feel, thinking they're all different, when what they're describing is actually closer to the way human sexuality works when it hasn't been hijacked by porn.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is simply a part of their language and sexuality inventions.

It is sexual orientation, not attraction. They work hard to erase sexual orientation.

Homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual.

Everything else is their bullshit.