Proper Term for Non-Ace?

[whitelines]

I looked around here and couldn't find a post on this anywhere, which I was surprised at, so let me know if this has already been asked:

I was wondering what the proper or "politically correct" term for non-asexuals is? I'm writing a paper and will need to use the term repeatedly (the audience will likely be mostly non-aces and people who don't know what asexuality is) I'm wondering for daily convos as well though.

I read that "allosexual" was originally intended to mean someone whose sexual and romantic orientations don't match, like a heterosexual homoromantic person. But now that it's used almost exclusively in asexual communities as meaning non-ace, does that kind of override the original definition?

I also know that "sexuals"can be offensive, and is probably too casual for an academic assignment anyway.

"Non-asexual" (or "non-ace," casually) seems the best bet, least offensive, most all-encompasing, but would be a major issue to say over and over again. However, would this be most appropriate (in daily life, or in the paper)?

Are there any other terms I'm missing?

Thank you!

[Mulan]

I tend to follow KISS (keep it simple, stupid) rule. Sexuals and asexuals are the terms I use. Allosexual tends to complicate stuff for me - though it may have some deeper meaning in addition to sexual.

:)

[deltaX]

I always though allosexual was a word made up to be the less offensive equivalent of sexuals. I didn't realize there was an alternate meaning there. :/

I'm not sure what the proper term is, but here on AVEN I tend to use sexual and allosexual interchangeably. I'll be watching this thread though to see if there's a more correct term I should be using.

[Titus Oates]

I find allosexual a strange word, if it does indeed come from the greek allos, meaning "another, others"

It means you have sexual attraction to "others"

As opposed to... autosexuals, who are attracted to themselves :p ?

[Agape]

Savages?

No really though, sexual is probably the way to go. Allosexual is an option, but it's my understanding that it's the French equivalent of queer, and that it can annoy some folks using it the way folks around here tend to use it...

[The Great WTF]

The vast majority of non-asexual AVEN members prefer sexual, so that's always been what I went with. There have been several threads in SPFA asking them about it.

[Måskemigselvetsted]

I might have misunderstood it, but, as far as I know, sexual is the prefered on Aven where allosexual is more used on Tumblr. Unless you start with a definition of how you will use the word "sexual" in your paper I would choose a more precise term.

One of the problems with using sexual outside of a asexual-not-asexual context is that some non-asexuals are not very sexual people where some asexuals are very sexual people.

One of the biggest problem with using allosexual, as I see it, is the appropriation of (and confusing with) the word allosexuel (Québécois (and French?) for queer).

And there is just something clumsy about non-asexual.

But, as long as you define however you use the word in your paper first, I think all three could work.

[FoxEars]

Can I ask how 'sexuals' is offensive or casual?

I would never recommend using 'allosexual', as it's not really technically correct.

Terms like 'those who do experience sexual attraction' are clunky when often repeated, but used every once in a while for variation, they're not too bad.

If you really don't like 'sexual', 'non-asexual' should work fine (although having both the prefixes 'non-' and 'a-' is practically like using a double negative). Aside from that slight issue, it is in pretty common usage, and I can't imagine any situation in which it would be considered 'inappropriate'.

^ FoxEars ^

[whitelines]

Can I ask how 'sexuals' is offensive or casual?

This explain pretty well why some people are offended by the word "sexual" being used to describe non-aces.

I think it's casual for similar reasons. It's not a term that holds any real means of identification outside of the ace community, and therefore I liken it to a slang word. It's used by an "in-group" (not in bad way), and since my audience is primarily the "out-group" it would be similar to slang use. That's how I see it anyway.

[Cheerful]

Historically, before the use of romantic labels, there were Asexuals (non-sexual) and Sexuals (those who desired sexual pairing to any degree).

I've never heard Sexuals define themselves in terms other that Hetero, Homo, Lesbian and Bi.

[FoxEars]

This explain pretty well why some people are offended by the word "sexual" being used to describe non-aces.

Well, there's quite a flawed argument.

Under the header 'What bothers me about "sexual"' the person's first sentence / argument is '"Sexual" has a prior meaning'. But then under 'Allosexual as an alternative', they state, 'I honestly don't care about the etymology'.

I mean ... that argument is sort of self-invalidating.

Much of the rest of this blogger's argument focuses on 'sexual' having other meanings (like asexual and allosexual don't? Because ... they do). That would be fine, except that all of the given examples of other definitions of sexual pertain to 'sexual' as an adjective, whereas when it's used to mean 'a non-asexual person', that's 'sexual' as a noun. Lots of words in lots of languages have different meanings as adjectives and nouns. Why does 'sexual' need to be any different?

I think the problem of associating the word 'sexual' with the concept of hypersexuality has more to do with non-asexuals popularly viewing asexuals as prudish and full of themselves (and therefore anything we call them has to be derogatory, right?). The problem isn't with the word itself.

(Of course I'm not saying you should use 'sexual' in your paper if you don't want to. But I do think this is an issue that needs to be addressed more generally.)

^ FoxEars ^

[Caehlim]

As much as it feels strange embedding a double-negative in the prefixes, non-asexual seems to be the safest word to use to avoid any confusion.

Sexual risks describing behaviour rather than orientation and allosexual is a confusing term as people have gone into above.

[whitelines]

This explain pretty well why some people are offended by the word "sexual" being used to describe non-aces.

Well, there's quite a flawed argument.

That's not really the point. I think that the point is that this is why some people find "sexual" offensive and that those are legitimate reasons. You had asked for reasoning behind how "sexual" could be offensive, and that is an example of how some people find it offensive. Whether you agree that that's a valid reason to be offended is not really the idea, it's about what some people might think and why some people might be offended.

[Guest]

Most sexuals I know prefer sexual so I'd go with that.

[FoxEars]

Sexual risks describing behaviour rather than orientation and allosexual is a confusing term as people have gone into above.

I want to stress that I have no particular interest in the word 'sexual'. However, as I mentioned before, 'describing behaviour' would be the adjective form of the word 'sexual'. Many, many words have different meanings as adjectives and nouns, and I don't see why this is a problem.

This explain pretty well why some people are offended by the word "sexual" being used to describe non-aces.

Well, there's quite a flawed argument.

That's not really the point. I think that the point is that this is why some people find "sexual" offensive and that those are legitimate reasons. You had asked for reasoning behind how "sexual" could be offensive, and that is an example of how some people find it offensive. Whether you agree that that's a valid reason to be offended is not really the idea, it's about what some people might think and why some people might be offended.

I'm not talking about my personal opinions. I mean that post was written in a way that makes no sense. There was no real, consistent argument there. Besides, as I have now mentioned numerous times, it doesn't address the difference between adjectives and nouns, which is hardly a negligible thing.

That blogger identifies as grey-asexual -- and while I've tried looking up instances of non-asexuals being offended by the term, I have yet to find any records of that.

If you know of any, I'd be interested in reading them. I don't feel that the earlier blog post actually answered the question in a legitimate way (which is NOT to say that people's offence, if it exists, is illegitimate), but I am curious to know what about the term 'sexual' (the NOUN 'sexual', that is) is offensive.

^ FoxEars ^

[whitelines]

That's not really the point. I think that the point is that this is why some people find "sexual" offensive and that those are legitimate reasons. You had asked for reasoning behind how "sexual" could be offensive, and that is an example of how some people find it offensive. Whether you agree that that's a valid reason to be offended is not really the idea, it's about what some people might think and why some people might be offended.

That blogger identifies as grey-asexual -- and while I've tried looking up instances of non-asexuals being offended by the term, I have yet to find any records of that.

If you know of any, I'd be interested in reading them. I don't feel that the earlier blog post actually answered the question in a legitimate way (which is NOT to say that people's offence, if it exists, is illegitimate), but I am curious to know what about the term 'sexual' (the NOUN 'sexual', that is) is offensive.

I think the problem is that a lot of people don't understand that the word "sexual" CAN be a noun. I know that many people object to the noun-ification of adjectives in general (see "Homeless" by Anna Quindlen for an example of the phenomenon), so to hear an adjective in noun form may feel dehumanizing, especially when the adjective is used exclusively to describe something (or a set of somethings) that do not make up the majority of the person's characteristics. They may act in a sexual manner, have sexual thoughts, or feel sexual things, but those are not their defining characteristics. And unlike in "Homeless," where a "homeless person" because "the homeless," a "sexual person" does not become "a sexual" in the same way - in the former, you jump from a situation to [unfortunately] a defining characteristic, while in the latter, you jump from a term that may or may not be applicable to someone to a very strong personal identity. The jump may seem unfair and non-representative.

Again, though, it's completely situational and depends on the person. This is theoretically how someone could feel, which is what I think the author was getting at when s/he (I will try to find the proper pronouns a little later - I will do that and edit this when I have time) wrote the post. This is why s/he has a personal problem with the usage of the word for the reason that it could theoretically be offensive in that way.

[FoxEars]

That's not really the point. I think that the point is that this is why some people find "sexual" offensive and that those are legitimate reasons. You had asked for reasoning behind how "sexual" could be offensive, and that is an example of how some people find it offensive. Whether you agree that that's a valid reason to be offended is not really the idea, it's about what some people might think and why some people might be offended.

That blogger identifies as grey-asexual -- and while I've tried looking up instances of non-asexuals being offended by the term, I have yet to find any records of that.

If you know of any, I'd be interested in reading them. I don't feel that the earlier blog post actually answered the question in a legitimate way (which is NOT to say that people's offence, if it exists, is illegitimate), but I am curious to know what about the term 'sexual' (the NOUN 'sexual', that is) is offensive.

I think the problem is that a lot of people don't understand that the word "sexual" CAN be a noun. I know that many people object to the noun-ification of adjectives in general (see "Homeless" by Anna Quindlen for an example of the phenomenon), so to hear an adjective in noun form may feel dehumanizing, especially when the adjective is used exclusively to describe something (or a set of somethings) that do not make up the majority of the person's characteristics. They may act in a sexual manner, have sexual thoughts, or feel sexual things, but those are not their defining characteristics. And unlike in "Homeless," where a "homeless person" because "the homeless," a "sexual person" does not become "a sexual" in the same way - in the former, you jump from a situation to [unfortunately] a defining characteristic, while in the latter, you jump from a term that may or may not be applicable to someone to a very strong personal identity. The jump may seem unfair and non-representative.

Again, though, it's completely situational and depends on the person. This is theoretically how someone could feel, which is what I think the author was getting at when s/he (I will try to find the proper pronouns a little later - I will do that and edit this when I have time) wrote the post. This is why s/he has a personal problem with the usage of the word for the reason that it could theoretically be offensive in that way.

While I see where you're coming from there, I'm not sure 'homeless' and 'sexual' are really entirely comparable terms. For one thing, at least as far as I've seen, 'homeless' is only a noun when it refers to a mass group (i.e., 'the homeless') -- it still becomes an adjective when referring to individuals (as in, you'd refer to 'a homeless person' or 'someone who is homeless', not just 'a homeless'), which is not as much the case with 'sexual'. (That's a tiny bit irrelevant in terms of offensiveness specifically, but it is one indicator that they're rather different types of words.)

Furthermore, while sexuality and sexual behaviour are not (necessarily) defining characteristics of non-asexual people, they are defining characteristics when it comes to distinguishing them from asexuals. I mean, sexuality is no more or less a defining characteristic of them than asexuality is of us. I completely agree it would be offensive if I started addressing my friends and acquaintances as 'Sexual' rather than by name in everyday conversation and such; I'm not advocating that at all. But in the context of differentiating them from asexuals, it seems like the term 'sexual' should be fine. (In terms of people not knowing that it 'sexual' can be a noun -- again, I think this is where context comes into play.)

I hope I don't come across as too belligerent; I'm really not trying to be. And I get that, like so many others, the word 'sexual' can be used offensively. But I don't really see how that makes it inherently offensive.

^ FoxEars ^

[whitelines]

While I see where you're coming from there, I'm not sure 'homeless' and 'sexual' are really entirely comparable terms. For one thing, at least as far as I've seen, 'homeless' is only a noun when it refers to a mass group (i.e., 'the homeless') -- it still becomes an adjective when referring to individuals (as in, you'd refer to 'a homeless person' or 'someone who is homeless', not just 'a homeless'), which is not as much the case with 'sexual'. (That's a tiny bit irrelevant in terms of offensiveness specifically, but it is one indicator that they're rather different types of words.)

Furthermore, while sexuality and sexual behaviour are not (necessarily) defining characteristics of non-asexual people, they are defining characteristics when it comes to distinguishing them from asexuals. I mean, sexuality is no more or less a defining characteristic of them than asexuality is of us. I completely agree it would be offensive if I started addressing my friends and acquaintances as 'Sexual' rather than by name in everyday conversation and such; I'm not advocating that at all. But in the context of differentiating them from asexuals, it seems like the term 'sexual' should be fine. (In terms of people not knowing that it 'sexual' can be a noun -- again, I think this is where context comes into play.)

I hope I don't come across as too belligerent; I'm really not trying to be. And I get that, like so many others, the word 'sexual' can be used offensively. But I don't really see how that makes it inherently offensive.

^ FoxEars ^

I recognize that they are quite different types of words - which is true for nearly any analogy - and still my point stands: we'd be jumping from a characteristic that may not even remotely describe someone to an identity label that is quite at the core of many of our existences.

I see what you mean that your average non-asexual is, on average, more related to sexual things than your average asexual is (on average). And that makes sense, except that "asexual" has no other meaning (well besides plant cells) than not experiencing sexual attraction, while "sexual" has all sorts of relations to action and feeling and thought that may or may not be relevant at all to a person's sexual orientation.

Ditto on the belligerence - I don't think you're coming off that way and I hope I'm not either - I actually don't have a hugely strong opinion on this because I think that it varies so much for each person, but I think it's important to recognize individual stances. I don't think it's inherently offensive either. It's interpretable.

[Prairie]

Using the pair of terms X and non-X makes it crystal-clear that the union of X and non-X covers all members of the group. Whereas when you say sexual and asexual, there is the question of whether there are people who can be both non-sexual and non-asexual.

[Philip027]

The proper term is "sexual"

Non-asexual is 1) a double negative, and 2) implies that asexuality is the norm. It isn't.

[Tarfeather]

I love discussing terms. Personally, when someone says "non-asexual", I understand this to include demis and grays (because I don't consider them strictly asexual). Meanwhile, "sexual" to me indeed implies being near the "top" of AVEN's nice little logo. :)

[whitelines]

Using the pair of terms X and non-X makes it crystal-clear that the union of X and non-X covers all members of the group. Whereas when you say sexual and asexual, there is the question of whether there are people who can be both non-sexual and non-asexual.

Which is another issue. It's like using transgender and cis. There are people who aren't either, or are a combo, but if you're explaining to an audience who isn't familiar with much of either term, it's helpful to include genderqueer people, gender people, etc, in the "transgender" group because "transgender" is, in many cases and to many people, and umbrella the sometimes, usually, always, or occasionally describes them or that they fall under. Same with asexuality. Demisexual, semisexual, graysexual, and a large number of other orientations do often fall under the "asexual" "umbrella" when you have to use a binary. (not necessarily have to, but would be more convenient for everyone involved - I'm a big believer in going as basic as possible, and if people take that well, moving to a better picture of reality, which I am planning on doing in my paper and in the conference I'll be presenting at, but during both, I have limited space/time, so some adjustments or compromises will have to be made)

The proper term is "sexual"

Non-asexual is 1) a double negative, and 2) implies that asexuality is the norm. It isn't.

It is the norm, though, when you're specifically discussing the members of the asexual community, who are, by definition, mostly asexual or on the asexual spectrum (demi, semi, gray, etc).

I love discussing terms. Personally, when someone says "non-asexual", I understand this to include demis and grays (because I don't consider them strictly asexual). Meanwhile, "sexual" to me indeed implies being near the "top" of AVEN's nice little logo. :)

This is what I mean when I'm talking about the above. It's not a perfect definition, but it works in simplification.

You also bring up something else I was wondering. You think that "asexuals" are the black? I always thought of them as the white! Because I'm grayromantic, but I always want to say "very pale gray" because I'm rarely rarely rarely romantically attracted to anyone for more than a minute or two, but that would mean that "asexual" is the white, because the paler you are, the closer you are to that. Is there a standard practice for considering one binary shade (black or white) as "sexual" and one as "asexual"?

[Philip027]

You also bring up something else I was wondering. You think that "asexuals" are the white? I always thought of them as the black!

I'm pretty sure he meant the opposite; the top IS the white (and it's also the majority of the image)

[whitelines]

You also bring up something else I was wondering. You think that "asexuals" are the white? I always thought of them as the black!

I'm pretty sure he meant the opposite; the top IS the white (and it's also the majority of the image)

Oh sorry I meant to say black in that one spot - I think I was pretty consistent with the rest of it though, I'll go back and edit that. sorry that was confusing!!

[Philip027]

Asexuality is represented by the black at the bottom. It's why it's the minority, and might have something to do with why black rings are one of our symbols.

http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=AVEN_Triangle

[Guest]

Every sexual being interviewed I have seen on TV/youtube etc uses the word sexual when discussing asexuality, even ones that kinda search for a term for a minute before coming to it. Every person I have ever discussed it with IRL prefers the term sexual to describe themselves. AVEN polled the sexuals and they decided it was the term they liked best.

Alternatively, apparently on tumblr it was decided sexual was considered offensive (not sure who decided that though, was it the sexual community?) and decided on allosexual.

Though, as mentioned, allosexual has its own issues. 1) The French word for queer is allosexuel - which when translated means "other sexual" just like allosexual (French uses the E where we use the A a lot, like officiel vs official) and some feel it is harming the queer community to take it and place it on heterosexuals, especially since in French Canadian they have to be APPROVED by a language council to choose a new label if they ever feel the need to. 2) It literally means "other sexual", so to us anyone heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual/pansexual etc and to them, us. 3) Many sexuals hate the word.

[whitelines]

Asexuality is represented by the black at the bottom. It's why it's the minority, and might have something to do with why black rings are one of our symbols.

http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=AVEN_Triangle

I had no idea about that - thank you. That makes a ton of sense!

Every sexual being interviewed I have seen on TV/youtube etc uses the word sexual when discussing asexuality, even ones that kinda search for a term for a minute before coming to it. Every person I have ever discussed it with IRL prefers the term sexual to describe themselves. AVEN polled the sexuals and they decided it was the term they liked best.

That's a good point - that when someone is unsure of which to use, they gravitate towards "sexual" naturally. Makes sense.

[Ricecream-man]

Here's another one regarding the colors as well

http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Asexual_flag

It's all dependent on what perspective you're going to write this article from. Are you narrating it as a member of the asexual community? Then you should use the terms sexual and asexual as the ways that they're defined within the community (jargon) are split into sexuals and those on the asexual spectrum. If you're worried about the different uses and the possibility of confusion all you have to do is clarify the two terms early on in the paper. If the person grading or verifying the paper has any sort of qualification the individual should be able to quickly understand what you mean after getting that baseline.

Can I ask how 'sexuals' is offensive or casual?

https://asexualagenda.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/why-i-use-allosexual/'>This explain pretty well why some people are offended by the word "sexual" being used to describe non-aces.

I think it's casual for similar reasons. It's not a term that holds any real means of identification outside of the ace community, and therefore I liken it to a slang word. It's used by an "in-group" (not in bad way), and since my audience is primarily the "out-group" it would be similar to slang use. That's how I see it anyway.

I just want to put forth my personal gripe with this one in addition to what's been already said. The first major fallacy I see in the writing is

“Sexual” has prior meaning.

On that note so does asexual and allosexual. Asexual has its scientific definition and allosexual has the aforementioned French definition. To appropriate certain terms because one feels like it and then be upset at the appropriation of another doesn't sit well with me.

Also, allosexual in particular bothers me because its usage would be demeaning to another orientation minority.

"Sexual" works best linguistically from a language history sense as well as a modern day usage sense. While I understand that there is an existing connotation with the word it's something that can be easily overcome. You can do it in a disarming "joke" fashion for an informal paper or a completely objective "These are the definitions we're using for the purpose of this dissertation" esque approach for a more formal paper.

[Peachyy]

I dont think its offensive? I look at it like: we are A-sexual to Sexual, like A-theist to Theist. But there are different ways someone might refer to themselves such as, sometimes I say "non believer" if I don't feel like saying the prior word (I dont like how it sounds!) and someone opposite to me may rather like to say "religious". But without comprehending what feels or sounds better, im still atheist (asexual yes) and people across the river from me are theist(sexual).

[whitelines]

It's all dependent on what perspective you're going to write this article from. Are you narrating it as a member of the asexual community? Then you should use the terms sexual and asexual as the ways that they're defined within the community (jargon) are split into sexuals and those on the asexual spectrum. If you're worried about the different uses and the possibility of confusion all you have to do is clarify the two terms early on in the paper. If the person grading or verifying the paper has any sort of qualification the individual should be able to quickly understand what you mean after getting that baseline.

I'm writing it objectively from a third-person viewpoint with no mention of which umbrella (a/sexual) I fall under. I was certainly going to define+explain whichever term I used; I had created the thread to see if there was a specific "politically correct" one to use -I realize now that that shouldn't be a problem, since many people have many different opinions and no term is necessarily "wrong" or offensive to a majority of the population. I can see pros and cons to using any of the three terms (non-asexual, sexual, allosexual) - I'm probably going to use "sexual" for the majority of the time, might mention "allosexual" depending on if it fits in context, and use non-asexual interchangeably depending on where that fits as well (since it's pretty self-explanatory)

a completely objective "These are the definitions we're using for the purpose of this dissertation" esque approach for a more formal paper.

That's the plan.