Talk:Autosexuality

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autosexuality redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

jskisbakl

Autosexual

Normally people would say (Autosexual is a very specific term used by sex researcher Bernard Apfelbaum in his contributions specifically to "Principles and Practice of Sex Therapy." Very clearly, it refers to someone who has a great deal of trouble responding to someone else sexually but can respond fairly or very well to their own touch. They usually are attracted to others and fantasize about others, but what they RESPOND to is their own touch. Apfelbaum points out that this population is very undercounted because they often simply live in this way, and do not seek out partners. This is patholigized by our society and leads to isolation, confusion, condemnation, years of pointless psychotherapy trying to fix something that aint broke, and enormous pressure on a marriage. I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.75.9 (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VfD

On April 11, 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Autosexuality for a record of the discussion. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge complete

The old article is available at Autoeroticism/History1. Brisvegas 01:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved that old page history back to autoeroticism. It should never have been moved in the first place. Graham87 10:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This seems unduly negative: "One example of a dangerous practice is autoerotic asphyxiation. It may result in death, particularly when done alone." Njál

is it not true ?

i mean, it is a fact ... people can die from lack of air ...

din't think that stating that is not neutral

Not POV, rather factual. Autoerotic asphyxiation is a dangerous practice, especially when tools such as ropes or ties are involved. One may become unconscious and strangle him- or herself to death, and since it is AUTOeroticism, no help is available in case of emercency. So, the mention is fully justified.

There are indications that Michael Hutchence may have died from an auto erotic accident rather than suicide. This is touched upon in the his article. This BBC article covers the issue as well. William (Bill) Bean 19:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pretty amount of weasel words in this article, though. Lots of "some think," "some believe," "it has been said" and all that stuff. Sources would be nice, but I don't know any. Maybe someone can add something? --TheOtherStephan 4th February 2006

So should we remove the NPOV tag now? 199.111.230.195 23:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me now, its one of those articles thats going to be very hard not to upset people who read it and keep people from making it POV. You can just 'see' the edit wars over it can't you. Would be intresting to see if their is any psychology related material to be added. I quite liked the idea of breaking it into cultural, technical, and perhaps psychological parts? -- Shimirel ^(Talk) 01:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crutch for deviant behavior

this section troubles me:

Sometimes, autosexuals use their practices (i.e. masturbation) as substitute for harmful behaviors toward others, such as rape, pedophilia, and many other kinds of immoral and criminal behaviors. Some wish that by fantasizing in their acts, they can help reduce and eventually relieve the thoughts of harming others. However, many case studies have proven that the thoughts of harming others strengthen rather than weaken, which leads to violent behaviors.

Usually, I see this argument used to attack homosexuals or pornography or whatever else the christian right is pissed off about this week, and I seem to recall reading a debunking of it in some journal recently, so it's inclusion here without any links, and without any discussion of the counterpoint, seems like a troll to me.

Thoughts?

Agreed. This is heresay unless someone can produce a supporting clinical study, and apart from a few unsubstantiated criticisms on conservative Christian sites, I've not been able to find any such evidence. Even if there is a relationship between sexual satsifaction and abstention from "violent behaviors" (which I question), shouldn't this be true for those of all preferences? Is this supposed phenomenon really more profound with respect to autosexual behavior? If not, it doesn't warrant a special mention in this article. I'm going to nix this unless someone can give a good reason not to. User:jld2116 16:18, 30 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If I may say so: The article has to be divided into a "technical part" - how it is done - and a "cultural part" - how people think about it. And by "people" I do not only mean conservative christians but also muslims, natural religions, the "enlightened" etc. It is, approve it or not, part of human culture, and this has to reflect in the article, because that is what people are interested in if they consult wiki. The cultural part, I mean. I should think, everyone knows the technical bit ;-)
(Oh, what a slippery slope I'm on...)

And by the way: It is not only part of human development, I've seen horses doing it! Heinrich L. 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article is lame! thought policing is lame!

with having spent the majority of my adult life as a so-called autosexual, even though i am homosexual, that this article represents a normalization of the categorization of sexuality and thereby its control! if you're interested in this idea see my comments recently posted ( by DEV) on the talk page of the "gay" or the "dionysian art students" post on the "hippie" article talk-page.

who cares if it's 'controlling', the fact is that such a category DOES exist and thus wiki is obliged to report it. categorisition is a human instinct and very much real, wikipedia does not exist as a means for social change. 81.107.159.5 19:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article a bit confusing

The article suggests that people who are autosexual prefer to masturbate rather then have sex. It then goes on to suggest that these people are exclusively atttracted to themselves. I know very little about this subject but it strikes me as likely that some people who prefer to masturbate rather then having sex still don't focus on themselves but rather other people or pornography or whatever. Nil Einne 20:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above statement, that there are people who could be considered autosexual simply because they prefer to masturbate than have sex with other people, yet are not attracted to themselves, whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. It seems more likely that they would fit into this category than into the category of asexuality, because they feel sexual desires toward the same or opposite sex, unlike a true asexual person. Also, the article should discuss different reasons that a person might prefer autsosexuality, such as negative or traumatic sexual experiences, feeling uncomfortable with intimacy and/or social interaction, feeling that they themselves are unattractive, or feelings that sex between two people is just wrong for them personally or in general. It could perhaps be considered a psychologically unhealthy form of heterosexuality or homosexuality, but perhaps not. I don't know if there is any research on these aspects of the topic, but I know from experience that these feelings exists. Akseli 00:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is some research on this topic, but most of it is so controversial that it doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:RS. But then again, a truer definition of autosexuality is that the person is erotically aroused by themeselves, and not necessarily prefers masturbation. (For an example of how far out some other theories are, one sexologist concluded that if twins were autosexual they would also wish to have sex with each other. Too many issues. ) --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007 - More to the Story

APatcher - 17 Feb 2007

The current version of the page has a tiny bit of information that does not seem to be properly cited. However, there is a lot more that could be added to this article regarding autosexuality. It is a real category of sexual orientation. Even if everything were to be removed on the page that has been written so far, there could be enough information added for a whole other complete article. I will put it on my list.

2007 - It's not so common

TednAZ - 26 Feb 2007

AUTOSEXUALITY is NOT a common sexual orientation... it belongs in the "Other classifcations" heading in the Sexual Orientation/Sexology box, not listed under the "Common classifications" heading. Autosexuality is a SUB-topical sexual orientation, most likely belonging under Asexuality - I'll let someone else do the research on that. I am a sexual creature and have no desire to research those who are not. According to the most recent sexuality research released from [ABC News], [CNN] and other media organizations, there are only FOUR major sexual orientations: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual and Asexual, albeit they said that Asexuals only make up 1 to 1.5% of the general poulation. Knowing those figures, how can Autosexuality be considered as common? Also, many Asexuals still have sex with themselves, so would that not make them somewhat Autosexual? Again, if Asexuals, considered one of the four major sexual orientations, make up only one percent of the population, then Autosexuals would make up a small sliver-like component of that select group which is something I liken to an analogy of the earth's atmospheric elemental components... 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 1% Argon and then the rest is simply listed as 'other' gasses.

If you want to see unscientifically see just how common the term is... just type in any order "asexual sexual orientation" without quotes on a search engine. I did on Google and came up with 177,000 examples. Then, type in "autosexual sexual orientation" - again, in any order, not using quotation marks in the search window. On Google, I got 2,540 results or 0.01 of Asexual results. Shoot, I typed my first and last name (which is fairly uncommon) plus my city and state and produced way more results than that. That pretty much sums it all up and puts this sliver-group subtopical sexual orientation in its place, certainly not as a common classification. There are no sexuality textbooks or reference books, no published studies, no research statistics anywhere that classifies Autosexuality as a common sexual orientation. This is not in any way, shape or form meant to be an attack on someone who identifies as Autosexual, only that it does not belong in a major or common classification box on Wiki. It is generally accepted there are three or four major sexual orientation classifications, depending upon which research you adhere to, however, adding in other types as common, muddies the waters of sexuality and orientation of the LGBT community. My sexual orientation, bisexual (the 'B' in LGBT), using the same search criteria as above, produced 1,110,000 results, so that would mean Autosexual would have 0.00002 of that finding. Not so common, after all... is it? Someone tell TED to stop TednAZ 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

I propose moving this page to Autoeroticism (currently a redirect to here). A google search for autosexuality produces very few results, and most of them on myspace or using the word to mean 'masturbation'. Fireplace 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need for rewrite

The article starts off nonsensically:
"Autosexuality describes someone .." which it does not. "Autosexuality" is a noun not a describer.
Then "An autosexual is a term used ... to describe a population".
The rest of the article is in similarly poor English, no matter if it has other merits.--SilasW 19:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Four months later not of the excited editors has corrected that glaring error so I've deleted it and if they care they can replace it with an intelligible definition.--SilasW (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate for deletion

The article is now reduced to a one-line unreferenced dictionary entry. And the word isn't in the dictionary. How long must this sit out here before being deleted?--Doyleb23 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Term without meaning

The term autosexual is found in only 11 citations in PubMed, two in 2002, and the rest older than 1990. It is a term not recognized by the NIH as an activity or as a preference. The scientists that used this term in the two 2002 articles have actually used a word that has no meaning. It is neither a condition nor a preference. And as a subject, there are NO studies at all. There are no citations where autosexuality is the subject of the the study itself.

Sexuality is complicated enough. Why add to it the confusion of a meaningless term? Why the new label? Are the persons that describe themselves as autosexual truly narcissistic and not have any orientation toward another sex? or is it any number of possible reasons why they only have sex with themselves (without listing, I think anyone came come up with one or two snide ones).

oh oh my browser editor is underlining in red all these references to autosexual and autosexuality.

--Doyleb23 18:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed third item in list regarding a sexual fetish for automobiles. I believe it was added by Doyleb23 as sarcasm.

Mbusux 04:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources in the article clearly used "Autosexual" as a synonym for masturbation, so I have redirected the article there Gwernol 14:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to the proper redirection to masturbation

A redirection of this term to masturbation has already been properly concluded (22 January 2008).

1 There is a complete lack of any mention of this term in any standard medical dictionary or encyclopaedia, eg, those provided by the National Institutes of Health. 2 The term is used solely as a euphemism for masturbation in three Pubmed journals that I properly cited (therefore, this is not a point of view, it is exactly as I have describe, a euphemism). 3 There exists not one scientific study on the phenomenon described here as a sexual orientation toward the self, as a sexual preference over partnered sex.

Until such publication exists, giving us something that can be properly cited, that this is a condition or pathology or however one might describe this, the term remains nothing but an unscientific word describing, as has been concluded before, masturbation. When such publication exists, I welcome Wiki contributors to add this term to this encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyleb23 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

auto-sexuality as creating and enjoying one's own image/sexual role

Auto-sexuality has nothing to do with masturbation, but with the preferred role. In my opinion, really low percent of people aren't auto-sexual at all. Remember the ceiling mirrors, just as a simplest example; so many people show auto-sexual behavior in their sexual profiles, regardless of their main sexual orientation. Further on, different fashion fetishes are of an auto-sexual nature as well; being dominant in a sexual intercourse, or being submissive - it all comes from a desire to play a role, and it is not always necessarily related to a partner, but to one's own desired role or image, respectively anchored to the personal sexual preferences, complexities etc. So, it is not about being who you are, but about who you are not, and about a play of who you would like to be. Therefore, attributes like narcissistic, in my opinion, also do not hit quite well the point.

Autosexuality redirecting to masturbation

Most people who masturbate are not (at least primarily) autosexual, and redirecting autosexuality to masturbation is comparable to redirecting homosexuality to anal sex. I believe it would be better to remove the entire article than to redirect it to an entirely different article to avoid confusion. The reasons given above are in my opinion poor as there are other articles without scientific proof, and the redirect may cause confusion in those who have not heard of the term before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.177.239 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auto sexual behaviour.

      As is often the case there is too much over analysis. It boils down to "Whatever works" . If a person can achieve a greater sexual satisfaction on their own without having the hassles of personal commitment or involvement , then they will do so. It actually uncomplicates ones life .WE don't always seek out a partner for sex , sometimes it is an intellectual attraction, sometimes simple friendship, sex is a different commodity for everyone , it is sometimes simply physical, sometimes loving, sometimes a duty . Let's stop over analyzing and just enjoy whatever works. relax C.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.135.142 (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chill guys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B3E1:34C0:A441:A19E:9AA8:6FB3 (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]