Proper Term for Non-Ace?

[Ricecream-man]

Sounds good. However, I'd like to put out there that from what I've seen on AVEN "sexual" is the most commonly used and accepted term by both the sexual and asexual members here. Glad to see that's the one you decided to make your primary.

[Måskemigselvetsted]

Sounds good. However, I'd like to put out there that from what I've seen on AVEN "sexual" is the most commonly used and accepted term by both the sexual and asexual members here. Glad to see that's the one you decided to make your primary.

I don't think I see why that's a good argument. Yes, on AVEN sexual is preferred and it makes sense to therefore use the term on AVEN. But in other asexual communities other terms are preferred, so why should it be AVEN's and not their terms which should be used?

Not that I mind the term sexual. It's just that reasoning I don't get.

[whitelines]

Sounds good. However, I'd like to put out there that from what I've seen on AVEN "sexual" is the most commonly used and accepted term by both the sexual and asexual members here. Glad to see that's the one you decided to make your primary.

I don't think I see why that's a good argument. Yes, on AVEN sexual is preferred and it makes sense to therefore use the term on AVEN. But in other asexual communities other terms are preferred, so why should it be AVEN's and not their terms which should be used?

Not that I mind the term sexual. It's just that reasoning I don't get.

I have to say I agree. I'm not using the term because it's popular on AVEN. I'm using the term because it sounds like it's the thing that most people gravitate towards naturally, especially within groups of people who don't have any bias or outside input about any of the three terms. I've asked a few of my friends and family what they would use (posing the question as "what would you call someone who's not asexual") and got "sexual" sometimes and "I don't know give me options" to which I stated the three terms and got "sexual." Because I'm not looking for approval from the AVEN community - I'm looking for something that everyone will understand.

(And yes, it took me the length of this entire forum for me to figure out that I could poll my IRL peeps - don't judge )

[Ricecream-man]

Sounds good. However, I'd like to put out there that from what I've seen on AVEN "sexual" is the most commonly used and accepted term by both the sexual and asexual members here. Glad to see that's the one you decided to make your primary.

I don't think I see why that's a good argument. Yes, on AVEN sexual is preferred and it makes sense to therefore use the term on AVEN. But in other asexual communities other terms are preferred, so why should it be AVEN's and not their terms which should be used?

Not that I mind the term sexual. It's just that reasoning I don't get.

The reasoning was all explained in my previous posts. This last part was just a statement of my personal preference and appreciation that it was being used.

Was there anything in my actual reasoning that you found fault with?

[whitelines]

Sounds good. However, I'd like to put out there that from what I've seen on AVEN "sexual" is the most commonly used and accepted term by both the sexual and asexual members here. Glad to see that's the one you decided to make your primary.

I don't think I see why that's a good argument. Yes, on AVEN sexual is preferred and it makes sense to therefore use the term on AVEN. But in other asexual communities other terms are preferred, so why should it be AVEN's and not their terms which should be used?

Not that I mind the term sexual. It's just that reasoning I don't get.

The reasoning was all explained in my previous posts. This last part was just a statement of my personal preference and appreciation that it was being used.

Was there anything in my actual reasoning that you found fault with?

What I think Maskemigselvetsted is saying (though correct me if I'm wrong) is that the fact that it's commonly used on AVEN is not a legitimate sign of whether it is the "right" term to use. Your previous post discussed the paper's POV and your issue with "allosexual" which is that it has a previous meaning:

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.

Which is quite different from the idea that "sexual" is commonly used on AVEN. The reasoning above, I think, makes perfect sense. The dilemma here isn't your personal decision to use "sexual" - the discrepancy is that AVEN isn't related to the former argument.

Not to say that any of your personal reasons for using "sexual" - specifically, that "sexual" is used on AVEN - and still, I think it's important to recognize that that argument might be either far-fetched or too specific, especially when you're discussing the ideas of the entire asexual community and not just those on AVEN.

[Ricecream-man]

Although I didn't initially mean to put it out as an argument, I would like to add that there actually is some merit in doing so.

1. You're asking this question on AVEN which means that you're interested in what the views of the people on this site are.

2. AVEN is one of the larger communities of asexuals that exists online. While the views commonly held here aren't the ultimate definition (if there is any), as one of the larger communities the views found here can be taken as a legitimate source of information.

The only reason that I added that previous statement was because

since many people have many different opinions and no term is necessarily "wrong" or offensive to a majority of the population

and in a few previous threads that asked this sort of question I know that there were quite a few people who identified as sexual who had problems with the term "allosexual"

I didn't expand on it very because I thought that you, OP, had already come to a conclusion.so it was said as a passing thankful concurrence rather than an additional argument.

[whitelines]

Although I didn't initially mean to put it out as an argument, I would like to add that there actually is some merit in doing so.

1. You're asking this question on AVEN which means that you're interested in what the views of the people on this site are.

2. AVEN is one of the larger communities of asexuals that exists online. While the views commonly held here aren't the ultimate definition (if there is any), as one of the larger communities the views found here can be taken as a legitimate source of information.

The only reason that I added that previous statement was because

since many people have many different opinions and no term is necessarily "wrong" or offensive to a majority of the population

and in a few previous threads that asked this sort of question I know that there were quite a few people who identified as sexual who had problems with the term "allosexual"

I didn't expand on it very because I thought that you, OP, had already come to a conclusion.so it was said as a passing thankful concurrence rather than an additional argument.

I agree that I (as part of a group of members contributing to a thread) had already come to a conclusion and therefore was not looking for additional information and I do understand that you recognize that. I was attempting to suggest the reasoning behind another member's concern. I also agree that AVEN is of major importance and of major credibility seeing as it is one of the largest asexual communities and would be the most relevant since this is where I am asking. Though I am sure that more than one or two of us can also speak for other asexual communities (IRL groups, blogs, etc), and therefore, together, we represent a large portion of many ace communities outside of AVEN.

[Ricecream-man]

Oh of course. That's the reason that I added

the views commonly held here aren't the ultimate definition

in order to clarify that while AVEN is a credible source it isn't the only source of good information on asexuality.

I directed the comment towards you only because you were the most recent responder to mention it. I didn't mean to make it seem as if it was solely directed at you.

[whitelines]

Oh of course. That's the reason that I added

the views commonly held here aren't the ultimate definition

in order to clarify that while AVEN is a credible source it isn't the only source of good information on asexuality.

I directed the comment towards you only because you were the most recent responder to mention it. I didn't mean to make it seem as if it was solely directed at you.

Understood :)

[binary suns]

I've noticed objections to both the term sexual and the term allosexual. However the objection to allosexual is that it's basically labeling a group of people you are not... and then of course there's the reasoning that people who aren't in-the-know are less likely to understand what alosexual means the firs time they hear it.

My personal preference is to say the wordy, "people who don't experience sexual attraction"

I don't have hard data, but it seems to me that the use of the term allosexual is trending downward on AVEN... it seems "sexual" is winning out of the two.

[MacAran]

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)?

I don't see why the term "sexual" should be offensive provided that it is properly contextualized and defined within that context. Further, with asexual being the proper term used for us who do not experience sexual attraction, sexual is its logical grammatic counterpart.

In my (extensive) experience with academic writing, you will do best to pick a term, and stick to it. In context of a discussion of asexuality, there should be nothing confusing, or overly casual about the use of the term "sexual." "Non-asexual" is an option, but I would advise against it. Unless there is a very good reason for it, double negatives are to be avoided. Academic writing should be simple, logical, and clear. The double negative just muddies the water a bit. I strongly advise against using "Allosexual" for the same reason. Additionally, there is nothing intuitive about "Allosexual." Your readers will constantly be having to take a moment and an effort to recall what the term means, and that is a distraction, and a detraction from whatever main point you will be making in your paper.

Whatever term you do pick, at the beginning of your paper, you need to take a moment to define the term "asexual," and then contrast it with whatever term you do decide to use to establish them as specific antonyms in this context. That will be an important part of your thesis statement. After that, I strongly recommend using just that one term. Introducing another will only serve to add a degree of unnecessary confusion.

[whitelines]

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)?

I don't see why the term "sexual" should be offensive provided that it is properly contextualized and defined within that context. Further, asexual being the proper term used for us who do not experience sexual attraction, sexual is its logical grammatic counterpart.

In my (extensive) experience with academic writing, you will do best to pick a term, and stick to it. In context of a discussion of asexuality, there should be nothing confusing, or overly casual about the use of the term "sexual." "Non-asexual" is an option, but I would advise against it. Unless there is a very good reason for it, double negatives are to be avoided. Academic writing should be simple, logical, and clear. The double negative just muddies the water a bit. I strongly advise against using "Allosexual" for the same reason. Additionally, there is nothing intuitive about "Allosexual." Your readers will constantly be having to take a moment and an effort to recall what the term means, and that is a distraction, and a detraction from whatever main point you will be making in your paper.

Whatever term you do pick, at the beginning of your paper, you need to take a moment to define the term "asexual," and then contrast it with whatever term you do decide to use to establish them as specific antonyms in this context. That will be an important part of your thesis statement. After that, I strongly recommend using just that one term. Introducing another will only serve to and a degree of unnecessary confusion.

I agree that allosexual is non-intuitive, though defining anything, as you suggest, would fix that issue. Everything else, I think, has been discussed, if you're interested in seeing what people have said?

:)

[Ancient Ooze]

I like "nace" for every non-ace and "nayce" for those missionary type fellas.

[whitelines]

I like "nace" for every non-ace and "nayce" for those missionary type fellas.

Haha that's fabulous.

[MacAran]

Everything else, I think, has been discussed, if you're interested in seeing what people have said?

I've read through the rest of the discussion, but it seems to mostly be general considerations for everyday use. I am just offering you my thoughts on your original question, specifically as it relates to the paper you are writing, with supportive reasoning that applies to that context, and only in that context.

Do with that as you will.

[verily-forsooth-egads]

I think the general consensus is that any of them can be considered flawed but all in subtle enough ways that it really does not matter at all. Pick one and go with it.

[Siggy]

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 ^

Hi, I wrote the blog post being linked here. Naturally I still stand by what I said.

The distinction between "sexual" as a noun and "sexual" as an adjective is pretty weak. I contend that "sexual" is used on AVEN as both an adjective and noun. Secondly, you could make the case that using it as a noun is worse, because you're making it the one definitive characteristic of that person. It's sort of like talking about the gays or the transgenders.

Also I notice you did not address the argument which is personally important to me. I am gray-A. I am sexual, in the sense of having many sexual characteristics. But by the definitions used in ace communities, I am not "sexual".

The word "allosexual" was coined in response to a huge internet drama that happened in 2011 on Tumblr. There were definitely a lot of non-asexuals who were very upset by the term "sexual", and a lot of people like myself came to agree that it had some problems.

[Siggy]

If allosexual is unpopular on AVEN, I would say it's because:

a) The word originates on Tumblr and has only diffused slowly from there.

b) Non-asexuals don't scrutinize AVEN to the degree they scrutinize other ace communities, so there isn't a critical mass of complaints.

Also, "non-asexual" or "non-ace" is entirely fine. It isn't elegant, but if the OP is looking for "proper" or "politically correct" terms, I take it elegance isn't what's desired.

Also, in the OP you said:

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?

As far as I know this is mistaken. "Allosexual" had a prior meaning in some scientific studies, with "allosexual behavior" used to refer to partnered sexual behavior, as opposed to "autosexual" behavior.

[Member54880]

I've been preferring allosexual over sexual, in part because I first got involved in the asexual community through tumblr, and I was well aware of the drama that erupted over this issue. Often times though, I just go with non-asexual, but the problem with that is that term could encompass gray-asexuals and demisexuals, when I use that term almost exclusively to refer to sexual/allosexual people, because it seemed like one of the only other options. There were some other alternatives proposed, but they didn't catch on, such as "consexual", and "verisexual".

[FoxEars]

I am gray-A. I am sexual, in the sense of having many sexual characteristics. But by the definitions used in ace communities, I am not "sexual".

Well, no, that was sort of my point. You would be considered 'sexual', because in that case 'sexual' is operating as an adjective. Many non-grey aces are also 'sexual'. What you would not be considered is 'a sexual'. Because you're not. You're grey-asexual. Those are two different things, and by definition one cannot be both at once.

The distinction between "sexual" as a noun and "sexual" as an adjective is pretty weak.

I mean ... syntax and general context will go a long way toward determining how strong the distinction will be in any given situation, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to make generalisations about how clear the distinction will be. For sure, the word can be used ambiguously -- like virtually all others.

I contend that "sexual" is used on AVEN as both an adjective and noun.

Well ... yeah. No-one's disputing that. But they mean different things, that's the important part.

Secondly, you could make the case that using it as a noun is worse, because you're making it the one definitive characteristic of that person. It's sort of like talking about the gays or the transgenders.

The gays, or the transgenders ... or the asexuals, or the allosexuals ...

You could argue that about any label. But the thing is, in reality, when I call myself 'asexual', I'm not saying 'everything about me relates to / revolves around asexuality to the exclusion of all else'. When I refer to someone as 'sexual', I'm not saying 'everything about him / her / [whatever pronoun is applicable] relates to / revolves around asexuality to the exclusion of all else'. In this case, words such as 'gay' and 'transgender' function more like 'homeless', as I addressed in an earlier post.

The word "allosexual" was coined in response to a huge internet drama that happened in 2011 on Tumblr.

Er ... 2011? You know it was around before then (with different meaning), right? ('Allosexuel' is used to mean 'non-heterosexual', and 'allosexual' is the anglicised form of that. So ... technically that means asexuals are allosexual. Which doesn't exactly make it a great candidate for antonym to 'asexual', does it? Or, if you're going with the definition of 'allosexual' that means 'not-autosexual', asexuals still can qualify as allosexuals.)

^ FoxEars ^

[FoxEars]

Often times though, I just go with non-asexual, but the problem with that is that term could encompass gray-asexuals and demisexuals

I mean ... grey-asexuals and demisexuals are considered part of the asexual spectrum, so no, it really shouldn't encompass them ...? I mean, isn't that sort of asexual elitism (which is obnoxious and pointless and illogical) to argue that because they're not always 100% asexual in all circumstances, then they're 'not really asexuals', even though they're still a lot more asexual than most people?

Unless you've preestablished in a particular argument / piece of writing / whatever that you're using the term 'asexual' specifically to refer to non-greys and non-demis (the 'black' aces only, if you will), it should never be assumed that greys and demis don't 'count' as asexuals.

^ FoxEars ^

[Philip027]

If allosexual is unpopular on AVEN, I would say it's because:

a) The word originates on Tumblr and has only diffused slowly from there.

b) Non-asexuals don't scrutinize AVEN to the degree they scrutinize other ace communities, so there isn't a critical mass of complaints.

How about c) It sounds stupid and only makes me think of the allosaurus?

[Member54880]

Often times though, I just go with non-asexual, but the problem with that is that term could encompass gray-asexuals and demisexuals

I mean ... grey-asexuals and demisexuals are considered part of the asexual spectrum, so no, it really shouldn't encompass them ...? I mean, isn't that sort of asexual elitism (which is obnoxious and pointless and illogical) to argue that because they're not always 100% asexual in all circumstances, then they're 'not really asexuals', even though they're still a lot more asexual than most people?

Unless you've preestablished in a particular argument / piece of writing / whatever that you're using the term 'asexual' specifically to refer to non-greys and non-demis (the 'black' aces only, if you will), it should never be assumed that greys and demis don't 'count' as asexuals.

^ FoxEars ^

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough; I thought that "non-asexual" sounds ambiguous, and could be taken to either mean: only sexual/allosexuals, or sexual/allosexuals along with grays and demis. When I see someone refer to "non-asexuals", it's usually the former (which is also what I mean), not the latter.

[FoxEars]

Often times though, I just go with non-asexual, but the problem with that is that term could encompass gray-asexuals and demisexuals

I mean ... grey-asexuals and demisexuals are considered part of the asexual spectrum, so no, it really shouldn't encompass them ...? I mean, isn't that sort of asexual elitism (which is obnoxious and pointless and illogical) to argue that because they're not always 100% asexual in all circumstances, then they're 'not really asexuals', even though they're still a lot more asexual than most people?

Unless you've preestablished in a particular argument / piece of writing / whatever that you're using the term 'asexual' specifically to refer to non-greys and non-demis (the 'black' aces only, if you will), it should never be assumed that greys and demis don't 'count' as asexuals.

^ FoxEars ^

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough; I thought that "non-asexual" sounds ambiguous, and could be taken to either mean: only sexual/allosexuals, or sexual/allosexuals along with grays and demis. When I see someone refer to "non-asexuals", it's usually the former (which is also what I mean), not the latter.

And what I meant was, in any cases where people aren't using it that way, and are using 'non-asexuals' to mean (or are reading 'non-asexuals' to mean) grey-asexuals and demisexuals as well, then the problem lies in those people's fundamental lack of understanding about the asexual spectrum; the word itself is not to blame. That's like saying the term 'non-rodents' is ambiguous because some people might think that includes mice. Mice are rodents, though, so if people think the word 'non-rodents' refers to mice, that's purely because they don't understand what rodents are. That doesn't mean the word 'non-rodents' is inherently flawed, though.

(Sorry if that was a weird example)

^ FoxEars ^

[Siggy]

Fox Ears, you're telling me that I should think of myself as sexual, but not as a sexual. Does that not strike you as the slightest bit clunky? Is it not right for me to complain about that?

Besides, I contend that the word "sexual", as used to refer to people who are not on the asexual spectrum, is used in both adjective and noun form. Would you like me to look around threads to find examples of this? Do the work yourself.

"Allosexual", using the meaning discussed here, was coined in 2011. The quebecois french word, and the scientific word are as far as I know not very powerful pre-existing definitions. You tell me, have you ever used it to mean those other things? It seems for most people, the first association they come up with is not Quebecois, but "allosaur". Now there's an argument that I admit carries weight. Thank you Philip for that one.

[Siggy]

In all seriousness, it's okay to say that you don't like it because it sounds silly. The primary reason I don't like allosexual is that I'd prefer to use whatever word is most common. That is, a word that doesn't sound silly and just sounds normal.

But I don't at all accept the noun/adjective argument.

[Philip027]

I agree that "sexual" can serve as potential noun/adjective confusion (in fact, in a similar sort of vein, I have contended that there are, from my point of view, very "sexual" asexuals on the site, which served as a problem for me recognizing and adopting the label a few years back)

But just because that potential confusion exists doesn't make it a bad term to use. If that were the case, there are many, many other English terms that can produce the exact same sort of confusion that also need addressing.

People just need to be more aware of context, not just the people reading but also the people writing. If you feel like there could be ambiguity in what kind of "sexual" you mean, then make it clearer. It isn't too difficult, really.

[FoxEars]

Fox Ears, you're telling me that I should think of myself as sexual, but not as a sexual. Does that not strike you as the slightest bit clunky? Is it not right for me to complain about that?

I'm not telling you what you 'should' be thinking about anything. I'm saying, when it comes to terminology, it's possible for one to be sexual without being a sexual. Frankly, no, I don't see any clunkiness in it.

You can complain about whatever you want. I'm more interested in having an actual, logical debate than complaining about things, so it's no matter to me what you do.

Besides, I contend that the word "sexual", as used to refer to people who are not on the asexual spectrum, is used in both adjective and noun form. Would you like me to look around threads to find examples of this? Do the work yourself.

There's no need to be rude. Keep in mind that that's not necessarily incorrect, as a sexual is, by nature, sexual. Even in those cases where it is used incorrectly -- what do you want me to do? People use 'their' to mean 'they're'. People don't always use language correctly. That's just how life works.

"Allosexual", using the meaning discussed here, was coined in 2011. The quebecois french word, and the scientific word are as far as I know not very powerful pre-existing definitions. You tell me, have you ever used it to mean those other things?

That's a pretty fallacious argument ... I've never done any writing / speaking in a context where either form of the word would have been relevant. I have seen both other definitions used, though.

^ FoxEars ^

[Siggy]

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.

[Siggy]

Besides, I contend that the word "sexual", as used to refer to people who are not on the asexual spectrum, is used in both adjective and noun form. Would you like me to look around threads to find examples of this? Do the work yourself.

There's no need to be rude. Keep in mind that that's not necessarily incorrect, as a sexual is, by nature, sexual. Even in those cases where it is used incorrectly -- what do you want me to do? People use 'their' to mean 'they're'. People don't always use language correctly. That's just how life works.

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.