towards a definition of solosexual

masturbators wrote: 

Be forewarned this will probably be on the dry/academic side, I’m in-between in mode, off and on masturbating, but not just thinking about that…and perhaps during this my mood will flip…

…but basically, to be solosexual, I think, has to not merely be a matter of preferring sexual gratification by one’s own efforts, but that the genesis of excitement be oneself or the act of masturbation. Regarding the latter, literally, witnessing the act being a turn-on, with some kind of connection (I can’t quite formulate it well enough so pardon me…) to imaging being in that person’s position or simply the empathy thereof – but without the desire to “get with” that person – and in any sense.

I think if one’s solo gratification in some manner requires, even simply long-term and as some realistic goal, the involvement of another, or even the witnessing by another, then it crosses over, as the sexual object of desire is not solo, it is in fact the opposite, social, and sexually therefore homo, hetero, bi, or, to be academically generous, “queer.” Not sure where pan fits in but throw that in, too!

Thoughts?

Back to masturbating…oh I remember now – yes the reason is I have no particular turn-on in my head, and for me thinking about just beating my meat isn’t enough, I can’t be entirely satisfied, even if physically the need issuch I must, masturbating just for the sake/feel of myself. I need a fantasy in SOME way involving others, even if remote-ish in connection. But I know many are turned on -and don’t get me wrong, seomteimes I AM turned on but not alwayas – by just the act of touching oneself and its enough. Taht is truly solosexual, oneself is enough AND totally satisfying sex. Okay, gotta go! :D

 

————————————

Hmm … I suppose I should say I’m edging as I write this, just enjoying my penis with no particular desire to cum now or later.

A brief bit of background to place my thoughts in context. I’m married, and both wifey and I are masturbators. I can’t remember the last time we fucked, but it must have been about 5-6 years ago, and wasn’t that frequent before that. We both enjoyed masturbating and being masturbated that we usually never got past the foreplay! 5 years or so ago a conversation that started about how much time I spent masturbating [covertly] at the computer widened out into a sort of full review of our sex life and our preferences. We both admitted to each other that for both of us, masturbation was what we preferred, and that we both often masturbated when the other one was out of the house. We both also said we had carried on fucking because we thought that was what the other wanted, when really we both wanted to be brought off by hand. So long story short, we decided to not bother fucking, and to accept that in addition to our mutual sessions, we both needed ‘me time’
to wank solo. Our sex life has flourished since then, fuelled mainly I think by the aphrodisiac of honesty, because we no longer have to wank in secrecy. Before you all get excited by having another Liz on the books, I should also mention that wifey sees sex as private, and has no interest at all in playing online.

So, we have our own arrangement that works for us, and I think it is broadly true that we have no interest in what others think, or what is ‘normal’. I’m not sure where we would fit into your schema, as we have elements of solosexuals, but we are also ‘cross overs’ into heterosexuals with a social element. With regard to the other element, we both of us enjoy storking just for the sheer physical pleasure on occasion, without the need for porn. When wifey uses porn, it tends to be written erotica, so she can “paint the pictures the way I want them painted”, although sometimes she’ll look at my collection of cock pics with me, although I’m bi and she is aware, so maybe that’s just sex play!

Perhaps the simple answer is to say “fuck it”, we’re masturbators and we’re happy that way!!

Ian

——————

Good thoughts.

First, to be clear, I don’t think “normal” has a place in the discussion, just wanting to establish “what is a solosexual,” just because terms matter and I think, while we’re certainly not the people who make those definitions useful, someone might reuse our work (I have a feeling some academics are chronic masturbators!).

Yeah, my wife and I are similar.

I think the issue at the core of using -sexual is, as with hetero/homo/bi, there’s the element of base desire. So that’s where I’m starting with in attempting to assign a specific and useful meaning to the term solosexual.

I do think it fills a void. We’ve often carelessly used the term asexual to describe people who might be sexual (in fact I’d guess, but granted without sufficient real research, it’s more often the case so-called asexuals are sexual), but simply prefer not to have sex with other beings.

That said my discussion bears revisiting in the context of those who prefer partnering without sexuality, and have of course definite sexual preferences. Asexuals or solosexuals with romantic leanings, you might say.

And terms are useful, but to assign a term to a person is really not so useful as it is a methodological tool, and one that gets more to ideal types. We “know” (I think enough research and historical work shows) that people’s sexuality is really quite fluid. What is a heterosexual who engages in male-male sex in prison? Is he “really” bisexual? Does that even matter? I’d posit it only matters to the extent we’re trying to use a methodology for finding trends and testing hypotheses, and also to the extent it might matter in the person’s own emotional balance/psyche, if at all. To answer the question on the individual level probably has – at least from a sociological level, which is where I’m operating – little to no value, and I wouldn’t bother, rather I’d stick to ideal types which lave limited bearing in individual cases.

As a matter of social policy, the terms will ultimately matter as space-faring and Earth-bound population control alike require a greater understanding of sexual drives and how those might be modified (I’m not getting into the discussion of whether that’s via individual choice and/or social engineering – though I’ll point out that social engineering, however distasteful to many when given focus, is actually a long-standing human effort, going back into prehistory, one which begins at the tribal level itself and can take benign and most often takes “unconscious” forms, as with, for example, cultural taboos; and the line between social engineering and genetic drive/instinct is, I would further posit, non-existent, that instinct drives us to engineer socially, just as with the “lowest” forms of hive minds if less directly/less demonstrably – and, no, I am specifically not seeing this as either endorsing or even necessarily related to the more unsavory or
sinister aspects of early-mid 19th century sociobiology, we can have a discussion of human instinct without consequently deciding it must drive our policy per se).

—————

I think there are several ways to look at solosexuality.
One is the purely physical one–who do you touch when you’re having sex?
We masturbators only touch ourselves, and even when another is present,
we still would prefer to, and often do, masturbate ourselves in
preference to achieving orgasm or sexual stimulation by body contact
with others. We would rather look than touch.
A purely physical definition does not embrace the erotic power that
masturbation holds for us, however.(and at this point I must confess to
my penis growing very hard). I think that eroticism falls into two
realms. One is what I’ll call “masturbation fetish”, being stimulated
by things having to do with the act of masturbation–from closing the
door to whispering the word “masturbation”, to lubing up and jacking
off. Some of us are stimulated by thinking about the activities of
masturbation, and for many of us the knowledge that at this very moment,
many others are masturbating themselves, just as we are—that thought
is erotically as powerful as any.
One blogger put it this way, “I’m a cockstroker. I like beatin my meat
alone and with buddies. Didn’t always realize that I was a bator, but
I’ve always had a fetish for watchin guys jerk off. Always. Nothin else
gets me as hard, or gets me off as hard. Except maybe for jerkin off
another man.” Many women, especially some in our group here, have a
fetish for watching men masturbate, or watching other women masturbate.
I think this fetish is much broader in society than most of us realized,
and is only now being realized thanks to the internet, which for the
first time has allowed us to freely and safely indulge in our
masturbation fetishes.
The other erotic power of masturbation I’ll call “deep eroticism”–
fantasy and gooning–when our minds become lost in deep erotic feelings,
images, and sexual fantasies, and our bodies cross over from ordinary
sexual arousal into prolonged exotic bliss. These states can be
experienced with others, but I would say that the circumstances where
such deep eroticism can take hold are rather rare outside of
masturbation. The freedom and ability to follow deep into our erotic
selves that masturbation allows we experience as deeper sexual
satisfaction than sex with others, and our sexual pursuit turns to
deepening and enjoying masturbation. The ordinary sexual world is no
longer the place where we pursue gratification; it becomes the
encouragement, the stimulation, but we don’t try to satisfy ourselves
there–our satisfaction, we know, is waiting behind our locked door.
That same blogger said: “I know now that being a masturbator is enough.
I know now that JO can go far beyond simply stroking your own cock or
your buddies cock.” When masturbation fetish and prolonged eroticism
are combined, we have “gooning”, that delirious state of immersion in
the act of masturbation itself. Gooning isn’t limited to men, but the
term doesn’t fit. Women’s behavior while in masturbatory delerium is
often quite different from men’s. Perhaps “délire masturbatoire”
would be a good term for the amazing sexuality experienced when we
closed the door with a stack of steamy novels and dildo by the bed, or
first ventured onto the internet behind closed doors. Whatever it is
called, it’s something rarely experienced by ordinary people and outside
of deep masturbation.
The depth of erotic experience of those of us who have experienced deep
masturbation changes our outlook on sex with others, “ordinary sex”, and
even our position in society as “social solosexuals”. Sexual relating
in our society is centered around what I’ll call sexual aggression and
possession. Men are wanting women to fuck them (or at least WANT to fuck
them), and women are looking for guys who will fuck them the way they
want to be fucked. But the masturbator isn’t fucking anyone, or needing
or wanting to fuck–the masturbator wants sexual desire to be stimulated
by others, but the consumation of that desire is not in the bed of
another, but in the masturbator’s own bed (or chair).
As masturbators we fully experience, and deeply enjoy, the sexuality of
the culture we’re immersed in, indeed, we probably experience more
deeply than most. But our enjoyment does not require the participation
of another in our sexual activity, and so in the ordinary sexual
commerce of society, the masturbator is more like a eunich, fully
immersed in the overflowing sexuality of the harem, but not part of the
sexual drama being witnessed every moment of every day. We’re happy to
catch a glimpse of a tit or a cock; we don’t need to fuck. Since we’re
outside the ordinary sexual commerce, our sexual role with others
changes.
As male masturbators, we become “safe”, and often have female
confidants, friends, teases who share intimacies they would never think
of sharing with men who might want to fuck them. We enjoy our role as
something less than real men, it becomes an aphrodisiac to recognize and
then to confess that we no longer are considered desirable when women
want a partner who will fuck them hard. This reaffirms our devotion to
solo sex and drives us deeper into masturbatory fantasy and eroticism.
Women masturbators often experience a sexual liberation when our
orgasmic fulfillment is no longer chained to sex with men. Some enjoy
this liberation as domination–freed of the need to beg for fulfillment,
masturbating we are free to dictate the terms of our sex with men, and
enjoy cock just the way we want. Combined with “masturbation fetish”
this can lead to the blossoming of mistresses of tease, denial and
controlled masturbation. Other women, experiencing undreamed of
orgasmic satisfaction through masturbation, forget about men and share
masturbation and mutual sex only with other women.
Are these women, who masturbate with and for other women solosexuals?
Are men who masturbate other men, or bate in front of them, or have
their cocks stroked, are they solosexuals? The label doesn’t really
matter, but I would say that when masturbation and sex with others comes
out of a deep experience of erotic masturbation, then it’s still in the
realm of solosexuality. For many, shared masturbation is an occasional
event, more like a performance for someone who has spent weeks
practicing behind closed doors; the essence of their sex is still
masturbation, shared with another.
Well, this is enough of a tretease, or is it treatise? Though the
discussion may be “dry”, the tip of my penis is glistening right now :)
———————

Well, let’s see….a to z
1. asexual, not interested in sex
2. asexual, sexual just not into dating and rubbing up against
someone else’s body, but definitely into making the right glands swell.
3. bisexual, like men and women.
4. bixexual, well not exactly, because if you’re dressed different
from you genitalia, is it really bi or just “cross” or “trans” and what
if you like “queer” or other?
5. homosexual & lesbian, attracted to the same sex, except maybe for
a few times when in college.
6. nadasexual, lost or buried the urge somewhere, or maybe it’s the
medicine or religion.
7. solosexual, turned on by masturbation.
8. solosexual, like an asexual, but really into porn and looking
down girl’s blouses.
9. straight (except in mens’ rooms, conventions, and, oh yeah, with
my roommate in college, and my two closest girlfriends, I mean, we were
hardly 14 and had never even kissed a guy yet and it was SO cool to make
her cum.
10. pansexual, interested in all of the above, able to mix and match
freely.
11. zoosexual, happy with heavy petting, a significant population in
fantasy if not practice. Though perhaps declining with the disappearance
of opportunity as the far population dwindles, like masturbators,
discovering community and coming out of the closet…or barn, through
the miracle of the internet.
http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-besti\
ality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/
<http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2009-08-20/news/those-who-practice-best\
iality-say-they-re-part-of-the-next-gay-rights-movement/>

————————

Actually, there is a system that I like, if only because it presents the
complexity of sexual style and desire. The description includes:
Biological gender–the body parts (with modifications) male, female,
transvestite, etc.)Sexual identification. How the person identifies
themselves, inside. ie, a woman who feels more like a man.Sexual
presentation. How the person presents themselves. ie a lesbian who
presents as a straight woman.Sexual attraction. Who is the person
attracted to, sexually. Traditional gay, bi, straight, etc.
Asexual?Sexual activity. Who are you having sex with? Solosexual?
Sexual dominance. Dominant, submissive, switch.
Not that any of this matters much; when my dick is in my hand and I’m
dripping precum, who cares? And if I’m fully clothed people are
interesting and attractive in SO many other ways!

—————–

I think if another human being is engaged as a part of one’s sexuality, one is not “solo” as the word “solo” has a rather specific meaning. So a different word should be used. But that’s just an opinion as to wording choice.

The whole point is a rigid definition to accomplish suitably useful ideal types for analysis, there is no such thing as “too rigid” a definition unless we are specifying a definition that has no applicability to the real world. In this case, we know these multiple cases/forms of masturbatory activity exist (granting that real life does not lend itself to ideal typing each person, but in consideration that ideal typing should allow us to roughly group people by actual practice/behavior), and we ought have terms that precisely describe these. A non-rigid definition is nonsensical if the point is to establish a rigorous approach in which definitions are precise and useful.

Therefore, ideally, the words used should be intuitive and accurate to people outside the field; less ideally, the terms should still at least be fully accurate in the reuse of common words, avoiding redefinition of words wherever possible. Of course such may not be possible. we may need to redefine words or (better) define new words, but in that case I think you need to speak to why we must use “solosexual” to refer to sexual interactions which involve others; I see no real justification below except that you don’t like not being called a solosexual, although I infer that you see solosexual as nearly synonymous with exclusive (physical) masturbatory practice, which isn’t entirely unfair but needs to be explicated. If that’s the argument, then fair enough, but then we still need a term to describe the group of people I had used solosexual to describe (which might be “monastic” as you imply should be used).

Anyway, other words and meanings can be proposed. If you prefer “solosexual” to be a broader term which encompasses the “monastic” and “non-monastic” forms you speak of, that could be fine, and we’d still need finer-grained terms for the two modes (and sub-modes as appropriate). If you prefer “solosexual” to not include the “monastic” form, I’d think of that as a mistake, but regardless then we’d need to be clear what is the term and definition for those preferring sex inspired by or per the interaction with others. I think the term “monastic” has some issues, though, as it has a strongly religious history and connotation in any use, and it lends to arguments that the term should be reserved for the (unusual unto difficult to identify even a real practice of) masturbation about one’s deity. So I’d suggest that even if you propose to use solosexual as you mention, to find another term for those who masturbate without desiring interaction with
others, whose desire is triggered by their own pleasure and genitalia – perhaps narcissosexual or such.

Bear in mind the point was not to define the word solosexual per se but to find proper, consistent, and analytically useful definitions for the various strands of masturbatory sexual activities which do not fall under properly or consistently used terms currently.