The problem of sexual fluidity

[Tazoz]

One thing I've noticed is that people often try to reassure others about their sexuality by explaining that asexuality and romantic orientations are fluid. I believe that we are making a huge mistake by using the term sexual fluidity in such a way.

The reason for this is that if asexuality really is fluid, the orientation becomes an unstable identity and it can just as well be seen as a phase. Who knows, maybe we really will meet the right person some day and live happily ever after, maybe one day we will suddenly develop sexual attractions and change? Why limit our options?

However, we are justifiably insulted when someone says that we might meet the right person some day. Our sexual orientation is a huge part of who we are and once it is truly stable it will most likely stay that way for ever. However, this is not to say that sexualities can't change, but I believe that the change is not as a result of sexual fluidity. The change is most likely in consequence of the person maturing and learning something new about their sexuality.

For a long time I assumed that I was hetrosexual with an extremely low sex drive, it wasn't because I ever felt any romantic or sexual attraction, it was more because I lacked an understanding of how everyone else experiences the world and didn't know it was possible to be asexual. It can be tough to understand what your orientation is as it's based on a subjective interpretation of the different orientations and introspection. As such it is important to give people the option to grow and change. However, this does not mean that we should consider our orientations as fluid, it just means that we are still Questioning our sexuality. If you go to an LGBT forum you will notice that quite a few people use the term questioning when describing their orientation. Why aren't we also using the term?

Here are some examples used to justify the concept of sexual fluidity:

*A person who felt sexual attraction at some point in their life and suddenly feels no sexual attraction.

Such a person most likely just lost their connection with their partner and stopped loving them and is using asexuality as a way to explain the disconnect. However, there is a decent possibility that they will feel sexual attraction later on in their life once they leave their partner or even before that.

Another reason could be that that person for whatever reason has had his sexual drive reduced. This can happen as a result of physical problems, medication or psychological problems. In such cases, they should still be considered sexual as once the problem is treated they will regain their sexual desires and as a result will feel sexual attraction again. Some might argue that they have become greysexuals but this change of label is most likely a bad idea and this is still not an example of fluidity.

*A person who is hetroromantic who suddenly develops a romantic attraction to people of the same sex:

Such a person should probably be considered as biromantic and that they didn't know that they were biromantic because they didn't understand their sexuality fully. They were most likely always biromantic, they just didn't know that they were.

*A person who was aromantic suddenly becomes romantic:

In general, most people feel somewhat aromantic before they reach puberty or even after if they are slow to develop, however, that does not mean they were ever actually aromantic or even know how an aromantic perceives the world. Likewise, a person doesn't just fluctuate between aromantic asexuality and romantic asexuality over time in the same way that a person doesn't fluctuate between sexuality and asexuality. That person is demiromantic or greyromantic or romantic. Someone who is aromantic is someone who has never felt and will not feel any romantic attraction to anyone.

*A bi romantic/sexual's attraction fluctuates between sexes:

This really is a case of sexual/romantic fluidity and is fairly common, however, the person will still remain bi no matter which sex they are attracted to at a specific time.

I hope I didn't unintentionally insult anyone. There is nothing wrong with not being sure about what your orientation is and I'm not trying to say that people should avoid defining themselves as specific orientations when they are unsure. It's actually a good idea to test if a label feels right and if you feel happy with the label. I just feel it's important to point out that sexual orientation does usually become stable and unchanging and a person can accept their sexuality fully without fearing that one day it might change. Furthermore, I strongly believe that the concept of sexual fluidity in the context commonly used here is harmful for our community and delegitimizes our cause and as such we should be wary of using the term outside of very specific situations that have little to do with the stability of our orientations.

[Guest]

*So excited for this thread*

[Barylambda]

It is a process, yes. Your life circumstances also play a role in the choices you make, including sexuality. To me, I am more comfortable with being asexual. I am questioning my romantic orientation. But, maybe things change again. Right now, I don't know.

[MoraDollie]

There's actually official terminology for people who believe their romantic and sexual identities are fluid, it's known as Abroseuxal/abroromantic. Personally, I think someone's sexual and romantic identity don't simply "change on a dime" as some describe it to be. I think people just become more in tune/connected with themselves and see themselves better for who they think they are/are not attracted to.

The "gray" area between asexual and allosexual (non-ace) is known as graysexual, and demisexual falls under this category.

[Goaty]

I totally agree OP, thanks for posting. I've always been very confused when people say sexuality is fluid and, honestly, I just can't believe it. Like what has been said, I believe it's just people figuring out more about themselves as they grow. Even preferences may change, like which type of people within a certain gender someone is attracted to. That doesn't mean sexual orientation is fluid, only sexual preference.

[5_♦♣]

I have been single all my life and yet, I was bisexual for a while during my teen years then all of a sudden, I'm Asexual.

[Prairie]

I think that all distinctions are within a context and are made in order to serve some other purpose, to justify action taken. So in needing to categorize everyone by sexuality etc. I ask, what purpose do they serve? I find many purposes people might have, I think that it's useful to find what purpose is being served before categorizing oneself.

For example, if someone didn't experience sexual attraction for years when others did, one might think that they had a health problem. They might want to check this out if they thought that they'd enjoy having sexual attraction, or that it might be a sign of some other issue that would be good to address sooner rather than later.

Within this context, asexuality serves a very useful purpose of explaining their lack of attraction as not a health problem, and something that many people experience who also never trace it to any health problem. In a way, the need for asexuality is like a battleground that is the medical view of people, where there is a soldier already on the field that calls things unhealthy. Asexuality arrives on the scene to declare some things as not inherently unhealthy, to counter the attack.

If this hypothetical person didn't view their lack of sexual attraction as a health problem but simply a non-problematic aspect of themselves, they wouldn't need any explanation or the asexuality label. Now, they might still find value with the label if they were seeking other people who had a similar experience in life. Whenever I'm trying to find information about something on the web, my first task is always finding whether there's a term for it. With that in hand, it's much easier to find more information about it. So finding that the asexuality label exists for oneself makes it easier to find others. At that point the label has served its purpose.

Or this hypothetical person has no health questions, knows people who they can relate with, but has other people putting them down, being mean. Again, the asexuality label can be useful in offering a benign explanation to offset the negative ones pushed by others. So it might serve to deal with uninformed people who imagine that it's made-up.

In the sexual relationship sphere, labeling is useful for predicting whether two people will be able to find some kind of mutual satisfaction in a relationship. Here the labels communicate what a person is pretty sure they will not enjoy or find interested in. What a person "is" isn't as important.

Without a clear practical purpose of the labeling, I think that it drifts into intellectual incoherence. How can you have any purpose in categorizing if you don't know what you're trying to achieve by categorizing? To talk of labeling as if the person "is" something seems to drift off into this incoherent place. What are people, actually? What is the makeup of things? It seems dommed from the start since it has no clear purpose other than to be an intellectually-satisfying answer.

On the topic of fludity, if a label is meeting a practical purpose in the general present, then there's no need for it to apply in the far future or far past. But if the label is meant to describe some unchanging aspect of a person (what a person "is"), or even some potential, it probably has to be the most liberal possible, because anything could happen in the future. I'm open to understanding better the practical purpose of these kinds of labels.

[verily-forsooth-egads]

This is something I've always thought. And one thing stands out as definitely true even if nothing else is, and that's that telling questioning aces that the label they choose isn't permanent doesn't help them feel secure in the answer they've found, because it kind of implies that there isn't really an answer to be found at all. More times than not, sexuality is permanent. When a young person comes on who might or might not be old enough to know for sure, tell them that, don't be all wishy washy and say well, if you change your mind later, your family and friends will totally take you seriously because at least your coming out was true at the time! Take it from me, that doesn't help.

[Tazoz]

I think that all distinctions are within a context and are made in order to serve some other purpose, to justify action taken. So in needing to categorize everyone by sexuality etc. I ask, what purpose do they serve? I find many purposes people might have, I think that it's useful to find what purpose is being served before categorizing oneself.

For example, if someone didn't experience sexual attraction for years when others did, one might think that they had a health problem. They might want to check this out if they thought that they'd enjoy having sexual attraction, or that it might be a sign of some other issue that would be good to address sooner rather than later.

Within this context, asexuality serves a very useful purpose of explaining their lack of attraction as not a health problem, and something that many people experience who also never trace it to any health problem. In a way, the need for asexuality is like a battleground that is the medical view of people, where there is a soldier already on the field that calls things unhealthy. Asexuality arrives on the scene to declare some things as not inherently unhealthy, to counter the attack.

If this hypothetical person didn't view their lack of sexual attraction as a health problem but simply a non-problematic aspect of themselves, they wouldn't need any explanation or the asexuality label. Now, they might still find value with the label if they were seeking other people who had a similar experience in life. Whenever I'm trying to find information about something on the web, my first task is always finding whether there's a term for it. With that in hand, it's much easier to find more information about it. So finding that the asexuality label exists for oneself makes it easier to find others. At that point the label has served its purpose.

Or this hypothetical person has no health questions, knows people who they can relate with, but has other people putting them down, being mean. Again, the asexuality label can be useful in offering a benign explanation to offset the negative ones pushed by others. So it might serve to deal with uninformed people who imagine that it's made-up.

In the sexual relationship sphere, labeling is useful for predicting whether two people will be able to find some kind of mutual satisfaction in a relationship. Here the labels communicate what a person is pretty sure they will not enjoy or find interested in. What a person "is" isn't as important.

Without a clear practical purpose of the labeling, I think that it drifts into intellectual incoherence. How can you have any purpose in categorizing if you don't know what you're trying to achieve by categorizing? To talk of labeling as if the person "is" something seems to drift off into this incoherent place. What are people, actually? What is the makeup of things? It seems dommed from the start since it has no clear purpose other than to be an intellectually-satisfying answer.

On the topic of fludity, if a label is meeting a practical purpose in the general present, then there's no need for it to apply in the far future or far past. But if the label is meant to describe some unchanging aspect of a person (what a person "is"), or even some potential, it probably has to be the most liberal possible, because anything could happen in the future. I'm open to understanding better the practical purpose of these kinds of labels.

The main purpose of labeling yourself is as a way to stabilize your life and identity. This is important for both yourself and others. Every label has schemata we associate naturally with it which help us know how to act under certain circumstances and in relation to actions by others. The reason why labels are not only important for ourselves but to any person we interact with is that they also give others a sense of security as a result of them being able to predict our actions in response to their own actions. For example, if a sexual person doesn't know the sexuality of the person he is interacting with he will feel insecure about how the other person will respond to his own actions. When you have an unstable identity, people will naturally feel uncertain around you thus they will be less inclined to include you into their world and accept you into their personal boundaries.

For this reason, it can be problematic to give too vague a description to any label and if the description is indeed too vague, we will naturally try to sub-categorize the term, to make it more specific. For example, any attempts to make a single label such asexuality into an overly general and inclusive term will lead to people creating new labels that are less inclusive such as romantic or aromantic asexuality. If such labels are still too general than people will be forced to create even more labels that are more specific such as non-libidoist or grey-romantic.

[Tazoz]

I have been single all my life and yet, I was bisexual for a while during my teen years then all of a sudden, I'm Asexual.

Let me illustrate my point...

If sexuality really is fluid who can say that you won't tomorrow become bi-sexual again? Why even identify as asexual if your sexuality can change tomorrow or even in an hour?

There can be multiple reasons why you believed you were bi-sexual as a teenager and the most logical one is that you didn't really understand what it feels like to be sexual because you were, like most of us, immature as a teenager and as such made mistaken assumptions.

[Tricksyhobbitiz]

For me, it is fluid but maybe not in the sense that other people look at it. Often at the beginning of relationships I can or sometimes even want to participate in sex. (I will note here I can't do hook ups or random folks, I have to care for the person enough to say "we're dating") but then about 3 months in I don;t want sex and am repulsed by it but I feel better than ever about the relationship. So in that sense, my sexuality can be fluid.

[Tricksyhobbitiz]

boy did it confuse the hell outta some of my partners. Not until the last 6 months or so did it kind of click for me what was going on and that it wasn't "normal" for most people.

[Philip027]

They were most likely always [X], they just didn't know that they were.

I really don't feel like this is necessarily the case for many people and it's a dangerous assumption to make. Similarly dangerous is the whole "you'll meet the right person someday" assumption.

I think the lesson to take away from this is that assumptions make an ASS out of U and ME.

Even preferences may change, like which type of people within a certain gender someone is attracted to. That doesn't mean sexual orientation is fluid, only sexual preference.

To me there's no difference. I've always seen orientation as a specific form of preference, just specifically with regard to how you relate to other sexes.

[Eva]

I have been single all my life and yet, I was bisexual for a while during my teen years then all of a sudden, I'm Asexual.

Let me illustrate my point...

If sexuality really is fluid who can say that you won't tomorrow become bi-sexual again? Why even identify as asexual if your sexuality can change tomorrow or even in an hour?

There can be multiple reasons why you believed you were bi-sexual as a teenager and the most logical one is that you didn't really understand what it feels like to be sexual because you were, like most of us, immature as a teenager and as such made mistaken assumptions.

Because I can. If my sexual behavior changes, the people who say "I told you so" won't be burning me at the stake as they say it. Every (no, really, every) self-identified lesbian has been told that she just hasn't met the right guy yet. No matter how carefully we asexuals choose our words, we're going to have to defend the legitimacy of our identity, just like every other identity, so we may as well relax about words like "fluid." It's a mellifluous word. Enjoy it.

[R_1]

*A person who felt sexual attraction at some point in their life and suddenly feels no sexual attraction.

Such a person most likely just lost their connection with their partner and stopped loving them and is using asexuality as a way to explain the disconnect. However, there is a decent possibility that they will feel sexual attraction later on in their life once they leave their partner or even before that.

Another reason could be that that person for whatever reason has had his sexual drive reduced. This can happen as a result of physical problems, medication or psychological problems. In such cases, they should still be considered sexual as once the problem is treated they will regain their sexual desires and as a result will feel sexual attraction again. Some might argue that they have become greysexuals but this change of label is most likely a bad idea and this is still not an example of fluidity.

As a person who had experienced sexual attraction, but it died out, here's my take on this.

Background : Someone who has precocious puberty, and has been very curious about sex-related things since he was 2nd grade.

Story : When I was in 2nd grade, I knew that there is some things out there that which is related to sex, and I have been interested into the aesthentics of women. One day at school, I was staring at breasts and I knew what was I doing while I know what it might mean. I have enjoyed looking at them. After that, when I was a bit older, I had fantasies about girls (non-sexual), and the fantasies slowly transitioned to something more sexual as time passed. By the time I am in middle school, I have started watching porn and had very sexual dreams involving women, and I feel some sexual interest into girls. I knew that I shouldn't be involved into sexual activities at that age, and I didn't try to go there. I knew what was the concept of sexual attraction back then, and I knew AVEN existed back then.

As I went into high school, I was more interested into engaging into sex, and I had feelings where I had looked at a woman and want to have sex with her as she looks very appealing. I was not confused about my feelings at all as I know what was I feeling. It's something that no matter how much I looked back, there's no way to deny that I had that feeling. That feeling is very wonderful, and so unearth-like. It is a feeling of hunger for sex. I had those feelings as long as I remember until it started vanquishing around age 15.5 to 16 years old. As time passed, the rate in which I feel those feelings for yearning for sex is decreasing, and as soon as I get around being 17 years old, it had diminished and it was time that I think of the possibility that my sexual orientation has changed as it is the best explanation for what happened.

As I get into college, I was open-minded to think of the possibility that I was confused, but no matter how much I try to support that explanation, it doesn't seem to fit as well as the explanation that my sexual orientation did actually changed as it is of no use to deny those feelings I had. And this continues to this very day.

My take of your comment about sexual fluidity and especially on that part : What if I told you that I already had my health checked out and everything seems fine? Why should people like me should have to be forced to take medications when some of us are very happy with our new sexual orientation? For me to become sexual again would require me to experience injuries and anesthesia as that awakens my sexual attraction feelings toward women for a temporary amount of time, and that is not a permanent solution. I remember being sexually interested into my nurse after surgeries, but as soon as anesthesia wore out, those feelings went away. Why should I have to be forced to stimulate the experience just to be heterosexual again? I am very content with my heterosexuality being dead, and I am so much happier being asexual. There's nothing wrong with that.

Also, I do not think anyone else who went through similar experience should be forced to get checked out when they're happy. Why should they through check-up?

[Hobbes!]

It's a good point. I prefer to think of it as a matter of not having figured out one's sexuality yet, rather than it having changed. I base this entirely on my own experience of discovering that I am asexual after believing by default to be heterosexual. If sexuality is what you feel rather than what you do, then my apparently sexual actions and thoughts can be written off as me deluding myself. And why not? I didn't know that asexuality was even possible till relatively recently. I know now that I conflated romantic attraction and sexual attraction together.

I have accepted that there was this element of fooling myself in my past. I can see why others can't and prefer to think of it as their sexuality changing. I've got no stake in this, by the way, and I'm not in the business of telling people how to explain their own experiences. But this is why I prefer to reassure people by saying that being wrong about one's sexuality need not be something to be feared. It's ok to realise that "asexual" isn't quite right

[Prisma]

I will read it all later, but I want to comment of the first few lines since there seems to be a misunderstanding there:

Sexuality is fluid. Not specifically asexuality, but sexuality of all kinds. I have a friend who used to be bisexual, and is now hetero- and also a friend who was hetero and turned bi (or at least, heterosexual and demihomosexual)

Also, asexuality isn't necessarily more fluid than any other sexuality: A homosexual person can turn bisexual (or some other sexuality), like heterosexual can turn asexual, but it's all highly unlikely. The same goes for asexuality: Yes, it can change, because everything can change. It doesn't mean that it's likely to happen, and it doesn't mean people's actions should be determined by this possibility of change: same as a person shouldn't park in the disabled spots in a parking lot or buy a wheelchair just because he might lose his legs someday.

[Laurens]

Well, I believe sexuality can be fluid. It is us humans who want to put everything into neat little boxes and use all kinds of labels. On the other hand, I can see why in many cases it's more like learning something new about yourself; a possibility that was always already there but hasn't fully manifest itself.

I understand the urge to keep saying perhaps it will change someday. For me it has been more than ten years since the start of puberty and my (a)sexuality hasn't changed. Later I discovered the right term for what I've been feeling all the time: asexuality. However, it feels very scary to identify as such, because what if I'm wrong? I haven't told many people about my asexuality, but I've already heard things like "you always have to keep an open mind that it might change oneday" and "wait until the right person comes along". I'm feeling too insecure about it to bluntly say "no this is my orientation and part of my identity and it will not change". I cannot predict the future and what if I'll meet the right person I want to be sexual with? I don't want to tell these people they were right after all, because I'm afraid that will harm the asexual community (as many people still don't believe asexuality exists)..

So I keep saying I'm not sure and still questioning and very open to the possibility of meeting the right person. And yeah, then the phrase from the AVEN faq "What if it's a phase? What if it is? That doesn't stop you being asexual right now." feels reassuring I'm not wrong for being here and using the label.

Besides, could it be that the asexual community thinks differently about labels (using them as tool as long as they are useful) than for example the homosexual community (more a stable identity) because of the time when we first started using the label? Perhaps we have a very postmodern view on language and reality?

[Prisma]

OK, now I read the rest so I'm adding another comment:

Why not both?

I guess some people really just don't know themselves well enough to define themselves when they do, and then when they get to know themselves better they change the definition. But why should that mean people can't genuinely change? Things change all the time, and people change too. I see no reason why asexuality wouldn't be fluid, really. So while sometimes there's no real change, it seems hard for me to believe this is always the case. I think many people are tuned well enough to define themselves, and they still change.

[Acelang]

Well, I believe sexuality can be fluid. It is us humans who want to put everything into neat little boxes and use all kinds of labels. On the other hand, I can see why in many cases it's more like learning something new about yourself; a possibility that was always already there but hasn't fully manifest itself.

[...]

So I keep saying I'm not sure and still questioning and very open to the possibility of meeting the right person. And yeah, then the phrase from the AVEN faq "What if it's a phase? What if it is? That doesn't stop you being asexual right now." feels reassuring I'm not wrong for being here and using the label.

I think this is a really valid and good point - I experience ace, and sexual, phases. Just because it's a phase doesn't make me less ace or sexual (I hope not?).

[Prairie]

What if a person is characterized not by their substance, but actions? Then one's sexuality is just the history of what one has done (or not done) sexually. Actions are objective. The idea that someone is made of a different sexual "substance" than someone else is tenuous. That this substance can change into another one over time makes the concept almost meaningless. Let's say that we consider the direction a car is pointing to be indicative of some essence, where a car pointing north is essentially different than one pointing south. Then when someone steers a car to point a different direction, its essence changes (it's fluid). The direction it's pointing is a stable aspect if it's not steered, so it's not entirely fleeting. But it's also not something essential. /ramble

[Goaty]

Even preferences may change, like which type of people within a certain gender someone is attracted to. That doesn't mean sexual orientation is fluid, only sexual preference.

To me there's no difference. I've always seen orientation as a specific form of preference, just specifically with regard to how you relate to other sexes.

Sorry, I guess it's not quite clear. I was referring to preference within the orientation, so the change of which characteristics someone finds attractive within their pool of eligibles already defined by sexual orientation.

What if a person is characterized not by their substance, but actions? Then one's sexuality is just the history of what one has done (or not done) sexually. Actions are objective. The idea that someone is made of a different sexual "substance" than someone else is tenuous. That this substance can change into another one over time makes the concept almost meaningless. Let's say that we consider the direction a car is pointing to be indicative of some essence, where a car pointing north is essentially different than one pointing south. Then when someone steers a car to point a different direction, its essence changes (it's fluid). The direction it's pointing is a stable aspect if it's not steered, so it's not entirely fleeting. But it's also not something essential. /ramble

I'm really sorry, I don't mean to offend, but I have to disagree. What about all the aces who try sex but ultimately decide it's not for them? They're no less asexual. Or, to apply it to a broader range of sexualities, what about all the people who experiment? Or when bi people are in a monogamous relationship - that makes them no less bi, even though their actions would label them as gay/straight (depending on the sexes partaking in the relationship). I think it's important not to label based on actions but rather underlying feelings (to try and continue the analogy, the car always stays on the ground). If we label based on actions then it allows for a lot of confusion and the possibility that someone will get stuck with a label they don't fit. Those trying to label themselves may be harmed by these labels that reflect what they've done but don't allow them to explore and express how they really feel. Plus, there would be no way to differentiate between someone who wants to be ace and doesn't want a relationship and someone who just hasn't been able to develop a relationship for a bit but would like one.

Sorry for disagreeing.

[scarletlatitude]

I would only say "fluid" because a lot of people have changing sexuality as they get older. I don't think that's necessarily restricted to us, though. I'm sure all people feel it at some point.

I think too that it has a lot to do with our environments. Teenagers tend to have a hypersexual attitude because that's what they think is cool. (Not saying that all teenagers are like that... Just saying that I work with them and that's what I notice.) If your society is saying that you must be sexual and hetero to be cool and "normal", then you may automatically assume that you are heterosexual. And if you are in one of those societies where it is bad or even a death sentence to be LGBT, then you won't want to explore that part of yourself.

[R_1]

I kinda wish that the OP would address my post, but it seems that most people who does not support the existence of transitional sexual orientation hardly respond to my story regarding experience of having transitional sexual orientation. I wish I knew why.

[Prairie]

What if a person is characterized not by their substance, but actions? Then one's sexuality is just the history of what one has done (or not done) sexually.

I'm really sorry, I don't mean to offend, but I have to disagree. What about all the aces who try sex but ultimately decide it's not for them? They're no less asexual. Or, to apply it to a broader range of sexualities, what about all the people who experiment? Or when bi people are in a monogamous relationship - that makes them no less bi, even though their actions would label them as gay/straight (depending on the sexes partaking in the relationship).

Sorry, thanks, I meant to include that in one's history, e.g. "I felt things towards this gender, never felt anything towards that gender, I've had sexual relations with both common genders for 3 years and enjoyed the experiences though the other person always initiated, then had no sexual relations with anyone" etc. The main idea is that this might be sufficient for what labels are normally used for, without having to label a person. That someone has done something one way doesn't mean they can't do it a different way. It is likely they will continue doing things as they've done. I guess I'm exploring an alternative to essentialism.

[Tazoz]

I kinda wish that the OP would address my post, but it seems that most people who does not support the existence of transitional sexual orientation hardly respond to my story regarding experience of having transitional sexual orientation. I wish I knew why.

Unfortunately, it is a bit late for me to post a long and detailed response. However, I will do my best to reply in full sometime tomorrow. Thank you for the interesting responses and the thought provoking arguments.

(I edited this post as I'm tired and I would prefer to write a reply with a clear head. :) )

[Ricecream-man]

Someone mentioned it already but why not look at the possibility of both. I agree that many people who identify as something just to quickly change fall under the category you described. They just didn't/don't know what they really were.

At the same time, sexual can change. However, the fluidity I speak of isn't water being put into a different cup. It's more like a river where your constant experiences add up like erosion and there's the possibility of your path changing.

The quick changes are as you described. They're more likely results of certain events that have either resulted in sexual repulsion or loss of libido.

Currently on my phone so I'll try to add a more detailed response tomorrow.

[Goaty]

What if a person is characterized not by their substance, but actions? Then one's sexuality is just the history of what one has done (or not done) sexually.

I'm really sorry, I don't mean to offend, but I have to disagree. What about all the aces who try sex but ultimately decide it's not for them? They're no less asexual. Or, to apply it to a broader range of sexualities, what about all the people who experiment? Or when bi people are in a monogamous relationship - that makes them no less bi, even though their actions would label them as gay/straight (depending on the sexes partaking in the relationship).

Sorry, thanks, I meant to include that in one's history, e.g. "I felt things towards this gender, never felt anything towards that gender, I've had sexual relations with both common genders for 3 years and enjoyed the experiences though the other person always initiated, then had no sexual relations with anyone" etc. The main idea is that this might be sufficient for what labels are normally used for, without having to label a person. That someone has done something one way doesn't mean they can't do it a different way. It is likely they will continue doing things as they've done. I guess I'm exploring an alternative to essentialism.

Ahh, that makes sense. That would be cool, describing one's experiences rather than giving a label at all. I can agree with that.

[Ricecream-man]

I think that's why I like more general labels. It leaves you a lot of lee way to specify personally what you really are.

For me, labeling is more about helping other people identify you so that it's easier to find others who might have things you relate with. Regardless of how you're labeled you're who you are and no label is going to change that.

[PragmaticReticent]

I'm tired so I barely read the first post, just skimmed it to be honest but I kinda wanted to put this out there: I've never heard of asexuality being solely referred to as "fluid" I've only ever heard "spectrum". I'm new to the community and yet "spectrum" is all I've really heard and have come to agree with... so I was wondering what anyone might have to say about that....

P.S. I'll probably come back and read all the posts to give a better response, but for now I'm just wondering....