@pmvines I can always count on you to cut through the BS and overanalysis and state the obvious that is not so obvious to so many. Keep it up! 👍
@Sideon says, "Sexiness is more than physicality. Sexiness is also intelligence, courtesy, literacy, charity, and for those who've been in long term relationships, silence is sexy as well."
Yes... and shoes are sexy, cars are sexy, cigarettes are sexy....
There's a difference between sexual attraction and, say, intellectual attraction leading to sexual attraction. I've noticed that for non-ace folks, pretty much every platonic attraction leads to a non-platonic one—but that doesn't mean platonic and non-platonic attractions are the same.
Why'm I being so stubborn about this? Well... @StoryDoctor1138 actually has something here.
See, I experience a type of attraction that I think's not appropriate for this site. It's platonic, yes. What this attraction draws me to do is neither sexual nor romantic. But it's also not generally considered friendly, so I think it's inappropriate for this site and I don't choose my cuddle buddies on the basis of it. It's not that I would ever act on it during a cuddle! But why fly against the spirit of the site by choosing only people I want to [redacted]?
True, other types of attraction can (and often do) lead me to this one. But that doesn't mean it's impossible for me to pick people purely on the basis of those other types of attraction.
...Then again, if I'm wrong about this, maybe I should start only cuddling with people I'm drawn to that particular way. I mean, so long as I don't [censored], just think about it, it's fine... right? There's no way they could ever pick up on the fact that I'm fantasizing about [censored], and feel uncomfortable. Thoughts don't influence actions at all, and it's perfectly okay for me to only cuddle with people I'd like to [censored] so long as I never actually do it.
Yes? No?
@DarrenWalker Cuddle with whoever you like. Cuddle people you feel whatever kind of attraction you choose, in any way you prefer. That's fine for YOU. But please don't try to enforce whatever internal rules you need to set up for yourself on others. Fantasize about who you like. Or not. And let everyone else here have whatever thoughts and feelings and emotions they want without judging them for it. It's tantamount to bullying.
As long as people abide by the RULES during Cuddle Contact, they're abiding by the spirit of the site: enjoyable, human, platonic contact.
@StoryDoctor1138: Personally, I suspect that people can tell when you want to have sex with them. I suspect that what's going on in a person's brain during a cuddle isn't as completely cut off from what they're doing with their faces and bodies as they'd like to think. And I suspect that cuddling only with people you're drawn to have sex with is way more likely to cause problems than cuddling only with people you're most drawn to in platonic ways.
I suspect these things because my specific flavor of inappropriate attraction gets noticed even though I never act on it. If something so unusual can be seen, how much more visible is something normal?
I'd say that anyone who only cuddles with their sex-preferred gender, is already making that choice. The rest is just detail.
so,, my only comment is, what difference does it make pro or enthusiast... either should be able to choose who they cuddle.
@Georgejo I think the rule is that pros must cuddle men or women, and that means they cannot be seen to "choose" with a very strong gender bias.
They probably also can't have an implied bias, like "must not have a penis".
@DarrenWalker I might suggest that there is a difference between "wanting to have sex with a person" and "sexual attraction." I think the first is a far more active, intent driven state of mind and the second is a more passive, reflective state of mind. I may find someone very sexually attraction but that doesn't mean I want to have sex with them... in part because I know it's a bit pointless and self-defeating to engage that thought pattern knowing it has basically zero chance of success... or that it's the wrong venue or activity to front load it in the brain for the same reasons.
As to your question, if some unusual can be seen, how much more visible is something normal? That's actually the opposite of the way conscious recognition works. "Normal" - that's your word, by the way, I'm not trying to poke any bears - is the usual way of behavior so most people wouldn't give it a second glance. ONLY the "unusual" - that which is different than expected behavior - will get a double take, raise the red flag, or set off the "Somethin' ain't right!" alarm.
Missed this post. @StoryDoctor1138, you're right: there's definitely a difference between active wanting and passive attraction. My specific flavor of attraction gets noticed only when it moves from passive to active—from attraction to desire.
Normal, familiar patterns of behavior tend to jump out at people. Pattern recognition is a thing humans are very good at: the specific patterns of body language, facial expression, etc. associated with sexual desire typically get spotted right off. My patterns are different enough I'd expect them to slip by unnoticed—but no. Humans spot them as patterns, even not knowing what they indicate.
It's possible that the trouble they have classifying it is why they get so weirded out. If they could put a name to it right away, they wouldn't focus on it so much.
@DarrenWalker
Again, no. Normal, familiar patterns of behavior are usually ignored or dismissed by people because they are normal. Only the beyond normal draws attention. Someone having a mild sexual attraction won't raise an eyebrow because there is so often a thread of that woven into other attractions we have with people. It's when the pattern goes BEYOND normal or familiar... the wolf-eyes popping out or the tongue rolling across the table... that the behavior jumps out at people. We expect folks to behave themselves... when that behavioral control slips is when others become alarmed.
@StoryDoctor1138: Normal, familiar patterns of behavior are recognized easily, and (therefore) easily overlooked. The brain sees the familiar pattern, classifies it, drops it into the "normal" folder, and moves on almost instantly.
...Unless, of course, the person whose brain it is happens to be worried about the behavior in question, in which case the brain'll throw up a flag as soon as the familiar pattern's spotted.
For instance, when you're interacting with someone who isn't the least bit worried about sexual behavior from you, and you happen to exhibit little signs of sexual attraction, that someone might not even notice. Say a gay man's attracted to a straight man who doesn't know that he's gay—those patterns of behavior might slip right by unremarked, even though the straight man displays those same patterns when interacting with women he's attracted to (and so he's very familiar with them).
If, on the other hand, the straight man knows the other man is gay, those familiar patterns will jump right out at him. (Yes, even if the gay man isn't popping his eyes out or rolling his tongue across the table.) Something as normal and familiar as sexual attraction gets spotted instantly by people who're even the slightest bit aware that it's a possibility.
Of course, it gets dismissed almost instantly if they're not worried about it.
And this is where I made my mistake: I hypothesized that, since almost no one is familiar with my type of attraction and the behavioral patterns that accompany it, no one would be worried about it or looking for it at all, in any way—and so they wouldn't notice anything.
I completely missed the fact that the human brain picks up on patterns even when it doesn't know how to classify them.
Even so, I think the patterns of behavior (body language, facial expressions, vocal tones, word choices, etc.) that indicate sexual attraction are far more likely to create problems in a cuddle than the ones that indicate my attraction. After all, almost everyone knows what the first set of patterns indicate. Almost no one knows that the second set indicates anything at all: it's just strange.
Which is me all over already.
@DarrenWalker you make me so curious about your attraction and fantasy, but i won’t ask just that the way you mention it makes me want to know more.
Aside from that i agree with what both of you are saying in regard to sexual attraction. The way i appreciate women i could have a sexual, not a listful, attraction to all sorts of women. But that sexual attraction for me at this point in life isn’t really triggered unless there is another sort of attraction.
I say that knowing full well i could be in the presence of a woman that I’m physically attracted to and not give it a second thought unless i feel they had a physical attraction to me.
Depending on the circumstances I’d probably just be aware to the feedback i get and I’m sure if the actions FR what I’m saying.....ok I’m just saying i wouldn’t deny a ladies impulse.i wouldn’t however push for it because my desire/drive for that kind of contact is based on what the other party wants.
I guess my sensitivity to rejection has put me to this point. I’ve not been angered or frustrated with this type of rejection only hurt. So i think my frame of mind is always in a protective mode.
@DarrenWalker i don’t mean that to be invasive or like i was publicly asking you anything; i just meant that when i read you statements it leaves me wanting more info. I think your being vague intentionally, and i understand that. Hopefully no offense is taken.
@DarrenWalker I for one, would very much like to know the inappropriate but not sexual attraction behaviour, that you think is being noticed.
@geoff1000 says,
I for one, would very much like to know the inappropriate but not sexual attraction behaviour, that you think is being noticed.
The behavior being noticed isn't inappropriate.
See, the non-sexual attraction in question leads to patterns of behavior which aren't inappropriate, but also aren't entirely usual. Those behaviors get noticed—the attraction that prompts them isn't identified. I'm guessing what you want to know isn't how my suppressed attraction manifests itself, but rather "What kind of non-sexual attraction are you talking about?"
The answer to your question is, of course:
No offense taken whatsoever, @BashfulLoner!
@DarrenWalker you must admit hearing something like that makes it difficult to relate to. It seems so abstract an unimaginable the way you state it that makes one wonder. I just happen to be one of those curious people that gets thinks like this stuck inn my head.....
@BashfulLoner: I understand entirely.
Look at it as an analogue to sexual attraction—something you shouldn't act on in most circumstances, and which can make people feel uncomfortable if they know (or guess) that you're drawn to them that way.
Best not to choose who you associate with on the basis of that particular attraction when you're on a site where you can guess it's not appropriate... even if the folks who wrote the rules weren't thinking of you, and didn't realize they might need to specifically forbid what you like.
Even I do sometimes know how to follow the spirit of the law, not just the letter. Sometimes!
@DarrenWalker So you are attracted to people in an inappropriate way, and you have a high sex drive that makes you want to have sex with them even though you don't find them attractive.
I think a lot of people would say that wanting to have sex with someone, is a definition of finding them sexually attractive ; even if your threshold is so low that everyone is above it.
Other people would say that a desire to do something unusual with someone is a fetish, like wanting to kiss their toes.
I'm really finding the "a" part of the word asexual, to be very misleading.
@geoff1000: Luckily for me (since I'm sex-repulsed), I have such a low sex drive it's basically nonexistent. It's not my lack of drive that makes me asexual, though. I know aces who have high drives and hate them.
wanting orgasm ≠ wanting to have sex wanting to be full ≠ wanting to eat wanting to be fit ≠ wanting to work out
...And so on.
@DarrenWalker Wanting orgasm with another person, when there are solo options = wanting to have sex
Many creatures struggle to achieve orgasm on their own, which may be one contribution to human dominance of the world.
Asexual with non-existent sex drive, sounds like a better definition of asexual. Orientation is only important, in how it affects our behaviour with others.
@geoff1000: Not everyone can reach orgasm via masturbation. And I hear there are levels of orgasm, too—some people's drives push them to get more intense ones than they can alone.
In any case, if we throw out attraction and focus only on action, a great number of celibate (but not asexual) priests and nuns have their struggles ignored... and a great number of asexuals in relationships with people who they want to please have their struggles ignored.
The urge to reduce people's identities to "how it affects me" is an understandable one, but not one I condone.