Sex-repulsion is an attitude and should stay independent of sexuality. Apothisexual combines an attitude with feelings
literally what does this mean
……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…)
“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.
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]”).
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.)
[…] “apothisexual” & “sex-repulsed.” You may remember this as the post with the phrasing I balked at earlier in the […]
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.