What is the difference between sexual arousal, desire, and attraction

The people on kiwifarms think that because I have a tf fetish mainly focused on animal and gender transformation, I must have an attraction to animals and trans people.

Sexual attraction indicates you find someone, or in some cases, something, sexually appealing to you. In your case, you find TG stuff, sexually appealing. This, for you, also seem to involve child-characters.

Sexual arousal indicates you have some sort of physical response to something. Meaning this shit, gives you a boner and gets your libido going. So in short, this does not really make your argument any better at all, if anything it tells us you pop a boner when you look at little winnie transforming and want to give your wee-micro a helping hand. So to speak.

Pretty sure it’s bullshit used to justify his attraction/arousal at the though of trannies and children.

He retardedly thinks it’s an adequate excuse. “I’m not into trannies and kids. I’ve just got a transformation fetish.”

Not realizing that a transformation fetishist not attracted to trannies and kids would be commissioning material that excludes trannies, kids and anything else he isn’t into in favor of stuff that does turn him on.

I think the problem is that while I have a sexual desire for transformation, people here think it is the same as sexual attraction. This is not the case.

Now does this sound right?

Sexual attraction is the biological urge to have sex with a particular person. Romantic attraction, the desire to have a romantic relationship, exists as a separate (but usually connected) force. For example asexuality is a sexual orientation characterized by an absence of sexual attraction towards anyone, however they can still get aroused with different stimulus.

Sexual desire (or libido as it is commonly known) is simply having an interest in engaging in sexual activity. A high level of desire or drive simply means you want sex a lot. Sexual interest manifests typically as having sexual thoughts, feelings or fantasies. It is having an appetite for sex similar to the messages we get from our bodies indicating a desire for food. Low sexual desire generally shows up as a consistent lack of sexual fantasies and disinterest in sexual activity.

Basically, a transformation fetish is a form of sexual fetishism in which an individual derives sexual arousal from descriptions about (and depictions of) transformations (usually of people being transformed into other beings or objects). It has nothing to do with attraction to others.


It’s really ridiculous as to how they try to justify their logic:

I recall Jacob earlier saying that his definition of pedophilia is someone who is exclusively attracted to children (someone correct me if I am mistaken). Taking into context that quote above, his whole argument is that the act of child sexual assault does not determine if one is defined as a pedophile, but one has to be exclusively attracted to children to be labelled as such.

So basically his mental gymnastics is this- because he is also attracted to things besides children (adult trannies, animals etc. ) this means he cannot be labelled a pedophile, even if he has committed sexual acts on children in the past.

Except that I point out I wasn’t attracted to children, or animals. They haven’t established that.

Yeah I just don’t have any patience for this kind of definitional hocus pocus anymore.

If you disagree with a definition, then present an alternative.

If you’re using a non standard definition, then explain what that definition is.

Making arguments predicated on what words “feel” like they mean in that particular moment is a complete and total waste of time.

This is something I sort of went into detail in one of my previous posts.

Sexual arousal, desire, and attraction are all synonyms for the exact same concept, but what makes them essentially harmless on their own is their distinction from “intent”.

You can have a fetish for child-like anime characters, a sexual interest in actual children that you express by way of fiction, a paraphilia, etc. and that’s fine, because expressing or indulging in those are not the same thing as expressing intent to act on them in any specific or peculiar way.

It sort of goes in line with how a person can have a fetish for rape-themed pornography, and masturbate almost exclusively to that sort of material, but refrain from having any sort of sex like that unless their partner consents, at which point it’s essentially a BDSM routine.
Same concept applies with a pedophile who may consume loli/shota pornography.

It’s all about how the human mind compartmentalizes specific concepts and explores them in ways that it feels are appropriate.


Um unless you indulge in them by looking at IRL Child Porn? Isn’t ‘indulge’ similar to ‘act upon’? I am sorry, but you word this pretty badly.

Indulgence simply means indulging one’s fancy, what appeals to one’s own preferences or senses, and can mean consumption of simulated/fictitious child pornography, which is legal in the US and harmless, or actual child pornography, which is illegal and harmful because it feeds a market that thrives on the sexual abuse of real children.

“Acting on” would imply physically assaulting a real child.


…I think we need different terminology here.

Pay attention to the context by which these words are used.

1 Like

Right, context does matter…but so do the words used as well.

I feel confident that people would generally understand @Chie’s statement as: “You can have a sexual interest in actual children as long as it’s not acted out in real life in any sense of the word (eg: by proxy through viewing real cp). However, it is OK to express that interest through anime or other purely fictional representation that has no adverse effect on any real person.”

Saying that, I still dont feel that Chie worded it “badly”, excepting those who perhaps insist on being pedantic about it. :angry:


This part especially.

Still. I feel as though it could have been worded better, since people tend to be pedants that take things out of context anyway.


…sorry :frowning: I admit to being pedantic at times, but we live in the era of the nitpicker, not to mention people prefering the more common definitions instead of the more accurate ones.