Kaira Aitken

Is my understand of lithosexual correct?

Recommended Posts

Kaira Aitken

Official definition: A person who experiences sexual attraction but does not want it reciprocated. 

 

Kaira's understanding of that definition: Meet Bob. Bob is a lithosexual. Bob is a lithosexual because:

 

  • The sexual fantasies he enjoys as he masturbates, are about him having sex with those who aren't sexually attracted to him.
  • Bob would NEVER have sex with someone who isn't sexually attracted to him in real life. Because Bob sees rape as disgusting and wrong. Not only that, Bob has zero interest in getting sexual pleasure by raping another person in real life, because he's asexual, and would rather get off on his own. Sure he has his fantasies, but he literally doesn't want to act on those fantasies. I mean literally. Even IF rape was "morally right" (because we were all transported to some sort of effed up parallel universe or something) he still would have NO interest in raping people for sexual pleasure.  
  • To clarify, Bob having no interest in raping people in real life, isn't just because it's immoral and against the law. He still would NOT do it, even if it was seen as morally acceptable. Because again he would rather seek sexual pleasure by himself. He would rather keep his fantasy purely fantasy, with NO exception.  And I do mean NO exception. Bob could be born in ancient Greece, where it was seen as morally acceptable to have sex slaves. And he still wouldn't rape those sex slaves. Bob could view it as morally appropriate, due to being born in a time period/country (e.g Ancient Greece) that viewed it as morally okay, and he still would not rape people to get sexual pleasure. Because he has no interest in seeking sexual pleasure from a partner(s), and would rather pleasure himself. 
  • Bob's fantasy has nothing to do with how he would behave in real life.

 

I feel like sexual fantasies (not experimental sexual fantasies, where you are only masturbating to it, to see if it does anything for you.) I mean sexual fantasies that you KNOW you enjoy. The ones you have masturbated to multiple times, because you know it works for you, should be an indicator of lithosexuality. Because some people are confusing lithosexuality with rapists. They call it the rapist sexual orientation. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/l_anon/tumblr-39-queers-39-t3679952-s22678.html (link of proof that people see it that way).

 

I don't like lithosexuality being seen as a rapist orientation. Which is why I've taken great care to explain how Bob is lithosexual, but isn't a rapist. 

 

I believe that: Mental sexual fantasies that you get off on when you masturbate, is a great indicator of determining what subsection of asexuality you are. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 



 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheAP

I see lithsexual as experiencing sexual attraction but not having the desire to act on it. Nothing to do with being a rapist.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.

I THINK how people generally try to explain lithosexual is

 

Bob is sexually attracted (on some level) to Katy and enjoys thinking about her when he masturbates, he doesn't actually want to have sex with her though because

 

If Katy wanted to have sex with him he'd be instantly turned off, so he could never have sex with her even though he is aroused by her. Even if he was in a situation where he could 'rape' her, he'd be instantly turned off because he doesn't actually *want* sex to come about from his attraction, he just wants to be able to wank while thinking about her, if that makes sense?

 

Though yes I've heard lots of people describe it like rape before when discussing the definition. I personally think it's a ridiculous label because if you truly don't want to have sex with someone and would be turned off even by the idea of it, then you're asexual, regardless of whether you're attracted enough to that person that you think about them when you wank or whatever. It's still technically just a FANTASY, not an actual desire for partnered sex. So, still technically ace. No need for the fancy label lol.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kaira Aitken
4 minutes ago, Ficto. said:

I THINK how people generally try to explain lithosexual is

 

Bob is sexually attracted (on some level) to Katy and enjoys thinking about her when he masturbates, he doesn't actually want to have sex with her though because

 

If Katy wanted to have sex with him he'd be instantly turned off, so he could never have sex with her even though he is aroused by her. Even if he was in a situation where he could 'rape' her, he'd be instantly turned off because he doesn't actually *want* sex to come about from his attraction, he just wants to be able to wank while thinking about her, if that makes sense?

 

Though yes I've heard lots of people describe it like rape before when discussing the definition. I personally think it's a ridiculous label because if you truly don't want to have sex with someone and would be turned off even by the idea of it, then you're asexual, regardless of whether you're attracted enough to that person that you think about them when you wank or whatever. It's still technically just a FANTASY, not an actual desire for partnered sex. So, still technically ace. No need for the fancy label lol.

I totally understand. I actually don't think lithosexual should exist as a label, due to the confusion that comes with it. I think lithosexual should just be seen as asexual. Because they don't deserve to be seen as potential rapists. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

It still makes sense as a label because lith(o)s can be fine with having one-sided sex - pleasuring a willing and consenting partner by hand or mouth, with a firm understanding that no way, ever, is this supposed to be reciprocated.

 

I mean, the very term originates with stones/stone butches in the Lesbian community, who do exactly that. That's not rape. The idea that it were rape is laughable, and insulting to victims/survivor of actual rape.

 

 

It bears repeating that "no desire for sex" is NOT the same as "no free, informed consent to sex". Only the latter is relevant for the question of whether an act of sex is rape. If you have sex you didn't desire, but still freely consented to, you don't get to call it rape. You literally brought it on yourself, no if no but; if you ended up not liking it, go sulk in silence and overthink your life choices instead of making baseless criminal accusations against your partner. You "getting raped" like this is 100% your own responsibility, and you do not and should not get to claim victim status. Period.

 

 

So, Bob's logic in the OP is simply wrong, specifically in this step:

Quote

Bob would NEVER have sex with someone who isn't sexually attracted to him in real life. Because Bob sees rape as disgusting and wrong. Not only that, Bob has zero interest in getting sexual pleasure by raping another person in real life, because he's asexual, and would rather get off on his own. Sure he has his fantasies, but he literally doesn't want to act on those fantasies. I mean literally. Even IF rape was "morally right" (because we were all transported to some sort of effed up parallel universe or something) he still would have NO interest in raping people for sexual pleasure.  

Bob needs education on what rape is, because he has silly and misinformed ideas about the topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.
On 12/7/2018 at 9:57 PM, Mysticus Insanus said:

It still makes sense as a label because lith(o)s can be fine with having one-sided sex - pleasuring a willing and consenting partner by hand or mouth, with a firm understanding that no way, ever, is this supposed to be reciprocated.

 

It makes no sense (when defined like that) as an 'asexual spectrum' label which is how most people try to use it. It's only asexual if there's no desire to actually take that desire through to actual sex. However if a sexual person wants to use the label to illustrate they'd rather give than receive, that's okay I guess.. but.. yeah, just seems there are enough people out there like that (I myself am like that) that it doesn't need some special flowery label :P

 

On 12/7/2018 at 9:57 PM, Mysticus Insanus said:

Bob needs education on what rape is, because he has silly and misinformed ideas about the topic.

 No I think @Kaira Aitken was interpreting (correctly) the way lithosexual is commonly defined as: As soon as the desire to connect on a sexual level is reciprocated in any way, maybe even if that's merely the women willingly having the sex, then Bob loses all interest. Ergo, he is only copable of wanting it with a woman who truly, truly does not want it and does not wish to consent to it on any level, because only in that way can he maintain arousal. This is why people who end up becoming serial rapists won't just go to a prostitute to get off. They need that TOTAL non-consent to actually enjoy it so even a prostitute faking non-consent cannot do it for them. I'm not saying self-identifying lithosexuals ARE actually like this, but the way it's often defined does give the impression of meaning 'I can't want the sex if the other person wants it on any level, even if that's just on the mere level of consenting to it for my sake'. (Edit: though what in actual fact it means is they can't to the point of even having that sex because they lose the desire as soon as it's reciprocated in any way. That's what I was trying to get at).

 

If someone is claiming to be lithosexual just because they can only get off on giving another person sexual pleasure without that person wanting to return the favour, then great. I'm like that myself in some ways and can't actually enjoy 'receiving'. But that's still sexual and as far as I'm concerned, doesn't need a special label. And it also doesn't really align with the officially accepted definitions of lithosexual at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

 

48 minutes ago, Ficto. said:

It makes no sense as an 'asexual spectrum' label which is how most people try to use it. It's only asexual if there's no desire to actually take that desire through to actual sex. However if a sexual person wants to use the label to illustrate they'd rather give than receive, that's okay I guess.. but.. yeah, just seems there are enough people out there like that (I myself am like that) that it doesn't need some special flowery label :P

Oh, I'd agree that the vast majority of liths are very clearly sexual, and in no way on the so-called "ace spectrum". 

 

However, for the minority of lith aces, it makes almost as much sense to use the term, and for the same reason as with sexual liths: it indicates to a potential partner what kind of sex life there is to expect. "The only way I'd have sex with you will be strictly one-sided, with me as the giver/top and you as a passive recipient/bottom."

 

 

48 minutes ago, Ficto. said:

No I think @Kaira Aitken was interpreting (correctly) the way lithosexual is commonly defined as: As soon as the desire to connect on a sexual level is reciprocated in any way, maybe even if that's merely the women willingly having the sex, then Bob loses all interest.

I doubt that interpretation/definition is as common as you think. Once again, I refer to the "trope namers" - stone butches.

 

As for Bob... if he hooks up with an asexual partner, he should be just fine, sex-wise, shouldn't he? And that's not rape - aces can obviously consent to sex. So, Bob probably simply hasn't found the right partner yet (maybe he looked in the wrong places?), and could readily stop "being asexual" when he finds one. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
18 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

It bears repeating that "no desire for sex" is NOT the same as "no free, informed consent to sex". Only the latter is relevant for the question of whether an act of sex is rape. If you have sex you didn't desire, but still freely consented to, you don't get to call it rape.

Yes^^^

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.
13 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

As for Bob... if he hooks up with an asexual partner, he should be just fine, sex-wise, shouldn't he? And that's not rape - aces can obviously consent to sex. So, Bob probably simply hasn't found the right partner yet (maybe he looked in the wrong places?), and could readily stop "being asexual" when he finds one. 😉

Ahem.. I like the way that in your version of Lith Bob has to find an asexual partner so he can stop being asexual, leaving the asexual partner in a situation they may end up quite unhappy in having to open their legs for someone while that person tries to get them off. And probably gets all unhappy and grumpy when the ace is like 'bro I don't want this shit anyway so it's just not working' or even worse, the ace just has to lie there and take it while Bob (who thought he may be ace before) pounds away at them. He's having a great time, but the ace is in the same situation they would be with any other sexual person. By your definition of Lith.

 

Yet it's also apparently about the pleasure Bob gets from giving pleasure (that's me) so yeah I don't think being with an ace would work for him by that definition. Or, more accurately, he could just choose anyone who enjoys receiving sexual pleasure and wouldn't actively need to seek out an ace.

 

To be honest you seem to be using two completely different versions of Lith though. One where a Lith wants to give pleasure without reciprocation - meaning the partner would need to DESIRE to receive (so they couldn't be ace, or could be almost anyone who enjoys receiving), one where a Lith needs an asexual partner apparently to get off because the ace won't reciprocate any kind of sexual desire. Those two different definitions require very separate outcomes for Bob to be happy, and also don't even align with the way lithosexual is defined. The second falls for more in line with how I've most commonly seen Lith defined but again, that one comes down to wanting to fuck someone who doesn't want to fuck you which no, while that's not rape as long as the other person consents, it's still pretty..  blergh. May as well just find a grumpy hooker or something I guess. Hey, actually, I would have been the kind of hooker a Lith would love T_T

 

I don't agree with using two such different definitions for one thing though.

 

Lith dating ad 1 - I get off on giving you pleasure, that's the sexual satisfaction I take from a sexual encounter. I do not need or desire you to do anything more than help me get you off because that's what gets me off (that's me).

 

Lith dating ad 2 - Calling all asexuals. I want to fuck you but I need you not to want the sex for your own pleasure. No I don't mean rape, because you'd be consenting. But I need you to not want to fuck me for me to be able to get off. The less interested you are in fucking me, the harder and more often I will cum.I'm sure we'll have a wonderful relationship Y_Y

 

Two utterly different definitions with very different outcomes. 

 

Edit: and Lith dating ad using the way the label is most commonly accepted - I can't maintain desire as soon as it's reciprocated in any way, so no sex for us sorry.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus
8 hours ago, Ficto. said:

Ahem.. I like the way Bob has to find an asexual partner so he can stop being asexual, leaving the asexual partner in a situation they may end up quite unhappy in having to open their legs for someone while that person tries to get them off and gets all unhappy and grumpy when the ace is like 'bro I don't want this shit anyway so it's just not working' or even worse, the ace just has to lie there and take it while Bob (who thought he may be ace before) pounds away at them. He's having a great time, but the ace is in the same situation they would be with any other sexual person.

 

Yet it's also apparently about the pleasure Bob gets from giving pleasure (that's me) so yeah I don't think being with an ace would work for him.

Come on, Ficto, You of all people should realize that while no ace desires sex, a lot of aces can have and enjoy sex. An asexual partner would be excellent for Bob, as long as that particular asexual individual is neither sex-repulsed nor opposed to compromise.

 

 

8 hours ago, Ficto. said:

To be honest you seem to be using two completely different versions of Lith. One where a Lith wants to give pleasure without reciprocation - meaning the partner would need to DESIRE to receive (so they couldn't be ace)

No, they do not need to desire it. They just need to be able to enjoy it. Big difference.

 

 

8 hours ago, Ficto. said:

The second falls for more in line with how I've most commonly seen Lith defined and again, that one comes down to wanting to fuck someone who doesn't want to fuck you which no, while that's not rape as long as the other person consents, it's still pretty..  blergh. 

You're forgetting that if someone doesn't desire to fuck you, they may still consent to it freely.

 

You seem like your position in terms of the endless definition debate has shifted in the year I was away...? So, let me ask a pointed question:

 

Scenario: Two men, both identifying as straight, are in jail and end up having sex with each other. How do you explain this, without it making the conclusion neccessary that at least one of them is mistaken in assuming to be straight (they are "obviously" at least bi if they sought out sex with a male partner), and possibly the other has been "practically raped"?

 

I can explain that just fine. Desire =/= consent; lack of desire =/= no enjoyment. They can both be legitimately straight, even if they both consented to (and even enjoyed) gay sex.

How do you explain it?

 

 

8 hours ago, Ficto. said:

May as well just find a grumpy hooker or something I guess. Hey, actually, I would have been the kind of hooker a Lith would love T_T

Yes, a sex worker like you once were would indeed meet a lithsexual's sexual needs just fine. But what about their wish for a relationship? Hardly the service you'd have offered in the line of business, right? 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.
2 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Come on, Ficto, You of all people should realize that while no ace desires sex, a lot of aces can have and enjoy sex

We are talking about someone who DOES NOT WANT RECIPROCTAED DESIRE. If that ace is cumming over an over again and gagging for more and more sex then that defeats the fucking purpose of the person identifying as Lith in the first place because they're clearly seeking a very normal sexual interaction where one person just loves receiving. How complicated do you have to try to make this? because it isn't working out for you Y_Y

 

2 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

An asexual partner would be excellent for Bob, as long as that particular asexual individual is neither sex-repulsed nor opposed to compromise

My god. That's very different from ENJOYING the sex. Make up your mind.

 

2 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

They just need to be able to enjoy it. 

Now you're back onto enjoying it which is defeating the purpose of identifying as lithosexual. If the ace is  loving the sex and orgasming from it then what you have is a perfectly normal situation where both people are wanting the sex as much as each other. Yes an asexual can enjoy sex but the whole point of someone identifying as Lith is they don't want that reciprocated desire which would lead to someone actively enjoying the frikken sex Y_Y The ace may not have the same internal feelings but outwardly, it looks like exactly the same thing: mutual desire for the sexual encounter.

 

2 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

. How do you explain this, without it making the conclusion neccessary that at least one of them is mistaken in assuming to be straight (they are "obviously" at least bi if they sought out sex with a male partner), and possibly the other has been "practically raped"?

Same way as I have always explained it: their desire for partnered sexual intimacy is overriding their gender preferences as there are no women available to have sex with. Obviously. What does this have to do with someone being lithosexual?? (meaning they can only desire sex if the desire is not reciprocated?)

 

2 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Yes, a sex worker like you once were would indeed meet a lithsexual's sexual needs just fine.

Yes because I clearly did not have any active desire for the sex in any way. If I enjoyed it and started orgasming, that would at least outwardly make me appear as any other normal person desiring and enjoying a sexual encounter. .. ergo, instant turn-off for a Lith.

 

We aren't talking about a perfectly normal person who wants sex in a perfectly normal way here. We are talking about someone who loses their desire as soon as it appears their desire is being reciprocated which is WHY they identify as Lith. If it was all about some magical internal feeling that can't really be identified they could quite easily fuck any average person who will enjoy the encounter but won't care much about giving in return. But no, the outward appearance of enjoying and wanting the sex (for pleasure) is a turn-off.

 

You can continue to tie yourself in knots over this all you want, but we are talking about a very specific label here, not an average person who just enjoys giving more than they enjoy receiving. You can't just have it all ways in the hopes that one of them will make you right. 

 

2 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

right? 😉

That wink in this context is particularly disgusting considering we are talking about work I am always very open about having been forced into under threat of violence. It would be inappropriate regardless but honestly Mysticus, I would have thought you'd have more class than that.

 

If someone was actively trying to seek a relationship with a girl like I used to be, so they could have their perfect lithosexual fantasy come true with her, then they would be one sick muppet. I'd cry during the sex because it hurt so much and it was very, very clear I did not want it on any level beyond verbally consenting to it. No it wasn't rape because I was consenting but yeah, damn fun for people with that specific type of fetish for sure - that being the type of fetish where the desire is not in any way reciprocated.

 

Again though, you can't have it both ways. A lithosexual can't be your average sexual person who enjoys giving but isn't that fussed on receiving AND (more accurately by definition) someone who gets turned off as soon as desire is reciprocated. Reciprocated desire most often appears in the form of someone actively enjoying the sex they are having, ergo even the appearance of that (even if coming from an ace) would be a turn off for a true Lith. They wouldn't even get to that point (of actually having sex in the first place) though, because even a willingness to engage in sex would be enough to turn the Lith off.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.

And the fact is, the way it's always used within the ace community is that as soon as that desire/attraction is reciprocated in any way (long before it comes to sex), the Lith instantly loses their attraction ergo they never even get to the point of having a sexual relationship, which is how that ended up being an 'ace spectrum' identity in the first place. One can speculate about liths actively getting to the point of actually screwing someone all one wants, but I just read through about 12 different definitions provided by different ace and LGBT communities and all specified that the desire is lost the moment the attraction appears to be reciprocated (and that would include a willingness to engage in pleasurable sex, though it never even gets that far for a Lith).

 

So yeah, pretty sure we can drop this convo now as the OP appears to be satisfied with the initial answers received. She is correct that a true Lith really should just be seen as ace  (or grey ace) because they never get to the point of being able to actively engage in sex for pleasure (due to being turned off by reciprocated sexual interest of any sort, including a willingness to engage in enjoyable sex). They'll face the same issues any other asexual does.

 

My definition stands at it always has: Sexual attraction = the innate desire to engage in partnered sexual activity for sexual and/or emotional pleasure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus
8 minutes ago, Ficto. said:

We are talking about someone who DOES NOT WANT RECIPROCTAED DESIRE. If that ace is cumming over an over again and gagging for more and more sex then that defeats the fucking purpose of the person identifying as Lith in the first place because they're clearly seeking a very normal sexual interaction where one person just loves receiving. How complicated do you have to try to make this? because it isn't working out for you Y_Y

 

My god. That's very different from ENJOYING the sex. Make up your mind.

 

Now you're back onto enjoying it which is defeating the purpose of identifying as lithosexual. If the ace is  loving the sex and orgasming from it then what you have is a perfectly normal situation where both people are wanting the sex as much as each other. Yes an asexual can enjoy sex but the whole point of someone identifying as Lith is they don't want that reciprocated desire which would lead to someone actively enjoying the frikken sex Y_Y The ace may not have the same internal feelings but outwardly, it looks like exactly the same thing: mutual desire for the sexual encounter.

Desire and enjoyment are not the same thing. You are literally saying here that someone who enjoys sex can by definition not be asexual. Ever had an orgasm (an enjoyable experience) during partnered sex? Your Ace card is hereby revoked, courtesy of Ficto. You enjoyed it, therefore you desired it. *sigh* 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Ficto. said:

Same way as I have always explained it: their desire for partnered sexual intimacy is overriding their gender preferences as there are no women available to have sex with. Obviously.

Good, at least we still agree on that much, then.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Ficto. said:

What does this have to do with someone being lithosexual?? (meaning they can only desire sex if the desire is not reciprocated?)

 

Yes because I clearly did not have any active desire for the sex in any way. If I enjoyed it and started orgasming, that would at least outwardly make me appear as any other normal person desiring and enjoying a sexual encounter. .. ergo, instant turn-off for a Lith.

 

We aren't talking about a perfectly normal person who wants sex in a perfectly normal way here. We are talking about someone who loses their desire as soon as it appears their desire is being reciprocated which is WHY they identify as Lith. If it was all about some magical internal feeling that can't really be identified they could quite easily fuck any average person who will enjoy the encounter but won't care much about giving in return. But no, the outward appearance of enjoying and wanting the sex (for pleasure) is a turn-off.

Wrong. You orgasming has nothing to do with it - as long as you keep lying there passively and make no effort to reciprocate, you can orgasm as much as you want without the average lith going "ew".

 

However, "any normal sexual person" would become active and reciprocate, and the overwhelming majority of sexuals would prefer it if they did so.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Ficto. said:

You can continue to tie yourself in knots over this all you want, but we are talking about a very specific label here, not an average person who just enjoys giving more than they receiving. You can't just have it all ways in the hopes that one of them will make you right. 

[...]

Again, you can't have it both ways. A lithosexual can't be your average sexual person who enjoys giving but isn't that fussed on receiving AND (more accurately by definition) someone who gets turned off as soon as desire is reciprocated. Reciprocated desire most often appears in the form of someone actively enjoying the sex they are having, ergo even the appearance of that (even if coming from an ace) would be a turn off for a true Lith. 

A lith won't enjoy receiving, at all, and would be turned off by the indication that the partner isn't keen on keeping it strictly one-sided. That is what makes them lith.

 

If you go down the road of "just enjoying more".... then let's talk about the way, say, "Lesbian" women simply enjoy it more to have sex with women than they enjoy having sex with men. I mean, they are still totally open for straight sex if a potential male partner comes up, it's just somewhat more fun with gals. Very gradual preference, more of a guideline than a rule, right? 🙄

 

 

25 minutes ago, Ficto. said:

That wink in this context is particularly disgusting considering we are talking about work I am always very open about having been forced into under threat of violence. It would be inappropriate regardless but honestly Mysticus, I would have thought you'd have more class than that.

It was not inappropriate in any way, and not "unclassy" at all. Sex workers offer sex for money; they do not offer relationships. That is a fact, one you, as a former sex worker, are very well aware of. And that was all the smiley was jesting about.

 

Still, if I triggered a reaction of disgust and offense there, I apologize. Sincerely. That was absolutely not intended.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus
24 minutes ago, Ficto. said:

And the fact is, the way it's always used within the ace community is that as soon as that desire/attraction is reciprocated in any way (long before it comes to sex), the Lith instantly loses their attraction ergo they never even get to the point of having a sexual relationship, which is how that ended up being an 'ace spectrum' identity in the first place. One can speculate about liths actively getting to the point of actually screwing someone all one wants, but I just read through about 12 different definitions provided by different ace and LGBT communities and all specified that the desire is lost the moment the attraction appears to be reciprocated (and that would include a willingness to engage in pleasurable sex, though it never even gets that far for a Lith).

How many of those different communities use definitions based on the term "attraction"? It really does always boil down to that dumb behavioristic term.

 

I think you're falling into a trap there if you don't check this and make sure to take anything formulated in terms of "attraction" with a huge pinch of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.
41 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

 You are literally saying here that someone who enjoys sex can by definition not be asexual.

No I'm saying a Lith WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN DESIRE IN THAT SITUATION BECAUSE ON THE OUTSIDE AT LEAST THAT WOULD APPEAR AS RECIPROCATED SEXUAL DESIRE which by definition would turn a Lith off. How many times do I have to explain it? Y_Y

 

41 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

Ever had an orgasm (an enjoyable experience) during partnered sex? Your Ace card is hereby revoked, courtesy of Ficto. You enjoyed it, therefore you desired it. *sigh* 

Could you please, pretty please, read my actual words?? I am saying that by the generally accepted definition of lithosexual the mere APPEARANCE of reciprocated sexual desire would cause the Lith to lose sexual interest hence why they never even get to the point of actually having sex in the first place. Just because an ace may not be desiring the sex for their own pleasure, their willingness to engage in enjoyable sex would appear like mutual sexual desire for a Lith and therefore it would be a turn off. I am going by the generally accepted definition of Lith here, not your warped one. It's not about not wanting PLEASURE to be reciprocated (that's actually an inaccurate definition) it's about being turned off as soon as the desire to engage in sex seems to be reciprocated in any way.

 

41 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

You orgasming has nothing to do with it - as long as you keep lying there passively and make no effort to reciprocate, you can orgasm as much as you want without the average lith going "ew".

By YOUR personal definition of Lith, maybe. Not by the way it's generally accepted because by the generally accepted definition the Lith loses interest the moment any kind of reciprocated desire appears to be happening, long before it would ever get to the point of actually engaging in sex. A willingness to engage in pleasurable sex (even from an ace) would still appear like mutual sexual desire from the outside. The whole point of the Lith label (as an ace spec identity) is that they are UNABLE to carry their desire/attraction through to actual sex due to being repulsed/turned off by any form of reciprocated desire including a willingness to engage in sex. Not reciprocation of pleasure, but of the desire/attraction itself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

You realize that liths are named for stone butches, right?

You realize that stone butches still have sex, right?

You realize that the partners of stone butches are usually freely consenting adults (and therefore not being raped during the sex that actually happens), and can and do orgasm, right?

 

It all looks like you're the one trying to tiwst things and having it both way, by not applying your definitions of "desire" and "attraction" consistently (specifically, how enjoyment and orgasm relates to it). If you stand by your assumptions about what turns a lith immediately off, you must logically conclude that no "True Asexual" can ever orgasm during partnered sex. 

 

Personally, I simply disagree with your assumption. You're conflating things that simply aren't the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.
12 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

How many of those different communities use definitions based on the term "attraction"? It really does always boil down to that dumb behavioristic term.

 

I think you're falling into a trap there if you don't check this and make sure to take anything formulated in terms of "attraction" with a huge pinch of salt.

As you will see, every single one of these definitions (including the LGBTA Wikia) are not about wanting to give sexual pleasure without reciprocation, but about not being able to get to that point in the first place due to losing interest as soon as any kind of reciprocation of attraction/desire seems apparent. The definition is NOT about wanting to give sexual pleasure without reciprocation, the definition is about not being able to get to the point of actually having sex for pleasure because as soon as any form of attraction seems to be reciprocated all desire is lost. This would INCLUDE the willingness to engage in enjoyable sex which from the outside looks no different than any other person who is willing to engage in enjoyable partnered sex, attraction or no attraction. The point is a lithosexual can't get to that point in the first place, hence why it ended up being labelled an ace-spec identity.

 

Lithosexual

 

 
Lithoflag

The lithosexual flag.

Lithosexual (also called akiosexual) is a sexual orientation on the asexual spectrum. Someone who is lithosexual may experience sexual attraction but does not want it reciprocated. The lithosexual person may be uncomfortable at the thought of someone being sexually attracted to them, or they may loose the their sexual feelings if they learn it's reciprocated. As such, lithosexuals do not feel compelled to seek out a sexual relationship. Like with any sexual orientation, lithosexuals can have any romantic orientation.

Lithosexual can be a sexual orientation on its own or can combined with other orientations. For example, one could be lithosexual and gay, meaning that when one does experience sexual attraction it's only towards people of the same gender.

 

http://lgbta.wikia.com/wiki/Lithosexual

 

Quote

 

Lithosexual, also known as lithrosexual, lithsexual, akiosexual, quoisexual or koi-sexual, is the sexual orientation of a person who experiences sexual attraction to another person but does not want it to be reciprocated.

 

It is part of the sub-asexual identity spectrum which is more specific than just the asexual, allosexual or graysexual spectrum.

 

https://www.ahcafr.com/lithosexual-meaning/

 

 

 

Quote

 

DEFINITION

Lithosexual- a person who experiences sexual attraction but does not want it reciprocated

EXPLANATION

Basically, a lithosexual person does experience sexual attraction, but they don’t want people who they’re attracted to to be attracted to them. 

 

A lithosexual person may find that they have a crush on someone. However, once that person expresses an attraction to our lithosexual person, their attraction fades.

https://livelovelgbtq.wordpress.com/2017/10/26/lithosexual/


 

 

 

Quote

 

Lithosexual

A person who identifies as Lithosexual is someone who experiences sexual attraction towards others, but once the sexual attraction is reciprocated, they feel repulsed and start to lose attraction.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R_1

Orgasm doesn't always have to do with quality or the wish to have sex. For me, no matter how intense my orgasm is, it's really boring. And there are many people (men, and women) who say their best sex ever was one without orgasm.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

So, indeed, all attraction-based, and ignoring the point I raised in my last post.

 

Pretty shameful for an LGBT wiki, in particular. They failed at the "L".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.
3 minutes ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

You realize that liths are named for stone butches, right?

You realize that stone butches still have sex, right?

You realize that the partners of stone butches are usually freely consenting adults (and therefore not being raped during the sex that actually happens), and can and do orgasm, right?

 

It all looks like you're the one trying to tiwst things and having it both way, by not applying your definitions of "desire" and "attraction" consistently (specifically, how enjoyment and orgasm relates to it). If you stand by your assumptions about what turns a lith immediately off, you must logically conclude that no "True Asexual" can ever orgasm during partnered sex. 

 

Personally, I simply disagree with your assumption. You're conflating things that simply aren't the same.

No, I'm going by the actual LGBTA definitions which are all about losing attraction/interest as soon as it appears to be reciprocated in any way. YOU are the one who has made the assumption that the label is based on wanting to give sexual pleasure while not receiving it (which is a relatively common variant of normal sexuality) but it's about not even being able to get to the point of having partnered sex for pleasure in the first place, which is why it is considered an 'ace spec' identity. And that's pretty much regardless of how one is defining sexual attraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus
Just now, Ficto. said:

No, I'm going by the actual LGBTA definitions which are all about losing attraction/interest as soon as it appears to be reciprocated in any way. YOU are the one who has made the assumption that the label is based on wanting to give sexual pleasure while not receiving it (which is a relatively common variant of normal sexuality) but it's about not even being able to get to the point of having partnered sex for pleasure in the first place, which is why it is considered an 'ace spec' identity. And that's pretty much regardless of how one is defining sexual attraction.

As I said, that definition is flawed as hell. And you still completely avoid addressing your conflation of enjoyment/orgasm with "desire"/"attraction".

 

I know you can do better. You posted the equivalent of books on this on this forum over the years. Seeing your line of argumentation in this thread here... it's most definitely a letdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.
Just now, Mysticus Insanus said:

So, indeed, all attraction-based, and ignoring the point I raised in my last post.

 

Pretty shameful for an LGBT wiki, in particular. They failed at the "L".

Attraction BEING a desire to actually engage in sexual intimacy for pleasure in the first place, which the LGBTA one made pretty clear. You lose interest once any kind of attraction/interest is reciprocated. It's about not even getting to the point of giving/receiving sexual pleasure in the first place. I am not sure if we are just having some hardcore issue with the language barrier or what. A Stone Butch is still a sexual. A Lith (by definition) is ace because they never get to the point of actually being able to engage in partnered sex due to attraction/desire/interest being lost upon the appearance of reciprocation of those feelings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

No, a stone butch is a lithsexual who is, indeed sexual, and not in any way on the "ace spectrum".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.
1 minute ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

And you still completely avoid addressing your conflation of enjoyment/orgasm with "desire"/"attraction".

Hmmm.. one more time. This will be I think the third time in about 30 minutes.

 

The willingness to even engage in that sex in the first place is enough to repulse someone who is Lith by definition of the term, so they're not going to even get to the point of HAVING the sex to see if the ace enjoys it or not. Because they lose interest upon any reciprocation of interest. It's NOT ABOUT what happens during the sex, the fundamental aspect of being 'lith' is that you can't get to the point of having the sex in the first place because all interest is lost as soon as the other person shows any kind of reciprocated interest in having sex with you.

 

I'm assuming we must have hit an unbreachable language barrier though because I've described this multiple times though and you don't seem to be able to comprehend what I'm saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.
1 minute ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

No, a stone butch is a lithsexual who is, indeed sexual, and not in any way on the "ace spectrum".

And I am talking about the 'ace spectrum' definition of lithosexual that has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to give sexual pleasure without having that pleasure reciprocated. That's a completely different thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus
2 minutes ago, Ficto. said:

Hmmm.. one more time. This will be I think the third time in about 30 minutes.

 

The willingness to even engage in that sex in the first place is enough to repulse someone who is Lith by definition of the term, so they're not going to even get to the point of HAVING the sex to see if the ace enjoys it or not. Because they lose interest upon any reciprocation of interest. It's NOT ABOUT what happens during the sex, the fundamental aspect of being 'lith' is that you can't get to the point of having the sex in the first place because all interest is lost as soon as the other person shows any kind of reciprocated interest in having sex with you.

 

I'm assuming we must have hit an unbreachable language barrier though because I've described this multiple times though and you don't seem to be able to comprehend what I'm saying. 

That means, directly, immediately, and logically, that if someone consents to partnered sex they are not asexual by definition. If "willingness to even engage in sex in the first place" == "sexual attraction", no asexual, by definition, can ever agree to sex - if they agree to sex, their Ace Card is invalidated forever. You are obly ace if you are a) a virgin, or b) all sex you had was rape.

 

And that's elitist bullshit.

 

 

This not a language barrier. It's just me being consistent, and holding you to make logical sense. (Again: You usually do better than this in this regard. Far better.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.
3 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

That means, directly, immediately, and logically, that if someone consents to partnered sex they are not asexual by definition. If "willingness to even engage in sex in the first place" == "sexual attraction", no asexual, by definition, can ever agree to sex - if they agree to sex, their Ace Card is invalidated forever. You are obly ace if you are a) a virgin, or b) all sex you had was rape.

 o_0

 

I specified multiple times that all this happens IN THE EYES OF A LITH, which is why they pull back from that intimacy and are not able to take it further. We are talking about LITHOSEXUALS, not the average sexual or asexual.

 

Of course reciprocation doesn't ACTUALLY = sexual attraction, but for a LITHOSEXUAL, THE TOPIC OF THIS FUCKING THREAD, any kind of RECIPROCATION causes them to pull back and not be able to take it further. That's the actual definition of lithosexual within the ace and LGBT communities. I even linked you a pile of them.

 

 

3 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

This not a language barrier.

Yes this has to be a language barrier or else you would able to understand what's being said. This thread is about LITHOSEXUALS. For them, any kind of reciprocation of desire/interest/interaction causes them to instantly become repulsed/lose all interest. That's not elitist, it's just WHAT THE FRIKKEN LABEL MEANS. 

 

3 hours ago, Mysticus Insanus said:

You usually do better than this in this regard. Far better

The issue here is that you're usually able to understand me, to have some basic grasp of what I'm saying. That's just not happening here and I can't for the life of me understand why. To be honest, I'm starting to get a little concerned because you never seem to have.. had this much trouble comprehending the most basic aspects of what I'm  trying to say before. This isn't a difference of opinion even, it's you just absolutely not grasping what I'm saying then arguing with your misunderstanding instead of arguing with my actual points.

 

On top of that, you are then blatantly twisting what I've said and throwing the twisted version back as an incredibly unimaginative strawman. Just now claiming I'm saying that sexual attraction = willingness to engage on sex on any level? O_O That's absolutely not what I said at all and I was extremely clear in my wording. I was talking about how lithosexuals pull back from reciprocation - the definition of lithosexual - and that's it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.

And you did that earlier in this thread as well by claiming (actually stating it out loud the world) that I said that asexuals can't orgasm during sex. I was referring solely to how reciprocation of desire causes lithosexuals to pull away, to be unable to desire the intimacy. Willingness to engage in enjoyable sex would appear to a Lith as a type of reciprocation, hence why they can't get to the point of actually pursuing a sexual relationship with anyone.  That's the whole reason the label (as an 'ace spec' identity) came into being.

 

These massive misconceptions about what it is am saying are actually causing me start feeling genuine concern for you as I've never seen you like this before. You're allowed to disagree with me and you're even allowed to go on believing your own personal definition of lithosexuality even though it's very different from the definition accepted in most ace and LGBT communities. No one is stopping you from any of that. But twisting around my own arguments to mean something utterly different from what they were originally intended as and using that as a strawman against me? I haven't seen you go there before, ever. It's really very concerning 😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysticus Insanus

*shrugs* I guess we're done here, then. I can't help it if you feel that way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ficto.
4 hours ago, R_1 said:

Orgasm doesn't always have to do with quality or the wish to have sex. . And there are many people (men, and women) who say their best sex ever was one without orgasm.

Yes that's right, but no one is claiming otherwise :)

 

A lithosexual wouldn't even get to the point of finding out if the other person can orgasm with them or not because (by definition) they become repulsed as soon as any kind of reciprocated desire/interest is made apparent. According to what I was reading of them last night (and what I've seen some liths claiming on AVEN), even just returning some level of interest in them is enough to make them pull back  and lose their desire/interest. A willingness to engage in enjoyable, orgasmic sex would definitely appear to a Lith as a reciprocated kind of interest, ergo they can never get to the point of actually being able to pursue as sexual relationship in the first place (and that's clarified by the LGBTA Wikia definition).

 

It's a misinterpretation that lithosexuals want to give sexual pleasure without receiving, it's not about that at all. Lithosexual means they lose their attraction/desire the moment it appears to be reciprocated in any way so it never even gets to the point of being able to share sexual intimacy with another.

 

So yeah, it's certainly not about whether or not aces can orgasm during sex (which obviously some aces can). It just never actually gets that far for a lithosexual which is why they identify as Lith. They are unable to pursue sexual relationships due to losing interest the moment any kind of desire or even interest is reciprocated.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now