Jump to content

Proper Term for Non-Ace?


Recommended Posts

Well it's good I didn't waste my time searching around for people who use "sexual" as an adjective for "non-asexual" people. You would have simply rejected the evidence and claimed that such people are using the words wrong. Hell, it's on the title of the forum "sexual partners and allies". What a typo, eh? Thanks for pointing it out.

I genuinely don't know what you're going on about here. Of course 'sexual', the adjective, is often used in reference to sexuals; no-one was disputing that, so I can't imagine why you'd feel the need to look it up in the first place. I thought you were referring to instances in which the adjective 'sexual' was used incorrectly / inappropriately. That is not the same thing as suggesting that all instances of the word are necessarily incorrect / inappropriate. That has never been my argument, because it simply isn't true.

One more thing. You just said that all sexuals (in the sense of not being on the asexual spectrum) are sexual (in the more colloquial sense). This is precisely why non-asexuals have complained about the word! It leads to the assumption that all non-asexuals are sexual (in the colloquial sense). And yes, that assumption is simply wrong. But given that you just made that assumption yourself, you have to admit that the assumption is rather compelling.

Well ... no. All sexuals are sexual. For many, it may not be a very large or important part of their identity, but it is there. To be a sexual means, if nothing else, to experience sexual attraction; that in itself is a sexual thing. So, even a celibate, sex-negative sexual is still sexual, to some degree. Calling someone 'sexual' makes no reference to their sexual behaviours or preferences, but rather is a description of a way in which they are capable of processing information.

^ FoxEars ^

Link to post
Share on other sites

FoxEars,

My original argument was that "sexual" has a prior colloquial meaning, and by calling non-asexuals sexual we are associating them with that colloquial meaning. At first you were arguing that we are not making that association, because of a clear adjective/noun distinction. Now you appear to have conceded that there isn't much of a noun/adjective distinction, because all non-asexuals can also be described as sexual in the adjective sense. Now you're just arguing in favor of a distinction between multiple components of the same adjective.

I already had one argument today, I won't commit my time to a second one. Thanks and goodbye.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My original argument was that "sexual" has a prior colloquial meaning, and by calling non-asexuals sexual we are associating them with that colloquial meaning.

Right. And my argument was, the 'colloquial' meaning (as you refer to it, although it's not actually colloquial) is fairly distinct from the meaning of 'sexual' as a noun; and, furthermore, that it made no sense for you to use the 'prior meaning' argument against the term 'sexual' but ignore it in the case of the term 'allosexual'. Believe me, your argument has always been perfectly clear. It just doesn't work, that's all.

At first you were arguing that we are not making that association, because of a clear adjective/noun distinction. Now you appear to have conceded that there isn't much of a noun/adjective distinction, because all non-asexuals can also be described as sexual in the adjective sense. Now you're just arguing in favor of a distinction between multiple components of the same adjective.

No ... no. I don't even know where you got that last sentence from in particular. My argument was, and is, that using 'sexual' as a noun is not, inherently, a way of making any connections to or associations with the meaning of 'sexual' as an adjective. All sexuals are sexual, yes; but the degree to which this is true varies enormously by individuals, and asexuals (including grey-asexuals and demisexuals) can also be sexual, even though they are not sexuals. Most importantly, however -- and I cannot stress this enough -- the two words mean different things. So what if they both apply (at least in part) to the same demographic groups? That's not relevant. The word has a different meaning as a noun and as an adjective, therefore they are distinct from one another.

I already had one argument today

Congratulations :o ^_^

Thanks and goodbye.

Same to you xx

^ FoxEars ^

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual makes the most sense. "Allo" is a strange word and I can guarantee you that unless they had known someone who used the term, no one will know what you're talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...