fuzzyred | Erotic versus Sexual

Current Mood: curious

Entry tags:

orientation

Erotic versus Sexual

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?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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.

Nicely put.

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

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.

>>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.

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

Yay! I'm glad I could help.

You might also consider mehsexual, which some aces use for people who are not sex-repulsed (also called ewwsexual) but don't find it very interesting either. It's just ... sort of okay. Maybe even nice sometimes, but not exciting the way it is for most sexual people.

>> I often have those difficulties. <<

That's why I say that, if allosexual people are bugging you for not having enough sex or it otherwise raises issues in your life that they don't have, you're probably somewhere on the ace spectrum.

>> I'm not sure I've really met enough acespec people to know how my experiences match up. <<

There are clusters, but also a lot of people whose experiences are not close to other people's experiences. It's all fine.

Do keep an eye on my audience, though; I have a substantial number of ace fans.

>>And sometimes I forget that those feelings are valid, and that I can be all those things, without falsely using the term asexual.<<

This is why some people find labels helpful, to distinguish among different places on a spectrum.

>>You might also consider mehsexual, which some aces use for people who are not sex-repulsed (also called ewwsexual) but don't find it very interesting either. It's just ... sort of okay. Maybe even nice sometimes, but not exciting the way it is for most sexual people.<<

Mehsexual! I love it! This is the way I feel sooo much of the time. Sexy things are okay, and can be enjoyable *if* my buttons are pressed in the right way, but I have atypical buttons and an atypical sequence, so most often sexytimes are just meh, and I'd rather make cookies or go rock climbing.

>>Do keep an eye on my audience, though; I have a substantial number of ace fans.<<

I shall do this. You have a lot of awesome fans, and a lot of awesome works, and I've learned a lot since finding your journal. :D

>This is why some people find labels helpful, to distinguish among different places on a spectrum.<<

This. I don't need a label, I'm happy to be just me, but an accurate one can be rather handy for determining where I stand, and helping other people understand what I'm looking for and what I like.

>> Mehsexual! I love it! This is the way I feel sooo much of the time. <<

Yay! :D

>>Sexy things are okay, and can be enjoyable *if* my buttons are pressed in the right way, but I have atypical buttons and an atypical sequence, so most often sexytimes are just meh,<<

Frustrating.

>> and I'd rather make cookies or go rock climbing. <<

These are things that acespec folks say very often, and allosexual folks almost never say.

>> I shall do this. You have a lot of awesome fans, and a lot of awesome works, and I've learned a lot since finding your journal. :D <<

I am delighted to hear that.

If you want do spark conversations with other acefolk, consider prompting or sponsoring material about ace characters. I have a bunch of them, and I'm always up for adding characters from orientations I haven't featured yet.

>> an accurate one can be rather handy for determining where I stand, and helping other people understand what I'm looking for and what I like.<<

Agreed. Me, I like naming things, but I don't feel constrained by labels. It took years of trying on different things to find some that fit, and eventually, come up with some of my own. But some of my orientations just plain irritate people. On a good day I may point out the problems with their whining. On a bad day it's just, "Well, I'm not going to fuck you, so I don't care what you think."

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

Yes. Well said.

Very well said.

>>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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only