GC: Is sexual attraction only based on genitals, or is there more to sexual attraction (e.g. attraction to secondary sexual characteristics, "femininity", "masculinity", etc)?

submitted by Not_a_celebrity from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

There are thousands of differences between human females and males, most of which develop long before the puberty of adolescence that gives rise to secondary sex characteristics. Sex differences exist at the cellular level of each and every cell in our bodies and affect all our organs and systems. Most of the innumerable sexually dimorphic features of human beings are not visible to the naked eye the way breasts, beards, broad shoulders and wide hips are. But just coz you can't see 'em doesn't mean they are not there.

and just because they are there doesn't mean they are relevant. The sexually dimorphic features visible to the naked eye you named ("breasts, beards, broad shoulders and wide hips") are quite clearly rather influental towards sexual attraction (and therefore sexual orientation), definetly more than features that can not be perceived ever could be.

As for your links, all of wikipedia's material on transgenderism has been written by TRAs and other gender ideologues.

if wikipedia is wrong and you have better sources, you are free to correct wikipedia. After all, Wikipedias tagline is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I was responding to this blanket claim of yours, which was about sexual dimorphism in general, not about sexually dimorphic secondary sex characteristics:

sure, sexual dimorphic development does start pre-nataly. But the vast majority of sexual dimorphism - except obviously the reproductive organs themself - develops in puberty due to the drastically different hormone levels of male and female puberty.

Now you say

The sexually dimorphic features visible to the naked eye you named ("breasts, beards, broad shoulders and wide hips") are quite clearly rather influental towards sexual attraction (and therefore sexual orientation), definetly more than features that can not be perceived ever could be.

And if sexual attraction meant only what attracts us to another person sexually initially when we first see or meet them, then I'd agree. But that's a difference between our POVs: According to your view of sexual attraction, all that matters are the easily observable characteristics that initially attract us to someone sexually at first glance.

I see things differently. I think that sexual attraction involves both the most obvious physical characteristics that initially catch our eye and spark our interest AND all the other characteristics that come into play as we get to know another person. Depending on what the person's other characteristics are - personality, intelligence, sense of humor, sound of their laugh, the way they eat, their politics, their tastes in food and music and art, their views on all sorts of things - he or she will become more or less sexually attractive to us.

Sometimes, the less obvious traits that we find repellant override the obvious traits that caused us to see the person as sexually attractive to begin with. Most everyone has had experiences of being initially very sexually attracted to someone when first spying them, but being totally turned off when we got to know them a bit. And everyone who's been in love and had a long-term relationship knows, what draws two people together in the first place is not necessarily the only thing - or the same thing - that keeps them sexually attracted to one another and together over the longer term.

Again, this goes back to an earlier point I made. You seem to think sexual attraction is solely about swiping left or right on dating apps, hooking up and having ONSs - that it has nothing to do with pair-bonding, establishing relationships that can last over time, procreation and raising children. I get the impression you don't believe that most people are looking for intimate partners in life, that you think most people just want casual, short-term sex. You also don't seem to get that as sexual partners come to know one another and fall in love with each other, we usually find ourselves attracted to elements of each another that go well beyond secondary sex characteristics.

You also seem unaware that as we age, most people lose the physical characteristics that once caused others to see us as sexually attractive at first glance - and many of us no longer care as we did in the past about the superficial physical characteristics that initially caught our eye and drew us to others sexually as well. Yet funny thing is, people who've gotten past the stage in life when secondary sex characteristics matter a great deal still have sexual feelings and still have sex.

Look at someone like Linda McCartney. Over the course of her marriage to Paul, she lost the secondary sex characteristics she had as a young woman that presumably caused her to catch Paul's eye and fancy in the first place. Like most women, she put on weight over the years and in her 50s her face became more "mannish" looking. During her long battle with breast cancer, she lost all her hair too. But it sure never seemed like her husband's love and desire for her diminished one bit.

Coz humans do more than experience lust that makes us want to hook up with another solely for sex, we also fall in love and form lasting connections that run deep and cause us to want to stay with and have sex with another person over a course of time. Sexual attraction is not just about the superficial things that spark a fire, it's just as much about the myriad factors that cause a fire to keep burning.

After all, the OP asked about sexual attraction. Not solely about initial sexual attraction.

[–]peakingatthemomentTranssexual (natal male), HSTS 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Perfect comment. 😊

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And if sexual attraction meant only what attracts us to another person sexually initially when we first see or meet them, then I'd agree. But that's a difference between our POVs: According to your view of sexual attraction, all that matters are the easily observable characteristics that initially attract us to someone sexually at first glance.

I see things differently. I think that sexual attraction involves both the most obvious physical characteristics that initially catch our eye and spark our interest AND all the other characteristics that come into play as we get to know another person. Depending on what the person's other characteristics are - personality, intelligence, sense of humor, sound of their laugh, the way they eat, their politics, their tastes in food and music and art, their views on all sorts of things - he or she will become more or less sexually attractive to us.

Sometimes, the less obvious traits that we find repellant override the obvious traits that caused us to see the person as sexually attractive to begin with. Most everyone has had experiences of being initially very sexually attracted to someone when first spying them, but being totally turned off when we got to know them a bit. And everyone who's been in love and had a long-term relationship knows, what draws two people together in the first place is not necessarily the only thing - or the same thing - that keeps them sexually attracted to one another and together over the longer term.

of course there is more to sexual attraction than initial attraction, but initial attraction is the primal part that sexual orientation is about. Otherwise you could get sexually attracted to a person of the wrong apparent gender if said persons personality were just likeable enough.

Again, this goes back to an earlier point I made. You seem to think sexual attraction is solely about swiping left or right on dating apps, hooking up and having ONSs - that it has nothing to do with pair-bonding, establishing relationships that can last over time, procreation and raising children. I get the impression you don't believe that most people are looking for intimate partners in life, that you think most people just want casual, short-term sex. You also don't seem to get that as sexual partners come to know one another and fall in love with each other, we usually find ourselves attracted to elements of each another that go well beyond secondary sex characteristics.

You also seem unaware that as we age, most people lose the physical characteristics that once caused others to see us as sexually attractive at first glance - and many of us no longer care as we did in the past about the superficial physical characteristics that initially caught our eye and drew us to others sexually as well. Yet funny thing is, people who've gotten past the stage in life when secondary sex characteristics matter a great deal still have sexual feelings and still have sex.

Look at someone like Linda McCartney. Over the course of her marriage to Paul, she lost the secondary sex characteristics she had as a young woman that presumably caused her to catch Paul's eye and fancy in the first place. Like most women, she put on weight over the years and in her 50s her face became more "mannish" looking. During her long battle with breast cancer, she lost all her hair too. But it sure never seemed like her husband's love and desire for her diminished one bit.

of course once an emotional connection is established, physical attraction becomes less important. But for the emotional connection to be established, there needs to be an initial attraction to build on.