Sexual Identity

I found this article on wikipedia about "sexual identity," also known as "sexual orientation identity." It states that this is separate from your orientation and is more closely related to your sexual actions. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_identity

At one point in the article it states:

"Some individuals with unwanted sexual attractions may choose to actively dis-identify with a sexual minority identity, which creates a different sexual orientation identity from their actual sexual orientation. Sexual orientation identity, but not sexual orientation, can change through psychotherapy, support groups, and life events."

They are specifically talking about people who are gay and are unhappy with it, often for religious reasons. However, I'm wondering if the concept of "sexual identity" is useful for the sexuals, like me, on this board. Essentially, for us our sexual identity, antisexual, is very much at odds with our sexual orientation. Apparently some therapists specialize in working with people who have "ego dystonic sexual orientations," meaning people have an orientation that conflicts with their ideal image of themselves (their sexual identity) I wonder if such a therapist would be useful in reducing sexual attraction in sexuals who wished to remove it. I doubt it, but it's worth looking into I believe.

From what I've seen, those who identify as antisexual consider that their sexual identity, or consider it the most important part. Other antisexual non-asexuals I've met also feel like their sexual orientation is at odds with themselves, and often don't specify what it is other than the fact that they're not asexual. I had wondered if it's because they don't identify with the concept of sexual orientation, or consider it null and void? Either way, they consider their attractions a burden.

Unfortunately, it may be difficult to find a therapist who will realize that it's the sexual attraction that's the problem, instead of not wanting sex as the problem (since asexuals still have a lot of bad experiences with therapists, who try to convince them to want sex). I've also been wanting to write something for those who do want to see a therapist who will understand and be accepting.

I mean, one of the therapy approaches regarding this topic said that therapists shouldn't make value judgments on the patients goals, instead they are just supposed to help them determine what is the best course of action to help them subjectively "feel better" about their situation, whether they decide to embrace their orientation, embrace a sexual identity that is contrary to their orientation, and/or be celibate. 

If you can find a therapist who takes this attitude and approach towards someone with an egodystonic sexual orientation then I believe that would be best suited for the needs of allo antisexuals.

And they don't mention their orientation because, if they are antisexual and not asexual, then antisexuality, which is their sexual identity, is at odds with their orientation. Sexual identity is how we perceive our ideal sexual self and is going to be more aligned with how we behave. The orientation, in my case heterosexuality, isn't wanted or desired, and it isn't acted upon. If I tell someone I'm straight they will assume that I engage in sex with the opposite sex when I don't, and they will assume I'm sex positive when I'm not. 

So I see two reasons why they don't mention their orientation: they don't like it and being antisexual is way more relative to their life and actions.

Darkthrone wrote:I mean, one of the therapy approaches regarding this topic said that therapists shouldn't make value judgments on the patients goals, instead they are just supposed to help them determine what is the best course of action to help them subjectively "feel better" about their situation, whether they decide to embrace their orientation, embrace a sexual identity that is contrary to their orientation, and/or be celibate. 

If you can find a therapist who takes this attitude and approach towards someone with an egodystonic sexual orientation then I believe that would be best suited for the needs of allo antisexuals.

I agree that is the approach that should be taken. It's wrong for therapists to make value judgments on the patient's goals, but that still happens, by some awful therapists. I'm lucky I haven't dealt with any, but I've heard from many who have.

And they don't mention their orientation because, if they are antisexual and not asexual, then antisexuality, which is their sexual identity, is at odds with their orientation. Sexual identity is how we perceive our ideal sexual self and is going to be more aligned with how we behave. The orientation, in my case heterosexuality, isn't wanted or desired, and it isn't acted upon. If I tell someone I'm straight they will assume that I engage in sex with the opposite sex when I don't, and they will assume I'm sex positive when I'm not. 

So I see two reasons why they don't mention their orientation: they don't like it and being antisexual is way more relative to their life and actions.

Thanks for clarifying, and that makes perfect sense. I had also thought those are the reasons why, but I just didn't know how to word it. It's been a long time since I've been able to talk about this with anyone as well.

There was a time in my life when I was dealing with some people who just about convinced me that I'm not asexual. I still identified as antisexual at the time because I knew I didn't want sex, and to reject the sexuality labels that they were trying to force on me. I thought if I weren't asexual, then I would just want to identify as antisexual, and not specify my orientation unless it seems absolutely necessary, for the same reasons that you mentioned.

If antisexuality helped you reject their sexual propaganda then it's doing its job (:

Darkthrone wrote:If antisexuality helped you reject their sexual propaganda then it's doing its job (:

There have been times I've questioned if there's any point in me identifying as antisexual because I'm also asexual, since I have no sexuality to go against. However, I realized that my experiences were very different from many other asexuals who knew that they never wanted sex; they didn't need an ideological rejection of it. Some considered their abstinence a choice, but not one they deliberately made. I felt like it was deliberate for me.

Could I be considered antisexual because I went against the sexuality that my "friends" were trying to impose on me?

Admin wrote:

Darkthrone wrote:If antisexuality helped you reject their sexual propaganda then it's doing its job (:

There have been times I've questioned if there's any point in me identifying as antisexual because I'm also asexual, since I have no sexuality to go against. However, I realized that my experiences were very different from many other asexuals who knew that they never wanted sex; they didn't need an ideological rejection of it. Some considered their abstinence a choice, but not one they deliberately made. I felt like it was deliberate for me.

Could I be considered antisexual because I went against the sexuality that my "friends" were trying to impose on me?

Perhaps another thing that makes you antisexual, besides your feelings about sex personally, is you see the problems with our society being so sexualized, and people being pressured to have sex in order to be in relationships and just to be "normal," and wish it weren't like that?

I'm glad there's a term for this. So one's sexual identity could be antisexual, and one's sexual orientation could be straight/ace/nondisclosed? I like that there's a term that people can use that emphasizes their choices and beliefs over whatever sort or degree of sexual attraction they happen to experience.

Panache wrote:

Admin wrote:

Darkthrone wrote:If antisexuality helped you reject their sexual propaganda then it's doing its job (:

There have been times I've questioned if there's any point in me identifying as antisexual because I'm also asexual, since I have no sexuality to go against. However, I realized that my experiences were very different from many other asexuals who knew that they never wanted sex; they didn't need an ideological rejection of it. Some considered their abstinence a choice, but not one they deliberately made. I felt like it was deliberate for me.

Could I be considered antisexual because I went against the sexuality that my "friends" were trying to impose on me?

Perhaps another thing that makes you antisexual, besides your feelings about sex personally, is you see the problems with our society being so sexualized, and people being pressured to have sex in order to be in relationships and just to be "normal," and wish it weren't like that?

I agree, and that is part of it too. It was a process that started to happen when I became aware of all of the suffering that is related to sex, yet it is pushed on everyone so much. I thought it wasn't just about me. I was disgusted by how the pursuit of it has overtaken many peoples' lives because they're obsessed with it, and care more about their own gratification over who they have to hurt to seek it out, and that sexual slavery exists and is such a huge industry. So much suffering, and I refuse to take part in it.

Personally, I thought how is it liberating to have sex I don't want, just to please another person? I had those thoughts before I dealt with those people who tried to push sex on me. It's a bit hard for me to pinpoint if I became antisexual before that incident, or if that incident was the last straw and what made me turn antisexual to take a stand for myself, and against the pressure to have sex by them.

I'm glad there's a term for this. So one's sexual identity could be antisexual, and one's sexual orientation could be straight/ace/nondisclosed? I like that there's a term that people can use that emphasizes their choices and beliefs over whatever sort or degree of sexual attraction they happen to experience.

That's how I see it too, and one of the first things I've observed about the antisexual community is that one's choices and beliefs are emphasized over degree of sexual attraction. I find it more relevant. To what degree someone experiences sexual attraction or not, doesn't always match up to how much they want sex.

In the antisexual community, whether someone wants sex or rejected it, is more relevant than sexual orientation.

Admin wrote:I was disgusted by how the pursuit of it has overtaken many peoples' lives because they're obsessed with it, and care more about their own gratification over who they have to hurt to seek it out, and that sexual slavery exists and is such a huge industry. So much suffering, and I refuse to take part in it.

That's a powerful way of putting it. The social issues ran secondary in my reasoning for becoming antisexual, but the more I see of the world without the sex-positive blur, the more I'm recognizing how huge the negative consequences are of our society being so sexualized.

Just saying No and refusing to participate in a destructive system can be a great force for social change. Like satyagraha. Which seems pretty awesome to me: changing the world literally by doing nothing! Obviously you've already gone beyond that to actively helping, with this forum and AVEN. But it seems to me that choosing to say "No. This is wrong." is one of the hardest and most important things a person can ever do, when it comes to effecting change in the world.

"ego-dystonic sexuality"
What a concept, exactly what I've/we've come up with independently.
Let's throw it out though, I don't like the name. The term "ego" there seems to refer to Freuds ego and get that nonsense out of here. If we used the other term of "ego" as in "I'm too good for sex" THEN we'd be getting somewhere.

Also the wikipedia article seems biased against it and pathologizes it. This concept is good though.  It's odd. If you identify against a certain sexuality and you have those tendencies. Then which one is the real you? That's the question. And the answer is exactly what you say. Whichever one you pick after consideration is correct. This leaves you with an unwanted series of behaviour though. How do you remove that bad habit? Sounds like another topic.

It brings back the childish perception of sexuality being a "brainwashing invader". Of course that's childish as calling someone "brainwashed" is a logical fallacy and not something we should operate under. Obvously this phenomenon is just...you know. It's....like appendicitis or wisdom teeth. Just how humans work yup.