What the....?

[WünderBâhr]

Btw, in case it needed clarification, my previous post is not intended to dismiss questioning aces or anyone who falls under the gray/demi/other label bits as not counting as asexual. No invalidation intended at all, but after re- reading, I thought it might possibly be interpreted that way. People count in whatever way they feel they need. My above post was just summarizing for flow rather than get into the extensive details and branches.

^ ^

[Star Bit]

There is the prefix i/im/ir/in/il, which is the equivalent to un. Isexual?

XD the slang term would be Ice

[Tja]

There is the prefix i/ir/in, which is the equivalent to un. Isexual?

Brilliant! Love it! *Though I can't decide between Isexual and Irsexual. They both sound awesome!*

**I am leaning toward Irsexual, as it reminds me of Ir-Lord Thomas Covenant from the awesome Stephen R Donaldson novels.**

[Star Bit]

Would the slang for Irsexual be Ears? lol

It's Ice or Ears, choose! jk --eyes? Eyes or Ears...

[Tja]

I was pronouncing it Err not Ear. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ears is both good, as I'm a Hearing Conservationist, and, bad, as it sounds like an ear fetish. :lol: :lol: :lol: *But that could be good, too :P*

Edited August 24, 2015 by Tja

[Star Bit]

Well, i heard of "i" being a prefix and I've seen someone on here use it on their gender, but i cant find any words with it or info on it even when i mention its Latin origin in the search. Don't even know if the I is long or short. But i like it because Isexual reflects the A. But i bet people would complain that if you're "unsexual" then you can't be a libidoist either. But as i said, orientations also aren't literal. So it could just refer to being unsexual toward others; as other orientations depict how you are toward others. From my research on the other forms of the prefix, it wouldn't be Ir. Here's how they're used: "The prefix in- becomes im- before sounds p, b, m. It also becomes ir- before r, as in irrespective and irresponsible, and il- before l, as in illegible and illegal — these are examples of assimilation too." So it would be Insexual and Irromantic. Or we could fix the inconsistency with just i.

[leena.in.wonderland]

As a sexual male getting my head round the whole asexual thing since my wife now appears to be asexual, the whole micro taxonomy obsession seems problematic to me. To an outsider, it seems like the understandable urge to adopt an identity is fracturing the single, big concept till it gets too complicated for anyone to understand, which makes acceptance by already baffled outsiders so much harder.

I honestly don't see the point of going beyond 'asexual' and acknowledging that everyone has their own particular, shifting version of it.

I agree. Even as an ace myself, all of the separate identifies are getting confusing

I mean ... if you're against labels that are 'too' specific ... are you against lengthy chemical names? Should cyclopropanecarboxylic acid and pentaethylene glycol monododecyl ether both just be referred to as 'chemical compound' because it isn't immediately apparent to most people what their names mean?

Of course not. They're totally different substances and to treat them as the same thing is not a good idea. Besides, those to whom their specific meanings matter either know what they mean or can figure it out; those to whom their meanings don't matter don't have to know (although they can look it up if they're curious). The same thing applies to orientation labels, really.

Okay, but don't we generally refer to "lengthy chemical names" by common names, outside of the lab or class? I'm not saying that we should allow "labelphobia" to continue. What I am saying (and what I gather that Telecaster is saying) is that when we want to explain asexuality and the asexual spectrum to average people on the street, we should try to make it as straightforward as possible. Then, after they begin to understand the umbrella term, we can explain more. Basically what I'm trying to say is that in order to have more allies, we should make it so that they can understand us. While it is great that some aces are finding nuances to their sexualities, I think it's important that we don't confuse our allies in the process. Like I said in my earlier comment, even as an ace myself, I am sometimes lost or confused by some of the asexual orientations that I might see on AVEN. If members of the ace community can't comprehend some of the orientations, then it's probably best that we first march under asexuality. Once that gains momentum, then we march for full equality. I'd love for the world to suddenly become accepting. Sadly, that doesn't happen. So let's take things one realistic, pragmatic, baby step at a time.

[leena.in.wonderland]

As a sexual male getting my head round the whole asexual thing since my wife now appears to be asexual, the whole micro taxonomy obsession seems problematic to me. To an outsider, it seems like the understandable urge to adopt an identity is fracturing the single, big concept till it gets too complicated for anyone to understand, which makes acceptance by already baffled outsiders so much harder.

I honestly don't see the point of going beyond 'asexual' and acknowledging that everyone has their own particular, shifting version of it.

I agree. Even as an ace myself, all of the separate identifies are getting confusing

I mean ... if you're against labels that are 'too' specific ... are you against lengthy chemical names? Should cyclopropanecarboxylic acid and pentaethylene glycol monododecyl ether both just be referred to as 'chemical compound' because it isn't immediately apparent to most people what their names mean?

Of course not. They're totally different substances and to treat them as the same thing is not a good idea. Besides, those to whom their specific meanings matter either know what they mean or can figure it out; those to whom their meanings don't matter don't have to know (although they can look it up if they're curious). The same thing applies to orientation labels, really.

Okay, but don't we generally refer to "lengthy chemical names" by common names, outside of the lab or class? I'm not saying that we should allow "labelphobia" to continue. What I am saying (and what I gather that Telecaster is saying) is that when we want to explain asexuality and the asexual spectrum to average people on the street, we should try to make it as straightforward as possible. Then, after they begin to understand the umbrella term, we can explain more. Basically what I'm trying to say is that in order to have more allies, we should make it so that they can understand us. While it is great that some aces are finding nuances to their sexualities, I think it's important that we don't confuse our allies in the process. Like I said in my earlier comment, even as an ace myself, I am sometimes lost or confused by some of the asexual orientations that I might see on AVEN. If members of the ace community can't comprehend some of the orientations, then it's probably best that we first march under asexuality. Once that gains momentum, then we march for full equality. I'd love for the world to suddenly become accepting. Sadly, that doesn't happen. So let's take things one realistic, pragmatic, baby step at a time.

[Telecaster68]

Leena's got my point about keeping it simple right, but there's another problem with over-enthusiastic labelling that I can see. (I can absolutely understand how finding a niche that fits your identity helps you define yourself. But microlabelling makes the niche so small they only fit one person).

Labels try to pin down something that's fluid. In the swathes of 'what am I?' posts, an awful lot talk about how they thought they were one thing, but - shock - they find their feelings are changing, provoking severe label-anxiety. Changing, contradictory, confusing feelings aren't unique to the ACE community: sometimes I really, really fancy Nicole Kidman, other times she leaves me cold, sometimes I can see her beauty but don't fancy her at all. Some people, at some points, I'd like to have wild meaningless monkey sex with the second I see them. Others I didn't really like at first, but then can't get enough of. You could look at some of the experiences I've had with my (male) best friend and file them under romantic, even though we're both straight.

All this is fine with me. I don't try to infer any great label or identity from any of these things. They're just aspects of me, at different times, different places, with different people. If I'd labelled myself beyond a basic 'straight', I could be bending myself completely out of shape about transient aspects of my personality - I can see Nicole's beautiful, but I don't want to shag her - maybe I'm not straight, maybe I'm a romantic asexual? Wait, no, I do want to have sex with her, but only in that one role - maybe panfictional (or whatever it would be...)? Then again, actually, look at her bum... no definitely I'm very, very sexual. And yes, I just saw that girl in the street who looked interesting, maybe, if I got to know her I might fancy her? So now I'm a demi. But then I had a really nice walk on the beach with my best (male) friend last night but I'd never want to sleep with him, so maybe I'm asexual homoromantic?.,..

Which is what I see a lot of anxiety over in a lot of posts on here. Microlabelling isn't just confusing sexuals, it's distressing asexuals too. What should be a step on the journey to self acceptance is becoming a roadblock.

[Blinkin]

Who ever said that asexuals are sexual? Behaviour is not defined by attraction labels.

Aren't these labels what you are trying to describe?

- Sex repulsive asexual.

- Sex negative asexual.

Both are already used in both our community and other communities (although in a less common way) and to me they seem to describe what you mean.

Or I really misunderstood your point, in that case just ignore this post.

[Tja]

I am neither sex repulsed, nor sex negative. I just don't want/need it. I'm probably reading too much into this.

I'm just going to keep using asexual, and ignore (as applying to myself) all the other interpretations.

[FoxEars]

As a sexual male getting my head round the whole asexual thing since my wife now appears to be asexual, the whole micro taxonomy obsession seems problematic to me. To an outsider, it seems like the understandable urge to adopt an identity is fracturing the single, big concept till it gets too complicated for anyone to understand, which makes acceptance by already baffled outsiders so much harder.

I honestly don't see the point of going beyond 'asexual' and acknowledging that everyone has their own particular, shifting version of it.

I agree. Even as an ace myself, all of the separate identifies are getting confusing

I mean ... if you're against labels that are 'too' specific ... are you against lengthy chemical names? Should cyclopropanecarboxylic acid and pentaethylene glycol monododecyl ether both just be referred to as 'chemical compound' because it isn't immediately apparent to most people what their names mean?

Of course not. They're totally different substances and to treat them as the same thing is not a good idea. Besides, those to whom their specific meanings matter either know what they mean or can figure it out; those to whom their meanings don't matter don't have to know (although they can look it up if they're curious). The same thing applies to orientation labels, really.

Okay, but don't we generally refer to "lengthy chemical names" by common names, outside of the lab or class? I'm not saying that we should allow "labelphobia" to continue. What I am saying (and what I gather that Telecaster is saying) is that when we want to explain asexuality and the asexual spectrum to average people on the street, we should try to make it as straightforward as possible. Then, after they begin to understand the umbrella term, we can explain more. Basically what I'm trying to say is that in order to have more allies, we should make it so that they can understand us. While it is great that some aces are finding nuances to their sexualities, I think it's important that we don't confuse our allies in the process. Like I said in my earlier comment, even as an ace myself, I am sometimes lost or confused by some of the asexual orientations that I might see on AVEN. If members of the ace community can't comprehend some of the orientations, then it's probably best that we first march under asexuality. Once that gains momentum, then we march for full equality. I'd love for the world to suddenly become accepting. Sadly, that doesn't happen. So let's take things one realistic, pragmatic, baby step at a time.

Okay, I've written this a bunch of times and my browser keeps crashing / refreshing and losing my writing, so here's the short version:

Using a label more specific than just 'asexual' doesn't mean one has rejected the label 'asexual'. It doesn't mean one doesn't use it alone in situations where further specifications would be inappropriate or inconvenient. Rather than policing people's labels, I think it's more fair to trust people to identify responsibly. (E.g., I am a hyperandroflexisapioquoiromantic asexual, but I almost never identify as anything other than asexual -- or sometimes heteroromantic asexual, which is close enough -- outside of AVEN / close relationships in which my orientation is relevant. I'm not 'just asexual', but I'm not contributing to confusion on the matter either.)

^ FoxEars ^

[FoxEars]

Leena's got my point about keeping it simple right, but there's another problem with over-enthusiastic labelling that I can see. (I can absolutely understand how finding a niche that fits your identity helps you define yourself. But microlabelling makes the niche so small they only fit one person).

Labels try to pin down something that's fluid. In the swathes of 'what am I?' posts, an awful lot talk about how they thought they were one thing, but - shock - they find their feelings are changing, provoking severe label-anxiety. Changing, contradictory, confusing feelings aren't unique to the ACE community: sometimes I really, really fancy Nicole Kidman, other times she leaves me cold, sometimes I can see her beauty but don't fancy her at all. Some people, at some points, I'd like to have wild meaningless monkey sex with the second I see them. Others I didn't really like at first, but then can't get enough of. You could look at some of the experiences I've had with my (male) best friend and file them under romantic, even though we're both straight.

All this is fine with me. I don't try to infer any great label or identity from any of these things. They're just aspects of me, at different times, different places, with different people. If I'd labelled myself beyond a basic 'straight', I could be bending myself completely out of shape about transient aspects of my personality - I can see Nicole's beautiful, but I don't want to shag her - maybe I'm not straight, maybe I'm a romantic asexual? Wait, no, I do want to have sex with her, but only in that one role - maybe panfictional (or whatever it would be...)? Then again, actually, look at her bum... no definitely I'm very, very sexual. And yes, I just saw that girl in the street who looked interesting, maybe, if I got to know her I might fancy her? So now I'm a demi. But then I had a really nice walk on the beach with my best (male) friend last night but I'd never want to sleep with him, so maybe I'm asexual homoromantic?.,..

Which is what I see a lot of anxiety over in a lot of posts on here. Microlabelling isn't just confusing sexuals, it's distressing asexuals too. What should be a step on the journey to self acceptance is becoming a roadblock.

Perhaps your 'distress' stems from the fact that

• you're mischaracterising orientations (obviously you're not being totally serious, and are just exaggerating to make a point; but still), and clearly don't have a very good understanding of them. In the real world, people don't try to identify as labels they don't understand the meaning of, generally (your mockery of demisexuality and homoromanticism are borderline-insulting, by the way). (You also may have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an orientation is; note that 'I would have sex with that person' is not quite the same thing as 'I find that person sexually attractive', although they do frequently overlap.)
• you're trying to base your orientation after one specific moment of thinking about your feelings towards one specific person. Obviously this is absurd; Nicole Kidman or a girl on the street or a male friend (or all three combined) is / are not enough to determine one's orientation. An orientation is a general statement that takes into account past and present attitudes, experiences, etc.. Again, I realise that you understand this and are just trying to make a point; but your argument is deeply fallacious.

It's also worth noting that some people do have fluid sexualities (not in the way you caricaturised it, but still); but believe it or not, labels are not a life-long commitment (or at least, they don't have to be). If you find a label that suits you and you're able to comfortably use it for the rest of your life, fantastic. If you spend your entire life switching between labels as your identity changes, that's also fantastic.

^ FoxEars ^

[binary suns]

if only life were so simple, that one word could describe our entire experience...

The thing I see is, the word "sexual" "asexual" and "orientation" begin with the use referring to a person's personal experience and not their interactions, that these words came into use as a means of describing a person's attraction.

however, as language is fluid and quickly adapts to the needs of the population, however big or small a group you're in, we see other uses of these words, such as uses that are indeed referring to a person's life style. who is to claim even, that the origins of these words were factually a certain way and not the other? Without thorough research, where perhaps we find roots from eons ago, or even roots that are ironic in their transformation to current-day use, we can really make no such claim... it is not even clear if it is fair to say that the definition of a word depicts its meaning, since as humans our connotations have such a deep history that impacts the meaning of our expressed words much more dramatically than their precise definition.

What I am noticing, is the use of "sexual" to mean "a person's sexual activity". And, in this case, that is actually one of the definitions of the word "sexual" if you look it up in a dictionary! and the use of "asexual" is much less common than the use of "sexual" - and its popularity is new and rising. The trends that caused this split in meaning of the word "sexual" are only beginning to be mirrored in the word "asexual"

perhaps someday "asexual" will have a defined meaning of both "asexual attraction" or "asexual in behavior" but currently the definition is not so rich - yet our common use of language does have cases of either connotation from day to day. reject or accept this trend, it does exist...

[Telecaster68]

Perhaps your 'distress' stems from the fact that

• you're mischaracterising orientations (obviously you're not being totally serious, and are just exaggerating to make a point; but still), and clearly don't have a very good understanding of them. In the real world, people don't try to identify as labels they don't understand the meaning of, generally (your mockery of demisexuality and homoromanticism are borderline-insulting, by the way). (You also may have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an orientation is; note that 'I would have sex with that person' is not quite the same thing as 'I find that person sexually attractive', although they do frequently overlap.)
• you're trying to base your orientation after one specific moment of thinking about your feelings towards one specific person. Obviously this is absurd; Nicole Kidman or a girl on the street or a male friend (or all three combined) is / are not enough to determine one's orientation. An orientation is a general statement that takes into account past and present attitudes, experiences, etc.. Again, I realise that you understand this and are just trying to make a point; but your argument is deeply fallacious.

It's also worth noting that some people do have fluid sexualities (not in the way you caricaturised it, but still); but believe it or not, labels are not a life-long commitment (or at least, they don't have to be). If you find a label that suits you and you're able to comfortably use it for the rest of your life, fantastic. If you spend your entire life switching between labels as your identity changes, that's also fantastic.

^ FoxEars ^

It's not my distress, as I said. There are dozens of posts from people, mostly younger, trying to find a a sublabel within the asexual spectrum for how they feel, and quite bothered about not being able to place themselves on it, often because their experience doesn't exactly fit one of the predefined boxes. Clearly, finding a name for how you feel can help you accept it. But that's not what's happening here - they're getting anxious because they don't fit a label that other people are defining for them, which doesn't help them. Better, surely, to say 'some people want to have sex with the opposite sex, some with the same sex, some with both sexes, some with no sexes. Within all of those, there's a vast array of shifting feelings, desires, needs, attractions. They're all fine.' It's one less thing for people already anxious about their identities to fret about.

[Blinkin]

I am neither sex repulsed, nor sex negative. I just don't want/need it. I'm probably reading too much into this.

I'm just going to keep using asexual, and ignore (as applying to myself) all the other interpretations.

Not that I want to say that you shouldn't have a word for it but.... why have a specific word for it? Are there words that describe people who don't like/want chocolate? I'm missing the point of it.

But again that's not a reason to stop finding a word for, I just don't understand why.

[Tja]

I am neither sex repulsed, nor sex negative. I just don't want/need it. I'm probably reading too much into this.

I'm just going to keep using asexual, and ignore (as applying to myself) all the other interpretations.

Not that I want to say that you shouldn't have a word for it but.... why have a specific word for it? Are there words that describe people who don't like/want chocolate? I'm missing the point of it.

But again that's not a reason to stop finding a word for, I just don't understand why.

With all the myriad descriptions here, I was thinking it would nice to have one of my own, but it's not necessary.

[Blinkin]

Ah I see, there are indeed a lot of them. Well if you find a word for it let us know. :)

Maybe there's a word for people who do want sex... if you put an "a" in front of it you might have tge word you're looking for.

I have to admit that I try to use those words only when it clarifies something without the need to talk for half an hour.

Edit: While reading some posts here I stumbled upon a word that might be what you're looking for. Sex indifferent. From what I see it means that sex does not mean anything valuable for someone and is very likely not wanting to participate in it. But the person is not repulsed by it.

[Tja]

Perhaps...indifferensexual? :)