what is grey/demi?

[Tegid]

*nod* Sure.

I don't know how many people would be remotely okay with a shift in the language, but I'm all for taking the 'a' out of grey-asexual:

Greysexuality. It's a group of orientations (including demisexual), just like Polysexuality is a group that includes pansexual and bisexual.

It's not part of asexuality, which is a single specific point of nonattraction. Grey is a wide range of possible points. So is poly. Pan and demi are both specific points, and bi- is a moderately specific point (if you include non-binary genders, there are many possible variations that qualify as bisexual).

The grey equivalent for aromanticism would be greyromanticism, &c.

*shrug* Any takers?

[Faelights]

*nod* Sure.

I don't know how many people would be remotely okay with a shift in the language, but I'm all for taking the 'a' out of grey-asexual:

Greysexuality. It's a group of orientations (including demisexual), just like Polysexuality is a group that includes pansexual and bisexual.

It's not part of asexuality, which is a single specific point of nonattraction. Grey is a wide range of possible points. So is poly. Pan and demi are both specific points, and bi- is a moderately specific point (if you include non-binary genders, there are many possible variations that qualify as bisexual).

The grey equivalent for aromanticism would be greyromanticism, &c.

*shrug* Any takers?

I'm going to take this opportunity to confess that this entire time, I've been thinking of the spectrum between asexual and (veri)sexual as split between grey-asexuals (grey, but closer to asexual) and grey-sexuals (grey, but closer to (veri)sexual).

=o.o=

[NamTar]

I agree with that. That's why I say "grey" instead of tacking on -asexual.

[Member33070]

^ I do the same thing.

It's not really asexual or "sexual"...isn't that the point? Why treat it like a part of either?

[Tegid]

I'm going to take this opportunity to confess that this entire time, I've been thinking of the spectrum between asexual and (veri)sexual as split between grey-asexuals (grey, but closer to asexual) and grey-sexuals (grey, but closer to (veri)sexual).

With demisexual as the kind of crossover point, perhaps?

Asexual = feels none of either kind of attraction

Grey-asexual = feels low levels of one kind of attraction (alternative: specifically secondary attraction)

Demisexual = feels moderate to high levels of one kind of attraction (alternative: specifically secondary attraction)

Greysexual = feels lower levels of both kinds of attraction (alternative: specifically, they feel primary attraction at least a little bit, whether or not secondary attraction is present)

Verisexual = feels moderate to high levels of both kinds of attraction

What say?

[Member33070]

*shrug* I don't know.

I think basing it entirely on the primary/secondary model probably isn't the best idea.

Because here's the thing - even among verisexuals, this whole "primary attraction = seeing them and immediately desiring sex based on their appearance or other immediately noticeable features" isn't super common. It can happen once in a while but it's definitely not the rule, I don't think. It might take a few meetings, or seeing them dressed a certain way or something.

I don't necessarily agree with the "instant" concept of primary sexual attraction because it might not be instant - and peoples' appearance can become more attractive to you as the relationship develops. Knowing that, I don't know if the whole "developing attraction over time" bit of secondary attraction should only be based on an emotional or romantic concept. And the whole "desire for sex based on an emotional connection" might not need a ton of time to develop. It can be the whole package developing over time. Then what is it?

Ehhh. I just don't know. It seems like we're trying too hard to force a very rigid structure on something that isn't that rigid at all - human experience...

[Tegid]

Because here's the thing - even among verisexuals, this whole "primary attraction = seeing them and immediately desiring sex based on their appearance or other immediately noticeable features" isn't super common. It can happen once in a while but it's definitely not the rule, I don't think. It might take a few meetings, or seeing them dressed a certain way or something.

Are you treating attraction as a behavioural aspect?

When I say attraction, I'm talking about the instant, immediate, visceral value judgment that occurs the moment you become aware of a piece of information about a person. If they activate your attraction, it means that some piece of information about them gave you a viscerally 'yes, attractive, good' value judgment.

It does not say ANYTHING about if you act on it, or if you have other types of attraction to them, or if you even have the drives necessary to want to act on the attraction.

It just means that some part of your brain registers that SOMETHING here is a thing of positive interest, and gains your attention.

A verisexual person with extremely high sex drive might be in a strong monogamous relationship already, and still see somebody as attractive, without ever getting close to acting on it. They may intellectually dismiss the attraction within moments of noticing it. The point is, they experience it, on a level that is outside their ability to consciously turn off or on.

So "seeing them and immediately desiring sex based on their appearance &c." is fundamentally a behavioural judgment on it: the attraction is the seeing and judging them attractive on a visceral level... not desiring sex with them. By the time it gets to actively wanting sex, it has gone through SEVERAL consciously-operated stages of thought, emotion, and of course the also-visceral factor of drives (if their libido is sufficient for sex to be desirable in a general way).

I hope that makes sense? :-/

[Member33070]

^ No, I'm not treating it as a behavioral aspect in the slightest.

I'm basing it on a concept we discussed...somewhere...in here...talking about aesthetic attraction (and yes, I know the difference, that's why I said "basing it on"). Basically, a bunch of us (mostly asexuals in this discussion) agreed that people can seem more aesthetically attractive once you've developed some sort of relationship with them.

This translates well to sexual attraction, and I've talked to a few sexual people about it. Sexual attraction (inherent, uncontrolled, undecided sexual attraction) can develop over time based on looks and things as well. Even if it's not there at all before, it can develop over time - but not necessarily based on the relationship or emotional connection. It can even be just seeing them a bunch of times and falling for them without a friendship or relationship. I'm just trying to say - the "instant" thing for primary attraction (based on looks or smell or whatever)...it doesn't have to be instant.

So if we admit it can develop over time...and that's part of the "secondary sexual attraction" idea...is it then secondary sexual attraction, or is there now this weird link between primary and secondary where they can influence each other?

If the entire spectrum of attraction can develop over time - with attraction based on appearance, smell, observable features, the relationship, etc...all at once...primary and secondary concepts of time go out the door.

That's all I'm worried about. I just don't think it's always instant for primary. It can be, but it's not the absolute die-hard rule.

And I don't think an emotional connection needs to take a bunch of time, either. Sometimes it can just be connecting based on one statement, one empathetic gesture between people. Seriously.

I just don't like the time concept and I'm not sure how I feel about splitting the two.

And...okay...so if demisexuals experience secondary sexual attraction only, do they ever find someone sexually attractive based on looks or smell or something...even if it's not instant? Do these feelings develop over time, where they can look at someone they are in a relationship with and find them appealing?

If they're linked there, too...do you see where I'm going with this?

It's not this rigid structure that can all be separated all the time.

[PiF]

The primary /secondary sexual attraction definitions are made up definitions by sexual groups to try and find new ways to fit in because they are desperate to do so

Veri-sexual???? WTF come on... Is there a joke book or anagram club somewhere in order to keep making all these up?

Why you struggle in grey is because you think it should all be grey and fluid.. It can't be.. Even within grey you need some definate baselines

I must admit I will be watching this thread quite a lot now to see how the Next thrilling installment of ...made up word of the week club...progresses

[Nameless Someone]

Haven't read the whole thread but I agree with SkulleryMaid so far. I'd like to see people's definition of "fully sexual."

[Member33070]

I think I'm just going to sit and wait to see how the polls work out.

I'm kind of tired of speculating about other peoples' experiences when I can just ask them.

And honestly...I'm not sure how important the perfect concept of the label is. If there isn't ever going to be a clear boundary between things, I'm never going to be crazy committed to the gray label - sad but true - because I'll never be able to feel fully confident that I'm not "fully sexual".

[Tegid]

I'm basing it on a concept we discussed...somewhere...in here...talking about aesthetic attraction (and yes, I know the difference, that's why I said "basing it on"). Basically, a bunch of us (mostly asexuals in this discussion) agreed that people can seem more aesthetically attractive once you've developed some sort of relationship with them.

This translates well to sexual attraction, and I've talked to a few sexual people about it. Sexual attraction (inherent, uncontrolled, undecided sexual attraction) can develop over time based on looks and things as well. Even if it's not there at all before, it can develop over time - but not necessarily based on the relationship or emotional connection. It can even be just seeing them a bunch of times and falling for them without a friendship or relationship. I'm just trying to say - the "instant" thing for primary attraction (based on looks or smell or whatever)...it doesn't have to be instant.

So if we admit it can develop over time...and that's part of the "secondary sexual attraction" idea...is it then secondary sexual attraction, or is there now this weird link between primary and secondary where they can influence each other?

If the entire spectrum of attraction can develop over time - with attraction based on appearance, smell, observable features, the relationship, etc...all at once...primary and secondary concepts of time go out the door.

That's all I'm worried about. I just don't think it's always instant for primary. It can be, but it's not the absolute die-hard rule.

And I don't think an emotional connection needs to take a bunch of time, either. Sometimes it can just be connecting based on one statement, one empathetic gesture between people. Seriously.

I just don't like the time concept and I'm not sure how I feel about splitting the two.

And...okay...so if demisexuals experience secondary sexual attraction only, do they ever find someone sexually attractive based on looks or smell or something...even if it's not instant? Do these feelings develop over time, where they can look at someone they are in a relationship with and find them appealing?

If they're linked there, too...do you see where I'm going with this?

Ah, savvy; sorry for misapprehending your point earlier.

Primary attraction is based on instantly available information; that only means that the info is always there (whether it's appearance, scent, or social things like wealth and taste in clothes or sports teams, &c, as displayed by outward appearance), not that it is received the first time you encounter a person, or that you see it as attractive the first time you encounter it.

I'd compare it to food with picky eaters: they might loathe the taste of a thing the first three times they're compelled to try it, but at some point they can acquire a taste for it, or they notice something about it that makes it appeal to them.

I don't consider either mode of attraction to be time dependent; rather, primary attraction is awareness-dependent (or exposure dependent, really: you have to be exposed to the person's presence sufficiently to notice outward details), and secondary attraction is interaction dependent.

Secondary attraction is based on things that can only be learned after you have interacted with a person. I don't think it even really needs to be phrased as "a bond of trust" or "emotional closeness" or "love"... it's just the things that you CANNOT know about them if you are standing too far away too communicate with them one-on-one.

Going by that definition, secondary attraction would still NOT be dependent on the amount of time you've interacted; it would only depend on IF you have interacted, and IF during that interaction you gained information about them that makes the other person attractive to you.

I don't see demisexual as a label automatically meaning "zero primary attraction, ever, even after you're already in a relationship".

I see it as, "secondary attraction is prioritized over primary attraction. If the secondary doesn't happen FIRST, the primary never happens."

For verisexuals, the primary attraction is prioritized: unless a person in a bar catches another's eye and is found attractive at a distance, neither of them is going to move close enough to get to know the other and activate the possibility of secondary attraction.

With the demisexual, the primary attraction would never be the basis of whether or not one person crosses the room to talk to the other. If conversation starts, it's on a platonic or nonsexually romantic basis from the very beginning. Once conversation has occurred, secondary attraction can take effect. If secondary attraction is achieved, then primary attraction becomes possible.

It's not that, to be demi, you must permanently lack primary attraction... it's just that your secondary attraction must be a higher priority, occurring first, for primary to happen at all.

Extending this to the other parts of the ace spectrum:

Asexual = no attraction occurs; no prioritization.

Grey-asexual = low levels of one type of attraction occurs without the other; no prioritization at all.

Demisexual = moderate to high levels of secondary attraction, and comparatively low levels (or lack) of primary attraction; secondary attraction has higher priority than primary; secondary attraction must occur first for primary attraction to occur. In some cases, primary attraction may be absent, but it is not required to be absent to qualify as demi.

Greysexual = both types of attraction occur, but at a collectively lower level than in verisexuals. Primary attraction gets prioritized over secondary, or else there is no prioritization at all. Secondary does not take priority.

Verisexual = both types of attraction occur at high levels; primary attraction has higher priority than secondary; primary attraction must occur first for secondary attraction to occur.

Or, very abbreviated:

Ace = 0 primary; 0 secondary

Grey-ace = low secondary; 0 primary

Demisexual = moderate/high secondary; 0 / low / moderate primary. Secondary happens first.

Greysexual = moderate/high primary; 0 / low / moderate secondary. Primary happens first.

Verisexual = high primary; high secondary. Primary happens first.

*shrug* I think with time this model could undergo quite a bit of refinement and clarification, but maybe there's something to it?

It also gives a more definitive "halfway point" for demi-, which actually rationalizes the use of that prefix, linguistically.

I'd like to see people's definition of "fully sexual."

I avoid using that term specifically because people can experience attraction but might not necessarily be willing or able to act on it to ANY degree... and slapping a term like 'sexual' on them is forcibly sexualizing a group with which we don't identify, and not giving them the opportunity to ask for a different word. I've seen several cases (mostly Tumblr, oy) of sexual individuals who got severely upset as being labeled that way without consenting to it.

Verisexual is based on 'vera', Latin 'true, actual, real, possible', the logical and linguistic opposite of 'a-', Latin 'not, lacking, without, impossible'.

Asexual is not-sexual.

Verisexual is possibly-sexual.

They're just opposite truth values, not emotionally laden terms or words that imply one to be better than the other.

Considering one of the biggest complaints of aces is that they are forcibly subjected to sexualizing aspects of society, wouldn't it be hypocritical of us to push sexualization on others?

[schwertlilie]

The sample points are just that - sample points. They just show a few random spots on the chart, and what each spot means. Ie, if the graph was otherwise "naked" and there was a spot there, the related description is how to interpret that spot. They're not meant to be indicative of the entire population who identifies within that label. Each shape (sort of like skewed diamonds where the circles intersect and overlap) within the entire outlined (with the glow, and represented with a different texture) label area represents a sort of person that could fit under that label.

So there's three "types" of asexual in the red area, for example - in addition to the asexuals who experience none of the four things, there's asexuals who experience high, medium, or low secondary desire :)

So yeah, think of them as imaginary people. :)

Good to know! I think that should be on the chart itself - graphics tend to wander around the internet, often without context, and that's a pretty important bit of information, imo.

The other thing I'm having a hard time figuring out...what do I mean by low and medium and high for attraction? Lol. Like, does it mean the attraction itself is intense for "high", there are a lot of people one is attracted to for "high"...hmm. Thoughts?

Probably unhelpful, but I'd say: both number and intensity of attraction(s) should count for the "strength" of the metric. I've been sexually attracted to one person very intensely and one person more idly. The intensity of that first attraction means I'm definitely not asexual, but two attractions in my entire life (I'm 24) means I'm definitely not veri-/sexual.

Yeah, it's fuzzy, but isn't that a good thing, especially for the definition of "grey-ace"? It's in-between asexual & veri-/sexual, and if there were ever hard-and fast lines drawn between asexual & grey-ace or grey-ace & veri-/sexual (or veri-/sexual & hypersexual, which is the other side of the bell curve), there would be people who still fall smack dab in the middle of that line.. or bust the line entirely.

[schwertlilie]

(I haven't seen this in this forum yet, apologies if this has already been covered.)

Honestly, my favourite definition/explanation of demisexuality is sonofzeal's:

(snip)

It's just that I don't get lust unless there's a strong emotional connection to the person, unless I feel like I know them very well. I've been "in love" four or five times in my life, and been "in lust" about as many times, which I'm going to assume is faaaar below normal for a healthy male with a decent sex drive. The two don't even line up very well! Still, both are predicated by some deep emotional connection.

tl;dr: An emotional connection is required for lust/sexual attraction to happen.

It fits with Rabger's model, but it doesn't rely on it. That's really important because 1) there are those of us who have problems with Rabger's model, and therefore any definitions based on it; and 2) Rabger's model is pretty technical, and it's hard to explain to people who don't have a base in the ace community - and is therefore bad for education work.

[Guest]

At this point, I'm going with the definition of sexual as:

"someone who doesn't give a shit about adopting multiple separate and overly-specific definitions about their sexuality".

We had a lot of really good, informative talks over the weekend, and I have a couple more answers and many more questions. I can say this about my personal sexuality:

1. I'm not super romantic. I'm probably "demi-romantic".

2. I mostly (and maybe only) experience secondary attraction. I am not attracted to people who I don't genuinely like.

3. I have a fairly high libido, I think, although I really have no idea where other people's libido's lie.

4. I get a lot of pleasure out of giving pleasure. I am, in a sense, a "bottom". This may or may not be "secondary desire".

5. I identify as "sexual" because I don't think the above details are anyone's business, nor make me more or less normal than any other person. I just don't see my personal sexual preferences to be at all important to my concept of me.

[Guest]

Haven't read the whole thread but I agree with SkulleryMaid so far. I'd like to see people's definition of "fully sexual."

:wub: :wub: Thanks!

i would STILL love to see a definition of "full sexual". I keep seeing the term and I keep seeing a noticeable absence of a definition...

[Tanwen]

Perhaps sexuals don't feel the need to 'define' themselves.

[Tegid]

Perhaps sexuals don't feel the need to 'define' themselves.

Outside AVEN and related boards, they are the vast majority of humanity. Most of them are also unconscious of asexuality being 'a thing' that you can be. It is very unlikely that the average person outside the ace spectrum has ever in their life felt the need to qualify, define, and/or label themselves in terms of whether or not they experience sexual attraction, or how much. It really isn't a high priority issue for people who do experience it strongly: the more important issue is dealing with relationships that result from acting on that attraction.

Asking a sexual person to define where verisexuality ends and greyness begins would most likely be a fruitless venture, because it requires them to look at the situation as anything other than clear-cut "you do or you don't get in bed with people", and if they have never been in a post-puberty stage of no attraction, then they have no basis of judging degrees of lack of attraction: they've only ever had that switched flipped to "on". Simultaneously, asking an asexual the same question is going to yield similar results, due to that switch always being "off". Again, there is no basis for commonality and judgment of a 'range'.

Theoretically, this leaves the burden of line-drawing on the grey range.

[Guest]

Asking a sexual person to define where verisexuality ends and greyness begins would most likely be a fruitless venture, because it requires them to look at the situation as anything other than clear-cut "you do or you don't get in bed with people", and if they have never been in a post-puberty stage of no attraction, then they have no basis of judging degrees of lack of attraction: they've only ever had that switched flipped to "on".

Theoretically, this leaves the burden of line-drawing on the grey range.

Another fairly gross stereotype of "sexuals".

And if you think grays are better at drawing that magic line between sexual and gray, then by all means do it. Tell me what attributes are necessary to be considered a full sexual.

[Siggy]

^ That's something I was wondering too, actually...whether I should include asexuals in the primary sexual desire thing.

According to the model, asexuals are people who lack primary sexual desire.

I know the wiki isn't completely perfect always...but I refrained from making the assumption myself and figured I should ask. :lol:

I can explain this. So-called "Rabger's Model" appeared on the AVENwiki in 2006. At the time, I believe the wiki editors were attempting a less formal wiki, and simply thought Rabger's discussion of asexuality was cool. However, when it appeared on the wiki, it somewhat misrepresented Rabger's views. For instance, Rabger did not ever propose a primary/secondary sexual desire distinction. However, it is true that he deliberately defined asexuality as lacking sexual desire rather than attraction. That's a feature, not a bug.

Then the AVENwiki project sort of died, and articles remained mostly unchanged until the updating project this past year. In the meantime, Rabger's model (as it appeared on the wiki, not as it was proposed by Rabger) percolated into the discourse. In 2011, Rabger noticed that the article misrepresented his views, and deleted the article. Just last month it was put up again under the name "Primary vs secondary sexual attraction model".

I remember some time in 2010, someone changed the definition of asexual from "lacking primary sexual desire" to "lacking primary sexual attraction", because they thought it was a typo. Nobody even noticed it for four months! I have a very low opinion of this model. I appreciate that other people still get some inspiration out of it, but personally I cannot give it the least bit credit.

[Member33070]

Yeah, I don't know. After spending a bunch of time talking with SkulleryMaid and her fiancee in person (I'm staying with them right now because I'm in between homes - so sweet - I'm so thankful )...

I don't really see a huge difference between grays and sexuals, honestly. Based on what they've said about their own experiences, it's really opened my eyes.

The concept we present of sexuality as this thing that seems to always include every type of randomly defined attraction we can come up with...I don't get it.

Now I totally understand the idea of asexuality. I totally understand that there are people who are very close to asexual. But beyond that... I think gray is massively common. I think sexuality itself is a spectrum. I think we're still perpetuating the idea ths every "sexual" person behaves nearly the same way, and we're basing it on this over-sexualized, hypersexual idea.

I mean, I feel like if we were to really break it down, asexuals would be 1% or whatever, and this "verisexual" (why does it sound like "very sexual" to me, hmm...) thing would be less than 10%.

I just think the majority of people aren't as sexual as we're making them sound.

[Tegid]

Another fairly gross stereotype of "sexuals".

And if you think grays are better at drawing that magic line between sexual and gray, then by all means do it. Tell me what attributes are necessary to be considered a full sexual.

How was I grossly stereotyping?

If you take that part of my post in the context of the rest of it, it was in reference to the majority of people off the ace spectrum, people who are not familiar with the notion of asexuality and can be expected initially to treat it as an either-or situation.

I was not implying that they would automatically treat it as behavioural, only that they would be unlikely to perceive a grey area, unless they had personally experienced a time in which they were not able to feel sexual attraction.

I'm demisexual, but before I heard of AVEN or asexuality as anything other than part of high school biology class, I did not think in terms of sexual and asexual, because I had no reason to see my lack of attraction as anything other than being a late bloomer or generally disinterested. I didn't see it as an identity.

Now, aware of the labels and definitions that get used, and having been both outside and inside relationships, and having experienced attraction while in a relationship, I am aware of there being a range between those extremes of either-or.

Basically, I was taking an awkward route to say that if you walk up to a non-spectrum layperson and ask them where the line between grey and verisexual is, they'll probably look at you like you grew a second head, and you won't get anywhere useful from it.

Asking even an ace-educated verisexual or asexual person, if neither has had experiences on the other side of things, won't get you very far in terms of drawing that line, because neither has visited the other side of that line.

Is this more clear and less obscene to you?

EDIT: Also, regarding Birdwing's post just before mine- are you addressing that in terms of attraction or libido? Hypersexual is a reference not to the type or degree of attraction, but to how much and how often a person wants to have sex, in general.

If we're treating all verisexuals as hypersexual, then yeah, that's a massive misunderstanding of the whole situation.

This is a case of "attracted in these ways, or not? If so, is it just very weakly, or is it on a fairly consistent basis, even if it's not ridiculously strong?"

It's not a case of "how much do you like sex, and how often do you want to have it, and with whom?"

By that definition, I'd still consider verisexuality to be the vast majority, asexuality the distinct minority, and all the grey areas as collectively the second-most-common degree of having or lacking attractions.

If we sort it out by libido, then it's all based around an 'average', in the sense of a bell curved mathematical average (to such a degree as such a thing can be numerically conveyed) based on frequency and similar factors. The majority of people would be relatively lowish-seeming in terms of libido, and very few would be on the extremely high and low ends, and the fewest of all at the "no, never, not a chance" end of things.

Just because verisexuals don't spend every minute of the day wanting sex and thinking about it doesn't mean they aren't still essentially the norm and majority. If attraction were uncommon, then the number of married people, the number of divorces resulting from infidelity, and the number of children born each year from 'accidents' would be significantly lower than they are.

[Guest]

How was I grossly stereotyping?

If you take that part of my post in the context of the rest of it, it was in reference to the majority of people off the ace spectrum, people who are not familiar with the notion of asexuality and can be expected initially to treat it as an either-or situation.

Hey, sorry, my response reads more harsh than I meant it. Sometimes I have a cute tone in my head that doesn't translate thru typing. :)

I just meant the "off the ace spectrum" always seems to suggest that all non-ace's are the same. And they aren't. That's all.

[Guest]

Yeah, I don't know. After spending a bunch of time talking with SkulleryMaid and her fiancee in person (I'm staying with them right now because I'm in between homes - so sweet - I'm so thankful )...

In-person chats are so much more helpful than forum posts!! We covered like 3 days of posts in 2 hours of face-to-face talking. Obviously we should all be skyping and/or couch surfing with each other. :)

[Caspian]

Following this discussion, as well as the other threads that this discussion has inspired, has been really helpful to me to see how small the spectrum of sexualities really is (I'm using the word "spectrum" loosely even though I know this terminology was discussed previously). I have to admit that my perceptions of sexuals have been skewed, being that the extent of my knowledge of sex comes from AVEN, TV shows, and my friends who enjoy bragging about their sex lives.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'll identify as aromantic ace since I have never experienced primary or secondary romantic or sexual attraction. And yet, I feel like I can identify pretty closely with the people in this discussion who are graysexuals, and even sexuals (well, primarily Skullery since she's been the most active in this thread). From what I've gathered though this discussion, I even feel that I could probably pass as gray or even sexual without too much difficulty to the point that I might(?) not even have too big of an an issue if I were to find myself in a monogamous relationship with a sexual. (Of course I'd reveal my asexuality if I were to enter into a relationship, but that's not my point here.) I have a pretty "whatever floats your boat" attitude toward sex, combined with a desire to make people happy (especially people I care about). Making others happy is more important to me than my pleasure, discomfort, etc., so I imagine I'd have similar a attitude toward sex if I ever decided to engage in it.

While I can't speak for all aromantic asexuals, I've come to realize that there really isn't a great chasm between my side of the "spectrum" and the sexual side. Aside from repulsed asexuals (since repulsion adds a brand new dimension to things), we're pretty damn similar. Even the line between sexual and asexual appears blurred-- no wonder the line between sexual and graysexual is so hard to find.

[Lucinda]

I personally don't agree with all this low/medium/high. When someone comes on board and says they have a high libido, I always wonder what or who they are comparing it to?? They don't even seem to know. So now grays have a low level of attraction?? Low compared to what or who??

I also disagree with SonOfZeal's statement that his level of lust is far below a healthy male with a decent sex drive. Who establishes what is healthy and decent?? Do their opinions matter?? Is Zeal saying he is not a healthy male?? What in the hell has possessed him to think so lowly of himself??

Asexuals seem to "break the rules", so we are in a perfect position to say, "Hey, perhaps there really are no rules in the first place!! Look around. All sorts of people are stepping over rules as they go on their merry way because they will not be dictated to by others' rules. Throw the rules out the window!".

And it is not doing anyone, especially "sexuals", any good to try to live up to some benchmark. One guy came on board and actually admitted to looking up on the internet how many times someone his age should desire partnered sex. And because he wants to view himself as "normal", he will answer for himself in an effort to align with those statistics. He also admitted to trying to form an "orthodox relationship" and was confused that his partner didn't follow suit. An "orthodox" relationship is what others have deemed as right and acceptable. But these others are not in his relationship, so why not define the relationship with the actual person he is in a relationship with? However, we see so many cases where the partner is blamed or needs therapy, when the person should be kicking themselves for being such a sheep.

As Dr. Joy, a family and sex therapist, pointed out in an article, there is no one "normal" as far as sexual desire goes ... there are a million "normals". The only people who would have you believe you are not normal, are the pharmaceutical companies who are trying to make a buck off of their medications or the advertisers who are trying to get you to buy aphrodisiacs or lingerie or how-to books. And it is actually amazing just how much money people will spend, or how much they will let themselves become stressed and depressed over this whole sex stuff, or -most astonishing to me- how willing they are to throw their partner under the bus. This striving for "normal" and insisting everyone else strive for "normal" is a big joke based on ulterior motives and is unfortunately repeated by those who find it easier to follow the herd.

So, if there is no real "normal" and there is no real benchmark, then how can anyone determine low/medium/high ??

Lucinda

[Guest]

I personally don't agree with all this low/medium/high. When someone comes on board and says they have a high libido, I always wonder what or who they are comparing it to?? They don't even seem to know. So now grays have a low level of attraction?? Low compared to what or who??

I also disagree with SonOfZeal's statement that his level of lust is far below a healthy male with a decent sex drive. Who establishes what is healthy and decent?? Do their opinions matter?? Is Zeal saying he is not a healthy male?? What in the hell has possessed him to think so lowly of himself??

Asexuals seem to "break the rules", so we are in a perfect position to say, "Hey, perhaps there really are no rules in the first place!! Look around. All sorts of people are stepping over rules as they go on their merry way because they will not be dictated to by others' rules. Throw the rules out the window!".

And it is not doing anyone, especially "sexuals", any good to try to live up to some benchmark. One guy came on board and actually admitted to looking up on the internet how many times someone his age should desire partnered sex. And because he wants to view himself as "normal", he will answer for himself in an effort to align with those statistics. He also admitted to trying to form an "orthodox relationship" and was confused that his partner didn't follow suit. An "orthodox" relationship is what others have deemed as right and acceptable. But these others are not in his relationship, so why not define the relationship with the actual person he is in a relationship with? However, we see so many cases where the partner is blamed or needs therapy, when the person should be kicking themselves for being such a sheep.

As Dr. Joy, a family and sex therapist, pointed out in an article, there is no one "normal" as far as sexual desire goes ... there are a million "normals". The only people who would have you believe you are not normal, are the pharmaceutical companies who are trying to make a buck off of their medications or the advertisers who are trying to get you to buy aphrodisiacs or lingerie or how-to books. And it is actually amazing just how much money people will spend, or how much they will let themselves become stressed and depressed over this whole sex stuff, or -most astonishing to me- how willing they are to throw their partner under the bus. This striving for "normal" and insisting everyone else strive for "normal" is a big joke based on ulterior motives and is unfortunately repeated by those who find it easier to follow the herd.

So, if there is no real "normal" and there is no real benchmark, then how can anyone determine low/medium/high ??

Lucinda

Amazing.

Kind of reminds me of a road trip I took with my brother and his wife. We were talking about gender, and I asked him what it was like growing up a boy. He said "Hell. I was never good enough". He asked me what it was like growing up a girl. I said "Hell. I was never good enough."

[Guest]

I personally don't agree with all this low/medium/high. When someone comes on board and says they have a high libido, I always wonder what or who they are comparing it to?? They don't even seem to know. So now grays have a low level of attraction?? Low compared to what or who??

I also disagree with SonOfZeal's statement that his level of lust is far below a healthy male with a decent sex drive. Who establishes what is healthy and decent?? Do their opinions matter?? Is Zeal saying he is not a healthy male?? What in the hell has possessed him to think so lowly of himself??

Asexuals seem to "break the rules", so we are in a perfect position to say, "Hey, perhaps there really are no rules in the first place!! Look around. All sorts of people are stepping over rules as they go on their merry way because they will not be dictated to by others' rules. Throw the rules out the window!".

And it is not doing anyone, especially "sexuals", any good to try to live up to some benchmark. One guy came on board and actually admitted to looking up on the internet how many times someone his age should desire partnered sex. And because he wants to view himself as "normal", he will answer for himself in an effort to align with those statistics. He also admitted to trying to form an "orthodox relationship" and was confused that his partner didn't follow suit. An "orthodox" relationship is what others have deemed as right and acceptable. But these others are not in his relationship, so why not define the relationship with the actual person he is in a relationship with? However, we see so many cases where the partner is blamed or needs therapy, when the person should be kicking themselves for being such a sheep.

As Dr. Joy, a family and sex therapist, pointed out in an article, there is no one "normal" as far as sexual desire goes ... there are a million "normals". The only people who would have you believe you are not normal, are the pharmaceutical companies who are trying to make a buck off of their medications or the advertisers who are trying to get you to buy aphrodisiacs or lingerie or how-to books. And it is actually amazing just how much money people will spend, or how much they will let themselves become stressed and depressed over this whole sex stuff, or -most astonishing to me- how willing they are to throw their partner under the bus. This striving for "normal" and insisting everyone else strive for "normal" is a big joke based on ulterior motives and is unfortunately repeated by those who find it easier to follow the herd.

So, if there is no real "normal" and there is no real benchmark, then how can anyone determine low/medium/high ??

Lucinda

How do you vote posts for POTW again. Just ^This if so then consider this a vote.

But yea, I think I agree with you about there being no normal and no real way to define "high" "low" etc. In the grey poll I said that I had a high degree of secondary sexual desire because I tend to be the kind of person that will do anything to please my partner. Then I thought about my last relationship and realized that although I would do anything to please my partner, there are things my partner has to do as well that I haven't really thought about until now.

I'm starting to change my mind...again...and wonder if we even need to try to come up with actual lines between grey and sexual and grey and asexual. I'm also starting to play around with using one definition for greys (and it's not the best but bear with me):

-Somebody who experiences some form of sexual attraction under limited circumstances

This is actually more encompassing than it looks because it includes the once in a blue moon greys (I can for X), the demisexuals (emotional connection), and every other grey within the spectrum.

Sexuals have the ability to be sexually attracted to anybody that fits their sexual orientation (it doesn't necessarily mean that they will be attracted to everybody).

Thoughts? Concerns? Complaints? Tomatoes?

[Guest]

Sexuals have the ability to be sexually attracted to anybody that fits their sexual orientation (it doesn't necessarily mean that they will be attracted to everybody).

I have no idea what this means... everyone has the ability to be attracted to anyone that fits their orientation, but no one IS attracted to everyone. Can you describe in more detail or with analogy?

[Guest]

Hmmm...

Well let's say that I'm at a bakery with my friend Joe and there are chocolate chip cookies. Also let's pretend that I hate chocolate chip cookies but Joe likes them.

Let's also pretend that somehow the chocolate chip cookies from that bakery smell so good that I have to try them. I do and I like those chocolate chip cookies from that bakery. However, that is the ONLY place that I like chocolate chip cookies from.

To add to that scenario, let's pretend that we went there when I was sad. I ate the cookie and I liked it then but when I came back when I wasn't sad, I disliked it. So for some odd reason I only liked that type of chocolate chip cookie when I was sad.

Now we can also pretend that Joe doesn't like the chocolate chip cookies from that bakery but likes a lot of other chocolate chip cookies. Joe doesn't automatically hate chocolate chip cookies because he dislikes that one type just as I don't start liking chocolate chip cookies because I start liking that one type under one specific circumstance.