Erotic versus Sexual

[fuzzyred]

I have a question for all of you out there, because my experience is limited and many of you have very different experiences and perspectives than my own. Can something be erotic but NOT sexual? The dictionary definition of both words seems to indicate not, but some late night musings recently made me wonder if something can be one but not the other.

First, I suppose it might be helpful if I defined what those two words mean to me. For me "erotic" is something that creates arousal, feelings of physical desire; something that is felt but not necessarily acted on. When I think of "sexual", I think specifically of the physical acts that lead to sexual pleasure and completion, or a thought and/or activity that leads to intense feelings of arousal and a desire to act on that arousal.

What got me thinking about this was massage and other touches like back scratches and petting and being drawn on, or having my hair played with. All of these feel really good, and sometimes I do feel arousal, but I rarely want to act on it. I would rather just enjoy the sensations of whatever touch I'm getting, and maybe revel in the potential arousal, but when it comes down to trading the sensual touches for sexual ones, I'd rather just keep going with the sensual touch.

So, I was just wondering if erotic and sexual have to go together, if they can be separate, or if there is another term out there that suits better that I've overlooked. I don't know if I necessarily have to be able to name it, but most of the people I've interacted with seem to use the sensual touch as a means to a sexual end, and don't quite seem to grasp that the touch can be erotic and arousing for me without me wanting to do anything about it.

Thoughts?

Comments

One person’s take...

[(Anonymous)]

There’s a contradiction of terms in your final statement that I think points directly to the answer you’re looking for.
Erotic and sexual I think so go together, especially when you start to factor in more people than just yourself. While you can control your own feelings in a situation, most people, once aroused, are not so keen to “walk away empty-handed” (so to speak).
The contradiction comes when you introduce the phrase “sensual touch”. To me this is something that is shared and enjoyed for its own sake, without needing to turn into something more. If the act is being used in order to create arousal, I don’t see it as being sensual anymore - at that point it has crossed over to erotic/sexual.

Re: One person’s take...

[fuzzyred]

>>While you can control your own feelings in a situation, most people, once aroused, are not so keen to “walk away empty-handed” (so to speak).<<

I think this is where I'm different from most people; I can feel sexual arousal, but be perfectly happy ignoring it and just letting it sit in favour of enjoying the other sensations/activities that are going on (although I do have a point-of-no-return, in a manner of speaking).

>>The contradiction comes when you introduce the phrase “sensual touch”. To me this is something that is shared and enjoyed for its own sake, without needing to turn into something more.<<

That makes a lot of sense. Many of the things I listed above fall into the "sensual" category for me, although they do sometimes lead to arousal. It seems that most people use those activities as foreplay, which is fine, but not necessarily what I'm looking for. I'd prefer them to be the main event most of the time.

>>If the act is being used in order to create arousal, I don’t see it as being sensual anymore - at that point it has crossed over to erotic/sexual.<<

This makes sense too, although this is the point where it gets a little blurry for me. An activity, for example tracing designs on my back, can start sensual but then it can raise feelings of arousal. ... *aha moment* I just realized that I didn't quite ask the right question, although the clearer definitions certainly help. "Sensual" and "erotic/sexual" are two different things for me (and in general), and the first can lead to the second, but I rarely want to ACT on the second. I'd rather let the arousal simmer in the background and just focus on the sensual, if that makes any sense at all.

The trouble is communicating that to partners, because many people want to act on arousal as soon as it pops up, whereas I generally don't.

Re: One person’s take...

[(Anonymous)]

>> many people want to act on arousal as soon as it “pops up” << LMAO! Pun intended or no? Because I got a good chuckle out of that one.

But seriously folks...

>> I’d rather ... just focus on the sensual, if that makes any sense << It makes perfect sense, at least to other sensual people (takes one to know one, though we’re few and far between). Let’s look at your example of tracing designs on your back.

For you, I can think of many different things you would be experiencing: the excitement of being exposed in front of someone; the tingles and scratches from a pen tip; the distinct smell of a marker; arousal when a hand incidentally brushes against buttocks or breasts. You’re taking pleasure from the acts themselves.
For another sensual person, their (our) enjoyment is tied to those very same things: the adrenaline rush of seeing you exposed; hearing the little giggles as the pen traces around, maybe causing a tickle here and there; seeing the wrinkle in your nose from the marker smell; hearing the faint moan caused by the brush of skin on skin.
This is what I mean by “shared and enjoyed for its own sake”. Sure, there’s bound to be some arousal on both sides, but it’s not the raison d’être, and both can be perfectly satisfied with just this experience itself.

>> The trouble is communicating that to partners << Absolutely. Because the vast majority of people are sexual, not sensual, and don’t really understand that there’s a difference. They’ll take part in sensual activities, but their real motivation (whether conscious or not) is that it will eventually lead to sexual activities.

Re: One person’s take...

[fuzzyred]

>>LMAO! Pun intended or no? Because I got a good chuckle out of that one.<<

Not originally intended, but it was noticed and left in, and I was comtemplating and a little "heh" in brackets, but decided not to.

>>This is what I mean by “shared and enjoyed for its own sake”. Sure, there’s bound to be some arousal on both sides, but it’s not the raison d’être, and both can be perfectly satisfied with just this experience itself.<<

So much this. This paragraph and the one before are dead on and exactly what I was thinking/meaning/trying to say. I think my intial confusion was thinking that "sensual" excluded arousal entirely, but you hit the nail on the ehad for how I feel perfectly.

>>Because the vast majority of people are sexual, not sensual, and don’t really understand that there’s a difference. They’ll take part in sensual activities, but their real motivation (whether conscious or not) is that it will eventually lead to sexual activities.<<

Again, bang on with this. It's like I'm operating on a different frequency that hardly anyone even knows exists, let alone knows how to recognize, and I'm not often eloquent or clear enough to explain it in a way that they get. Plus, fighting against the tide all the time is hard.

Re: One person’s take...

[(Anonymous)]

warriorsavant:
Thank you for expanding on the word “erotic”. It kind of fell out of the conversation a while back, but you’ve definitely helped illustrate that sensual/erotic/sexual are distinctly different things (even though feelings like arousal can be a part of each of them).
You’ve also touched on something else that I was going to expand on as well: “... the potential for conflict”.

fuzzyred:
Most people are not objective when they’re trying to process information. They’re subject to their own biases/experiences/predilections - their brains process things in a way that makes sense to them. So when you’re trying to communicate something to a person with a completely different mindset, there can be a loss in translation.

>> ... I’m not often eloquent or clear enough to explain it in a way that they get. <<
You’re right that they don’t get it, but it’s not necessarily from your lack of ability to explain it. Most people just don’t have the ability to put it into the same context as you. For instance, if you tell a sexual person that you aren’t really interested in sex, for them that might mean it’ll take more than a couple of dates before things progress. It simply doesn’t register that “not that interested” could mean that you potentially never want sex, but still want the emotional and (non-sexual) physical closeness of a relationship. Sexual people ultimately want sex, and can’t really conceive that a relationship could exist without it.

>> Plus, fighting against the tide all the time is hard. <<
I know that feeling all to well (although admittedly, I’m drawing parallels to other aspects of my life other than sex). When seemingly every other person is pushing against you, it becomes harder and harder to push back.
I don’t know that I have words that can help you on this one. That tide has dragged me under more times than I can count. I keep trying, but you’re right - it’s hard.

Re: One person’s take...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Okay, those are common feelings on the acespec. Demisexual and gray-asexual people in particular may have erotic feelings, but without the driving compulsion to act on them that allosexual people typically feel.

You may also want to read "Like Cherries Harmonizing Pussycats," which is about an activity that would normally be sexual but isn't in context.

Another example is the "happy ending" provided in some Asian massage as a way to cope with erections. It is orgasmic, but in a practical or clinical way rather than a sexually intimate way.

Re: One person’s take...

[fuzzyred]

>>Okay, those are common feelings on the acespec. Demisexual and gray-asexual people in particular may have erotic feelings, but without the driving compulsion to act on them that allosexual people typically feel.<<

This. I seem to still have erotic feelings from time to time, but I rarely feel the *need* to do anything about them. Or my body is driving the need, but my brain is still kind of "meh" about it.

[warriorsavant]

Interesting question(s) and follow-up exchanges with anonymous.

I think you two got to the right point about sensual ≠ sexual, but at some point it may cross the line. As you've said, you're nearly asexual, so it rarely if ever crosses that line, whereas the other person might feel differently, which as the potential to create conflict.

I was thinking about erotic in different terms, such as an erotic image. I think of, for example, 1940's pin-up girls, which images I find erotic without being sexual. A blatantly pornographic picture in the modern decade would likely be sexual without necessarily being erotic. I'm not sure I can pin down the difference more articulately. Perhaps I'd say erotic is sexual without necessarily being arousing? Or perhaps something like you describe as being arousing, without feeling the need to act on it.

[fuzzyred]

I don't think I could pin it down any more specifially than you did, but I definitely understand what you're talking about when you mention the difference between pin-up girls from the 40s and modern day pornographic pictures.

I think some of the difference may be that an erotic image (or other medium) is creating an appeal, something you see that makes you go "Oh, I *like* that." It gives a nudge towards arousal, and hints at something more carnal just behind the surface, but it's designed to be alluring as well as arousing.
Sexual images (or other medium) seem to be much more focused on the physical aspect of arousal and acting on it. It's not so focused on being appealing, just depicting the sex.

[warriorsavant]

Nicely put.

[fuzzyred]

Thank you :) It's nice when my words manage to come together.

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

In fact, that's one place where I differ vehemently from most people in defining asexuality. They insist that asexuals don't feel any sexual attraction. I say it includes people who are capable of noticing that someone is sexy, but they don't feel driven to act on that. Your reference to enjoying sensual or erotic touch without particularly wanting an orgasm is another great example.

Sexual people typically don't feel those things, they tend to be driven by sexual urges, sometimes beyond reason (because if humans could logic out of mating instincts, the species would probably die out).

Thus, anyone who doesn't feel strongly driven to copulate and to pair off will experience difficulties in dealing with the mainstream, and their experiences will often match those of other people on the acespec, even if there are variations in how acefolk feel.

Re: Yes ...

[fuzzyred]

>>In fact, that's one place where I differ vehemently from most people in defining asexuality. They insist that asexuals don't feel any sexual attraction. I say it includes people who are capable of noticing that someone is sexy, but they don't feel driven to act on that.<<

I like this definition. It matches a lot of what I feel.

>>Thus, anyone who doesn't feel strongly driven to copulate and to pair off will experience difficulties in dealing with the mainstream, and their experiences will often match those of other people on the acespec,<<

I often have those difficulties. I'm not sure I've really met enough acespec people to know how my experiences match up.

>>even if there are variations in how acefolk feel. <<

I think this is an important part that I often forget. That I can find orgasms pleasurable, and find people visually appealing, but still be on the ace spectrum, because it *is* a spectrum. For me it really is a lack of compulsion and driving need and desire that makes me think gray-ace fits, rather than a dislike for sexual acts themselves. And sometimes I forget that those feelings are valid, and that I can be all those things, without falsely using the term asexual.

Imagination...for me.

[(Anonymous)]

An "erotic" image leaves room for the viewer to engage in an imagination led scenario, gives room for the viewer to enjoy and expand upon what is given. There is an element of allure and mystery that allows for a more personal and unique viewer experience.

A purely sexual image, however, leaves almost nothing to the viewer imagination. There is little to no allure or mystery and in terms of what is available in the modern culture a nearly predatory immediate need model. Some of the modern images are almost clinical in their presentation, and while that can be very arousing to some, it is so in a different way than an erotic image is

Re: Imagination...for me.

[warriorsavant]

Yes. Well said.

Re: Imagination...for me.

[fuzzyred]

Very well said.

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>I think of, for example, 1940's pin-up girls, which images I find erotic without being sexual. <<

That's a great example! Those are suggestive but not explicit.

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

There's a spectrum from platonic to sensual to erotic to sexual or carnal. Like you, I would consider petting (especially above the waist) as erotic but not always sexual. Also consider that some erotic arts, such as Tantra, may focus on the erotic but specifically rule out orgasm for religious, magical, or other reasons. Kink is similar, often stimulating but not necessarily genital. And in Terramagne, powergasm can be erotic or sensual rather than sexual. It does short out the nervous system briefly -- sometimes even more thoroughly than orgasm -- and is intensely pleasurable, but is not identical to orgasm and people may like one but not the other.

Re: Well ...

[fuzzyred]

A spectrum makes a lot of sense. I do have a tendency to think in absolutes, since they are easier for my brain to process, so sometimes I forget not everything is "all or nothing."

>>Also consider that some erotic arts, such as Tantra, may focus on the erotic but specifically rule out orgasm for religious, magical, or other reasons.<<

I'm not very familiar with Tantra or other things, so this was a nice piece of information to learn.

>>Kink is similar, often stimulating but not necessarily genital.<<

That, I'm very familiar with. I also like the way you phrased it, and I'm going to keep that in my back pocket in case it comes in handy.

>>And in Terramagne, powergasm can be erotic or sensual rather than sexual. It does short out the nervous system briefly -- sometimes even more thoroughly than orgasm -- and is intensely pleasurable, but is not identical to orgasm and people may like one but not the other.<<

That is another good comparison to have, and it helps to not feel so alone or wonder if I'm crazy. The general public so often lumps "erotic" and "sexual" together, I wasn't entirely certain they could be separate, even though I'm starting to realize they might be for me, at least a lot of the time.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>I'm not very familiar with Tantra or other things, so this was a nice piece of information to learn.<<

There are multiple schools and definitions of Tantra, and it spans a variety of practices, some of which are erotic and/or sexual, others not. It is possible to enjoy erotic activities without spilling your energy. Some people find this more gratifying than a quick fuck ending in a few seconds of orgasm.

https://hridaya-yoga.com/what-is-tantra/

https://omstars.com/blog/meditation-guide/what-is-tantra-a-primer-on-tantric-meditation/

https://www.consciouslifestylemag.com/sacred-sex-practices-tantra/

https://www.elle.com/life-love/sex-relationships/news/a33304/full-body-orgasm-tantric-sex/

http://tantrawiki.com/wiki/Orgasm_control

>>That, I'm very familiar with. I also like the way you phrased it, and I'm going to keep that in my back pocket in case it comes in handy.<<

I'm happy I could help.

Consider that some types of kink are really, really hardcore intimacy and vulnerability based on mental and emotional penetration. Power exchange is potent stuff. Sex can be, but it isn't always; sometimes it's just a fun physical activity. A particular facet of kink is orgasm denial, in which the top may stimulate the bottom mercilessly with no orgasm, often without even any genital contact. So kink can be sexual, erotic, sensual, or platonic depending on what people want.

Look back over some of the writing with Ricasso, Pain's Gray, Shiv, and Bennett to see examples of kink along various points of the spectrum.

>> That is another good comparison to have, and it helps to not feel so alone or wonder if I'm crazy. <<

You are not alone or crazy. There are over 7 billion people on the planet; uniquities are rare. It's just that some things are uncommon and hard to find other people into them.

>> The general public so often lumps "erotic" and "sexual" together, I wasn't entirely certain they could be separate, even though I'm starting to realize they might be for me, at least a lot of the time. <<

They also tend to conflate sex and gender. Most of them never even looked at the stuff, just took the factory standard model and found it worked for them and didn't look any farther.

Bear in mind that, in order to identify two things as separate, you must actually be able to separate them -- to find instances in which each occurs independently of the other, either isolated or mismatched. People who have only ever seen male/masculine and female/feminine tend not to realize there could be other options, and the same is true for erotic/sexual or for sexual/intimate and a bunch of other stuff.

Plenty has been written about human sexuality. Some of it is good, some is bunk. It's pretty interesting reading. As a gender scholar, it's one of my favorite topics. I just take a much wider approach than most humans do.

And you know, even after decades of experience and being romantic (as far as I know) myself, I still can't pin down what's the difference between romantic and queerplatonic ties of the same depth, after you take out kissing on the mouth which seems to be the only thing romantic couples routinely do that platonic couples usually don't (not counting sex, which isn't the same as romance). To me it just seems like a slightly different flavor of feeling. I have to wonder if some other people experience it differently, given their descriptions.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

(“anonymous” from previous thread in this post “one person’s take...”)

There’s a term you used: “queerplatonic”. This is a new word to me. While I did get a variety of similar definitions through some google searches, I’d be interested in your interpretation of the term, especially within the context of the original post. Specifically, the idea that there can be more to a relationship than traditional friendship (ex: massage, cuddles, etc) without it being a romantic or sexual one.

Re: Well ...

[fuzzyred]

>>And you know, even after decades of experience and being romantic (as far as I know) myself, I still can't pin down what's the difference between romantic and queerplatonic ties of the same depth, after you take out kissing on the mouth which seems to be the only thing romantic couples routinely do that platonic couples usually don't (not counting sex, which isn't the same as romance). To me it just seems like a slightly different flavor of feeling. I have to wonder if some other people experience it differently, given their descriptions.<<

I have trouble with this too, although maybe moreso. For me, sometimes even distinguishing what the difference between friendship and romance is is hard, if you take out the kissing and sex bits. I'm not sure if I'm romantic or not, since I don't seem to have the clear, intense lovey-dovey feelings a lot of people do, though I do enjoy close companionship.

Yes

[(Anonymous)]

Asexual people can find non-sex things very erotic, like boundary eroding types of deep communication. Most people shy away from that level of experience, but it can be quite HAWT for some... there are some forms of energy work that can be frigging intense and intimate and super crazy but not sexual in nature.

Then you have things that might be considered sexual for some people that may not actually end in a sex act. So the lines can get blurred.

Re: Yes

[ysabetwordsmith]

My fans have gone bonkers over the last few bits of acepr0n I wrote, and some of that stuff was really hardcore intimacy, interpenetration of emotions. It is possible to make things very very intimate and arousing without being at all carnal. And some of those will make demifolk or other acefolk feel as hot at bothered as hetfolk get looking at sexypr0n, just not pinpointed in the same bodyparts.

Re: Yes

[fuzzyred]

That is a different perspective I haven't really thought about. Deep boundary eroding communication types of things tends to be scary and hard for me and I'm not sure it goes in the HAWT category, but sensual touch might do. I can get shivery/gooey/melty just from head skritches and drawing on and/or rubbing/scratching my back and I really like sensation play with fuzzy things and also spiky things like vampire gloves. I don't think I've ever done any kind of energy work, so I don't know how that is for me.

>>So the lines can get blurred. <<

That seems to happen to me a lot.