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

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.

>>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.

(“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.

Queerplatonic is typically considered a close relationship equivalent in depth and commitment to those conventionally based on sex/romance. Queer refers to things outside the heteronormative relationship dynamics, often but not always same-sex partnerships, and including a wide variety of alternative orientations such as asexual and aromantic ones. Platonic means the bond is based in friendship or one of the types of love outside sex/romance.

Some famous literary relationships are sometimes cast in this light, when people aren't interpreting them as gay: Kirk and Spock, Holmes and Watson, Sam and Frodo, etc. One canonically queerplatonic relationship is Kethry (who is heterosexual) and Tarma (who is asexual) as she'enedra.

Note that some relationship frameworks, such as Boston marriage, are difficult if not impossible to distinguish from the outside whether they are queerplatonic, lesbian, or something else.

Mainstream culture actually does know of a few relationships that are very tight but more often platonic than sexual/romantic. These include war buddies, beat partners, and dance partners. In professions that require deep trust and long hours, it is not always feasible to maintain outside relationships based on sex/romance, so sometimes people's primary relationship is platonic even if they are heterosexual.

Another related concept is the "identified" tag. It's seen most often in the feminist and lesbian communities as "woman-identified" but there are other variations like "queer-identified." It's not actually about how you identify yourself, but rather, what group you identify with to the point of preferring to associate with those people over others. Someone woman-identified will seek close relationships among women. So a heterosexual feminist might choose a queerplatonic relationship with another woman and simply pick up men when she gets horny without trying to have a relationship with them.

Among the better resources:

https://aromantic.wikia.org/wiki/Queerplatonic_Relationship

https://lgbta.wikia.org/wiki/Queerplatonic_Relationship

http://wiki.asexuality.org/Queerplatonic

https://writingfromfactorx.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/my-thoughts-on-the-word-zucchini/

Just in case it needs saying: you can have whatever kind of relationships you and other people want to have. It doesn't matter if anyone else understands it, or even if you understand it, so long as everyone involved finds it agreeable.

I hope this helps.

It helps and it doesn’t.

There are some parallels to a couple of relationships I have (if it matters, hetero). Sometimes I feel like I need to be able to define those relationships beyond the word “friends”.

Ultimately I think this is just a bigger term than what I need.

You can keep looking for other terms, or build your own. I've done both.

Just putting a name to the conversation. Should our paths cross again you’ll know where you know me from.

>>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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only