Erotic and Non-Erotic; Sexual and Sensual

After getting a ton of comments on my post about “sensual” (vs. sexual) and eroticism, the wheels in my head started turning more. I extended the carnival deadline partly so I could spend some time exploring those lines of thought. Will dive straight into it because this is going to be a long post. Feel free to use the subheadings to skip around, or skip straight to the summary at the bottom.

Blanket CW for explicit language in this entire post except the summary at the end.

And for defining “sex”, I guess I want to say the “correct” definition is doing stuff that stimulates genitals, but actually as I’m thinking about it, I realize that in reality the definition I subconsciously use is more hetero and male-centered, like, doing stuff until the man has an orgasm. So um that’s kind of problematic. (Kind of similar to how a lot of people would say sex doesn’t have to be penetrative sex, but also they sometimes say “we didn’t have sex” when they did other sexual things but not penetrative sex.)

Perfect Number

Perfect Number, in the comments section, had a spot-on answer for some of the questions I had raised in the call for submissions.

• How do you understand “sex”?
• Do you consider sex to only include penetrative sex? Or do you include other kinds of activities to fall under sex?
• Do you have some other way of separating out what is sex vs. not sex? (E.g., if it involves genitals then it’s sex, if it doesn’t, then it’s not.)

This is also how I had tended to think about sex, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the most “common” understanding of sex — “doing stuff until the man has an orgasm”.

And then, because the word “erotic” has strong associations with sex, it ends up invoking penetrative sex (or actions that will have to lead to penetrative sex and don’t count as sufficient just by themselves). This played a role in why, for the longest time, I had thought that erotic contact of any kind is not for me.

This started to change after I read an article by Dalychia Saah, which I shared on this blog earlier this year. And since writing about her article earlier this year, I’ve been thinking more about it.

This is what Saah has to say about how we understand “sex”:

Similar to how those colonially considered white are simply American, while all others have to add African, Asian, Latinx before American to explain our existence or connection to this country. The word sex is so synonymous with partnered PIV that we have to add modifiers like oral, anal, solo in front of sex to denote the existence of experiences outside of PIV sex. Our definition also leaves room for people to say things like “non-consensual sex”, instead of affirming that if it wasn’t consensual, it wasn’t sex.

Dalychia Saah

So yeah, basically, the common understanding of sex is along the lines of “penetration that leads to the man having an orgasm”.

In that article, Saah calls for new words and new ways to think about sex:

In acknowledging that our erotic language could be more expansive and continuing with this practice of language creation, we need new words. Words that don’t center penetrative, penis inclusive sex as the pinnacle and defining moment of an erotic experience. Words that don’t prioritize the end result of one person’s orgasm over the process of creating and experiencing a mutual pleasure. Words that don’t value our sexual relationships with others over our sexual relationship with ourselves. Words that express and embody all the clit-inclusive, queer, kinky, erogenous, pleasurable, lustful, romantic, and time-filling sexual experiences we have and desire to have. And words that recognize that not all sexual experiences are for procreation nor for pleasure; that people have sex for various reasons including but not limited to money, survival, status, and their partner’s satisfaction.

Dalychia Saah

(That last line also ties really well together with Perfect Number’s submission to the carnival.)

In this carnival, I wasn’t so much calling on the creation of new words, I was more so calling for interrogation of our current understanding of certain words.

Erotic vs. Non-Erotic

To that end, we certainly spent a lot of time discussing “erotic” in the comments section: Do we understand erotic as related to only sexual or also sensual? Why have some academics defined erotic as “life force of women” or “creative energy empowered”? And so on.

I think ultimately, the understanding that seems to fit the best (to me) is whether or not there is arousal involved. This comes from Perfect Number:

So, the way I define the difference between “sensual” and “sexual” is by whether or not arousal is involved. So you could even have a situation where Partner A is doing stuff to Partner B, and Partner A is not aroused, while Partner B is aroused, so the experience is not sexual for Partner A, but is sexual for Partner B.

Perfect Number

While Perfect Number was using this to distinguish between sexual and sensual, I think it can also explain the distinction between erotic and non-erotic, which is what I am going to get into.

But first, I wanted to address the other part of Perfect Number’s comment:

But also I’ve heard that for people who have a penis, especially teenage boys, they sometimes get aroused for no reason at all? So if that’s happening to someone, then arousal wouldn’t be a useful indicator of what’s sexual and what’s not.

Perfect Number

So, if somebody feels aroused all of a sudden, for no reason at all, would they consider that to be an erotic experience? I guess so? Based on the way we’re discussing it, it’s more about whether two people are having an erotic experience with each other, but I suppose it’s also possible to have an erotic experience with one’s self?

Going back to the carnival prompt about how to separate what is sex vs. not sex, e.g., if it involves genitals then it’s sex, if it doesn’t, then it’s not — based on the traditional understanding of sex as well as common modifiers of sex (oral, anal, etc.), the “genital vs. no genital” does seem like a potential distinguishing factor.

However, in the comments, I asked about the following kinds of touches that don’t involve genitals: stroking someone’s thighs, kissing someone’s neck, kissing someone’s torso. These might not involve genitals, but they definitely sound erotic, right? So would we think of these as “sexual touches” or “sensual touches”? My understanding is that outside ace circles, this would be called sensual touches, but within ace circles, they would be too erotic to be considered sensual, so they’d be considered sexual. (And that’s at the heart of my problem with the word sensual — the inconsistency in usage.) So the genital/non-genital distinguishing factor probably only applies in parlance outside ace circles, but within ace circles, not so much.

Sexual vs. Sensual

For now, let’s simply the difference this way (although I will break it down further later):

• sexual -> erotic -> arousal
• sensual -> not erotic -> no arousal

Rather than distinguishing between sexual and sensual, it is easier for me to try to distinguish between erotic and non-erotic. This distinction is context-dependent. For instance, hugging, cuddling, hand-holding, etc., while not erotic in general, can be erotic depending on the context. I’ve had erotic cuddles and hand-holding with my LO, which definitely didn’t involve genitals. Those moments sent jolts of electricity through my body and something started building up in my body leading to an intense longing for something. I don’t know what that was, but I’m pretty sure I was aroused. And very likely, my body wanted some kind of release. And maybe, what it was building towards, was … towards an orgasm?

Well, I’ve never experienced one of those, so I can’t really tell if that’s what it was. And also, I haven’t actually IRL heard anyone talk about their experiences with orgasm. I’ve only ever read about orgasms in certain adult novels lol. And in all of the ones I’ve read, the orgasm came from penetrative sex. But orgasms should be possible even without penetrative sex, right? And that’s basically the idea which Dalychia Saah is pushing in her piece.

Referring to non-penetrative sexual activities as foreplay acts such as flirting, kissing, sucking, biting, licking, squeezing, holding, teasing, grinding, spanking, frames them as nothing more than bonus aspects of sexual interaction that are only tolerated so that we can get to the penetrating. It is so patriarchal and penis-centric to value penetration over pleasure. It puts in place a hierarchy where my painful penetrative experience—where I faked an orgasm through my grimacing face to help him come faster so it could all be over—is considered more legitimate sex than the sexual tension released during make out, dry humping, and hair grabbing session that leaves my panties soaked, heart racing, and mind fantasizing for days afterwards.

Dalychia Saah

The traditional understanding is that there is a sexual hierarchy and PIV sex is at the top of that hierarchy. Saah argues that this doesn’t have to be the case and calls for broadening the definition of sex. Basically, encouraging people to explore what actually gives them erotic pleasure and pursing what works for them rather than following rigid societal scripts.

One of the things Perfect Number brought up is very related to this:

And when I say “I thought I had sexual attraction but it was actually sensual attraction” I mean that when I stopped repressing myself and just followed my desires, they didn’t lead to sex, they led to much cuddling/kissing. Apparently for allosexuals, when they do the kind of intense cuddling and kissing, it then naturally makes them feel like the next step is to do stuff with their genitals (?). Which is very much not natural for me.

Perfect Number

OK, seems like allosexuals, when they are aroused, they want to do stuff with their genitals. But, when I was aroused, I wasn’t wanting to do stuff with my genitals (although, I think if LO and I had agreed to embark on a sexual relationship, I was starting to get to the point where I would have been comfortable exploring stuff with genitals, but that’s water under the bridge). Similarly, when Perfect Number followed her desires that led to kissing/cuddling, (once again, I don’t know for sure if she felt aroused by that, but I am assuming so simply because I have a hard time imagining kissing not leading to some kind of arousal, more on this later), she also wasn’t wanting to do stuff with genitals. But even Dalychia Saah, who is presumably allo, also seems to be aroused by “making out, dry humping, and hair grabbing,” most of which (I think) don’t involve genitals (that is, based on my understanding I think dry humping is something that kind of involves genitals, but I don’t want to spend the 5 minutes googling it, lol).

(Frawley’s submission to the carnival is very relevant to this discussion.)

I’m pretty sure it’s not only aces who are not interested in genitals. I think maybe in ace circles, we overemphasize how obsessed allosexuals are with genitals. Kind of like what Blue Ice-Tea wrote about in her “shoes” article. To be fair though, the way penetrative sex is so revered in allosexual environments doesn’t help. But that’s what Dalychia Saah was pushing back against.

Something I took away from Saah’s article is that sexual partners can always negotiate with each other based on their personal sexual hierarchies. Even among allosexuals, there are differences in what kind of sex they want.

(To be fair, I’m not clear on what “different kinds of sex” means. Is this about where the penetration is happening, or about sex position? I’ve heard people talk about different kinds of “sex moves” and how one partner wants to try certain moves, but the other is reluctant and so on, but I have no idea what those “sex moves” are.)

But even assuming that this means doing different kinds of things with genitals, allosexual couples do have to negotiate with each other regarding what they want to do with each other’s genitals. So why can’t the negotiation also include touch things that don’t have to involve genitals? Why can’t we think of couples negotiating with each other what they want to do with their bodies, whether that involves genitals or not?

My sense is that it is this idea that “sex involves genitals/penetration” is what sets up a divide between allosexuals and asexuals that makes it seem like making a relationship work would be like moving a mountain — makes it seem like mixed relationships have a much bigger challenge than non-mixed relationships. But … maybe … if the definition of sex were expanded in the way Saah suggests, then this challenge wouldn’t seem that much more daunting than the challenge of a relationship between allo folks who each prefer different types of penetrative sex. If the definition of sex were expanded, and if the idea of negotiation was normalized, maybe so many allosexuals wouldn’t have a knee-jerk reaction of completely writing off asexuals as potential partners.

On a related note, I feel like I’ve come across ace content that involve the narrative “we like touch and they like [penetrative] sex”, which I’m not a fan of. This narrative ignores that not all aces like touch, and not all allos like [penetrative] sex. There was some discussion about this in the December 2014 carnival (see quote from Alice, original post no longer available, and the submission by Ace in Lace).

Erotic Sensual and Non-Erotic Sensual

This is where I will break down the distinction even further. I don’t think, even within ace circles, it’s as simple as “sensual -> not erotic -> no arousal”.

In the comments, VioletEmerald and Perfect Number both provided descriptions of “sensual”:

• “actively fantasizing about, craving, longing for a hug or other kinds of touch” — VioletEmerald
• “actively feeling an invisible kind of energy charge between us and wishing our arms could graze” — VioletEmerald
• “wanting to touch someone, in a way that’s passionate and charged with romantic sparks” — Perfect Number
• “feeling someone’s warmth, the pressure from being touched, the smoothness of his skin, petting his hair, all of that, if it’s a guy I’m attracted to then it’s very romantically charged and exciting” — Perfect Number

There are some notable similarities and differences in the descriptions. I think VioletEmerald’s descriptions don’t imply the same kind of romantic charge that Perfect Number’s descriptions do? Based on my discussion with VioletEmerald in the comments, I’d gather that her sensual feelings aren’t linked to arousal. But I can’t really tell whether Perfect Number’s are.

(I thought about asking for clarifications in the comments again before writing this, but there were just too many comments!)

So far, I haven’t tried to interrogate what arousal means. Does arousal imply sexual arousal, where genitals are stimulated (penis is erect, vagina is wet/open), leading the person to want to do stuff with genitals? I’d say not necessarily. In biology arousal refers to a state of heightened physiological activity; and in psychology, it is used to refer to a state of being alert or attentive. For the context of this discussion, we don’t need to go that broad, I’m thinking of arousal as a state which is kind of like what I described above: “Those moments sent jolts of electricity through my body and something started building up in my body leading to an intense longing for something.” That something wasn’t stuff with genitals for me, but there was an intense need for physical intimacy. Without getting that dose of intimacy, often it was just the need to hold his hand, it felt something like being suffocated … like I needed him to hold my hand or hold me and only then could I breathe.

This is a very different feeling from feeling a strong desire to touch my friends or get physical comfort from them. Those can be needs too. There are times when I really need a hug. There are times when I specifically really need a hug from a specific person, like my mom. Most times, I need some of touch and physical intimacy from someone I care about and I can long for that touch. But that is very different from that intense need that can feel very physically frustrating if not satisfied (like being suffocated, except not that extreme). And well, physical comfort from friends or family can be very enjoyable/pleasurable, but they reach nowhere near the highs of that intense need being met.

Anyways, it’s the development of that intense need that I’m calling arousal here, and just to reiterate, that intense need can be simply for holding hands, it need not go as far as a need for penetration. By that token, I’m thinking of erotic intimacy as that which involves this kind of arousal, and non-erotic intimacy as one that doesn’t.

However, coming back to “sensual”, I think sensual can be applied to both, even within ace circles. That intense need to hold hands or cuddle or kiss would be referred to as sensual. But the non-intense need to hold hands or cuddle (or kiss?) would also be referred to as sensual. So, thus far, I’ve identified three ways in which “sensual” is used:

• Activities that are likely to stimulate the genitals (like kissing torso or stroking thighs) — definitely an aroused state — usage outside ace circles
• Things like hugging, cuddling, holding hands that involve that intense need — there is an aroused state — usage both within and outside ace circles
• Things like hugging, cuddling, holding hands that don’t involve that intense need — there is very little of an aroused state — usage within ace circles

“Sensual” Aces

I question who “sensual” aces (i.e., aces who like/enjoy erotic touch) are more like? Are they more like allosexuals? Or are they more like aces who are averse to any kind of erotic touch?

I’m thinking of somebody like Sriti Jha (here is a link to her performance of “Confessions of an Asexual Romantic”). From her poem, we know she’s really into kissing. Based on the “sexual hierarchy” concept from Dalychia Saah, we can infer that kissing would be at the top of Jha’s sexual hierarchy. And her poem does make it sound like she gets aroused by kissing — in the way I’m using the word aroused.

So is Jha more similar to an allosexual who is interested in penetrative sex whereas Jha isn’t? Or is she more similar to a touch-averse ace whereas Jha definitely isn’t touch-averse? Does it make more sense to group people based on whether they are interested in doing stuff with genitals? Or does it make more sense to group people based on whether they are interested in erotic physical contact which leads to arousal?

How does Sriti Jha define sex? As only PIV sex? Is she interested in other activities that she might not consider to be sex, but lots of other aces would find uncomfortable?

Romantic Aces

I think there is a good chance that there is an almost exact overlap between sensual aces (as defined above) and romantic aces (better known as alloromantic aces).

In my experience, the aces who are into touch (kissing, cuddling, and so on) and who describe their ideal romantic relationship as involving these kinds of touch tend to think of themselves as romantic aces. Aces who feel any degree of aversion to touch, anecdotally, don’t seem to enthusiastically embrace the “alloromantic” label (even if they don’t ID as aromantic) and also tend to discuss non-traditional partnerships like QPPs rather than the traditional romantic relationships.

While aces have pushed the image that a relationship can be romantic without [penetrative] sex, I haven’t seen anyone push the image of a relationship being romantic with any kind of touch at all. There’s at least some hugging, kissing, cuddling, hand-holding.

This is very much in line with the question I raised in my my original romantic vs. platonic post before I even started this blog — “how is romantic different from platonic (whether it’s an attraction or an attachment or a relationship) when you’ve removed sexuality and sensuality from the picture?”

This is also related to the idea of a pair bond vs. an affectional bond vs. a familial bond that I’ve written about before. Pair bonds (which is typically the kind of bond formed between romantic pairs) just work very chemically different in the brain than do familial and affectional bonds. And I suspect that this brain chemistry plays a role in creating that intense need that’s physically frustrating if not met.

So when Perfect Number describes “sensual” with phrases like “romantically charged” and “passionate cuddling” — that does invoke erotic for me. I could be misinterpreting what she meant of course, but these phrases make me think of that intense need. Also, I’ve gone this long without mentioning limerence, but here it comes. Perfect Number has previously talked about experiencing limerence as a very normal part of her romantic experience. I don’t know if she experiences limerence in the same way I do, but I’ve experienced limerence basically as a constant state of arousal (intense need to be around him; and when I was around him, an intense need to touch him).

What I’m trying to get at here is that while many people would hesitate to associate romantic/limerent feelings with erotic feelings if the desire for penetrative sex is lacking, I wouldn’t. I find romantic/limerent feelings to be erotic as well.

But I concede that it’s a different kind of erotic. The eroticism associated with purely romantic/limerent feelings (i.e., when physical touch is not involved) is different from the eroticism associated with physical touch. The difference, as I see it, lies with the source of that intense need. With physical touch, the touch itself is the source. With romantic/limerent feelings, it’s thinking about or imagining the touch, that leads to that intense need.

Anyways, VioletEmerald’s description of sensual attraction as the “invisible energy” that leads to a desire for touch … that doesn’t invoke the same erotic feelings to me. This feels more like the need for touch from specific people to whom I’m close, but not the intense need for touch without which I’d go mad.

Alterous? (What’s the difference in the feelings when you hug a friend vs. hug a partner?)

I spent a lot of time working out the difference between erotic and non-erotic and sexual and sensual, and explaining how it is context dependent. The same actions — hugging, cuddling, hand-holdings — can be erotic or not-erotic-at-all depending on the context. For me personally, doing this stuff with my LO was very different from doing this stuff with my family members or friends.

But … I’m not really sure how common cuddling and hand-holding are among friends and family members. And it is possible to have a deep emotional connection among friends and family members without this form of intimacy. What is the difference between deeply intimate relationships of this nature that does or does not involve physical intimacy (where the intimacy is not erotic in nature)?

The friends that readily come to mind with whom I’ve shared non-erotic physical intimacy are the ones whom I’ve previously called “Joy” and “my fabulous friend who drew my profile picture” in this blog. (I’ll call the second one FF here.) We have been very comfortable with cuddling and hand-holding and giving massages and so on. Before them, I had a handful of friends in high school with whom I also had similar levels of physical intimacy. But with the vast majority of my friends, I don’t have this aspect of closeness, even though I’d consider them close friends with whom I have strong emotional ties.

I’ve wondered about this difference ever since I had first learned about “alterous” and had wondered if this was what alterous was. I don’t know if the alterous feelings VioletEmerald described are similar to the feelings I have for friends like Joy and FF, or whether they are different entirely. (Like, VioletEmerald wasn’t talking about close platonic friends, but rather a partner for whom she has “alterous” feelings. But for me with Joy and FF, even though they are not my partners, it’s not as if I view them in a category where “they are my platonic best friends, therefore they can never be my life partners”. Circumstances allowing, I would very happily form life partnerships with them, and/or have a QPP with them, though there would be nothing romantic about it.)

So, what is the difference between my feelings for/relationship with Joy/FF and other friends? After much thought, I came to the conclusion that the only difference is the attitude. Most other people seem to reserve most forms of physical intimacy only for their partners (whether romantic or queerplatonic). In fact, back in college, there were some people who thought Joy and FF were a couple because they were so close. But really, like me, Joy and FF don’t think of cuddling or giving massages as exclusively romantic and are comfortable cuddling in non-romantic contexts. When I cuddle with them, there’s nothing “erotic” about it. There is pleasure and satisfaction, but there isn’t that undercurrent of excitement that starts to build up. There isn’t that kind of arousal.

(As an aside, my brother and I grew up, quite comfortable with touch — with each other or with our parents. But we discovered our cousins, who grew up the the States, were not, in the same way. As we spent more times with our cousins, we also moved away from touching — but he and I would not ascribe any kind of incestuousness to the touching in the way our cousins would. In fact, my dad also complained that his brother used to be comfortable putting arms around shoulders, but after moving to the States, started finding it — rather homophobically, let me add — too “gay”. I discussed this in more detail in a previous post.)

(As an another aside, Joy and FF are presumably straight. I say presumably because their orientation has literally never come up in conversation and they’ve never questioned their orientation, at least not in front of me, and they are either dating or married to men. But if they hadn’t been straight — would that have changed the equation? It’s possible. It’s not as if just because our relationship isn’t romantic, it doesn’t mean it couldn’t be under a different set of circumstances.)

So, there isn’t something fundamentally different in my feelings for Joy/FF and other friends (in the way there is a fundamental difference between limerent feelings and strongly-affectionate feelings), other than the fact that we have a different attitude towards physical intimacy than other people do. Other people might view this intimacy as “sensual” (in the way it’s used outside ace circles, meaning, with erotic connotations) whereas we don’t.

(As yet another aside, I can’t figure out whether kissing can be one of those things that’s erotic or not-erotic depending on context? Like, sure lots of people, both within and outside ace circles think of kissing as sexual, but do aces like Sriti Jha who enjoy kissing think of it as purely non-erotic? Like, they aren’t aroused by the kissing at all? I really don’t know the answer to this. I have zero experience with kissing. Maybe it depends on the intensity of the kissing? Or whether it’s a full blown French kiss or not? I don’t know.)

I can understand not being aroused by kissing if it “does nothing” for someone. Like, they are engaging in kissing for someone else’s benefit. But is it possible to enjoy kissing (or have a need for kissing) without arousal? In the way we can enjoy or need hugs but not get aroused by it. Is that possible for kissing?

Labels

And finally, some questions came up for me from the term “demisensual”.

We know that there are allosexual people out there who are able to be sexually intimate with strangers if they are aroused; and there are demisexual people who require a strong emotional connection before sexual intimacy is possible. I’m thinking about “allosensual” vs. “demisensual”. Would that be analogous? (Here I’m thinking of sensual along the lines of the third type of usage — the non-erotic, no arousal kind.)

Would an allosensual person be able to be physically intimate with strangers whereas demisensual people would require that emotional connection first? IDK, I’d kind of still interpret the physical intimacy with strangers to need some kind of arousal. Is it possible to be like, ace and allosensual, where you are not interested in sex or sexual touch at all but able to able to have non-erotic physical intimacy with strangers? Or is that a combination that just doesn’t work?

I think there is something about eroticism/being aroused that makes it possible for allo folks (and here, by “allo” I mean “not ace and not demi”, although that is not necessarily the definition of allo), to engage in sexual/sensual behaviors that they would not be able to, without that arousal.

Going back to the overlap I discussed between “romantic” and “sensual” — it’s usually alloromantic aces who are most interested in “sensual relationships”. On the flip side, while there are decent number of people who ID as allosexual aros, I’ve never heard from someone who IDs as allosensual aro — aromantic, asexual, but allosensual.

My sense is that “allosensual” isn’t a thing by itself. In the sense that if someone is allosensual, they are probably also allosexual. And as for being demisensual … again, I have a hard time imaging anyone being comfortable with non-erotic intimate touch with a person. So I don’t know if demisensual makes a meaningful contrast with allosensual. It probably makes a meaningful contrast, though, with “asensual”, which conveys the feeling of not being comfortable with any kind of touch.

Summary

No more CW here for explicit language (except for some references to genitals).

• I don’t like the word “sensual” because of inconsistency in usage. Outside ace circles, it implies something erotic (that involves arousal), but within ace circles, it usually implies something non-erotic (that doesn’t involve arousal), but ends up being used in both ways. This just makes it confusing to use in conversation. So I’d rather stay away from sexual/sensual distinction and use the erotic/non-erotic distinction.
• Whether the line between sexual/sensual involves genitals/no-genitals only works if sensual is used in the sense outside ace circles, because we can definitely think of examples of erotic activities that don’t involve genitals. So once again, it makes sense to me to stay away from sexual/sensual distinction and use the erotic/non-erotic distinction instead.
• I think of erotic as associated with arousal. Here I’m using arousal to mean as a state in which one has an intense need for physical touch, which, if met, leads to extreme highs, and if not met, leads to extreme lows, like physical frustration and a feeling like going crazy with the need. So, in the way I’m using it, arousal can occur from sexual / sensual / romantic / limerent interactions, and as such, is quite broad.
• The line between erotic/non-erotic touch is context dependent. If you view the touch as romantic and/or are aroused by it, then it is, if you don’t, then it’s not.
• Whether touch is viewed as erotic/romantic by a culture varies across cultures and individual beliefs. Some people can have physically intimate relationships with friends and family that are not erotic at all. To some people, physically intimate relationships are only appropriate with a partner (whether romantic or queerplatonic or polyamorous or whatever).
• Is an ace person who is not interested in [penetrative] sex, but interested in other forms of erotic contact more similar to allosexuals or more similar to touch-averse aces?
• Allosensual is probably not a thing by itself. Cannot think of a scenario in which someone is comfortable with/wants non-erotic physical intimacy with strangers. If they want physical intimacy with strangers, it is likely erotic, and that person is likely allosexual.