Sex-repulsion is an attitude and should stay independent of sexuality. Apothisexual combines an attitude with feelings

literally what does this mean


5 responses to “also

  • epochryphal

    ……i think…? it’s about..? “how do you feel about sex” should be kept separate from orientation labels bc all orientations should be about sexual attraction?

    which. is a manifestation of our rather arbitrary western/english definition/model stuff…not really a Truth i would be arguing…

    (like. can you rly argue that “i’m [orientation]” isn’t commonly used to imply attitude toward sex? sexual availability? as a way to turn down ppl by “no my orientation excludes you”? that grey doesn’t imply “sex is complicated”? you could argue these SHOULDN’T mean those things but….prescriptive vs descriptive…and i like having grey mean a bunch of things…)

    • Coyote

      “which. is a manifestation of our rather arbitrary western/english definition/model stuff…not really a Truth i would be arguing…”

      Same. I’m enough of an old-school grouch to grimace a little at terms like “apothisexual” that hose up the system I’m used to, but I can still recognize, it’s just that: the system I’m used to, not some Platonic Truth.

  • queenieofaces

    Cor is right–it’s part of the larger attempt to completely separate feelings about sex from sexual orientation, which is sometimes good because it allows non-ace-identifying people access to sex-aversion, and sometimes is not so good because it’s used to invalidate sex-averse aces (“you’re not sex-averse because you’re asexual because asexuality is just a lack of sexual attraction so therefore you’re broken/not asexual/[some other term]”).

    • Sennkestra

      I think it depends whether you consider sexuality/sexual orientation to be an umbrella term, or to be a specific subcategory under some other umbrella of a persons relationship with sex.

      So like, some people (including me, tbh) tend to use “sexual orientation” to refer specifically to gendered patterns of attraction, with other things like frequency/intensity/paraphilias/presequities/aversion etc. to be other parallel aspects – though we often use “sexuality” as the umbrella term there.

      But I guess some people expand “sexual orientation” to include all patterns of attraction (not just gender-based ones) but not other aspects like libido levels or aversion etc.?

      And so since some people then also use “sexuality” as basically a synonym for “sexual orientation”, (David Jay is one of the people i can think of who actually uses “sexuality” as a synonym for “sexual orientation” a lot, which is a bit of a pet peeve for me now), I think what leads to things like that statement.

      So part of the confusion is over what labels are used as umbrella words and which are used as specific sub-aspects.

      (The matter of whether labels are useful if they refer to something other than just patterns of attraction are another matter though.)

  • We-statements, soft language, and identity policing | The Ace Theist

    […] “apothisexual” & “sex-repulsed.”  You may remember this as the post with the phrasing I balked at earlier in the […]

WP account not required to comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: