Jump to content

Title for sexuals who don't desire penetrative sex


Star Bit

Recommended Posts

x

Link to post
Share on other sites
Confusion 0

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

Yeah, I'm grey-a, but most of the reason I identify as such, is not because of my weaker sexual attraction, but because of my attitude toward sex. I don't see sex as anything special, unlike most people.

Although, I'm not sure if this would fit into the grey-a category. I think this issue is more likely to be linked with anxiety or dysphoria, rather than asexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Tbh, I'd agree with you if my disgust for kissing during sex wasn't also a thing... No childhood trauma and I'm completely fine with it outside the bedroom, so there's something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season

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.

It's interesting that you noticed and good that you mentioned this.

I just want to point out that my friend who doesn't like penetration is a cis-gendered heterosexual man, nothing trans about him. He fits the binary world view very well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricecream-man

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.

It's interesting that you noticed and good that you mentioned this.

I just want to point out that my friend who doesn't like penetration is a cis-gendered heterosexual man, nothing trans about him. He fits the binary world view very well.

And I fully acknowledge this. It wasn't a catch all. I myself am most bothered by penetrative sex and while I don't care about gender am essentially cis male for all that it matters. The other sexual acts don't particularly bother me. PIV sex gives me the shivers and sends me into a depresssive state afterwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of the AVEN members who play the "let's create a label for every single preference" game have actually had sexual relationships with people? I'm guessing not very many. If you've had a few sexual relationships, you learn very quickly that EVERYONE IS &%$&@ DIFFERENT!!! I've had sex with dozens of people and not a two of them liked all the same things. Part of sex is learning the other person's preferences.

You can't label them all. It's stupid. This may seriously be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

And yes, tons of people... gay, straight, lesbian, trans... don't like penetration. It's actually not that odd. And it certainly has nothing to do with asexuality. If this is gray-A, there is no such thing as sexual. Because apparently all one needs to be asexual is have preferences, and duh guys... everyone has preferences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dandelionfluff

I was just thinking, would cishet men who

don't want to be fucked in the ass

fall under this orientation? lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

@dandelionfluff

But that's more so from insecurity; the stigma that it would make them gay/it's something they've never explored and they're inserting things where things have never been inserted/it's not an exposed hetero thing in society so the idea has never been in their minds (kind of imagine a girl/guy is informed for the first time on how hetero sex works while having no previous exposure to sex)/they have the expectation of a dick or pain. But both sexes can have no desire for penetration and it goes both ways with giving it and recieving it; so it's not nececerily anal non-penetrative males don't want. Stone people/people who don't want to be sexually stimulated in any way durring sex but give it, and what I'm talking about in this thread are two different things.

@Lost

Actually i have a problem with your term. It refers to sexual intercourse and any form of sex is sexual intercourse. The word literally means interaction; thus translating as sexual interaction. The misconception that it's only vaginal/anal probably comes from the prefix inter sounding like internal. The word intercourse started to be used sexually in 1798 and eventually over the years almost exclusively so. (Sigh, society and graspong onto sexual meanings; this was done with fetish and another that I'm blanking on.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Star, why do you feel particularly and personally authorized, educated, and generally knowledgeable about the entirety of human sexuality that you actually believe you have a right to make up terms on AVEN and then run around slapping labels on people?! It's just... this is behavior that I cannot wrap my head around. You're not helping anyone... you're making up words because you feel... god knows what, some sort of calling(?) to box everyone up. It's... it's mindblowing that AVEN even allows this shit... I think it's wholly offensive that I could wander into AVEN and then be thrown a million terms that exist only because some user named Star Bit decided they should. I'm just... I'm blown away. Who do you think you are?! Damn.

You're pathologizing people and it's wrong.

1.There is no reason why people who prefer not to have intercourse need a term

2. Even if they do, in no way is it your responsibility

3. Even if they do, I see no evidence you're remotely qualified to single-handedly classify all of humanity and then personally label them as they come to AVEN

4. These terms are meaningless because they exist only here, and only amongst you and your friends. They aren't helpful as such.

5. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVING DIFFERENT PREFERENCES. What's wrong with telling someone they're fine and normal rather than labeling them?

Sorry, I'm sure I'm going to get a warning for this, but it's worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Star, why do you feel particularly and personally authorized, educated, and generally knowledgeable about the entirety of human sexuality that you actually believe you have a right to make up terms on AVEN and then run around slapping labels on people?! It's just... this is behavior that I cannot wrap my head around. You're not helping anyone... you're making up words because you feel... god knows what, some sort of calling(?) to box everyone up. It's... it's mindblowing that AVEN even allows this shit... I think it's wholly offensive that I could wander into AVEN and then be thrown a million terms that exist only because some user named Star Bit decided they should. I'm just... I'm blown away. Who do you think you are?! Damn.

You're pathologizing people and it's wrong.

1.There is no reason why people who prefer not to have intercourse need a term

2. Even if they do, in no way is it your responsibility

3. Even if they do, I see no evidence you're remotely qualified to single-handedly classify all of humanity and then personally label them as they come to AVEN

4. These terms are meaningless because they exist only here, and only amongst you and your friends. They aren't helpful as such.

5. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVING DIFFERENT PREFERENCES. What's wrong with telling someone they're fine and normal rather than labeling them?

Sorry, I'm sure I'm going to get a warning for this, but it's worth it.

I was desperately trying to explain the same thing on the "hebensexual" topic, but try to talk to people who don't aren't even open to listening...

And I want to add that personally, I think that it would be a very good thing if the ToS forbid people to invent labels for others, and even more when others didn't ask for them nor approved them. This is starting to get seriously offensive to a point where being on AVEN feels less comfortable now, at least to me. (And so many labels are starting to look seriously ridiculous as well, it looks more like some random Tumblr blog than a place to learn and explore)

Anyway, thank you, i'm feeling less alone with my opinion :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree... not that this is a threat, because I know people would like to see me go, but still... I can't hang out in a place where a few random members decide to introduce everyone new to a bunch of made up crap that isn't based on anything except their own personal understanding of sexuality. By all means, have the threads that discuss the traits, fine... but no one should be allowed to invent labels for others or give someone a label they made up. It's horribly offensive, but more importantly, it's horribly unhelpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous

Star, why do you feel particularly and personally authorized, educated, and generally knowledgeable about the entirety of human sexuality that you actually believe you have a right to make up terms on AVEN and then run around slapping labels on people?! It's just... this is behavior that I cannot wrap my head around. You're not helping anyone... you're making up words because you feel... god knows what, some sort of calling(?) to box everyone up. It's... it's mindblowing that AVEN even allows this shit... I think it's wholly offensive that I could wander into AVEN and then be thrown a million terms that exist only because some user named Star Bit decided they should. I'm just... I'm blown away. Who do you think you are?! Damn.

You're pathologizing people and it's wrong.

1.There is no reason why people who prefer not to have intercourse need a term

2. Even if they do, in no way is it your responsibility

3. Even if they do, I see no evidence you're remotely qualified to single-handedly classify all of humanity and then personally label them as they come to AVEN

4. These terms are meaningless because they exist only here, and only amongst you and your friends. They aren't helpful as such.

5. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVING DIFFERENT PREFERENCES. What's wrong with telling someone they're fine and normal rather than labeling them?

Sorry, I'm sure I'm going to get a warning for this, but it's worth it.

THIS. Thank you, Skullery, for putting my frustrations into words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

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?

I think that it is the opposite. I think we need to stop treating asexuality like it's a dissectable science. I think we need to stop calling asexuals anything besides "asexual". We don't pick apart any other sexuality. we're creating opportunities for ignorance of our own orientation...

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

Star, why do you feel particularly and personally authorized, educated, and generally knowledgeable about the entirety of human sexuality that you actually believe you have a right to make up terms on AVEN and then run around slapping labels on people?! It's just... this is behavior that I cannot wrap my head around. You're not helping anyone... you're making up words because you feel... god knows what, some sort of calling(?) to box everyone up. It's... it's mindblowing that AVEN even allows this shit... I think it's wholly offensive that I could wander into AVEN and then be thrown a million terms that exist only because some user named Star Bit decided they should. I'm just... I'm blown away. Who do you think you are?! Damn.

You're pathologizing people and it's wrong.

1.There is no reason why people who prefer not to have intercourse need a term

2. Even if they do, in no way is it your responsibility

3. Even if they do, I see no evidence you're remotely qualified to single-handedly classify all of humanity and then personally label them as they come to AVEN

4. These terms are meaningless because they exist only here, and only amongst you and your friends. They aren't helpful as such.

5. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVING DIFFERENT PREFERENCES. What's wrong with telling someone they're fine and normal rather than labeling them?

Sorry, I'm sure I'm going to get a warning for this, but it's worth it.

Star's just a forum member on a forum. their thought on labels will stimulate discussion but not change anything about orientation directly. there isn't anything wrong with it. Star's even said that they started this thread because they encounted a few people who are searching for an appropriate label, and do not have one.

in the end the ones that don't really make any sense will fade away as the thread dies, but occasionally an important one will be found and introduced. it's an inefficient way of "growing" sexual orientation knowledge, but it is still better than a lack of effort in this regard. Orientation is a progressive area in general after all.

maybe Star's wording and presentation needs improvement. but you skullery are essentially shunning questioning and pondering....

Link to post
Share on other sites
scarletlatitude

To all: Please keep things on topic. I know this is a common argument with people having strong opinions on both sides, and that's okay. Attack the argument, not the person. :)

scarletlatitude, Gray Area mod

Link to post
Share on other sites

Demisexual was created the same way; through a conversive thread. Who was "classified" there? As I've already said, i had no problem initially saying that these are just sexual people with a need to have sex in a specific way, but then after seeing several people post it i began to take their alienation from asexuality, gray-a, and the sexual norm seriously (even though they strongly relate to asexuality/their issues in an allosexual relationship) and proposed a term because the people in the threads i read asked for it. If it wasn't me but one of them making this thread, would people still be mad about it? I agree that asexuals who aren't fully ace shouldn't go by it; the aforementioned people shouldn't either; it puts misinformation into the public. Even if someone's sexual attraction is rare, it's still damaging when that person finds someone they are sexually attracted to and still goes by asexual. The only exception is if they have sexual attraction but never want to act on it. And I'll admit I'm not good at wording when it comes to peoples feelings. I try but i can't seem to get that right with a lot of people. And I'm sorry, but that's the best i could put things as.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WoodwindWhistler

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.

That's not "normal" though, not by a long shot in mainstream standards. Penetration is focused on a *lot.* You're sounding like LGBT people who say well, asexual isn't really an "alternative" orientation even if they do feel alienated from general society.

I personally would classify it under the gray umbrella the way BDSM is classified as way "outside the norm" even though they experience attraction just like everyone else. These people want slightly "less" of "average" sex, BDSM people want more (or different). Especially if the people OP is talking about *want* to identify under gray and can gain something- reassurance, solidarity- from the ace environment. I agree that using terms outside internet land is cumbersome, but terms do serve a purpose. I'll repeat this until the cows come home:

"Inuits have tons of words to describe different snow. Yet when we come to something that is very, very worthy of elaboration- a deeply human and individualized experience- we balk at creating a focal vocabulary??? Nope, nope, and nope. Take your logophobia elsewhere, please. I don't expect the general public to learn these words (I'd be happy with them just accepting asexuality) but I do expect there not to be pushback from the specialized community itself!!"

Aborigines have hundreds of words to describe sand, and Germans have hundreds of words to describe textures and flavors of beer. This is at LEAST as worthy of exploration and awareness, if not much, much more so.

If we have people coming to the forums who feel like they are broken, and are potentially being pressured to have types of sex they don't want, *whatever* that might be, PLEASE do not fight a burgeoning call for awareness by pulling out the "this is pointless" card. That card has been played against demi people, let's not let it continue to be played. YOU may not personally need these terms- and great for you- but to those who are trying to makes sense of themselves and potentially feel erased, they're in the same boat asexuals were in not long ago. Terms are not pathologizing. Having no space in society or in vocabulary where something is acknowledged as existing IS.

WindyAce, this is not about being able to reach orgasm by penetration *alone* -anyone over 16 should know that most girls need other stimulation *in addition*- this is about plain not *wanting* it or being repulsed.

I think incoito- prefix would be recognized by most because of the "coitus interruptus" joke for pulling out. It may be a bit pretentious, but it is also somewhat familiar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous

Teagan, you're kind of contradicting yourself with your two posts, aren't you? In the first one, you say that we should stop trying to pick apart asexuality (which is what some of us have been saying all along) because it promotes ignorance, and then you say that not doing so would be 'shunning questioning and pondering'. So, which is it?

I personally agree with your first statement. I think that slapping labels onto every little thing only puts people even more into their little personal tiny boxes and alientates us all from each other even more. It promotes 'us vs them' mentalities and completely loses sight of what it means to be a person. As in, having actual preferences about what they like and don't like. Imagine that! Not to mention doing it also abandons the entire function of labels, which is to make communcation easier between people. New words and terms do need to be introduced to our language when a need arises, however I don't see how making up words willy-nilly for things that are completely ordinary is any way helpful in communicating our preferences and how we feel.

WoodwindWoman, I was not saying that is the only reason a person would not want penetration, simply noting the fact that not wanting it is not an uncommon thing. Whether it is being repulsed, uninterested, unable for whatever reason, or just plain not liking it - it is normal to not want it. If anything, I think we should focus on stripping the concept of sex away from this black-and-white straightforward definition of PIV intercourse and open it up to all of the other ways to have sex. Maybe then those who dislike intercourse then would not feel so alienated, AND would not have to rely on a completely arbitrary label stuck on them like they are somehow different from any other 'normal' sexual person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, not wanting penetrative sex is a thing, but it most certainly is not common; it is most certainly a minority.

I'm not sure there's an "us vs them" mentality in this community. Labeling things doesn't seem to divide us but it's just as simple as saying "you're pink, I'm purple, ok." There's no "purple team is better than pink team!!" here. I don't find the point in mentioning I'm a libidoist in my orientation, but it's fine that that detail exists. Just because something isn't useful to you doesn't mean it can't be useful to other people.

If this is gray-A, there is no such thing as sexual. Because apparently all one needs to be asexual is have preferences, and duh guys... everyone has preferences.

Exactly what I've been trying to say to the mod that's lumping it in there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lost

Actually i have a problem with your term. It refers to sexual intercourse and any form of sex is sexual intercourse. The word literally means interaction; thus translating as sexual interaction. The misconception that it's only vaginal/anal probably comes from the prefix inter sounding like internal. The word intercourse started to be used sexually in the 1800s and eventually over the years almost exclusively so. (Sigh, society and graspong onto sexual meanings; this was done with fetish and another that I'm blanking on.)

That is fine, but generally coitus refers to PIV intercourse.

The term coitus is derived from the Latin wordcoitio or coire, meaning "a coming together or joining together" or "to go together"; it describes a variety of sexual activities under ancient Latin names, but usually refers exclusively to penile-vaginal penetration,[25] which is often termed vaginal intercourse or vaginal sex.[4][26]

Not trying to argue, just explaining my thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it is the opposite. I think we need to stop treating asexuality like it's a dissectable science. I think we need to stop calling asexuals anything besides "asexual". We don't pick apart any other sexuality. we're creating opportunities for ignorance of our own orientation...

If we don't dissect it, we leave all but 'the acest' aces to their ignorance. I didn't dare call myself asexual because I seemed to experience attraction and even enjoy sex to a point, so I thought I was disqualified. Then I found out that there are asexuals who 1) only enjoy it by themselves, and/or 2) enjoy giving to their partners without reciprocation. Bloody hell. That's me. If I hadn't learned that other people experienced that combination of things, I would've just kept beating my head against intimate relationships and wondering why I can't enjoy sex the way my partners do.

Anytime we dissect something, it's so that we can learn more about it. That's just as true here. There's the true-blue asexuals described in the site's banner, who just have no desire to do the do, but there's also some of us on the fringes who don't quite understand what's going on with us. I got a helping hand into this community -- so I think the people Star describes in the OP deserve one just as much as I did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk how much legal terms would hold, but legally the word intercourse is defined as vaginal, anal, oral and hand jobs; half of which are the exact thing we're trying to refer to. And if your word is basically the same popular meaning as intercourse but the same literal meaning of it also pertaining to everything, then i think it's an inaccurate term to use. But if that's the term that ends up being used then that's fine i guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WoodwindWhistler

I think we should focus on stripping the concept of sex away from this black-and-white straightforward definition of PIV intercourse and open it up to all of the other ways to have sex. Maybe then those who dislike intercourse then would not feel so alienated, AND would not have to rely on a completely arbitrary label stuck on them like they are somehow different from any other 'normal' sexual person.

But . . . that's exactly what we're trying to do by making terms. Whatever this new term is, if we make it able to refer to either sexual or gray/ace, it fits that function. They, um, *are* different, not wanting what's considered the "main event" of sex . . .

The issue of "boxes" is a philosophical one, not arising from words themselves. If people let the word "gay" or "cishet" divide them, that is a philosophical problem, not one of the perfectly valid (and validating) terms. We wouldn't get rid of the term gay, or trans, or ace, and those are "boxes." Why is adding more different? Acceptance- plain and simple- is the goal here, and should be assumed by default.

@dandelionfluff

But that's more so from insecurity; the stigma that it would make them gay/it's something they've never explored and they're inserting things where things have never been inserted/it's not an exposed hetero thing in society so the idea has never been in their minds (kind of imagine a girl/guy is informed for the first time on how hetero sex works while having no previous exposure to sex)/they have the expectation of a dick or pain.

You do realize the problematic nature of this comparison, don't you, in authoring an entire thread about people who might have never had penetrative sex, and therefore "maybe it's just anxiety"??? MANY aces have reported feeling surprised and disgusted when they found out about PIV and that that feeling never went away. Does that mean they simply need to get over their "insecurity," ("immaturity" as some like to mock) like those guys who just haven't tried or been familiar with anal? NO. People have an idea of what they do and do not like way before the first touch, especially if they have experimented with fantasizing first. I have never had either kind of penetration, and don't plan to anytime soon, but I am pretty danged sure I would enjoy them if I ever decided to try.

And as AVEN's general policy states- it does not matter *why* someone does not want to do something, or does not feel compelled to do so- trauma, bad relationships, medical issues, *whatever*. It's entirely possible that growing up in a culture where parents are secretive about sex, (in certain other cultures adults make no efforts to hide their sexual interactions from children), our exposure to it at puberty is psychologically jarring as a consequence. But. It. Doesn't. Matter. Don't try to "explain away" cishet mens' discomfort with something, as that's the same as trying to explain away an ace's discomfort with something. Everyone is allowed to be repulsed, uncomfortable, and express a wish not to be exposed to certain content or conversations, and it's not "asexual elitism" or "homophobia" to be or do so. I'm really surprised you didn't pick that out of your juxtaposition yourself.

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".

I understand where you're coming from as an ace, but mixed (or more accurately, opposed) orientation relationships are really difficult, and can't just be handwaved. That statement alone kind of suggests you have a bit of ace "privlege" going on relative to not having to deal with those desires. Are you suggesting that people either (a) go without what they really want, which causes anguish and many times builds resentment or (b) enter poly relationships, which are a godsend to some but an emotional minefield to others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

Teagan, you're kind of contradicting yourself with your two posts, aren't you? In the first one, you say that we should stop trying to pick apart asexuality (which is what some of us have been saying all along) because it promotes ignorance, and then you say that not doing so would be 'shunning questioning and pondering'. So, which is it?

I believe that we should disregard the concept of "labelling" but I see nothing wrong with "supposing" and thinking. thinking is free... but enforcing is taxing, and I do not like to tax. skullery maid was makig an argument that thinking is harmful, and that is what I disagree with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

I think that it is the opposite. I think we need to stop treating asexuality like it's a dissectable science. I think we need to stop calling asexuals anything besides "asexual". We don't pick apart any other sexuality. we're creating opportunities for ignorance of our own orientation...

If we don't dissect it, we leave all but 'the acest' aces to their ignorance. I didn't dare call myself asexual because I seemed to experience attraction and even enjoy sex to a point, so I thought I was disqualified. Then I found out that there are asexuals who 1) only enjoy it by themselves, and/or 2) enjoy giving to their partners without reciprocation. Bloody hell. That's me. If I hadn't learned that other people experienced that combination of things, I would've just kept beating my head against intimate relationships and wondering why I can't enjoy sex the way my partners do.

Anytime we dissect something, it's so that we can learn more about it. That's just as true here. There's the true-blue asexuals described in the site's banner, who just have no desire to do the do, but there's also some of us on the fringes who don't quite understand what's going on with us. I got a helping hand into this community -- so I think the people Star describes in the OP deserve one just as much as I did.

I think that, it would've been better if I had better words to say... it is not in the "dissect-pondering" that I see issue but in the "dissect-judging"

there is a trend to say "these people are in this box and NOT in that box, and these people are in THAT box but not this one"

and that is just incorrect by my books. and it is something that usually happens when people say "these people are like this and need to be labeled this way" no these people are already labled, and we ponder to find a secondary idea

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Woodwind

I get how you can read it that way, but I wasn't counteracting things. Dandelionfluff was referring to heterosexual men (or women for that matter) who don't want anal sex and my reasons on why they wouldn't want it had nothing to do with people who don't want the sexual norm of penetration. Anal sex is not the heterosexual norm and thus not odd for them to not desire. I wasn't saying that they can't know they don't desire anal, but culture can impair experimentation. I'm not saying they (or anyone) will like something once they try it, just that it's the reason men are more likely to immediately abstain from anal more than women. Most people don't even seem to know that there are male sex toys; that's how unexplored the male body can be/how that list of insecurities about it are likely true. I didn't mean that they were the only reasons, but just that those reasons are quite likely. I even stated "more so;" implying that there could be other reasons. I could list reasons why an asexual may enjoy sex, same thing. How is stating probability offensive?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one in here is claiming to be particularly qualified or unqualified to make labels. A couple of threads came up involving this and then Star thought it was something worth discussing and simply offered a suggestion. She is not forcing anyone to use the term, just offering up a suggestion. That is how new words and terms are coined. Someone offers up a word and people either latch onto it or not.

It is not pathologizing anything. In fact it is doing the exact opposite of that. It is normalizing it, and showing that there are a number of people like that. How many asexuals felt that we were broken till we learned that there was A WORD for us. That we were not alone. But, if there is something that is pathologizing, then it is erasure; and labels are a way of combating that.

No one is being FORCED into a box and getting offended by that is like getting offended because someone offered another person a sandwich after they said they were hungry. If you don't like a certain label don't use it, if you don't like threads on labels don't click it. You are not being forced to accept anything you don't like.

BUT, the same is not true in reverse. There are people trying to force those who like labels to be silenced. The proof is in this very thread where we have people calling for AVEN to ban simply discussing the subject.

And attacking "labels" has been a way to erase the identity of and pathologize asexuals and others. After the huffington post series on asexuality, many commentators attacked the very idea of labeling others as asexual. To try and push us back into a closet where we couldn't be seen or heard. So much so that it prompted this article:

http://www.asexualityarchive.com/the-comment-section/

http://www.asexualityarchive.com/the-comment-section-so-what-who-cares/

Now that is something that does affect me (unlike getting upset that someone is suggesting a new word and putting it up for discussion), and I find that offensive.

Star wasn't trying to do anything but make a suggestion and put it up for discussion. She was not trying to be offensive or strip anyone of their identity. Just suggesting a word. I fail to see why that necessitates such hostility or the need to try and censor anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is something that does affect me (unlike getting upset that someone is suggesting a new word and putting it up for discussion), and I find that offensive.

Speaking of which, what does it matter if I or anyone else gets offended?

Not like getting offended is an argument or a counterpoint. It does not advance the discussion, it is more like a way to try and shut down a discussion one does not like. I am half tempted to post a Steven Fry meme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But these people were originally asking if they were asexual;

To which question the answer is "no". What's so hard about that, and why does it demand yet another unpronounceable word?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That's not "normal" though, not by a long shot in mainstream standards. Penetration is focused on a *lot.* You're sounding like LGBT people who say well, asexual isn't really an "alternative" orientation even if they do feel alienated from general society.

I personally would classify it under the gray umbrella the way BDSM is classified as way "outside the norm" even though they experience attraction just like everyone else. These people want slightly "less" of "average" sex, BDSM people want more (or different). Especially if the people OP is talking about *want* to identify under gray and can gain something- reassurance, solidarity- from the ace environment. I agree that using terms outside internet land is cumbersome, but terms do serve a purpose. I'll repeat this until the cows come home:

"Inuits have tons of words to describe different snow. Yet when we come to something that is very, very worthy of elaboration- a deeply human and individualized experience- we balk at creating a focal vocabulary??? Nope, nope, and nope. Take your logophobia elsewhere, please. I don't expect the general public to learn these words (I'd be happy with them just accepting asexuality) but I do expect there not to be pushback from the specialized community itself!!"

Aborigines have hundreds of words to describe sand, and Germans have hundreds of words to describe textures and flavors of beer. This is at LEAST as worthy of exploration and awareness, if not much, much more so.

If we have people coming to the forums who feel like they are broken, and are potentially being pressured to have tytpes of sex they don't want, *whatever* that might be, PLEASE do not fight a burgeoning call for awareness by pulling out the "this is pointless" card. That card has been played against demi people, let's not let it continue to be played. YOU may not personally need these terms- and great for you- but to those who are trying to makes sense of themselves and potentially feel erased, they're in the same boat asexuals were in not long ago. Terms are not pathologizing. Having no space in society or in vocabulary where something is acknowledged as existing IS.

WindyAce, this is not about being able to reach orgasm by penetration *alone* -anyone over 16 should know that most girls need other stimulation *in addition*- this is about plain not *wanting* it or being repulsed.

I think incoito- prefix would be recognized by most because of the "coitus interruptus" joke for pulling out. It may be a bit pretentious, but it is also somewhat familiar.

Just because penetration is focused on a lot, doesn't mean as many people actually enjoy it as would seem (based on how it's portrayed in the media etc). Sure a lot of men enjoy the sensations of penetrating a woman, but many women enjoy other aspects of sex a lot more than penetration. I've known a lot of women who don't feel anything from it, but get off from stimulating their clitoris while it's happening or being given oral sex before or after the penetration. Sure penetration is focused on heaps in western society (especially in porn) but that doesn't mean it's as commonly enjoyed among people with vaginas as many would think based on how it's a portrayed in porn and movies etc.

And I don't care what I'm ''sounding'' like, I'm speaking the truth based on actual experience (I worked in the sex industry for two years, so yeah, I have known a lot of people who have a shit-load more sex than many ''regular'' people will in their lifetimes)

And I am actually someone who has no enjoyment of or desire for penetration, yet I am very sexual in other ways (when I want to be) .. I am technically one of the people this thread is aimed at, only I identify as Grey, not a sexual who doesn't enjoy penetration, because I just don't give a shit about having sex or not either way, and have only wanted it with a couple of people in my life, who I never actually got to meet and have it with lol,

Many of the other sexual women I have met who don't enjoy vaginal penetration are still able to have regular sexual relationships easily and happily, with no issues just identifying as a ''regular straight woman'' .. They can give vaginal sex happily and enjoy all the other aspects of sex with whoever they are in a relationship with or just having sex with at the time, they just don't enjoy the vaginal sex part the same way they enjoy the rest (believe me, I have known a shit-load of women like this)The reason I personally identify on the ace spectrum is that I have never been able to enjoy sexual relationshps, and would prefer to have a relationship free of the need for, or expectation of, sex (I am not repulsed or anything, I just don't enjoy it enough to want it.. it's hard to explain. And I've only ever actually 'wanted' sex with like 2 people in 27 years, neither of whom I ever met in person).. Anyway, I am nothing like many of the other sexual women I have met who don't enjoy vaginal penetration, but I still don't think someone like me would need a special label when Grey works just fine.

Some people only orgasm from oral, some only orgasm from anal, that doesn't all of a sudden make them Grey-A just because they don't orgasm from or enjoy vaginal penetration. And they don't need a special label to defines themselves(or you may as well give everyone who doesn't enjoy anal and everyone who doesn't enjoy oral a label too, lol)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...