Jump to content

Title for sexuals who don't desire penetrative sex


Star Bit

Recommended Posts

@Sally

I've already answered this twice and even in the OP, but I'll answer it again. Note, some are capable of penetration but don't enjoy it due to unwanting the activity (not due to being unable to come while penetrating/penetrated) and others are incapable of giving or receiving penetration. 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 Autumn Season further explains] Allosexual people having sexual preferences is normal, yes, but being unable to have penetrative sex, no. Even if not desiring penetration should be more acceptable, fact is it currently isn't and these people feel horrible for it. Yes, AVEN can offer them support but not the kind that most of us can find on here with seeing others like us, and that's because there's a label for it. Maybe some people can take it or tolerate it, but the 3 or 4 threads on the topic i found all received backlash for not wanting penetrative sex and were very uncomfortable when they tried to do it.

@Panficto

Gray works for you because you seem to be indifferent or find it unnecessary, but both you and the women you mentioned are different from the people I'm talking about that don't desire penetrative sex. If they do penetration they either are very uncomfortable or repulsed. Even if they are capable of sitting through that emotion it's not something they want to do on a regular basis/prefer not to ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Somebody recently came up with the term 'aegosexual' by using a rudimentary understanding of Latin to describe their own experience with asexuality. Then the community right here on AVEN pointed out that the a- was conjugated wrong. Now we have a word for people who don't enjoy partnered sex. I'll be surprised if it took longer than five years to happen.

If people don't know a word, that's what the community is for. We should be focused on refining our ability to help one-another. A big part of that is validating what other people feel by showing them that other people feel the same way. It's not just them and they're not broken. Some people don't like labels and that's okay, but other people see a label that matches them and it makes them realize, "Somebody else must have been thinking about this issue as much as I have, to have come up with a term for it. Maybe even a ton of somebodies, for it to have become so popular that I'm seeing it here now."

EDIT:

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?
The Gray Area, Sex and Related Discussions

Asexuality and sexuality are not black and white concepts; come here to discover and discuss the grey area in between, demisexuality, and all things related to sexuality and sexual identities!

/:

I mean, I'm sorry, but the whole point of this subforum is that there's no such thing as a simple yes or no answer.

The fact is, for the people that Star's describing, the only 'sexual' acts they're interested in are considered foreplay by the rest of society. What they see as a goal is just a means to an end for other people. There are many who wouldn't even call what these people do 'sex,' so you have to bring in subjective definitions to even start talking about this. There's so much wrapped up in this, it feels a bit dismissive to just go, "no." Kinda like when people dismiss other asexuality by saying, "You just haven't found the right person, is all. Why are you making up Latin words for something that simple?"

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

Hm. I can see how what you're saying accounts for my experience too, then. I was excluding myself from the community because I was 'dissect-judging' myself unworthy.../nods I do think it's important to take the judgement out of these sorts of things. I had my gender and orientation policed by a former friend who was triple-A and essentially called me a transtrender, played to my sense of respect to stop me from including myself with other people. It would have been nice if they could have just 'dissect-pondered' my identity with me, rather than gatekeeping like they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A Member Once Known As tqz

Oh boy…dissection. Someone finally noticed. A lot of someones.

Well, I guess I better trudge out the standard quote about taking things apart:

If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a nonworking cat.
—Douglas Adams

Link to post
Share on other sites
A Member Once Known As tqz

I think it's important to note the distinction between that of making it easier to talk about myself, and that of building a closet for collecting and hiding other people. A closet I or others built for them from which they later have to “come out”.

It feels like there is a difference between that of having someone understand something about me, and that of having to come out from behind a single word someone else created minus the other 999 words my picture is at least worth.

I feel very uncomfortable when I realize I've been thinking of the characteristics of a stereotype represented by a singular word used to describe someone I have just met as a means of knowing that person instead of learning from the moments of our everyday life with each other.

Words make most sense to me when I have personal experience with the context in which those words are used. A language might have a hundred words for a particular subject within a particular context, but that does not mean everyone who is familiar with that language are aware of those words, let alone has the personal experience to perceive the picture hidden behind those words.

Link to post
Share on other sites
J. van Deijck

How does it differ from sensual aces? If someone has romantic feelings to another person and wants physical closeness with them, but doesn't want to do that certain thing?

OK wait, sex is everything that involves genitals, right? So that makes some difference then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

skullery maid was makig an argument that thinking is harmful, and that is what I disagree with.

Skullery never said that. Skullery specifically said, and I quote:

Skullery Maid, on 06 Aug 2015 - 3:47 PM, said:

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.

I think it's important to note the distinction between that of making it easier to talk about myself, and that of building a closet for collecting and hiding other people. A closet I or others built for them from which they later have to “come out”.

It feels like there is a difference between that of having someone understand something about me, and that of having to come out from behind a single word someone else created minus the other 999 words my picture is at least worth.

Also, so much THIS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

Skullery Maid, on 06 Aug 2015 - 3:47 PM, said:

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.

I honestly don't get why people run around like these "labels" are definitions and "boxes" and "closets" I see it happening, I see everyone doing it... it doesn't make sense to me.

I have blue eyes. I have thick hair. these things about me I do not consider to put me in a box... they are part of who I am yes. and if someone made a "blue eyes" group, I'd probably check it out. and if someone said "everyone with thick hair is a greasy slime dog" I'd tell them they're incorrect and be upset at them. but by no means would I think that I am defined by this sole attribute. by no means would I go about my day thinking as if I need to define who I am and act any differently because of these things.

I see people make a fuss about their sexuality, their gender, the color of their skin.... I think it is something that is incorrect. we shouldn't be making any more of a fuss about these things than any other attribute that helps paint a picture of who we are...

it is a shame that people make prejudiced judgement about these things still. I'd think after over 100 years we'd learn a little something about prejudice. but we haven't learned a thing.... our institution has changed, and yet we still just go about and reject people as often as we take offense by things...

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

the question I ask is, when was the last time any one person came up with a word in our language that we use? most often when words come into use, it is because either a bunch of people started using a new word to mean something, in response to a small number (or one) of people introducing it. or, it is because some theorist or birdwatcher named a new thing and said "check out this new thing! I call it Newname. isn't Newname interesting?" and then a group of people go and say, "yeah Newname is interesting!" or, "yeah, it is interesting" but then a different name names "Newname" for some reason.

I do not know much about these processes

but I know enough to say that naming something neither is a final name, nor is "shoving it in a closet"

it is the attitude of a person using any name, new or pre-existing, that COULD shove people in a closet. but the question is, is Star Bit shoving people in a closet, or are you responding negatively to Star Bit's pondering because people who aren't Star Bit shove people in a closet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They become boxes when instead of saying "I have blue eyes", you become a blueopticasapien and you suddenly have to tell everyone you're a blueopticasapien and people start defining you based on your eye color because, why wouldn't you, you've coined an identity moniker for it.

I will preach until the day I die about this... gay people did not choose to be named and segregated. That happened TO US, not BY US. Until the last... god, maybe 10 years out of the history of humanity, people didn't label their sexuality themselves... it was foisted upon them by people who thought they were evil. Labels existed because people wanted to exclude others. We can pretend that the last 10 years of human history has completely and utterly changed the way we view labels, but I'm sorry, it hasn't. Labels implicitly suggest a defining characteristic, and most people don't want to be defined by what part of who's body they want touching what part of their body. It is such a tiny aspect of who we are that it doesn't need terms and it doesn't need groups. If you want to hang out only with other people who, say, love oral sex, I suppose that's fine, but one needn't have a term in order to do so.

You know what I love? Horror movies. I have friends who love horror movies. We were able to figure this out without coining an identity label about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
binary suns

I see, when something has some "name" for "people who do this or like this" it feels like you're supposed to think of yourself by this name. the concept stops being an attribute and instead becomes a title or a class.

which actually just brings back my original argument... I think we should stop "naming" orientation. the orientations are so far, gay straight bi pan ace, and grey. we shouldn't be trying to "name" libido'd people or IMO I don't think we should be fussing about "grey" as a name. IMO we shouldn't even "name" orientations. these are things that are part of us. we are a person who have blue eyes. we are not blueeyedasaurs. we are people who aren't enthusiastic about sex. we aren't asexuals. we are a person who is asexual, not "an asexual". someone is gay, not "a gay" and that is important to differentiate.

I think we shouldn't actually, be saying "a person who is asexual" that is like saying "a person who is fat" and we don't like the latter, so why should we like the first?

ps. I don't know what we SHOULD be saying instead, I do not find these things to be deterministic, but since it appears it is common for others to do so I argue that we should stop using these naming habits

pps. Star's intentions of "looking out" for others who are searching for an answer do not give me any issue. thinking about things and proposing words is something that isn't all that unusual. I just don't consider these "orientation words" to be closet-forming things. if people do, then we as a community and people like star bit should strive to change how they approach these "ponderings"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricecream-man

Still don't think that not wanting penetrative sex or being physically unable to engage in it makes you any less of a sexual person. Just like the BDSM example, it's an adjective you add to your sexuality not one in and of itself. There are sexual and asexual people into BDSM and the same goes for penetrative sex.

This whole thing where anything not "normal" makes it so you're not sexual is starting to get old.

If this penetration thing were true then most lesbians who aren't into strapons wouldn't be considered sexual. A few of my friends would dispel that idea pretty damn quickly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Even if you come up with a word for it, it's not an orientation nor is it a form of asexuality. I say someone who might identify with the asexual community not as in "This is their identity" but that they may find ideas and a community they find they fit into even if not exactly. There is a name for people who are sex-repulsed by the way. Literally sex-repulsed. That's what we use within the ace community too. Sex-repulsed asexual. And it's not exclusive to people who are asexual. Trying to call it an orientation and give it an "orientation name" is a useless method of creating some "new" sexuality that's not a sexuality at all. Orientation denotes who and what gender(s) you're attracted to. You can be attracted to people and still be sex-repulsed. I'm sex-repulsed but that's not my orientation, now is it? An orientation is still a part of someone's identity for many people as it does make up a part of who they are and it's going to affect how a person goes through life. My asexuality doesn't define me, but it does makeup a large part of the way I see the world and my interactions with people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if you come up with a word for it, it's not an orientation nor is it a form of asexuality. I say someone who might identify with the asexual community not as in "This is their identity" but that they may find ideas and a community they find they fit into even if not exactly. There is a name for people who are sex-repulsed by the way. Literally sex-repulsed. That's what we use within the ace community too. Sex-repulsed asexual. And it's not exclusive to people who are asexual. Trying to call it an orientation and give it an "orientation name" is a useless method of creating some "new" sexuality that's not a sexuality at all. Orientation denotes who and what gender(s) you're attracted to. You can be attracted to people and still be sex-repulsed. I'm sex-repulsed but that's not my orientation, now is it? An orientation is still a part of someone's identity for many people as it does make up a part of who they are and it's going to affect how a person goes through life. My asexuality doesn't define me, but it does makeup a large part of the way I see the world and my interactions with people.

I think we are splitting hairs and then arguing over the importance of the various slices of hair.

My inability to have intercourse is related to my asexuality, and you cannot tell me this is not true, since you don't know me well enough, and you don't know the reasons why this is true. I've lived the reality of my impotence and I know what influences it; and you don't unless I explain it to you. I can't explain who I am to anyone if I'm not able to describe the many facets of my asexuality/sexuality and how other issues intersect with it.

I don't think it is important that we give a name to what we experience (yep I changed my mind). I think it is much more important to be able to describe how we relate to and feel around people, specifically within the contexts of emotional intimacy and sexuality.

We are trying to differentiate between orientations, identities, desires, attractions, genders, behaviors, sexuality, dysfunctions, etc., but yet all of these aspects overlap to some degree, and it is all important to understanding our individual manifestations of asexuality/sexuality!

Something is wrong with the entire classification system, because there is no agreed upon standard as to what we should include when describing ourselves. Some of us want to minimize what is included, and others, like me, want more information. Personally, I think we are trying to exclude too much. There is not just one form of asexuality. There are as many unique forms of it as there are people who are asexuals.

I suggest that a new system of classification be developed: One that is based on multiple criteria, instead of trying to describe ourselves with one piece of information, such as orientation. The expressions and sources of asexuality are too complex and varied to fit into the term orientation or any other singular term. I know that we all appreciate simplicity, but some things cannot be simplified without losing the essence of who we are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point in creating the term is that these people feel as broken as an asexual

How do you know what they feel? And if someone does feel broken simply because they don't like penetrative sex, we should be looking for ways to reassure them that they're not, rather than slapping terms on them -- terms that more likely than not, will enhance any sense of brokenness by way of making them feel as though they're significantly different from other people. Especially since no one else knows these terms, making them totally useless.

Really? Asexuality makes a majority feel broken? I've only seen a couple threads that said that and predominantly because they realized they'd never be like other people/were missing out, not directly because of the label. It makes them feel accepted. Is the term asexual useless? No. And it's called informing people. Even if this word won't be used publicly it can still be used to find other people like them and that can mean the world to people.

And i know they feel broken because they said so in their threads; otherwise i would have inserted the word probably and i didn't.

@A Member

Without disection we wouldn't know about any other forms of attraction other than sexual.

@Tuan

Well, the definition of orientation fits with anything technically. But I already said i was wrong and agreed it should be a detail like non-libidoist or sex-repulsed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy…dissection. Someone finally noticed. A lot of someones.

Well, I guess I better trudge out the standard quote about taking things apart:

If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a nonworking cat.

—Douglas Adams

Snappy as Douglas Adams quotes may be...isn't that kind of the point? People get excited or unfocused or even anxious when they're placed in a sexual situation -- especially if there's something up with their sexuality that they don't understand, creating tension below the surface level of consciousness. If they can neutralize and pick at and examine those feelings, they can do so with a clearer head and start to realize something about themselves. I've heard this called 'desexifying' sex: discussing it clinically so that they can back up from the situation and see all the pieces.

Thankfully, unlike cats, abstract concepts pertaining to identity and relationships can be put back together after the fact and they'll work just fine q:

I think it's important to note the distinction between that of making it easier to talk about myself, and that of building a closet for collecting and hiding other people. A closet I or others built for them from which they later have to “come out”.

It feels like there is a difference between that of having someone understand something about me, and that of having to come out from behind a single word someone else created minus the other 999 words my picture is at least worth.

I feel very uncomfortable when I realize I've been thinking of the characteristics of a stereotype represented by a singular word used to describe someone I have just met as a means of knowing that person instead of learning from the moments of our everyday life with each other.

Words make most sense to me when I have personal experience with the context in which those words are used. A language might have a hundred words for a particular subject within a particular context, but that does not mean everyone who is familiar with that language are aware of those words, let alone has the personal experience to perceive the picture hidden behind those words.

As a cat owner, I must say: there's a world of difference between stuffing a cat in a box, and letting them enter the box of their own free will q: For some people, having boundaries helps them ask the right questions of themselves. Instead of "Who will I marry and have kids with?" they could start to ask, "Do I even want to get married or have kids? Do I even like sex?" A complete change of paradigm isn't easy, because often, we're already in a box by default and it's so cramped that we don't even know other boxes exist. Becoming aware of the sheer variety of boxes in the world is a step up from trying to fit into the unspoken single box.

And yeah, it may take explanation to make people understand. That's fine. At least a box gives you somewhere to begin; the first sentence can often be the hardest, but being able to say, "I don't experience this whole 'sex' thing the way you do" takes care of that.

Yeah, you're telling rather than showing, but in some cases it may be because you don't want to show them or you can't. I tried showing my friends that I'm a total prude who can't so much as cuddle with someone unless I've known them for like two years and completely trust them. They responded by trying to set me up for a one-night stand at a swordfighting event we went to. 'Break me outta my shell.' Do not want. I couldn't just show them my relationship to sex, because the issue was that I'm super distant and guarded about it and that's what I showed them and they still didn't get it. So I explained that after years of trauma, I really really really can't just trust some stranger with my body. I admit there was no Latin involved in that conversation, but I still had to dissect myself to really make them understand.

If anything, my label was 'prude' and that's still important to me. I'd prefer they not stereotype me by it, yeah. I'd prefer they hear me out, let me explain myself. But in general, I'm somebody for whom it's important to desexify life. I want people to understand that concept in order to guide their interactions with me. I want me to understand that for myself. It's important to get to know me through experience, as you say, but if you're not keeping in mind what I'm about then your experiences with me will be off-color. I'm a prude who openly discusses and sometimes even participates in sexuality, but that lens of 'prude' totally changes the meaning of those interactions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point in creating the term is that these people feel as broken as an asexual

How do you know what they feel? And if someone does feel broken simply because they don't like penetrative sex, we should be looking for ways to reassure them that they're not, rather than slapping terms on them -- terms that more likely than not, will enhance any sense of brokenness by way of making them feel as though they're significantly different from other people. Especially since no one else knows these terms, making them totally useless.

Really? Asexuality makes a majority feel broken? I've only seen a couple threads that said that and predominantly because they realized they'd never be like other people/were missing out, not directly because of the label. It makes them feel accepted. Is the term asexual useless? No. And it's called informing people. Even if this word won't be used publicly it can still be used to find other people like them and that can mean the world to people.

And i know they feel broken because they said so in their threads; otherwise i would have inserted the word probably and i didn't.

@A Member

Without disection we wouldn't know about any other forms of attraction other than sexual.

I'm going to say again. Star, you do not have a magical magnifying glass that lets you peer into the souls of others. Perspective and humility are beautiful things, both of which are sorely lacking when you start categorizing humans like butterflies.

No one is really getting a choice when Star Bit jumps into every thread and tells the people exactly what they are, and offers NOTHING by way of "oh btw I totally just made this up about 4 minutes ago and no one else really knows the term and also most people on AVEN wish I'd stop doing this". Nope. Either we fight with Star in every thread, or they promulgate this absolutely absurd labeling obsession to new members, and that's the part I take issue with. Fine, Star believes she understands us all better than we understand ourselves. I say she's full of shit, but whatever. But no making up new terms for people who aren't you, and no jumping into every thread and telling new members what their label is without a big ol' disclaimer. Because no one, no one is given a choice when they have their label slapped onto their shirt for them the second they wander onto the site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the titles i suggest in other peoples threads are my creation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Skullery Maid, you're really putting a lot of words into somebody else's mouth for somebody who talks of humility. You can disagree with somebody without attacking the validity of their intentions like this /:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Skullery Maid, you're really putting a lot of words into somebody else's mouth for somebody who talks of humility. You can disagree with somebody without attacking the validity of their intentions like this /:

Show me where I've attacked intentions. I'm sure Star has wonderful intentions. I don't give a fuck about intentions.

Show me where I've put words in Star's mouth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me where I've attacked intentions. I'm sure Star has wonderful intentions. I don't give a fuck about intentions.

Show me where I've put words in Star's mouth.

I'm going to say again. Star, you do not have a magical magnifying glass that lets you peer into the souls of others. Perspective and humility are beautiful things, both of which are sorely lacking when you start categorizing humans like butterflies.

No one is really getting a choice when Star Bit jumps into every thread and tells the people exactly what they are, and offers NOTHING by way of "oh btw I totally just made this up about 4 minutes ago and no one else really knows the term and also most people on AVEN wish I'd stop doing this". Nope. Either we fight with Star in every thread, or they promulgate this absolutely absurd labeling obsession to new members, and that's the part I take issue with. Fine, Star believes she understands us all better than we understand ourselves. I say she's full of shit, but whatever. But no making up new terms for people who aren't you, and no jumping into every thread and telling new members what their label is without a big ol' disclaimer. Because no one, no one is given a choice when they have their label slapped onto their shirt for them the second they wander onto the site.

Your entire presumption is that she's pushing herself on other people, rather than answering their call, as has been the implication in every single post she's made in this thread. She's said repeatedly that she's seen people asking for a term, and then you attack her for trying to figure one out.

Your comment about magnifying glasses presumes that she's assuming things about people -- not listening to them and using her brain to try and help based on what they've told her. You say that nobody gets a choice with her, but what if their choice was to ask her for a term? Then you're the one not respecting their choices.

You assume that she's making things up rather than using information she's come by before. With that "Star believes she understands us all better than we understand ourselves" crack, you accuse her of arrogance that she is not displaying -- she's just asking people to talk about this, rather than dismiss it. And in several places in that block, you repeat that nobody wants her to do this and everybody wants her to stop.

And that's just that single quote. Right now, you're the one assuming that nobody enjoys or benefits from what Star is doing, that 'most people on AVEN' want her to stop. Doesn't that mean that you think you know 'most people on AVEN' better than they know themselves?

Some of us might benefit from this conversation. If it doesn't interest you, you don't have to be part of it, but you can't declare that we all want it shut down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why anyone would want to use a term that labels them as not wanting anything inserted into themselves. 1) why would anyone else care? 2) why would you want them to know? 3) just ICK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Touchofinsight

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.

I said if everything is going well (including sex) then orientation doesn't matter. Its like saying you can't vote a democrat if they represent everything you want because you lean conservative. I am not ace by the way... I just don't care enough about sex to pursue it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if you come up with a word for it, it's not an orientation nor is it a form of asexuality. I say someone who might identify with the asexual community not as in "This is their identity" but that they may find ideas and a community they find they fit into even if not exactly. There is a name for people who are sex-repulsed by the way. Literally sex-repulsed. That's what we use within the ace community too. Sex-repulsed asexual. And it's not exclusive to people who are asexual. Trying to call it an orientation and give it an "orientation name" is a useless method of creating some "new" sexuality that's not a sexuality at all. Orientation denotes who and what gender(s) you're attracted to. You can be attracted to people and still be sex-repulsed. I'm sex-repulsed but that's not my orientation, now is it? An orientation is still a part of someone's identity for many people as it does make up a part of who they are and it's going to affect how a person goes through life. My asexuality doesn't define me, but it does makeup a large part of the way I see the world and my interactions with people.

I think we are splitting hairs and then arguing over the importance of the various slices of hair.

My inability to have intercourse is related to my asexuality, and you cannot tell me this is not true, since you don't know me well enough, and you don't know the reasons why this is true. I've lived the reality of my impotence and I know what influences it; and you don't unless I explain it to you. I can't explain who I am to anyone if I'm not able to describe the many facets of my asexuality/sexuality and how other issues intersect with it.

I don't think it is important that we give a name to what we experience (yep I changed my mind). I think it is much more important to be able to describe how we relate to and feel around people, specifically within the contexts of emotional intimacy and sexuality.

We are trying to differentiate between orientations, identities, desires, attractions, genders, behaviors, sexuality, dysfunctions, etc., but yet all of these aspects overlap to some degree, and it is all important to understanding our individual manifestations of asexuality/sexuality!

Something is wrong with the entire classification system, because there is no agreed upon standard as to what we should include when describing ourselves. Some of us want to minimize what is included, and others, like me, want more information. Personally, I think we are trying to exclude too much. There is not just one form of asexuality. There are as many unique forms of it as there are people who are asexuals.

I suggest that a new system of classification be developed: One that is based on multiple criteria, instead of trying to describe ourselves with one piece of information, such as orientation. The expressions and sources of asexuality are too complex and varied to fit into the term orientation or any other singular term. I know that we all appreciate simplicity, but some things cannot be simplified without losing the essence of who we are.

When did I ever say your being sex repulsed is unrelated to your asexuality? (hint: I didn't) I said it's not exclusive to asexuality. Many people are sex-repulsed because they are asexual, but you don't have to be asexual to be sex-repulsed. Read more carefully. I'm stating your personal sexual preferences, or repulsion, are not your orientation and that there's no reason to invent words for these things because we already HAVE them. There's no reason to start inventing words for things there are already words for, not is there a need to come up with new labels based on people's preferences in the bedroom. You can't simplify that kind of shit anyway, it needs to be a CONVERSATION with your partner. Lay out what's ok and what's not. Not give a slew of labels for your preferences. We ARE complex and that's the point. We don't need a new system to define what people like or don't like in the bedroom.

By the way we already HAVE different versions of asexuality. In case you haven't heard of gray-a, demi, as well as other terms that can extend beyond just asexual people despite being more common here such as non-libidoists vs libidoist, sex-repulsed vs. sex positive, etc. We also have terms for our romantic preferences. You want to break it up MORE? It's not only unnecesarry, but you'd waste more time trying to explain these new words than just saying your preferences in the first place. Why the hell would we need labels to also define exactly what we're ok with in the bedroom as if that's everyone's business?

We're complex and labeling literally everything about ourselves isn't the answer to explaining ourselves to others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Show me where I've attacked intentions. I'm sure Star has wonderful intentions. I don't give a fuck about intentions.

Show me where I've put words in Star's mouth.

I'm going to say again. Star, you do not have a magical magnifying glass that lets you peer into the souls of others. Perspective and humility are beautiful things, both of which are sorely lacking when you start categorizing humans like butterflies.

No one is really getting a choice when Star Bit jumps into every thread and tells the people exactly what they are, and offers NOTHING by way of "oh btw I totally just made this up about 4 minutes ago and no one else really knows the term and also most people on AVEN wish I'd stop doing this". Nope. Either we fight with Star in every thread, or they promulgate this absolutely absurd labeling obsession to new members, and that's the part I take issue with. Fine, Star believes she understands us all better than we understand ourselves. I say she's full of shit, but whatever. But no making up new terms for people who aren't you, and no jumping into every thread and telling new members what their label is without a big ol' disclaimer. Because no one, no one is given a choice when they have their label slapped onto their shirt for them the second they wander onto the site.

Your entire presumption is that she's pushing herself on other people, rather than answering their call, as has been the implication in every single post she's made in this thread. She's said repeatedly that she's seen people asking for a term, and then you attack her for trying to figure one out.

You obviously haven't seen the ton of threads they've derailed by labeling people who were not asking for labels and even told them so when Star decided to take their post and decide on a new label for them. Literally all I ever see from Star is slapping labels on everything while not actually adding anything else of value to the conversation itself. The idea that everything needs to fit into cute little label boxes isn't helping anybody. If people REALLY want a word for things, then at least Star is welcome there. More often it's just star slapping labels on people based on one post and knowing nothing else about them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why must i get to know someone personally before suggesting a lable? They ask what they're describing is called, i go off of what they give, and i give them a straight answer. Do you read all my posts? No. The majority of my posts are to people actually asking. And the definition for hijacking a thread is very broad. Honestly, it should only mean when someone has fully created a separate extended conversation beyond a few replies; not simply stating something off topic or getting one reply. Aren't the negative people on this thread hijacking it??

But fine, i know when to quit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why anyone would want to use a term that labels them as not wanting anything inserted into themselves. 1) why would anyone else care? 2) why would you want them to know? 3) just ICK.

Probably so that people will quit trying to insert that thing into them or at the very least telling them that they don't know what they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous

I wonder why anyone would want to use a term that labels them as not wanting anything inserted into themselves. 1) why would anyone else care? 2) why would you want them to know? 3) just ICK.

Probably so that people will quit trying to insert that thing into them or at the very least telling them that they don't know what they want.

And calling themselves some confusing made-up word is supposed to help with that? If someone's going to be an asshole over being told no (to penetration or anything else), they're going to be an asshole no matter how you spin it. At least being straightforward with a person and just saying that you don't like something is more likely to open up a discussion and help you reach an understanding than hiding behind some pretentious label that you're going to have to explain anyway.

"Sorry, I'm an impenetrosexual."

"..What?"

"It means I don't like penetrative sex."

"..Right. Okay then." (Cue odd skeptical looks)

VS

"Sorry, I don't really like penetrative sex."

"Oh, really? Huh. Okay."

(To be fair, the person in the second example might be just as skeptical, but at least they will have understood from the beginning and won't feel like you're pulling words out of your ass or playing a joke on them.)

Not to mention that it actually adds weirdness or 'abnormality' to it by calling it its own special term, which clearly implies that the person has obsessed about it to the point of making up words. It's like the difference between 'I don't like carrots,' and 'I'm an anticarrotarian'. If you have to call yourself that (without any humor intended), you clearly have some issues with carrots that go far beyond not wanting to eat them.

All in all, I'd have a lot more respect for a person who owns their preferences and treats them like any other part of themselves, than a person that needs to come up with awkward-sounding terms to justify what they like or don't like. Because it does not need to be justified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remember that the only person you are allowed to label on here is yourself. That is not to say that you cannot help other people with labels but let's not label other people

Edit: After reading this again I want to add let's not call out other members. If you have an issue with a member please PM an Admod or use the report button.

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...