• Announcements

    • Kisa the Cat

      World Watch Archiving Project

      Hello everyone, Please read this thread before posting to World Watch Thank you.
    • S.Kellyton

      New Team members Needed--Moderator, Declass, and Project Team: Voting   04/27/17

      Voting has started. See:   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/162280-new-project-team-member-needed-director-of-social-media-voting/     http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/162282-new-moderator-member-needed-tea-and-sympathy-and-welcome-lounge-voting/   http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/162281-new-declass-team-member-needed-voting/  
    • Kisa the Cat

      Avenues PRIDE Special - Summer 2017   05/09/17

      Hello AVENites! The newest edition of AVENues is now ready! July/August/September
float on

please let us establish a strong definition for greysexuality.

Recommended Posts

roland.o   
roland.o
15 hours ago, Sally said:

someone who is old enough to have grey hair.

I got my first gray hair ripped out at the age of thirteen. It must have been pre-destined... :cake:

 

On 10/11/2017 at 5:39 PM, float on said:

if there's some way to capture X without stating it

Alright, I'll give it a try...

 

"Graysexual" describes a person who does experience sexual attraction or desire, but within limits that make it difficult, if not impossible, to connect with potential partners on a sexual level. It is an umbrella term, due to the vastly differing nature these limits might assume. Examples include... yadda yadda.

 

The first part is obviously the distinction from asexuality, yet without referring to that term.

Then "limits" hints at a low level, infrequency, rare circumstances or the like. Yet without implying "broken", I hope.

The last part refers to the nature of the problems it causes, without requiring an understanding of "regular" or "normal" sexuality.

 

You might have noticed that I'm not trying to define the noun "graysexuality", but rather a label "graysexual". I find it easier to think of it from that angle. But it also has to do with this:

On 10/11/2017 at 0:18 AM, Graveful said:

I don't personally believe greysexuality is a sexuality in its own right.

and a similar, now deleted statement by "New display name". After some pondering, I partially agree with these views. Graysexuality isn't a well-defined sexual orientation like heterosexuality or asexuality. To some degree, it describes a sexual disorientation. And as such, the term is important and the corresponding label valid. It merits a definition. And it can be a suitable answer to the question "What's your sexual orientation?" :-)

 

On 10/10/2017 at 8:56 PM, Star Bit said:

it's just an additive.

I agree with that, too. But I didn't want to squeeze too much into my first attempt. And I'm certainly not going for a distinction between gray-sexual and gray-asexual here. I'm trying to grasp the "gray area" itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FictoVore.   
FictoVore.
4 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

Why the stereotype that all not-fully-asexual people are open to having sex?

But there seems to be such a stereotype indeed and that's why I identify as asexual and not anything in between (except perhaps "functionally asexual"): to emphasize that I'm not willing to have sex under any circumstances. I just won't.

There's a difference between 'being able to have a regular sexual relationship with someone where both partners desire sex under some circumstances' and not actively wanting one. Being capable being able to desire sexual intimacy with others doesn't mean there has to be anyone you actively want to sex with right now. Most sexual people, however, are capable of having a sexual relationship (in which both partners desire the sex) with many other sexual people, they just have to meet the 'right person' based on whatever their unique sexual preferences are, before actively engaging in that.

 

Then you get someone like me, who, while I'm sexual, I still don't care if I never physically have sex again. There is one person alive who I actively desire sexual intimacy with, but if for whatever reason that desire stopped existing (I don't think it would) then I'd still be a sexual person, just one who didn't actively want sex with anyone right now until I met someone I could want it with again (which for me requires romantic attraction.)

 

So it's not that 'all sexual people are open to having sex' it's that they're still capable of desiring it under certain circumstances with certain people regardless of whether or not they're open to having it right now.

 

I am actually 'grey-ish' in that I'm not really capable of desiring or enjoying 'regular' sexual intimacy (I desire extreme types of fetish that most people can't even think about, let alone do) so wouldn't be able to have a sexual relationship with the vast majority of the population ..And it's vital for me that the other person not mind if we never actually have sex and has literally no expectation of having it with me, yet also desires it with me as much as I do with them.. which makes partner choice even rarer as most people do expect sexual intimacy once they've entered a relationship which is an instant turn-off for me. So, I'm really only capable of having relationships with 'grey' people or those who previously suspected they may be asexual due to their lack of seeing sex as a necessity in relationship or whatever. I'm still sexual though, much more sexual than the guy in my original example.. but there are very, very few people I could ever actually want to have it with. I thought I was asexual, and had lived as an asexual before knowing there was a word for it, until I was around 28. So it also took a very long time for me to work out what I want and who I want it with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FictoVore.   
FictoVore.
1 hour ago, roland.o said:

I got my first gray hair ripped out at the age of thirteen. It must have been pre-destined... :cake:

 

Alright, I'll give it a try...

 

"Graysexual" describes a person who does experience sexual attraction or desire, but within limits that make it difficult, if not impossible, to connect with potential partners on a sexual level. It is an umbrella term, due to the vastly differing nature these limits might assume. Examples include... yadda yadda.

 

The first part is obviously the distinction from asexuality, yet without referring to that term.

Then "limits" hints at a low level, infrequency, rare circumstances or the like. Yet without implying "broken", I hope.

The last part refers to the nature of the problems it causes, without requiring an understanding of "regular" or "normal" sexuality.

 

You might have noticed that I'm not trying to define the noun "graysexuality", but rather a label "graysexual". I find it easier to think of it from that angle. But it also has to do with this:

and a similar, now deleted statement by "New display name". After some pondering, I partially agree with these views. Graysexuality isn't a well-defined sexual orientation like heterosexuality or asexuality. To some degree, it describes a sexual disorientation. And as such, the term is important and the corresponding label valid. It merits a definition. And it can be a suitable answer to the question "What's your sexual orientation?" :-)

 

I agree with that, too. But I didn't want to squeeze too much into my first attempt. And I'm certainly not going for a distinction between gray-sexual and gray-asexual here. I'm trying to grasp the "gray area" itself.

I really like the definition you came up with, I'm too busy to sit down and ponder coming up with one like Float asked, so I'm glad you did instead!

 

Regarding the rest, I think it's only an orientation for some people like the guy in my example, who doesn't have desire or attraction based at any specific human, but at a specific type of fetish (feet). It's almost like 'feet' is his sexual orientation. HOWEVER, if a man strongly desired sex with women specifically, but found he couldn't actually want or enjoy it when it came to HAVING sex so could never have a sexual relationship with anyone, he's technically 'hetero' - just in the grey area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl   
Nowhere Girl
On 11.10.2017 at 0:18 AM, Graveful said:

I don't personally believe greysexuality is a sexuality in its own right. I feel that you're either sexual or asexual. Some people are sexual but less sexual than the average person. They might be in a grey area if you're measuring with a scale.

And this is the kind of reasoning I'm against in my "antipsychological rebellion".

If we put it this way, than I'm against "sexual" and "asexual" as cathegories. And I have said several times: in a way, there's no such thing as "asexuality" (but there is also no "allosexuality", there are only unique experiences of people who identify as asexual or are considered by others to fit this definition. This way I'm also not asexual, I'm just the subject of my own unique experience/thoughtfeeling which includes actively wanting not to have sex.

I'm not against the idea of sexuality. I believe that we can speak of sexuality broadly, in a way which fully includes not practicing any kind of sexual behavior - this is such a person's kind of sexual expresssion. So, with this reservation, without in any way alienating fellow virgins: there are approximately 7 billion different sexualities. No person's experience, no person's thoughtfeeling is identical to that of any other person.

This is why I choose literature and philosophy over science.

Trying to squeeze this 7 billions into two labels only is reductionist to the extreme.

The problem is that I also recognize that labels are sometimes necessary. And that a lot of microlabels can make other people ridicule such attempts at self-definition. But the very least we can do is speak, but not define. In company of people whom one can trust and with whom one can speak about private matters - say what makes you the person you are, and not what labels fit you best. Don't police labels. And don't trust scientific explanations. They only show a relatively small part of the picture, much less than a personal testimony can show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Graveful   
Graveful
5 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

But the very least we can do is speak, but not define. In company of people whom one can trust and with whom one can speak about private matters - say what makes you the person you are, and not what labels fit you best.

I do agree with this bit. I think knowing who you are is far more important than finding a highly specific microlabel. While I don’t think it’s important for most people to know about the ins and outs of your sexuality, I do think a simple explanation would be better than a microlabel - or even a blanket term that doesn’t explain the intricacies of who you are as a person. 

 

I can only use myself as an example. If someone asked me what my orientation is, I’d probably just say straight. But if it’s my best friend trying to understand me, I wouldn’t use labels. I would say I’ve only ever liked men romantically but out of the few men I have had crushes on, I’ve only had sexual feelings for one. I’m not sure if I would have developed sexual attraction to the others had I entered a relationship with them or if I just hadn’t “found the right person.” I could easily live without sex but do enjoy it with someone I am sexually attracted to and wouldn’t want to give that up unless he wanted to. I used to have no libido at all but now it’s just relatively low.

 

I feel like that explains my sexuality a lot better than saying I’m heterosexual or demisexual or greysexual because it’s specific to me. I’m a unique person, as is everyone else in the world. However, simplifying it into a few words or less is easier when filling out a dating profile, for example. So I do recognize the need for some labels. I just disagree with microlabels as a whole and I would put greysexuality in that category.

 

Apologies if this makes no sense. I just woke up minutes ago 😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Puck   
Puck

To continue the train of thought above, I generally agree with the idea of not needing to get to specific with the labels. I think it's awesome and fantastic for people to understand what they want and feel, but the labels are what's needed, just the verbiage to explain oneself.

 

A fun way I tend to think of sexuality is like those silly "most interesting man in the world" commercials:

 

If one is a lesbian, they might say "I don't always want to have sex, but when I do, it's with a lady"

 

If one is a straight female, they might say "I don't always want to have sex, but when I do, it's with a dude"

 

If one is bisexual, they might say "I don't always want to have sex, but when I do, it could be with a man or a woman"

 

It doesn't really work for asexuals, though, because if one is asexual, they would probably just say "I don't want to have sex" :P

 

My point is, sexualities have been established to describe what gender one wants to have sex with when they do want to have sex. Obviously, if someone who is sexual wants to have sex with someone, it's not just their gender that makes that desire happen. It's emotional bonds or actions or personality.... I think that's why gray-sexuality is hard to define in the way float on is looking for, personally. It doesn't stick with the pattern of sexuality definitions as has been established. This isn't to say anyone's experience is less than, not important, or not legitimate; simply that some of the micro-labels answer questions people aren't asking when they ask about one's sexuality. I've never met anyone who thought they could have sex with just ANYONE that fits their sexualities perimeters (so, I've never met a straight male who is willing to have sex with every female they've ever met). Society at large gets that it's nuanced, that not everyone is compatible. They use words to try to describe that compatibility, such as the word "chemistry." Watch any movie with romance in it and typically there is a reason the couple gets together that isn't just gender or looks based.

 

I guess my point is, I don't believe we need to use labels to describe every minute feeling we feel sex-wise. I think we should absolutely talk about those minute feelings, but we can utilize our words like we do with other experiences. Frankly, if society would have just allowed people to have sex with anyone they wanted, we wouldn't even need labels to describe what gender one wanted to have sex with. But society felt the need to make those who want to have sex with the same gender/multiple genders feel other, thus the labels came to be... And labels can be empowering as it people can bond with others under said label, but there may also be a danger in feeling the need to make everyone fit into different boxes without just allowing for unlabeled nuances and small differences to exist between us all.... 

 

But importantly, by all means, if it's helpful to you, keep using the grey-sexuality label if you choose to and explore different definitions if it's beneficial to you. No matter what anyones opinions on micro-labels, your experience is legitimate and talking about it is a wonderful thing to do :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snaocula   
Snaocula

Discussing greyness is useful for normalizing varying levels of sexuality, but it's not the same type of category as homo/hetero/bi/pan/ace, which is about the with whom of whatever level of sexuality one has (with ace being "not applicable"). It's a different conversation from the type of identity that is occasionally relevant outside the bedroom, like in the process of meeting partners or expressing basic affection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kiaroskuro   
kiaroskuro
13 hours ago, Nowhere Girl said:

I'm not against the idea of sexuality. I believe that we can speak of sexuality broadly, in a way which fully includes not practicing any kind of sexual behavior - this is such a person's kind of sexual expresssion. So, with this reservation, without in any way alienating fellow virgins: there are approximately 7 billion different sexualities. No person's experience, no person's thoughtfeeling is identical to that of any other person.

I couldn't have said it any better, that's always been my point: No two human beings experience sexuality - or the lack thereof - in the same way.

 

I have used so many labels for myself in the past, it's ridiculous. The fact is that human sexuality can change over the years, it's fluid, and the same is true for romantic orientations etc. What's more, one's approach to friendship or to any kind of relationship can change as well, which could be even more important than one's sexual orientation if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roland.o   
roland.o
On 10/13/2017 at 0:36 PM, Graveful said:

if it’s my best friend trying to understand me, I wouldn’t use labels.

Yes, labels are of limited use when explaining personal feelings. The labels are understood only by the few that already know about them, and even then you'd have to check whether the other's interpretation of the label is the same as yours.

 

But labels are useful for connecting with people that have similar feelings, and as search terms or references to find more information. When somebody comes here and introduces themselves with a post that shares some of their feelings, along with their uncertainty, it can be helpful to tell them: "Hey, read up on label XYZ, maybe it resonates with you." Because if what they read resonantes with them, they will feel less alone, and might be able to find FAQs or other kinds of advice, without explaining their feelings in a public forums as if it were to their best friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jackanope   
jackanope
On 10/12/2017 at 11:48 AM, Deus Ex Infinity said:

While I could certainly come out as demigray-A and might even do so eventually some day, I ike to keep things as easy and simple as possible. It's hard and complex enough as @jackanope just said before. I also don't think that you can set up a solid definition of the term and must not do so because it's supposed to be experienced quite differently to each one of us. It's ok to have some sort of basic definitions to work and understand but it should still be kept open and flexible at the same time to not exclude any people who might eventually find or discover themselfs somewhere on this spectrum.

VERY well said!! :cake:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now