Gray-sexual and Gray-asexual need to be two different terms?

[Motoko]

Thanks , hm I'd identify more as a grey asexual rather than a sexual because I've dated sexual people and it never works out because I'm not sexual or want to have sex. So they feel like I'm denying them of pleasure that they could get if they dated somebody else

I'm in a similar boat to you Motoko. I've just realised I'm more likely a low libido sex averse sexual. But I struggle to identify as a sexual because my exes and friends think that I'm very different from them because I'm not interested in sex as often or have different ideas about it to them.

I feel like I'm in the middle, I'm not ace enough to be ace but not sexual enough to be understood by other sexuals. So I'd rather identify as somewhere on the grey spectrum to help others understand.

That is exactly how I feel! I'm glad there is a community of us now, We don't have to feel like we're alone on this one :)

[Residentshadow]

Things are already complicated enough. And grey is used to reflect that complexity. In all types of grey, some people are more sexual than others.

Grey is already complicated, what type of grey even more, no need to make it even more complicated than it is.

Very true but people do love there quaint little categories.

[Guest]

Things are already complicated enough. And grey is used to reflect that complexity. In all types of grey, some people are more sexual than others.

Grey is already complicated, what type of grey even more, no need to make it even more complicated than it is.

Very true but people do love there quaint little categories.

I just think it's messy that I'm ''grey'' because I am, well, asexual in that I have no desire to engage in partnered sex, and this makes sexual relationships impossible for me (as myself and the sexual person just end up miserable very fast) but I am also.. very sexual in many ways (just not in the one way that counts: sexually) YET someone else identifies as grey who does desire and enjoy sex, but only under circumstances or at certain times. The first is ''asexual'' at the most basic level (sexually) the second is sexual at the most basic level (sexually)

I saw a sexual person saying here recently that grey-ace and asexual are completely different, because they could easily have a relationship with a grey (going by demi, cupio, sapio etc as labels under the grey umbrella) yet they could in no way have a relationship with an ace, due to sexual disparity (they grey does desire the sex sometimes, the ace never does) ..Yet there are greys who are ''too ace'' to be able to have a sexual relationship in any way.

Dividing it up into Grey Asexual, and Grey Sexual seems like the only answer to me.

Or just saying, if someone is capable of a normal sexual relationship (desires and enjoys the sex as much as the sexual person) they are...just sexual. If someone is utterly incapable of a ''normal' sexual relationship (because of extreme sexual disparity, they don't desire the sex at all, they might give it but don't desire it for their own pleasure, ever) then that's ''just asexual''

And the people in the ''grey area'' are those incapable of a normal sexual relationship due to not desiring sex, but are still ''sexual'' i many other ways.

I don't know, just seems weird that there are some greys it would be literally impossible for me to be in a relationship with due to utter sexual disparity (they desire sex, I never do despite having a high libido) ...blergh, confusing. I was told by that sexual person I should just drop the ''grey'' part, because by all intents and purposes I am asexual, buuuut, I'm just not asexual enough to feel it's morally acceptable for me to identify as ''full ace'' ..

Life be confusing man.

[Rising Sun]

I'm a bit skeptical about taking the ability to be in a normal sexual relationship into account. Because there are sexual persons who can't be in sexual relationships, and there are complete asexuals who can handle a sexual relationship fine. IMO being "grey" is more about being exposed to difficulties that make either being in a sexual relationship very difficult or that make entering a sexual relationship very difficult, and all these difficulties being related to asexuality or functional asexuality.

But by definition, grey is higher on the sexual scale than asexual, so it can't really be asexual strictly speaking. If it's truly asexual, it's asexual, period.

Pan, my opinion is that if you know you're asexual, you don't have to justify yourself towards elitist members by adding "grey" just so those elitist members are going to be less judgmental. I find that horrible that elitists make others feel like they're hold accountable of their type of asexuality, just because elitists don't accept some subtypes of asexuality (especially high libido asexuals). This is the result of unconscious elitism with sex-repulsed and low libido asexuals being more "asexual" than others. If elitists don't want to accept it, it's their problem, not yours ! They're the ones subtly ostracizing others, and by calling yourself "grey" while you know that you aren't, you're making elitists think that you're proving them right.

[Snao Cone]

As I posted to Skullery's thread in Hot Box, the range of asexual to grey-asexual should be from answering "Are you asexual?" with "Absolutely" to "For all intents and purposes." Both of those are affirmative, not with any "except when" attached.

[Star Bit]

I do agree that according to that wording an asexual who is ok with sexually compromising would be then categorized as Gray-sexual, which i don't agree with.

So if we did a romantic equivalent to this, (asexual) aromantics who desire to make out would be Gray-aromantic? Which would put asexuals with partner enacted fetishes as Gray-asexual? Would the people who desire simultaneous masturbation then go under Gray-asexual as well? Which would be the only purpose in publicly identifying as Gray-aro/ace (i.e. all the other aforementioned types of Gray-aro/ace have the right to publicly identify as aro/ace; as otherwise is TMI and they virtually are aro/ace).

[scarletlatitude]

I think a lot of people chose gray because they don't know yet. As in, "I haven't had sex, but I don't think I'd be against it someday".

[Snao Cone]

So if we did a romantic equivalent to this, (asexual) aromantics who desire to make out would be Gray-aromantic? Which would put asexuals with partner enacted fetishes as Gray-asexual? Would the people who desire simultaneous masturbation then go under Gray-asexual as well? Which would be the only purpose in publicly identifying as Gray-aro/ace (i.e. all the other aforementioned types of Gray-aro/ace have the right to publicly identify as aro/ace; as otherwise is TMI and they virtually are aro/ace).

I definitely agree that publicly identifying as grey-aro/ace isn't necessary unless the conversation needs to be opened - i.e. with a partner and discussing what you will and won't do and what you genuinely enjoy. That's why I generally dislike the elaboration of labels, to be honest.

[Snao Cone]

I think a lot of people chose gray because they don't know yet. As in, "I haven't had sex, but I don't think I'd be against it someday".

"Questioning" is already used in the elaborate GSM acronym to include people who are unsure but exploring themselves with an open mind, right? Ace-Questioning seems clearer to me and would probably be much more helpful in advancing conversations and understanding.

[Star Bit]

I think a lot of people chose gray because they don't know yet. As in, "I haven't had sex, but I don't think I'd be against it someday".

But that's still asexual; asexuals can sexually compromise. What Snow Cone said.^

(i don't think ace-curious has the same ring to it as bi-curious)

Also, by catagorizing Gray this way we also solve other problems; e.g. depending on the demisexual they could frequently be asexual or frequently be sexual, where as this way keeps the orientation at the sexual end/stable.

[Guest]

*trying to work out if I saw Skullerys thread*

I'm a bit skeptical about taking the ability to be in a normal sexual relationship into account. Because there are sexual persons who can't be in sexual relationships, and there are complete asexuals who can handle a sexual relationship fine.

hmm yes, worded like that, you're correct. What I meant as ''normal'' was more ''being in a relationship where both people actively desire partnered sex to some extent or another'' but yeah what you said still applies to that depending on the situation.

Pan, my opinion is that if you know you're asexual, you don't have to justify yourself towards elitist members by adding "grey" just so those elitist members are going to be less judgmental. I find that horrible that elitists make others feel like they're hold accountable of their type of asexuality, just because elitists don't accept some subtypes of asexuality (especially high libido asexuals). This is the result of unconscious elitism with sex-repulsed and low libido asexuals being more "asexual" than others. If elitists don't want to accept it, it's their problem, not yours ! They're the ones subtly ostracizing others, and by calling yourself "grey" while you know that you aren't, you're making elitists think that you're proving them right.

I'll spoiler this for TMI and because it's not that relevant to the thread... okay or I won't spoiler it as it appears to not be working, ahaha damn you spoiler :P

I just feel bad because I do have fetishes not common to many people but would be considered an enjoyable part of a sexual relationship if I was capable of having a sexual relationship (ie semen consumption fetish) ..I am sure a fetish like that would be a great addition to a healthy sexual relationship (but not the basis for one obviously)..So while I do think the only criteria for asexuality is having no innate desire for partnered sexual contact (shared genital stimulation for sexual pleasure) I don't know, I feel like there is an unspoken line I cross there that just isn't ace enough to be ace, despite... being ace in that I have no desire for or enjoyment of any form of partnered contact with my own genitals, just don't want it, won't have it, no compromise.

I'll be honest and say I haven't actually had any contact with semen since ages before discovering asexuality, and back when I did have contact with it, I had no interest in it, just did what I had to do to try to keep my partner happy (he was never happy anyway because I didn't want the sex, only gave it, but meh). The ''fetish'' aspect seems to only have developed once I realized it's possible to have that (ie licking it off a partners hands after he has wanked or drinking it out of a cup) without any expectation of, or need for, sex. ..Maybe in person, I'd actually have no interest in that, but in my mind it's enjoyable enough that I.. like thinking about it? Thinking about it makes me feel satisfied emotionally (semen has actually been proven to have natural anti-depressant properties haha so maybe my body just associates it with that? lol) Hmmmm I don't even know. I'm still just considering changing my asexuality label to ''fuck it'' and leaving it at that ahaha. I know I can't have sex, and won't have a sexual relationship with anyone, and I am committed emotionally and intimately to someone who is asexual and doesn't want any form of sex (anything to do with partnered genital contact in any way, shape, or form) so.. the label probably doesn't even matter that much anymore? I don't knooooow. It feels like mentally I am very sexual, but in every other way (ie associating with other humans in any way) I am full asexual. I'm certainly not questioning my physical asexuality or anything though, I was certain I'd never have another sexual relationship (because I just can't ''do the sex'') two years before I'd even discovered the term asexuality. I won't sexually compromise ever again, because I don't enjoy sex to such an extent that it makes compromise impossible (for me personally) But yeah there is still this niggling saying ''but you're still super sexual in your brain no matter how asexual every single other aspect of your being is'' :P

Spoiler success at last

[Star Bit]

Hmm, i agree that my OP was wrong and that Panficto's modification is correct; that Gray-asexual should be something like "can't sustain a reciprocated sexual relationship under any circumstances" because i forgot about Fraysexuals, which would be under Gray-asexual. Yes, they can momentarily sustain a sexual relationship, but after the asexuality kicks in then they can't. And thus at that point they cannot sustain a mutual sexual relationship under any circumstance. So there would be more than one reason to go by Gray-asexual (i.e. so far two). Opening post is edited.

(Yes i know some people say Fray is normal [and please don't start a debate, i know people have their differing opinions on it so let's leave it at that]. And i agree that the popularized definition of it is normal; i.e. dating a stranger and finding out they aren't for you or being afraid of commitment. But that still shouldn't be 24/7. The proper definition is literally the reverse of demisexual; i.e. [for the sake of quick wording] an asexual turning sexual. Fraysexual is a sexual turning asexual. Yes, i know the prefix fray is said to come from old english for stranger, but it being for strictly strangers is too meticulous; that's like saying we need a second word [i.e. not demisexual] for people who do have sexual attraction but will only consent after a strong bond.

If a frayromantic/sexual just rarely sustains romantic/sexual feelings then they're Gray-romantic/sexual, if anything, and not Frayromantic/sexual. Just like if someone is primarily Demisexual but occasionally has immediate desire to have sex with people then they aren't demisexual but Gray-sexual [even though demisexual is on the Gray-sexual end].

It's not a consequence of finding out the person wan't as great as you hoped; they want to keep the relationship, it's just suddenly one day it's just gone. It's not a consequence of getting to know the person because there are demi-frays who know the person perfectly well. And both attractions don't fade away either, unless the person is both Fraysexual and Frayromantic [which i rarely see]. Most of them are also willing to stay in the relationship despite no attraction, but it actually becomes a problem for the partner and is what causes the break up.)

Anyways, this separation of terms would put Gray-ace under asexual and Gray-sexual under allosexual/sever them as a connected spectrum (past sexuality as a whole being a spectrum), which in turn would actually make asexuality a spectrum lol (i.e. exactly what we say it isn't; under current definitions that is). I can see the only public uses for Gray-sexual and Gray-asexual (listed in OP) as becoming the sole meaning of the words, and the remaining meanings moving over to sexuality and asexuality (though i feel the former is less likely).

[Star Bit]

Oh, but some Liths can be in relationships where the partner doesn't reciprocate, so would they actually be on the Gray-romantic/sexual side?

Or should i make two specifications? Also, technically both types of Lithsexuals/romantics would be valid under Gray-asexual/aromantic, so does that mean the definitions are wrong??

[Betty Badinbed]

Nicely put. This is me in a short sweet sentence. I may have to borrow this some time if you don't mind.

[Betty Badinbed]

Nicely put. This is me in a short sweet sentence. I may have to borrow this some time if you don't mind.

Sorry, here's what I was attempting to quote in above post: "Someone too sexy to identify as fully ace, but way too asexy to identify as sexual".

[Guest]

"Someone too sexy to identify as fully ace, but way too asexy to identify as sexual".

Nicely put. This is me in a short sweet sentence. I may have to borrow this some time if you don't mind.

No sorry, it's copyrighted

haha jokes, of course you can use it ^_^

[nanogretchen4]

Is the purple quote copyrighted? Or have you copyrighted silence?

[Star Bit]

Or would Liths that are able to be in non-reciprocating relationships (i.e. the Lith person expresses their attraction and the other partner is indifferent) not be categorized as Lith, but a sexual/romantic person with an abnormal turn off?

[Star Bit]

Should Gray-romantic include Asensual Romantics and Hyporomantics??

I added people who desire simultaneous masturbation, phone sex, cyber sex, sexting, sexual roleplay... (any others?) to Gray-asexual, and intentional flirting to Gray-aromantc.

What would you call romantic texting? Rexting?? XDDDD (i.e. just thinking if there are romantic equivalents)

Actually I'm having second thoughts putting making out under Gray-aromantic because a straight girl who only desires to make out with women is exactly that and not Gray-biromantic.

[Star Bit]

Hmm, I'm having second thoughts. Should Fraysexual/romantic be on the aro/ace side or the romantic /sexual side of the Gray spectrum? (i.e. assuming Fray means the person can never keep attraction)

[Star Bit]

Actually, should Gray-asexual be replaced? I keep seeing newbies interpret it as "asexual but gray" rather than "close to being asexual".

Should it be Quasisexual? But then replacing Gray-aro would make it Quasiromantic, which I've already defined on another thread as being useful to one sided QPRs that have the other half feeling romantically but don't do anything that would invalidate the use of QPR.

Quasi literally means "as if", but it's also used as:

resembling/seeming but not actually being

virtually/nearly/almost

partially/to a degree but not completely

edit: (started thread on it but ended up being that Gray just, again, needs to be redefined)

Rather, should people who desire these forms of "secondary sex" like phone sex and whatnot be called quasisexual?

[Star Bit]

We have another problem. People defining Gray as being between sexual and asexual, and thus people who only desire outercourse interpreting it as applying to themselves.

[Snao Cone]

I'm troubled enough by the existence of the word "outercourse"

[Star Bit]

Troubled by it? How?

[Snao Cone]

It's a play on words that I would prefer not stick, personally.

[Star Bit]

Not stick? It's been around since the mid 80s. It's a widely used term by allosexuals as well as defined by many dictionaries.

[Snao Cone]

Well then.

[Guest]

It's a play on words that I would prefer not stick, personally.

I think that's quite a commonly used term among sexuals isn't it? I've watched video guides on YouTube to "outercourse" which are designed mainly for young people, so they can learn to have sex without risk of pregnancy or STI's.

Regarding the rest, I'm still sticking with grey A. I'm too sexy to befullya-sexy, but too a-sexy to be fully sexual :P

[Snao Cone]

It's a play on words that I would prefer not stick, personally.

I think that's quite a commonly used term among sexuals isn't it? I've watched video guides on YouTube to "outercourse" which are designed mainly for young people, so they can learn to have sex without risk of pregnancy or STI's.

Regarding the rest, I'm still sticking with grey A. I'm too sexy to be fully a-sexy, but too a-sexy to be fully sexual :P

Yeah, well, young people can shove it.*

*not a pun :P

[Grumpy Alien]

Personally, I think grey-asexuality is actually more like grey-sexual. (And I would fit that label.) So I think greysexual is more appropriate of a term. I don't think there's any need for new terminology. Unpopular opinion: You're either asexual or you're not. Grey-ace and grey-sexual are the same thing in my eyes.