Jump to content

Should only innate asexuals use the label?


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Sally said:

I maintain that the simplest definition of asexuality, and the one least leading to argumentation is "not ever wanting sex with any other person."   

It’s very concise, but not everyone agrees with it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 1:24 AM, Sally said:

I maintain that the simplest definition of asexuality, and the one least leading to argumentation is "not ever wanting sex with any other person."   

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
7 hours ago, Strifed said:

Ah yes, I probably should have made that clear in my post that not all sex aversion comes from traumatic experiences! 😅 I didn't mention it in my post either (I didn't want to write a novel lol), but I am sex repulsed by real people (like... I will almost throw up if I think about anything sexual with a real person) and nothing traumatic has happened to me. I just don't like it just because I don't like it lol.

 

You know, when you say "fix" it, that made me think of a time I was trying to get help for my feelings and a bunch of people acted like I was a total freak for being repulsed by sex and I needed to see a doctor ASAP. Just... some people don't like sex? And it makes them feel uncomfortable? Have you guys ever thought about that? 🙄  but we're gonna keep this thread clean and not vent too much 😅

Yes, that's rather similar to my experiences, except: a) I'm really indifferent to sex not involving myself, I just find the idea of personally having sex very frightening, and b) I'm much more scared than disgusted. I have come to the conclusion that it's most likely because of the outermost "circle" of my sex aversion, which is formed by an extreme discomfort with nudity - and it means that I, with all likelihood, couldn't get to the point of actually trying to have sex, to the point where it indeed gets disgusting. I would panic or break down in tears much earlier because I just couldn't undress.

But yes, I absolutely agree: some people don't like sex and I simply consider it a neutral trait. If not liking hot weather, cars or the colour yellow doesn't make you "a bad person" or "sick", why should not liking sex make a person just that? Yes, I'm unwilling to ever try "fixing" my sex aversion because of the extreme distress involved and I admit that a more sex-positive person could call it a vicious circle. But underneath my aversion... I just don't perceive sex or an ability to have sex as something I need in my life. I'm fine without it, so why should I make any attempts to gain it?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dreamsexual said:

Sure.  But then we have the 'person' issue, which can be a tricky issue for some fictos, robos, digis, oneiros  and especially objectums.

 

 

I know that some people feel sexual feelings for objects and other non-person things, but I'm not sure how you can have sex with them, and I'm talking about actually having sex with someone.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 8:27 AM, Sally said:

but I'm not sure how you can have sex with them,

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
34 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Depends on the object.  A whole lot of things can be inserted, penetrated, or rubbed against.

Self-pleasuring is not included in the definition of asexuality. A person may use sex toys and still be asexual if they don't desire any sexual activities with a partner. I understand that autoeroticism and objectum-sexuality is not necessarily the same (a person pleasuring themself with an object is not typically attracted to it, just using it as a tool which is efficient at delivering desired sensations), but I still think that, particularly if we perceive sexual orientations as primarily social categories, these are very close phenomena. Being an objectum-sexual and being a sex-averse libidoist asexual boil down to the same: not being sexually available to anyone.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 9:09 AM, Nowhere Girl said:

Self-pleasuring is not included in the definition of asexuality.

I .

Link to post
Share on other sites
everywhere and nowhere
3 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

But not the same.

 

The key thing here is that from a non-objectum POV the objectum is merely masturbating with a toy, but from within the objectum POV they are making love with another non-human person.

Yes, that's what I supposed. But socially it means the same: not being interested in forming sexual reltionships with real people.

 

The line can be blurry. I have seen a sex-averse asexual who considered buying a sex toy - and decided against it, because the idea of pleasuring herself this way felt in her mind like having partnered sex with an inanimate object, something too disgusting for her. I find realistic sex toys off-putting because, too, they would make the act too similar to partnered sex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 9:19 AM, Nowhere Girl said:

But socially it means the same: not being interested in forming sexual reltionships with real people.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
1 hour ago, Nowhere Girl said:

not being sexually available to anyone

Not being available to any human, and as I say, they don't get to have sole ownership of orientations. Sex with anyone, human or non human, horrifies me, but romantically I'm available to machines so I'm still romantic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Custard Cream

Its kind of the same with ficto. If you are just vividly imagining a relationship with a fictional character, I see that as not really intrinsically different from a fantasy, but some people say fantasies are OK for asexuals, but fictoromanticism is more of a sexual thing. I still get very confused.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
2 minutes ago, CustardCream said:

Its kind of the same with ficto. If you are just vividly imagining a relationship with a fictional character, I see that as not really intrinsically different from a fantasy, but some people say fantasies are OK for asexuals, but fictoromanticism is more of a sexual thing. I still get very confused.

I think it's like, if that character 'came to life' would you still wanna do the sex/romance? I dunno either, ficto's harder than objectum; ours is more concrete (sometimes literally ;))

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 1:23 PM, Anthracite_Impreza said:

if that character 'came to life' would you still wanna do the sex/romance?

.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I think it's like, if that character 'came to life' would you still wanna do the sex/romance? I dunno either, ficto's harder than objectum; ours is more concrete (sometimes literally ;))

This is basically how I understand it as well... if you (the greater you, not you personally) would want to engage in sexual activities with the fictional character if such were possible (if the character became incarnate in our physical reality, not necessarily as a living human but as herself/himself/themself/itself, or if you were able to exist in the character’s physical reality), I would consider that fictosexual (and in the sexual part of the spectrum).  If you would fall in love with the character in those scenarios but not want to engage with her/him/them/it sexually, that would still be asexuality.  The same for objectum people...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 1:39 PM, ryn2 said:

The same for objectum people...

.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Is someone who has a romantic/sexual relationship with an abstract object a ficto, an objectum, or something else?

Personally I would still consider that ficto (-romantic, or -sexual, depending on the type of feelings/desire experienced).  I’ve not seen ficto limited to would-be-human characters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

Well I have crushes on fictional cars too so ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 1:48 PM, ryn2 said:

I would still consider that ficto

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Although a lot of objectums & similar already do view their lover's as alive and in a shared world with them ...

 

Edit:

So ... are ficto-sexuals outside the asexual grouping?

By “the same with” I meant the distinction between -romantic and -sexual, not the “incarnate or not” part.

 

I personally consider fictosexuals and OS in the sexual part of the spectrum and fictoromantics/objectum romantics  (who are also asexual “everywhere else”) asexual... but I’m not the universal arbiter of such things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 1:51 PM, ryn2 said:

I meant the distinction between -romantic and -sexual, not the “incarnate or not” part.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

That seems a pretty bad use of the term, though - especially if the person in question holds that their lover, with whom they have a relationship, is a person with objective existence (like humans).  Almost like the term is built to offend.

Wouldn’t that hinge on what you meant by abstract?  If it exists only within your mind, it would be ficto.  If you believe it exists in the physical world in some way, it would be objectum.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 1:53 PM, ryn2 said:

Wouldn’t that hinge in what you meant by abstract?  If it exists only within your mind, it would be ficto.  If you believe it exists in the physical world in some way, it would be objectum.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Custard Cream
40 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I think it's like, if that character 'came to life' would you still wanna do the sex/romance? I dunno either, ficto's harder than objectum; ours is more concrete (sometimes literally ;))

Yeah, that's how I see it too. I would certainly not wish to sleep with my character if they came to life, which is the key reason I class myself as fictoromantic rather than fictosexual. To be honest, I can go a long time without thinking about them at all, so I guess I'm not exactly besotted!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to think that if you're defining yourself as "sexually attracted to X", you'd be "X-sexual", regardless of whether X is a human, object, or fictional construct - and to reduce it to a binary question, no I would not consider it asexuality at that point. However, when you get to non-standard attractions to robots, cars, programs, etc, you often end up effectively asexual, with some commonality with asexual issues, so there is benefit to sharing the label and using the forums until something more appropriate for your needs comes along.

Short answer - if telling someone else that you're asexual communicates what you need in that conversation, go ahead and use it. If it doesn't seem to fit quite right, then it's not the right label for you. To me, it seems like we have several fringe labels all meeting under the asexual umbrella for convenience - which is where the confusion in definitions is coming from - and given time the groups who need a different label will eventually migrate elsewhere.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 2:08 PM, CustardCream said:

I can go a long time without thinking about them at all,

.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Custard Cream
10 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Right, so that is where the confusion lies.  In one sense, I agree ... But I also see both ficto and objectum not really being appropriate, since an immaterial person (like a ghost or god or the soul of a tree, say) is not fictional nor is it an object, it is a person.

 

So we have a situation where someone has a sexual relationship with a spirit, and doesn't seem to fit common definitions of objectum nor ficto, nor sexual nor asexual.  Do they need their own term?

That is a complex one... Perhaps coining your own term might not be a bad idea, as neither existing term fits.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 2:11 PM, wyrdwyrm said:

effectively asexual, with some commonality with asexual issues, so there is benefit to sharing the label and using the forums until something more appropriate for your needs comes along.

.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 2:12 PM, CustardCream said:

Perhaps coining your own term might not be a bad idea, as neither existing term fits

.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza

If I don't wanna come out IRL I say I'm aro. I feel awful lying, but the only humans I've ever trusted with the mecha- part are extremely close friends and a therapist (who was cool with it). Tbh, normally just saying asexual makes people think you aren't interested in relationships so I don't need to go further (and I actually am ace so I'm not lying there).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
17 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

I'm trying ... it's so hard! :) 

 

What captures in a short X-sexual format the idea that you are romantically/sexually attracted only to non-human, immaterial, non-fictional persons (though you might enact that sex via concretised object or concept forms, like dolls or dreams)?

Latin is yours for the butchery ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...