Should Gray-A be replaced?

[Star Bit]

I obviously don't mean to replace a long standing and highly useful term, but I keep seeing newbies interpret it as "asexual but gray" rather than "close to being asexual" and have to have a long conversation with them that it's not. And honestly, if i heard it without knowing what i do I'd assume the same. Why else would the orientation be in the title if they aren't actually it?

Should it be Quasisexual? But then replacing Gray-aro would make it Quasiromantic, which I've already stated on another thread that it's useful for another meaning.

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: rather, Gray-A needs to be slightly redefined so it actually reflects that the person never wants sex and is effectively asexual; Gray-sexual being someone who can actually want sex

[Grumpy Alien]

So... Yet another label?

[Star Bit]

More like yet another problem. That's what my label threads are always about, and I'm just trying to see if it's possible to fix.

[Guest]

I'm not "quasisexual" I'm grey-asexual. I have no desire to have sex with anyone and don't enjoy it when/if I do have it, but I have fetishes (ie vore) and am into sexual-ish things for non-sexual reasons (ie femdom and adult breastfeeding) and I do find a certain select few people attractive in a way that causes me arousal (with no desire to actually have them do anything to my genitals no matter how aroused I am) ..I'm not sort of sexual but I am asexual in the way that counts (no interest in having sex, no desire to have sex) ..There are just some sexualish things that go with that.

[WinterWanderer]

I think the problem could be solved by tweaking the word "gray-asexual" to "gray-sexual." That way it's not implied that a gray person is asexual.

(And by extension, it might also be better to refer to it as the "sexual spectrum," not the "asexual spectrum," as I often see it called here. Because asexuality is a complete lack of sexuality, not a spectrum. However, sexuality IS a spectrum. ... I've seen other people argue this point, too, and thought I'd bring it up here since it's relevant.)

But I think we're being a little nitpicky here. :p As long as there is a clear definition for the terms that are used, we shouldn't have to change the terms themselves.

[Star Bit]

I'm not "quasisexual" I'm grey-asexual. I have no desire to have sex with anyone and don't enjoy it when/if I do have it, but I have fetishes (ie vore) and am into sexual-ish things for non-sexual reasons (ie femdom and adult breastfeeding) and I do find a certain select few people attractive in a way that causes me arousal (with no desire to actually have them do anything to my genitals no matter how aroused I am) ..I'm not sort of sexual but I am asexual in the way that counts (no interest in having sex, no desire to have sex) ..There are just some sexualish things that go with that.

Which i agree, but with how it's currently defined Demisexuals who rarely reach a bond enough to desire sex (as well as other clearly sexual people who are closer to being ace rather than sexual) would be under that, so i guess the redefining we discussed before needs to happen even more, rather than getting a replacement term.

But I think we're being a little nitpicky here. :P As long as there is a clear definition for the terms that are used, we shouldn't have to change the terms themselves.

But there isn't; many people define Gray differently.

[Jon0]

My understanding is Gray-Asexual / Gray-Sexual are just ways to say how far along on the gray area you fall, gray-ace being near / at asxuallity vs gray-sexual being more along the sexual lines in that you desire under conditions...

For people that misunderstand that gray refers to the whole rest of the spectrum that isnt just black and white they simply need to be informed of such and that it's not just referring to someone's color.

[Star Bit]

Yah, and i try to inform the newbies when they're misinformed on this, but as said, alot of the time it ends up with them staying to their misconception and it ending in a long conversation, which is just tiring, especially when they quote misinformed people. @-@ so i was just trying to see if this problem could be more easily fixed.

[Philip027]

I think the problem could be solved by tweaking the word "gray-asexual" to "gray-sexual." That way it's not implied that a gray person is asexual.

Thing is, that's the entire point of the term in my eyes -- it signifies someone who generally "passes" as asexual most of the time, but has certain situations/conditions where they may not, whereas greysexual implies the opposite.

It's supposed to be vague; that's what an umbrella term does.

[WinterWanderer]

I obviously don't mean to replace a long standing and highly useful term, but I keep seeing newbies interpret it as "asexual but gray" rather than "close to being asexual" and have to have a long conversation with them that it's not. And honestly, if i heard it without knowing what i do I'd assume the same. Why else would the orientation be in the title if they aren't actually it?

Should it be Quasisexual? But then replacing Gray-aro would make it Quasiromantic, which I've already stated on another thread that it's useful to one sided QPRs that have the other half feeling romantically but don't do anything that would invalidate the use of QPR (i.e. nothing actually sexual or romantic-- other than maybe the romantic partner giving romantic gazes and whatnot).

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: rather, Gray-A needs to be slightly redefined so it actually reflects that the person never wants sex and is virtually asexual; Gray-sexual being someone who can actually want sex

I think this is being a little too technical. The words gray-sexual and gray-asexual are basically interchangeable.

I've met gray-A's on this site who said they have wanted sex before, but only in rare, specific circumstances. Would we make them change their label to gray-sexual instead? That'd just be weird.

[WinterWanderer]

I think the problem could be solved by tweaking the word "gray-asexual" to "gray-sexual." That way it's not implied that a gray person is asexual.

Thing is, that's the entire point of the term in my eyes -- it signifies someone who generally "passes" as asexual most of the time, but has certain situations/conditions where they may not, whereas greysexual implies the opposite.

I see your point.

The more I think about it, the less I care whether someone chooses to use "gray-A" or "gray-sexual." It's gray either way. And you're right, it's not really fair to make someone call themselves "gray-sexual" if they feel closer to being ace than sexual.

My understanding is Gray-Asexual / Gray-Sexual are just ways to say how far along on the gray area you fall, gray-ace being near / at asxuallity vs gray-sexual being more along the sexual lines in that you desire under conditions...

Good point. I can agree with that. :)

[Star Bit]

EDIT: rather, Gray-A needs to be slightly redefined so it actually reflects that the person never wants sex and is virtually asexual; Gray-sexual being someone who can actually want sex

I think this is being a little too technical. The words gray-sexual and gray-asexual are basically interchangeable.

I've met gray-A's on this site who said they have wanted sex before, but only in rare, specific circumstances. Would we make them change their label to gray-sexual instead? That'd just be weird.

But they shouldn't be interchangeable. As others have said, they denote two different things, but because it's more commonly defined as "whichever side you feel you fall more toward" it causes things in the Gray area to get tangled; it makes the intended meaning unclear, which kinda kills the purpose of a term. If i have to explain what it is every time without someone getting a general idea then there's no point in going by something, but with the way it's suggested to be redefined the meaning is clear and actually applies to the terms (i.e. Gray-A meaning they actually don't want sex at all). On my other thread about slightly redefining the terms (which Panficto originally suggested) i suggest using the preexisting term Aceflexible if someone rarely desires sex.

[Ashmedai]

I think the problem could be solved by tweaking the word "gray-asexual" to "gray-sexual." That way it's not implied that a gray person is asexual.

I think we're being a little nitpicky here. :P As long as there is a clear definition for the terms that are used, we shouldn't have to change the terms themselves.

That already exists, and as far as I know, one points out to which side the individual leans more towards.

As for the general idea of the original post, this just seems rather nit picky over making a new label depending on if a grey wants sex or not. Which seems a bit absurd

[WinterWanderer]

I think the problem could be solved by tweaking the word "gray-asexual" to "gray-sexual." That way it's not implied that a gray person is asexual.

I think we're being a little nitpicky here. :P As long as there is a clear definition for the terms that are used, we shouldn't have to change the terms themselves.

That already exists, and as far as I know, one points out to which side the individual leans more towards.

I wasn't aware that that was a thing before this thread, so sorry, that was my bad for being uninformed. :P Now that I know, I agree with it. :)

[AW10]

I actually think that there is no gray-anything. I consider term gray-(a)sexual to be created so that there is a label for people who try to fit to textbook example of asexual, demi-sexual and sexual, but could not fit. So, I think that solution is to ditch the term "gray" and define crucial elements required for someone defining as asexual, demi-sexual and sexual. Well, I believe that everyone fits somewhere more than 50%, but no one 100% percent fits somewhere, so if crucial elements are defined, everyone will find somewhere to fit more than 50%. I think that do you experience sexual attraction and when you experience sexual attraction if you do experience it is crucial element, but only if one actually understands what sexual attraction is. I have even created a thread to help with that. On the other hand, another crucial element is are you demi-sexual or sexual with responsive and/or "inhibited by stress" desire for sex. Both things are explained in Come as you are book.

[nanogretchen4]

I am demisexual. I definitely don't consider myself asexual at all. I think I'm fully sexual if I can manage to get into a relationship with someone I'm attracted to. That's a big if, since I never have sexual feelings for anyone I haven't been friends with for at least a year and usually several years. I consider that an issue with dating, not an issue with sex in a relationship. I don't really identify with the graysexual label, but if it's important to someone else to believe that I am graysexual I guess I can accept that given that I don't care.

Responsive desire is a separate issue from demisexuality. It takes me forever to desire sex for the first time with a new person, but once the demi switch is flipped I can certainly feel spontaneous desire for that person. I can also have responsive desire for the same person if they happen to initiate sex when I wasn't initially in the mood. None of that has anything to do with an orientation, it's all just common sexual response patterns. The problem is that very young inexperienced people are getting hastily labeled as asexual because they don't experience spontaneous desire for people they've never even been on a date with.

[Guest]

EDIT: rather, Gray-A needs to be slightly redefined so it actually reflects that the person never wants sex and is virtually asexual;

And then that would be different from just plain and simple asexual, period, in what way?

Gray-sexual being someone who can actually want sex

I think both gray-ace and "gray-sexual" mean the exact same thing - being "between sexual and asexual", with aspects of both, but not neatly fitting either.

The asexual community just got to naming it first, so gray-ace/grace it is.

[banana monkey]

I think the problem could be solved by tweaking the word "gray-asexual" to "gray-sexual." That way it's not implied that a gray person is asexual.

Thing is, that's the entire point of the term in my eyes -- it signifies someone who generally "passes" as asexual most of the time, but has certain situations/conditions where they may not,

In my opinion, Such a person still experiences sexual attraction (even if it is rare or in specific circumstances so are sexual or if you wish Greysexual. They are not asexual/greyasexual because they do experience sexual attraction. just my opinion, people are free to disagree and identify with label that they feel is best for them.

I obviously don't mean to replace a long standing and highly useful term, but I keep seeing newbies interpret it as "asexual but gray" rather than "close to being asexual" and have to have a long conversation with them that it's not. And honestly, if i heard it without knowing what i do I'd assume the same. Why else would the orientation be in the title if they aren't actually it?

Should it be Quasisexual? But then replacing Gray-aro would make it Quasiromantic, which I've already stated on another thread that it's useful to one sided QPRs that have the other half feeling romantically but don't do anything that would invalidate the use of QPR (i.e. nothing actually sexual or romantic-- other than maybe the romantic partner giving romantic gazes and whatnot).

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: rather, Gray-A needs to be slightly redefined so it actually reflects that the person never wants sex and is virtually asexual; Gray-sexual being someone who can actually want sex

I think this is being a little too technical. The words gray-sexual and gray-asexual are basically interchangeable.

I've met gray-A's on this site who said they have wanted sex before, but only in rare, specific circumstances. Would we make them change their label to gray-sexual instead? That'd just be weird.

See above - same arguement. Experiencing sexual attraction is experiencing it, period, regardless of the circumstances. To be honest, when i first came across gray -ace, I just thought the person meant greysexual and were using the words interchangeably to mean greysexual (as defined above) I didnt think they meant different things and I cant really relate to why they need to be defined seperately in the sexual spectrum manner only possibly the romantic one. I dont experience sexual attraction, but have possibly have experienced romantic under very very specific circumstances and conditions. So even though I am very close to aromantic and most of the time may have identified as such I now identify as greyromantic to deal with the fact as i am possibly romantic (I'm quoiromantic so cant tell) I no longer feel i should identify as aromantic due to the fact I may have exprerienced romantic attraction once even though I am aromantic most of the time.

There isnt something such as grey - aromantic that is different to greyromantic is there? They are one and the same. (greyromantic being more commonly used). As far as I'm aware there isnt. I dont understand why it isnt the same for sexual spectrum.

edit - would like to add that I dont mean to make anyone feel unwelcome in the community, everyone is welcome, however you identify and hopefully it will help you. We have asexuals, greysexuals and sexuals (including allies of asexuals) here. Enjoy being part of the AVEN community.

[Star Bit]

EDIT: rather, Gray-A needs to be slightly redefined so it actually reflects that the person never wants sex and is virtually asexual;

And then that would be different from just plain and simple asexual, period, in what way?

Gray-sexual being someone who can actually want sex

I think both gray-ace and "gray-sexual" mean the exact same thing - being "between sexual and asexual", with aspects of both, but not neatly fitting either.

The asexual community just got to naming it first, so gray-ace/grace it is.

Like Panficto basically says, it's because they desire sexual things but not sex itself IRL; e.g. Lithsexuals, people who want to inact a sexual fetish with a partner and then fap, into sexual roleplaying online, who want simultaneous masturbation, sexual attraction with no sexual desire, etc. Where as Gray-sexuals can eventually want sex IRL. But the two terms, even in its current definition aren't interchangeable; one means closer to asexual and the other means closer to sexual, but them being divided like that causes terms to be all over the place in it and makes it unclear on what the person is using the term for.

[Delphic Oracle]

I prefer the term grey-asexual as an umbrella term because it implies solidarity with the asexual community and acknowledges the common ground that we share with "strictly" asexuals.

I'm not sure I see much benefit to differentiating gray-sexual and gray-asexual in the sense that in either case, especially to those unfamiliar with the topic, you're still going to need to delve a lot deeper into your specific mindset and behaviors before any detailed understanding starts to emerge. You can tell someone, regardless of how much they know about asexuality, that you are one or the other and they will probably still have to ask the same follow-up questions in either case. They still both cover such a broad of a range of possibilities that very little is actually communicated by invoking them.

In a practical sense, I have found them to be a sort of "gateway term" that can help test whether the other person is willing to maturely delve into the topic.

[Robin L]

Lithsexuals, people who want to inact a sexual fetish with a partner and then fap, into sexual roleplaying online, who want simultaneous masturbation, sexual attraction with no sexual desire, etc.

I thought the definition of lithsexual is people who experience sexual attraction, but with no desire to have the feelings reciprocated or the desire to act on it. Asexuals can be into fetishes and erotic RP as well.

[AW10]

I actually think that there is no gray-anything. I consider term gray-(a)sexual to be created so that there is a label for people who try to fit to textbook example of asexual, demi-sexual and sexual, but could not fit. So, I think that solution is to ditch the term "gray" and define crucial elements required for someone defining as asexual, demi-sexual and sexual. Well, I believe that everyone fits somewhere more than 50%, but no one 100% percent fits somewhere, so if crucial elements are defined, everyone will find somewhere to fit more than 50%. I think that do you experience sexual attraction and when you experience sexual attraction if you do experience it is crucial element, but only if one actually understands what sexual attraction is. I have even created a thread to help with that. On the other hand, another crucial element is are you demi-sexual or sexual with responsive and/or "inhibited by stress" desire for sex. Both things are explained in Come as you are book.

After reading CJohn's post in this thread, I have changed my mind a little bit. I would say that the solution is still to define crucial elements, but to also define what labels "asexual | grey-asexual | demi-sexual | grey-sexual | sexual" represent. People tell that something defined by sexual attraction cannot be called sexual orientation, but I do not think that labels actually represent your sexual orientation, that is what should be tweaked. Those labels represent the sexuality itself, not "sexual preference, orientation, gender and so on". So, based on when you experience sexual attraction, you can either be fitting to extreme "asexual" or "sexual". If you are in the middle of those two extremes, you are "demi-sexual". If you are leaning towards "asexual" extreme, you are "grey-asexual". If you are leaning towards "sexual" extreme, you are "grey-sexual".

[nanogretchen4]

Demisexuality is never having sexual desire for anyone without a strong emotional bond. The label is probably most useful in extreme cases where finding someone sexually desirable is a rare event that takes much longer than for most people. This has nothing to do with being some theoretical midpoint on a scale from asexuality to sexuality. The length of time or degree of bonding required to trigger sexual desire is one factor of sexuality that belongs on its own separate axis.

[AW10]

This has nothing to do with being some theoretical midpoint on a scale from asexuality to sexuality.

I do not agree with it. I am demi-sexual and because of it it is like I am neither asexual nor sexual, but I have two identities. When emotional connection is not met, I am asexual person. When emotional connection is met, there is a chance of being sexual person. If sexual attraction happens, I just switch to another identity and become sexual person. In other words, it is like having two souls in one body where it stands that only one soul can be active at the same time. So, I am asexual until I am sexual and I am sexual until I am asexual, making me being neither both of the two nor one of the two.

[Star Bit]

@Delphic

*sigh* Like i said, that's exactly the point in slightly redefining the two terms; because they can currently mean anything (and there's occasional confusion that Gray-As are ace because it states so in the title), and yes they'd still have to elaborate on why they're gray, but with this redefining it'll be far more clear as to why the person is gray. It would go from "almost anything" to "i never desire sex but do desire sexual things" or "i can desire sex IRL". And why the heck is acknowledging asexuality in this circumstance important?? Reasoning like that should have a legitimate reason, not just kuz you want the ace community to get more viability. If anything, it'll do the opposite and make aces and people who are actually closer to ace look bad when someone misidentifies (e.g. a demisexual who is frequently sexual going by Gray-A).

@Robin

I never defined Lithsexual, but your definition is actually off. 1)Liths may or may not feel sexual attraction; they may just desire to have sex in general. 2)Liths can very much want reciprocation, they just don't react well when it happens. And 3) some can keep their interest if the partner indifferently unreciprocates. And yes, asexuals can have fetishes, but when they specifically desire to interact with another person with it so they can masturbate that's really Gray and not ace. The same goes for erotic online roleplay; they essentially desire to have verbal sex and aren't just into writing erotica; they need a second person to do it with; they get sexual and/or emotional pleasure from it (which are the same reasons sexual people have sex, except in this case it's like "secondary sex").

[Ms.Frankenstein]

I'm not "quasisexual" I'm grey-asexual. I have no desire to have sex with anyone and don't enjoy it when/if I do have it, but I have fetishes (ie vore) and am into sexual-ish things for non-sexual reasons (ie femdom and adult breastfeeding) and I do find a certain select few people attractive in a way that causes me arousal (with no desire to actually have them do anything to my genitals no matter how aroused I am) ..I'm not sort of sexual but I am asexual in the way that counts (no interest in having sex, no desire to have sex) ..There are just some sexualish things that go with that.

This is where I pretty much am, but I just say "asexual" and only get into the specifics if it's relevant (I don't identify with the overly specific labels, personally. When it comes to anyone else's identity, I'm of the opinion that "whatever floats your boat" but I prefer simplicity.) I think of myself as just to the gray side of totally asexual. (On a proverbial scale from 0-100 I'm a 1.)

I think the problem could be solved by tweaking the word "gray-asexual" to "gray-sexual." That way it's not implied that a gray person is asexual.

Thing is, that's the entire point of the term in my eyes -- it signifies someone who generally "passes" as asexual most of the time, but has certain situations/conditions where they may not, whereas greysexual implies the opposite.

It's supposed to be vague; that's what an umbrella term does.

I pretty much agree with this. I don't know if it's how the terms are generally used, but it's what I would think of when I hear them. It follows a logical progression in my mind.

[banana monkey]

EDIT: rather, Gray-A needs to be slightly redefined so it actually reflects that the person never wants sex and is virtually asexual;

And then that would be different from just plain and simple asexual, period, in what way?

Gray-sexual being someone who can actually want sex

I think both gray-ace and "gray-sexual" mean the exact same thing - being "between sexual and asexual", with aspects of both, but not neatly fitting either.

The asexual community just got to naming it first, so gray-ace/grace it is.

Like Panficto basically says, it's because they desire sexual things but not sex itself IRL; e.g. Lithsexuals, people who want to inact a sexual fetish with a partner and then fap, into sexual roleplaying online, who want simultaneous masturbation, sexual attraction with no sexual desire, etc. Where as Gray-sexuals can eventually want sex IRL. But the two terms, even in its current definition aren't interchangeable; one means closer to asexual and the other means closer to sexual, but them being divided like that causes terms to be all over the place in it and makes it unclear on what the person is using the term for.

but isnt said example still sexual, because they still desire to engage in sexual behaviour/activity with the partner. In said example they are still engaging in sexual activity with another (ie the widest definition of sex) aren't they? even though its not PiV.

I would like to add that having re-read panficto's post to me it appears she is talking about a situation where one likes fetishes and other sexual things but doesnt desire it with another person or to act it out in any way. In which case, in my opinion (not fact, identify as you wish) this is just an asexual with a fetish (but I wouldnt have defined it as grey-asexual before maybe because that's not what I originally understood the term as) I personally dont find the term grey-asexual necessary (why not just say asexual with fetishes for example) but I can now understand a bit better why other people may use it, and why the 2 terms mean different things, and hence wholehartely agree they may need re-defining to avoid future confusion.

[Star Bit]

But what they're doing isn't any type of sex, at least not exactly because it's not partnered genital stimulation but more like asisted masturbation, so it would more so be called secondary sex. And Lithsexuals do desire sex but don't react positively to its reciprocation so they'd essentially be a non-compromising ace in a relationship.

[banana monkey]

But what they're doing isn't any type of sex, at least not exactly because it's not partnered genital stimulation but more like asisted masturbation,

sorry for my ignorance and it might be TMI but I thought those were one and the same. Maybe I should google it? and anyway, I tend to be of the opinion that if someone else is helping/assisting you in any sexual activity, (such as masturbation) (in any, way it doesnt matter how) it is still partnered sexual activity as they are involved.I suppose that may be just me.

[Ms.Frankenstein]

But what they're doing isn't any type of sex, at least not exactly because it's not partnered genital stimulation but more like asisted masturbation,

sorry for my ignorance and it might be TMI but I thought those were one and the same. Maybe I should google it? and anyway, I tend to be of the opinion that if someone else is helping/assisting you in any sexual activity, (such as masturbation) (in any, way it doesnt matter how) it is still partnered sexual activity as they are involved.I suppose that may be just me.

It's not just you. I'm in complete agreement, maybe it's just us.