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

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 ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

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.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

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.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

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

Re: Well ...

[arthur_p_dent]

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