Title for sexuals who don't desire penetrative sex

[Star Bit]

A few times I've seen people like this ask if they're asexual when they just have a preference on how they incapability in bringing themselves to have sex in a specific way. This is not a type of Gray-A because they have sexual attraction, but they very much relate to asexuality because they have a lot of the backlash asexuals can get for not wanting particular types of sex. The reason i suggest a title is because i feel they would like to meet others like themselves; like searching demisexual/romantic gets better results than "desires sex after bond". So i came up with Apenetrosexual and Impenetrosexual (both prefixes referring to not penetrable). I prefer the latter because its closer to self explanatory/sounds like impenetrable. Though non-penetrative [insert sexual orientation] seems fine too. Thoughts?

Edit: the suffix sexual doesn't seem to be the right option/it should be a title like non-libidoist.

[Guest]

Grey-A can fall anywhere between asexual and sexual, works fine for me.

EDIT: ooh okay just reread OP. Yeah that's just a regular sexual. I read it originally as someone only being able to do specific kinds of sex for the sake of their partner, not sure how I got that out of whats written there. Not sure why so many people here feel the need to come up with labels for every single little thing. Why can't someone just say ''I love sex, I'm just not into penetration'' or whatever. I don't know, seems a bit OTT to make a label for something so normal.

[Archon]

I agree that a term like this would be useful and I see how it's not gray-a. Having a word like impenetrosexual seems like a good idea to me. I wish there was an easy way to shorten that though. What about something simple like non-pen?

[Alejandrogynous]

I really don't understand this trend of creating 'orientations' for completely ordinary preferences. Why does this even need a label? Some people like penetration, some don't. Some like kissing during sex, some don't; some like missionary style but dislike doggy and some people love oral while others hate it. What about the people who'll only have sex with the lights out? Should we have 'orientations' for all of these things?

I was always under the impression that orientations are supposed to be about what gender you are attracted to, not how and under what circumstances and what color hair they have to have.

Besides, if a person like this wants to find others like them, all they have to do is type 'don't like sexual penetration' into google, and huzzah. They'll certainly get a lot more results than if they try to track down other 'impenetrosexuals'. (Also, not feeling pleasure/being unable to reach climax from penetration alone is actually a pretty common thing. It is not shocking that some people prefer not to do it.)

[Ricecream-man]

If anything give them penetration repulsed sexual.

I also want to put out that a lot of the people who I've seen that fall into the category you mention tend to be pre-op or non-op transexuals. I feel like this dislike of penetration in this case has more to do with dyphoria than anything else.

[Lost247365]

Those sound good and should work.

Though, personally, I like using Greek/Latin/German roots for new terms. Since sexual is Latin based I would have used the latin root word for coitus/copulation and the Latin root word for "without" so that would be a combination of "coitio" or "coire" and "in". So I would have coined either the term incoitiosexual or incoiresexual.

I like the sounds of Incoitiosexual better than incoiresexual personally.

[Touchofinsight]

I have been this person my whole life and no short hand term is gonna make it easier when your dealing with relationships. I understand the desire to have a short hand word or label to build a community around but ultimately you just have to talk with your partners about your limits sexually.

I know somewhat off topic but that's just my feelings on it. I get the concept though your not celibate, but your not asexual, so it leaves you in a gray area that hasn't really been explored or defined much.

However this post isn't directed at the OP just who over is reading and may benefit from it.

Personally for me... orientations are irrelevant.. its the behavior in its self that is the thing that makes the difference in relationship.

If your have a partner who is awesome and compatible with you in every way and doesn't have the same orientation as you then who cares but I get the safe feeling behind the word orientation in our society. Its very hard to put criticism on anything that is considered by most as an "Orientation".

[Lydian]

"Orientation" name for a thing that's not an orientation at all, but a personal preference. Why not give a new "orientation" name for asexual people who aren't repulsed! Or or, a name for gay men who don't like anal! While we're at it, let's create a new orientation for people who prefer blondes!

If those people identify well within the asexual community, they're welcome to involved themselves in the community despite not actually being ace and are likely to find understanding there. Does this mean they need a new "orientation" created just for their speshul selves? No.

[Star Bit]

@Timbre

Well, preference was the wrong word. Preference implies that you like one favored thing more over another favored thing. Yes, it can also mean favoring something over something you dislike, but it really shouldn't be used that way. So in actuality they're incapable of bringing themselves to have penetrative sex. While i understand and agree with the issue you brought up with overlabeling , everything under the gray umbrella is a sub-orientation/detail too (orientation referring to who you're attracted to and subs are just details). Though this type of sexual person wouldn't be under the gray umbrella because they already have sexual attraction. Honestly, i don't think people would have such an issue with it if i was inventing demisexual. Though maybe it originally received the same thing. Would demi's denying replies be something like "that's just a normal sexual with preferences?" (Which is inaccurate because it's not demi-concent, it's demi-sexual attraction.) Anyway, my point in creating the term is that these people feel as broken as an asexual yet they belong in neither that nor Gray-A, yet they aren't a normal sexual person either. I'm not trying to label needless specifics, but you also may be viewing it as needless because you don't experience the alienation they do. Allosexual people having sexual preferences is normal, yes, but being unable to have penetrative sex, no.

Yah, they can be on here and relate, that's great, but they can also still feel alienated by not seeing anyone that's actually like them. I've only seen 3 or 4 threads with someone describing themselves that way so far, so I'm pretty sure they feel that way and they were rather disappointed they weren't ace too. Fully belonging can mean the world. When i googled it/phrases i just found people confirming it's a thing but not support place.

@Lost Incoitiosexual has just as many syllables as my Impenetrosexual lol. I agree with the others that it needs to be shorter. Perhaps a word that just means outside or something to that effect?

[A Member Once Known As tqz]

Haven't you heard of the term:

“no-poke-me-sexual”

Fewer syllables, self-explanatory, and easier to pronounce and spell.

Also comes with the bonus followup question:

What part of “no-poke-me” don't you understand?

Try that with a prefix.

[Lost247365]

Ehhh, there is something to be said for long words too.

I mean imagine playing scrabble incoitiosexual would get you 23 points. Impenetrosexual would get you 24.

Ignore the anti-logophiles and lets create a word rivaling antidisestablismentarianism in length! 8)

[ithaca]

Even if I don't go down the route of "enough with labels" (which I agree with), I think it would be more respectful to leave it up to these people to decide if they need a label and, if so, what label they want. Labelling others seems disrespectful to me, like putting people in boxes when they didn't ask for it.

[Star Bit]

But these people were originally asking if they were asexual; seeking a label from the threads I've already read, so how is it inaccurate or insulting to give them one? And many many things are labeled without the other parties permission; animals, the term cisgender, etc. etc. In fact, the reason i created this was because i read another person describing themselves this way, so I'll just ask them if they'd like to partake in this thread.

[AwkwardGuy]

I agree that there should be a category/label for this, as some people do not desire intercourse or are repulsed by it. So, it should be considered as being on the asexuality spectrum.

However, I feel that there needs to be a clear distinction between the lack of desire for intercourse and the inability to have it. Some men cannot functionally perform intercourse because of impotence issues, and some women have a condition that makes it too painful. So, there is a big difference between functional ability and desire, which is what makes this category tricky.

Your proposed labels suggest that someone is not able to be penetrated, which may be misleading, as it makes it sound more like a functional problem, rather than a lack of desire or repulsion. I'm not too talented with creating names though, so I don't have any suggestions. I could not come up with a good name for my own proposed label/category.

[ithaca]

But these people were originally asking if they were asexual; seeking a label from the threads I've already read, so how is it inaccurate or insulting to give them one? And many many things label things without the other parties permission; animals, the term cisgender, etc. etc.

Cisgender came up as the opposite of the same coin of transgender. A bit different. If a group of human beings wants to create a community and/or a label for themselves, it should come from them, not just because they were wondering if they were ace and someone else decides to make up a label that, hey, they might even dislike, had you thought about that?

[Star Bit]

Well, i asked two of them to read the thread so we'll see.

[AwkwardGuy]

"Orientation" name for a thing that's not an orientation at all, but a personal preference. Why not give a new "orientation" name for asexual people who aren't repulsed! Or or, a name for gay men who don't like anal! While we're at it, let's create a new orientation for people who prefer blondes!

If those people identify well within the asexual community, they're welcome to involved themselves in the community despite not actually being ace and are likely to find understanding there. Does this mean they need a new "orientation" created just for their speshul selves? No.

Classifications are important to help faciliatate productive conversations about the many faces of asexuality. We need a standard vocabulary to have meaningful conversations, and I think that is how we should use these orientations or classifications. I don't think we should be referring to these orientations as identities, as we should not define who we are by how we feel about sex or romance. My various expressions and repressions of sexuality are a result of who I am, but NOT who I am. There is a big difference there.

The lack of desire for or repulsion towards intercourse should have a name for it, since it is a form of asexuality. Naming it will help legitimize it in the community and encourage a dialog between people who have this in common.

[Confusion 0]

While it isn't a sexual orientation or preference, it's still a 'thing', just like, for example, being a libidoist or non-libidoist. Those have labels, but have much less of an impact than being mentally incapable of penetrative sex.

[ithaca]

Well, i asked two of them to read the thread so we'll see.

My comment isn't just about this group. Two random people of this group might well be happy for you or anyone else to make up a label for them. I'm speaking in general about any group or any label.

[Autumn Season]

(Also, not feeling pleasure/being unable to reach climax from penetration alone is actually a pretty common thing. It is not shocking that some people prefer not to do it.)

That's not it though. A person, who prefers not to (be) penetrate(d) can reach climax and and enjoy this part of the sex just like an asexual does. But they will still never desire this kind of sex and they will feel stressed when they have to give it.

If your have a partner who is awesome and compatible with you in every way and doesn't have the same orientation as you then who cares but I get the safe feeling behind the word orientation in our society. Its very hard to put criticism on anything that is considered by most as an "Orientation".

Exactly. And, as far as I understand it, people, who don't like penetrative sex, wished their partners would stop blaming them for not being able to perform. They feel unable to give their partner what they want, but they still love them a lot and a label, which is difficult to criticize would stop the blame game in their relationships.

@Timbre

Anyway, my point in creating the term is that these people feel as broken as an asexual yet they belong in neither that nor Gray-A, yet they aren't a normal sexual person either.

That's also the notion I got. My friend searched for a community of people like him, but he "only" found AVEN. As far as I understand it, his lack of desire for penetrative sex caused a lot of suffering in his relationships and he wanted to find a label for himself to be able to describe himself and find similar people.

@Lost Incoitiosexual has just as many syllables as my Impenetrosexual lol. I agree with the others that it needs to be shorter. Perhaps a word that just means outside or something to that effect?

If the label was for me, I would not like the word "penetration" or something similar in it. It sounds a bit crude. That's why I would prefer "incoitosexual", if there are only those two options.

However I agree with ithaca, that the people, who belong to the label need to choose the word. It's nice for us to collect ideas, but in the end it should be them who decide what they will be called:

Even if I don't go down the route of "enough with labels" (which I agree with), I think it would be more respectful to leave it up to these people to decide if they need a label and, if so, what label they want. Labelling others seems disrespectful to me, like putting people in boxes when they didn't ask for it.

However, I feel that there needs to be a clear distinction between the lack of desire for intercourse and the inability to have it. Some men cannot functionally perform intercourse because of impotence issues, and some women have a condition that makes it too painful. So, there is a big difference between functional ability and desire, which is what makes this category tricky.

Definitely!

[Guest]

I agree with both the "enough with the labels" and the "let them label themselves if they want one" points here, everything I would have said on these points has already been said, so I'm not going to repeat the arguments again.

It seems that the reason for making a label is so that they can get a feeling of community... the solution for this (if being part of aven isn't enough) is for them to make a community for themselves, and a label if they want one.

As for the word itself, personally I find using greek or latin prefixes both pretentious and pointless. The word being in a foreign language doesn't make it sound any more 'official' and it only causes confusion because no one has a clue what it means and has to google it to find out. An english based prefix may not sound as cool but a least people have a chance of working out what it means.

Haven't you heard of the term:

“no-poke-me-sexual”

Fewer syllables, self-explanatory, and easier to pronounce and spell.

Also comes with the bonus followup question:

What part of “no-poke-me” don't you understand?

Try that with a prefix.

Lol. This I like!

[The Terrible Travis]

@Timbre

Well, preference was the wrong word. Preference implies that you like one favored thing more over another favored thing. Yes, it can also mean favoring something over something you dislike, but it really shouldn't be used that way.

I see no reason it shouldn't be used that way, seeing as that is a proper use of the word. People aren't just going to change a definition of a word because you don't like it, lol.

[Lost247365]

The word being in a foreign language doesn't make it sound any more 'official' and it only causes confusion because no one has a clue what it means and has to google it to find out. An english based prefix may not sound as cool but a least people have a chance of working out what it means.

Just about every single word in the English language is based upon greek/latin/or german in some way.

• every-from the protogerman word ǣlċ meaning every
• Single-From the latin word "singulus" meaning individual.
• Word-From the proto-german word "wurdą" meaning word

If you are looking for a language not based upon foreign words and phrases then the English Language is the worst place to look.

[Guest]

The word being in a foreign language doesn't make it sound any more 'official' and it only causes confusion because no one has a clue what it means and has to google it to find out. An english based prefix may not sound as cool but a least people have a chance of working out what it means.

Just about every single word in the English language is based upon greek/latin/or german in some way.

• every-from the protogerman word ǣlċ meaning every
• Single-From the latin word "singulus" meaning individual.
• Word-From the proto-german word "wurdą" meaning word

If you are looking for a language not based upon foreign words and phrases then the English Language is the worst place to look.

Yes, but the English language (as with all others) has developed naturally over the millennia, with new words being created from words in common usage at the time. I highly doubt people thought "oh, we need a word for this, lets get out the latin dictionary and find a term that might be relevant!" outside of technical jargon.

[A Member Once Known As tqz]

But these people were originally asking if they were asexual; seeking a label from the threads I've already read, so how is it inaccurate or insulting to give them one?

[snipped remainder]

Do you mean people as a group asked for it or persons individually asked for it? Did each person want a generalized label or a personal label? Any chance someone wanted a further explanation instead of a label but phrased the question otherwise? Or maybe what they were expressing wasn't a demand for a term but an assurance of legitimacy? Were they perhaps asking about whether they'd be accepted here, whether they would be told they don't belong? I wonder whether that would be met by a word made up last week, today, or after they asked.

It seems to me a person's own words would be most fitting because someone else's words inevitably mean what that someone else means. As a person describes one's own experiences, I think that person finds one's own words. Hearing how other people describe themselves here could be what helps someone figure out the phrases and statements for that person about that person.

On the other hand, if we could agree upon a word, then we could more readily sweep large chunks of newcomers under that rug. I suppose that could save a lot time with the meet and greet. If we can't agree upon a word, then we might very well have to continue listening to each and every newcomer as if each might be individually different. In that case, we might only have each person's user name to distinguish each one instead of a comfy quilt of words to wrap around each.

[scarletlatitude]

Sorry, I'm not understanding how this is not grey-a? Or is it grey-a and we're just looking for a more specific word?

[dandelionfluff]

Aren't there lesbians and gay men who don't like penetration? Would that still make them on the asexual spectrum? Heck I'm sure there are plenty of straight people that don't like penetration either. If anything, instead of calling it a new orientation, I think the idea that sex can be enjoyed without penetration should be more widespread.

If someone has a full sex drive and experiences attraction regularly but they just don't desire penetration, I don't see how that makes them any different from any other sexual. Unless I have misread the OP because that's all I'm getting from this.

[Star Bit]

While it isn't a sexual orientation or preference, it's still a 'thing', just like, for example, being a libidoist or non-libidoist. Those have labels, but have much less of an impact than being mentally incapable of penetrative sex.

You're right. I was originally thinking it ending in sexual was ok because it pertained to sex. But it should really be something solo like non-libidoist, as you said. Although cupiosexual does refer to actions [without the person trigering the desire], and sexual does mean sex-like, but I'm not sure what we would otherwise refer to the sex bit with. Unless it literally was something that meant or was "non-penetrative." Which sounds helpful for Aces and Allosexuals.

@Timbre

Well, preference was the wrong word. Preference implies that you like one favored thing more over another favored thing. Yes, it can also mean favoring something over something you dislike, but it really shouldn't be used that way.

I see no reason it shouldn't be used that way, seeing as that is a proper use of the word. People aren't just going to change a definition of a word because you don't like it, lol.

Because then people use it in reference to what is mandatory, thus its two meanings are very different. It's especially harmful/misleading when people put it to their orientation, especially toward allosexuals who read it as its first meaning. "I prefer to be friends with my partner before we date" becomes "I could date you but i choose not to" or something like that.

@dandelionfluff

I've already answered this. Note, some are capable of penetration but don't enjoy it due to unwanting the activity and others are incapable of penetration (giving or receiving). My point in creating the term is that these people feel as broken as an asexual yet they belong in neither that nor Gray-A, yet they aren't a normal sexual person either. I'm not trying to label needless specifics, but you also may be viewing it as needless because you don't experience the alienation they do. [which Autmn Season further explains] Allosexual people having sexual preferences is normal, yes, but being unable to have penetrative sex, no.

@ithaca I want to clarify that when i was saying other people don't aske permission with lables, i meant only that and not that i was against getting such people's actual opinion. And me mentioning cisgender is not different from the topic; the term cisgender was created without the other partie's consent; it being about opposites doesn't matter.

For those of you that say this should be on the asexual or Gray-A spectrum, it's not. As i said, Gray-A refers to anything between having sexual attraction and not, where as people like this already have sexual attraction. So it's purely on the Allosexual scale.

[ithaca]

@ithaca I want to clarify that when i was saying other people don't aske permission with lables, i meant only that and not that i was against getting such people's actual opinion.

I think you're still looking at it from the wrong angle. It shouldn't be about getting a group's opinion when it's about their label and their sexuality. If the term "genderqueer" didn't exist and I (a fairly cisgender girl) made it up to call those who don't fall in the binary, those whom I am labelling may actually find it insulting and disrespectful, because I do not belong to that group and it's not my place to label them.

For those of you that say this should be on the asexual or Gray-A spectrum, it's not. As i said, Gray-A refers to anything between having sexual attraction and not, where as people like this already have sexual attraction. So it's purely on the Allosexual scale.

There's a lot more to gray-a than that. Gray-a is an entire spectrum between asexuality and sexuality. See here for more info:

http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gray-A_/_Grey-A

[Star Bit]

@ ithaca Well, it's nowhere near being Gray-Asexual, but if gray refers to not the norm then it does seem plausibly in the range of Gray-Sexual at the very least. I really don't like referencing Asexuality when someone clearly and normally experiences sexual attraction but just has a way they have to have sex while clearly experiencing no form of asexuality. But then should we call every sexual abnormality in the Gray area? No; then pedophilia would be in there. And while I'm already familure with yor given link, it does not support your statement in saying this specific thing belongs in the term.