Jargon

[Synergy]

I'm finding all the jargon a bit macho.

It reminds me of the way guys name computers or shaving foam.

Ladies and gentlemen; the new asexual ZX5000

I've no idea what grey-a or demisexual means...they sound like testosterone-fuelled sports cars.

Do gays and straights have this many subdivisions of what they are?

Honestly, it comes across like the caste system.

Basically, I just don't like touching people or being touched by them so whichever category that puts me in.

I much prefer the internet to real people.

You can just switch the thing off which you can't do with people. I can manage maybe 5 minutes with a real person but that's more than enough.

They always seem to want something from me and I find that distressing.

[Pandoren]

Asexual- someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction

Grey-A- someone who only experiences sexual attraction rarely/experiences sexual attraction but has no sex drive/I suppose any combination between asexual and sexual that alienates them or separates them from being in either group.

Demisexual- someone who only experiences sexual attraction secondary to experiencing romantic or emotional attraction to someone.

The different labels may not matter to you, but they do to the people who use them. Greys and Demis often associate or are understood more by the asexual community than the sexual community.

"why speak plain English when you can sound mysterious and elitist?"

Well, saying things like "demisexual" is a shorter way of saying anything. For that matter, why bother with "heterosexual" or anything like that? People like labels. Labels wouldn't exist if people didn't use them.

As for elitist... The labels aren't elitist, just some of the people who use them. It only becomes elitist if some people say that one category is better than another- "People should be heterosexual, being asexual is wrong" "I'm asexual, I'm above those animal urges that sexual people have" "You're grey-a, that means you do experience sexual attraction, you must be a broken sexual person, you don't belong here". Those are people's attitudes, not something implied merely by a label. And they aren't mysterious either if people know what they mean.

[prettyeyes]

They're just subcategories for immediate identification. The biggest use for them seems to be on Aven though so that, say, if someone is sharing their experience they can add a note prefacing that explains where they're coming from succintly instead of saying something like, "I'm asexual most of the time, I only feel attraction when I'm totally in love with someone, and my libido is low and I like bacon."

[WünderBâhr]

I do enjoy some good bacon... :P

[------]

Why speak plain English when you can sound mysterious and elitist?

Way to insult doctors. I haven't a clue what they're saying but it doesn't make them elitist.

Everything has subcategories and if it was only asexual and sexual then those who don't fit into either would feel unaccepted in both places. Nobody is implying they're any less human - it's just a word that explains how some people feel in a way other people can understand. I can't understand what it's like to be demisexual but if you say 'I'm demisexual' I will understand what it means.

[WünderBâhr]

Agrees with Jic.

[Pandoren]

Funny thing is, I can just imagine if you went up to someone and said (during the course of a conversation of course lol) "I'm only sexually attracted to someone after I've fallen in love with them" I can see them turning around and going "ooh, so you are demisexual?" lol

[Crow]

I agree with Jicragg. I think it's about ease of communication. It's certainly not about sounding incomprehensible to "outsiders". :\

[~MomoTea~]

Do gays and straights have this many subdivisions of what they are?

Honestly, it comes across like the caste system.

Well, if you look at it this way...

+Sexual: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, Pansexual...et al.

+Gray-A; Demisexual.

+Asexual: Hetero-romantic, Homo-romantic, Bi-romantic, Pan-romantic...et al.

...they technically do.

None are meant to sound elitist, they're just there for ease in explaining like Jicragg said.

[Synergy]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I have to say that doctors are probably the most elitist people I've ever met and revel in secret and oblique jargon.

If I made a big list of elitist people, doctors would be at the top next to politicians.

What I'm trying to say is that there aren't eleven sub categories of being gay...people are just gay or bi or whatever and the finer details emerge in ordinary conversation.

I realise that it's early days and that asexuality only really exists publicly on this forum, but honestly when I see posts going into endless jargon about grey-A demi-sexual etc etc it just reminds me of all that crap at modern coffee shops.

Years ago you just bought a coffee.

Now everyone has to have a mocha-frappa-decaff-mondo-demichino with extra chocolate, soya milk but no foam and a cinnamon stick but not one of those cinnamon sticks with the chocolate edge - the other ones, but no tiny marshmallows 'cause they make you fat and don't make it too hot 'cause I might burn myself and a tiny foil-wrapped biscuit.

Take it from me..it just pisses people off.

Seriously.

[vogue]

Hey,

I felt this way a bit too when I heard all of the labels people threw around here... it overwhelmed at first & I felt it was unnecessary.

BUT then when I started reading up a bit more on asexuality... I realized that there was sort of a name for what I am, that's easy to identify myself... and it helped for me. Instead of always saying "I am somewhere between asexual & sexual, because I can technically experience sexual attraction but very rarely.." I'd just say "I'm grey-A" and most people on here (or many) would know what that means. To a newbie, it may be a bit unnecessary at first. Only use it if you want. At first, I didn't use it and only started using it in the past week or so, when I found out more about what a 'grey-A' is, to people..........I think I COMPLETELY fit the definition though, so why not use it? It's just a short-form for me.

[Dubravka]

Labels are just words that people use to describe themselves. If you don't like them, then don't use them. However, it's unfair to tell people who find labels helpful that they shouldn't use them simply because you personally think such things are unnecessary.

Oh, and by the way? My parents are both physicians, and I found your comments regarding people in the medical profession to be extremely ignorant and rude.

[prettyeyes]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I have to say that doctors are probably the most elitist people I've ever met and revel in secret and oblique jargon.

Maybe I'm super lucky but my current one only speaks regular old English. :)

[Sciatrix]

My first impulse here was to use sarcasm. Seriously, Synergy, if the terminology we're using here is not to your taste, could you maybe talk about that without implying that we're using that terminology just to sound all smart and stuff, or that we're using it to make other people feel inferior? Because I've seen real elitist asexuals, and trust me AVEN's detailed little categories don't even come close.

Complex terminology is generally in my experience not an attempt to make people outside the group using the terminology feel insecure and stupid, but rather to simplify discussion of concepts which people within the group spend a lot of time focusing on. For example, medical jargon includes terms like "pathogen." Admittedly, within the medical field doctors could spend their time talking about "things what make people sick," but I think we can all agree that "pathogen" is much easier to say and faster to type. It forms a shorthand for a concept which is necessary to discussion of medical terminology. Similarly, asexuals often experience emotional feelings towards others that are rather similar to nonasexuals' emotional feelings towards people they want to date/have sex with. Because asexual people experience this kind of affectional/sexual orientational split, we have the little shorthand to denote a mismatched affectional orientation--heteroromantic, for example. Because we discuss this stuff a LOT, it helps to have shorthand for it so we're not always describing in excruciating detail our personal experiental feelings.

If you don't feel that kind of discussion is useful, or that you want to consider a more in-depth label, that's entirely your choice. But please don't imply that those of us who find these terms useful are doing it specifically to confuse you. If you want definitions, ask and people will be glad to provide them.

[Nakauri]

I like big, aesthetic and obscure words.

Some folks have called such speech pompous or ostentatious, by which I've responded with a smile because damn, those are awesome words.

"You write like an elitist."

"My words are elite, thank you."

Just because they're large, confusing or not used much, doesn't mean it takes anything away from the word for me. If I don't know what it means, I find out. Now, if someone called a "cat" a "seal point siamese tabby", some folk might not know what that meant. I would, but that's me. Others could find out. It's not just a cat. It's a seal point siamese tabby! Maybe it's an abyssinian? Those are nice. Did you know abyssinians are tabbies too? They're ticked tabbies. Beautiful.

...Or pulchritudinous?

quick edit;

English has about, what, 5000 words? Only around 1000 of them are used in every day speech. Nothing wrong with that, but don't forget about the minority other words. There's more of them than you think! .... Oh man, I did something there. I did something there indeed.

[Bad Patient]

What I'm trying to say is that there aren't eleven sub categories of being gay...people are just gay or bi or whatever and the finer details emerge in ordinary conversation.

Okay, one last post before I go to bed.

Actually, there are many subcategories of being gay. They're different from terms like "demisexuality" in that they mostly refer to things like looks or preferences, but that still counts. Gay slang these days may not be as elaborate as a couple of decades ago (and then it even had secret non-verbal forms of communication, such as the handkerchief code), but it can still sound very strange to someone who isn't interested in gay culture.

I may be completely missing your point here, but I'm really tired and should be long asleep x_x

[chipmunkgirl]

Using jargon is to be simultaneously time-efficient and precise. And this is applicable to ANY group of people or profession.

We DO have a Wiki with all the definitions, which is helpful for newbies who may feel overwhelmed.

[Synergy]

Dubravka...no offence meant...I have been in the medical system for 30 years with schizophrenia, eating disorders etc and I'm speaking as I find. Obviously I haven't met every doctor in the world, but the impression I get from the many that I've met is that they are elitist and secretive. It would be dishonest of me to pretend otherwise.

When I worked as a nurse during the 90s, one of my tasks was to collect patient records from the office to take to patients who'd requested to see them.

In almost every case, the consultant would ask me to bring the records to him first. He would then remove various post-it notes from the inside cover of the notes. These would typically read 'Patient X made a complaint against Dr Z in 1989..' 'Patient X is a malingerer and troublemaker' 'Patient X is a fantasist'

After the patient had returned the patient notes, the post-it notes would be replaced.

We had a doctor on the ward who gave a large dose of frusemide to the wrong patient. All staff were assembled in the day room and we were told by the Nursing Services Manager that if we discussed this with husbands, wives or the press, we would be dismissed.

My opinion of doctors isn't based on prejudice or hearsay...it's based on real events that I have personally witnessed and taken part in.

[notAllThere]

Dubravka...no offence meant...I have been in the medical system for 30 years with schizophrenia, eating disorders etc and I'm speaking as I find. Obviously I haven't met every doctor in the world, but the impression I get from the many that I've met is that they are elitist and secretive. It would be dishonest of me to pretend otherwise.

When I worked as a nurse during the 90s, one of my tasks was to collect patient records from the office to take to patients who'd requested to see them.

In almost every case, the consultant would ask me to bring the records to him first. He would then remove various post-it notes from the inside cover of the notes. These would typically read 'Patient X made a complaint against Dr Z in 1989..' 'Patient X is a malingerer and troublemaker' 'Patient X is a fantasist'

After the patient had returned the patient notes, the post-it notes would be replaced.

We had a doctor on the ward who gave a large dose of frusemide to the wrong patient. All staff were assembled in the day room and we were told by the Nursing Services Manager that if we discussed this with husbands, wives or the press, we would be dismissed.

My opinion of doctors isn't based on prejudice or hearsay...it's based on real events that I have personally witnessed and taken part in.

I know what you mean about the labels thing. It can get in the way. If people have given themselves the label and they find it helpful then that is one thing and that is fair enough, but when people end up being stuck with their label, feeling like they can only be what their label says they are, then it ends up causing a problem. And then of course the worst thing is when people end up being labelled by other people, especially when they are labelled wrongly. I think people change depending on circumtances as well, within reason anyway, so I think there are limits to trying to label people even if the label is generally correct.

I suppose it is natural to label things to make sense of them and sometimes it can be helpful, but then maybe the trick is to always be aware of what is in the box rather than only seeing the box itself.

For instance, I've just joined and I didn't know whether to or not really, I don't even know if I even consider myself actually to be asexual. I just don't have relationships that's all. but I liked the look of this site and was sort of drawn here. (maybe its the colour scheme, very calming haha. I think that's actually it.)

Oh and I have to mention, your Facebook quote is hilarious, it made me laugh.

[NothingHere]

What I'm trying to say is that there aren't eleven sub categories of being gay...people are just gay or bi or whatever and the finer details emerge in ordinary conversation.

I think you're looking at in the wrong way. There may not be 11 sub-categories of homosexuality, but there are quite a few sub-categories or sexuality in general. A lot of the 'asexual jargon' is basically just the asexual equivalents to all of those.

[live wire]

Why speak plain English when you can sound mysterious and elitist?

Way to insult doctors. I haven't a clue what they're saying but it doesn't make them elitist.

I think that remark was made more with this guy in mind.

As I was saying to a friend of mine writing an English essay last Wednesday; there are 3 ways of writing your answer to the bullet point: The childish way (many small words), the adult way (few big words) and the Corporate BS way (many big words). I take your point to be that we're going/we've already gone from the middle to the end of that line by making up too many phrases to describe ourselves.

Thing is, though, each of these new labels on it's own has helped someone, somewhere figure out who they are. Having done that, some labels have already resigned themselves to the history books and others are sure to follow. Not using too many of them is key. Not that many people fit squarely into the boxes we have at the moment. Fewer are going to fit into a box inside a box, inside a box, inside a box ("Hello, I'm an agendered, panromantic, polyamourous, grey A, type B")...

[Tanwen]

Hmm, I have never bothered to figure out which 'category' I fit into. I've never really 'fitted in' till I found AVEN - then when I began to feel comfortable they started to come up with all sorts of sub categories and sub-sub categories.

For those who want to know exactly where they fit in the grand scheme of things, I suppose it's helpful.

[Gatto]

The other day, I was attempting to explain my aceness to my mom. It didn't go too well. In very straightforward terms, I explained that while I don't have a primary sex drive, my secondary sex drive is hetero, but my duodenary demiromance drive is pan-curious, with a twist of lime. She just looked at me with a dazed expression, but I soldiered on, and defined my terms. I got out the venn diagrams. I couldn't have been more clear. Then she stopped me and said, "Honey, I think you may be repressed." Never in my life had I felt so oppressed. She still didn't get it. I considered describing my masturbatory habits, to elucidate the matter. I thought it might have been helpful, but I didn't, because, come on, she's my mom. How awkward is that? Maybe she's right; I really am repressed.

Okay, I jest. But if I jest, I jest in seriousness. The lingo has some problems.

Using jargon is to be simultaneously time-efficient and precise. And this is applicable to ANY group of people or profession.

We DO have a Wiki with all the definitions, which is helpful for newbies who may feel overwhelmed.

Now this is true. And also, I agree with Sciatrix and Dubravka that the people who use it here probably don't use it as elitists, and it probably really is meant as a convenience between members, to avoid repeated redefinitions when a simpler term will do. And that's cool. As others have stated, doctors do it, too.

There is a difference, though, and a problem. AVENites do not only use this language among themselves. They use it with others, as well.

Not without explanation, of course.

I have seen this, in people's postings regarding their conversations. In "tea and sympathy", and so on. I have seen it in the media clips, too.

The shows and whatnot, with AVEN members, as guests. Statements like:

"Asexuality is an orientation, not a choice. Asexuality is not celibacy. Asexuality is an orientation. Celibacy is a choice."

"So you have sex, then?"

"No, but I am not celibate. And some asexuals have sex."

"Asexuals can have a sex drive, but they don't experience sexual attraction. Some asexuals who do have a sex drive don't have sex. Some asexuals who don't have a sex drive have sex, but don't experience sexual attraction, even though they may experience romantic attraction, though they also may not."

And so on. This sort of lingo may be second-nature to people who have frequented AVEN for long. And things that are second-nature, by definition, seem natural. The lingo may seem perfectly natural, here, but to most people, it does not. And a two-minute lecture isn't likely to change that. Throwing out all these new definitions and expecting people to adopt them.

Additionally, there's another matter. Note that I said "new definitions" and not "new words". Doctors may use a lot of jargon, but, for the most part, it isn't language that one could confuse with everyday speech. A lot of it is Latin. When doctors speak in these terms, you might not know what they mean, but you know that they are speaking in technical, professional terms. But the asexuality lingo is made up of words that everyone already knows, words with deeply-seated meanings. Words like sex, drive, attraction, desire, romance and so on. If you are talking to someone and you tell him, "All these words you think you know the meanings of, you don't, but now I'm here to tell you what they are." That comes off as a bit cocky. Going to rewrite the dictionary? On what authority? It seems silly. "Wait a minute, what you said, there, did you mean that in the vernacular sense, or the asexual one?"

It's silly because of that, but also because it just sounds so pedantic and, in a sort of ironic contradiction, at once overly reductive and overly complex. Reductive, because it seems to reduce something as ineffable as "identity" (or a big chunk of it) down to an essential formula, and complex because, well, because it can't be done simply, or it simply can't be done.

I mean, you play the same game with any other orientation. You could say someone is a masculine gendered bio-male, heterosexual, heteroromantic and demi-mammaphilic. But he'd more likely call himself a straight guy who likes tits, sometimes. Crude, but to the point.

And that's the thing. You don't see other orientations obsessed over terminology like this. Sometimes, I read some of the posts, and it reminds me of someone describing, in detail, his elf-druid in World of Warcraft, enumerating all of the character's traits and stats, telling me more than I care to know. And, I must say, when I hear such things, I'm tend to tune out. It's just too surreal.

If we're going to use this kind of language, please, please keep it here, if we keep it at all. That would be nice.

[TreacleSponge]

Some people like labels. For those who are confused and worried about who they are finding external justification via a naming convention can be a good thing.

Jargon is only jargon when an expert is talking to a non-expert. Two doctors speaking to each other aren't using jargon, they are being precise and efficient. True of two engineers, two musicians, whatever. It's only when your language is inappropriate for the audience that you have problems.

I am sure sexual experts (therapists, psychologists & the like) have many many words to help them describe subdivisions of heterosexuality, homosexualiy and whatever. It makes sense that experts in asexuality also have many words to help them describe subdivisions in that area.

[BLANK BLANK BLANK]

I agree with Sciatrix and Dubravka that the people who use it here probably don't use it as elitists, and it probably really is meant as a convenience between members, to avoid repeated redefinitions when a simpler term will do. And that's cool. As others have stated, doctors do it, too.

There is a difference, though, and a problem. AVENites do not only use this language among themselves. They use it with others, as well.

Not without explanation, of course.

I have seen this, in people's postings regarding their conversations. In "tea and sympathy", and so on. I have seen it in the media clips, too.

The shows and whatnot, with AVEN members, as guests. Statements like:

"Asexuality is an orientation, not a choice. Asexuality is not celibacy. Asexuality is an orientation. Celibacy is a choice."

"So you have sex, then?"

"No, but I am not celibate. And some asexuals have sex."

"Asexuals can have a sex drive, but they don't experience sexual attraction. Some asexuals who do have a sex drive don't have sex. Some asexuals who don't have a sex drive have sex, but don't experience sexual attraction, even though they may experience romantic attraction, though they also may not."

And so on. This sort of lingo may be second-nature to people who have frequented AVEN for long. And things that are second-nature, by definition, seem natural. The lingo may seem perfectly natural, here, but to most people, it does not. And a two-minute lecture isn't likely to change that. Throwing out all these new definitions and expecting people to adopt them.

Additionally, there's another matter. Note that I said "new definitions" and not "new words". Doctors may use a lot of jargon, but, for the most part, it isn't language that one could confuse with everyday speech. A lot of it is Latin. When doctors speak in these terms, you might not know what they mean, but you know that they are speaking in technical, professional terms. But the asexuality lingo is made up of words that everyone already knows, words with deeply-seated meanings. Words like sex, drive, attraction, desire, romance and so on. If you are talking to someone and you tell him, "All these words you think you know the meanings of, you don't, but now I'm here to tell you what they are." That comes off as a bit cocky. Going to rewrite the dictionary? On what authority? It seems silly. "Wait a minute, what you said, there, did you mean that in the vernacular sense, or the asexual one?"

It's silly because of that, but also because it just sounds so pedantic and, in a sort of ironic contradiction, at once overly reductive and overly complex. Reductive, because it seems to reduce something as ineffable as "identity" (or a big chunk of it) down to an essential formula, and complex because, well, because it can't be done simply, or it simply can't be done.

I mean, you play the same game with any other orientation. You could say someone is a masculine gendered bio-male, heterosexual, heteroromantic and demi-mammaphilic. But he'd more likely call himself a straight guy who likes tits, sometimes. Crude, but to the point.

And that's the thing. You don't see other orientations obsessed over terminology like this. Sometimes, I read some of the posts, and it reminds me of someone describing, in detail, his elf-druid in World of Warcraft, enumerating all of the character's traits and stats, telling me more than I care to know. And, I must say, when I hear such things, I'm tend to tune out. It's just too surreal.

If we're going to use this kind of language, please, please keep it here, if we keep it at all. That would be nice.

Sorry about the long quote, but you did write a lot. I've noticed this trait in your writing before. I know I might get into trouble for this, but, honestly, why are you on this site? According to one of your recent posts (and I'll be delighted to provide a link if you can't remember making it) you think the site is run by a group of facists and you feel that having a community for asexuals is stupid because it shouldn't matter to us that we are the only 1 percent of people on this planet who don't understand why sex is importent. Now you tell us that we can't express how we feel without confusing anyone who isn't asexual, or even a member of this site. Why are you on here? No one is forcing you to "Soldier on" on this site, or even forcing you to be someone with this particular sexual orientation. To me, you seem elitist. You tell us how we should feel about our sexual orientation, how we should describe it, and what websites we should be on. Probabley other things too but I'm too annoyed at you right now to look up your other posts. I'm not forcing you to go. I'm just curious about why you're on here when you clearly don't like the site or its members.

[Synergy]

I regret starting this thread.

I've been having a weird time lately with various things....finding out that I have Aspergers and having a lot of hassle with my Schizophrenia meds. They tried me on a new drug and I freaked out. It was like LSD..there were things crawling out of the TV and the voices were really bad.

I can see now that I made those comments from a very negative place in my head....I place that I try to avoid when I'm my better self.

Apologies.

[BLANK BLANK BLANK]

Firstly, Synergy, I for one wasn't too upset at what you posted. Most people weren't I don't think. I've certainly heard much worse stuff on other forums. So don't worry about it. I can't pretend that I can empathise with you about schizofrenia, because I don't have it, but I can sympathise with your situation at least. I hope things get better for you soon. Have some

Secondly, Gatto, I'm sorry about the comment I made in regard to asking why you were bothering to come on the site. You made some fair, and well-articulated points in your post. I was in a very dark place, if I can borrow Synergy's turn of phrase, up until I had a very good prayer meeting at church last night. I was blaming my self for the death of one of my relatives, which happened a couple of months ago, and I was becoming bulimic. Sorry to steal your thunder Synergy. Anyway, I'm over that now, but it was motivating me to be very grumpy yesterday, and for the last few weeks. As I said I'm feeling a lot better now.

[Sadfairy]

..I personaly find the differnt termonology some what helpfull. I mean, to know its not all black and white, witch I think nothing really is. it makes it easy to understand.

[WünderBâhr]

I regret starting this thread.

I've been having a weird time lately with various things....finding out that I have Aspergers and having a lot of hassle with my Schizophrenia meds. They tried me on a new drug and I freaked out. It was like LSD..there were things crawling out of the TV and the voices were really bad.

I can see now that I made those comments from a very negative place in my head....I place that I try to avoid when I'm my better self.

Apologies.

No need for apologies. We all have our bad turns when dealing with things, and sometimes it's good to get the ranty questions out. It is also helpful in the way that now, if someone has a similar question and come across your post, they will be able to read our responses. :) Sorry to hear about your going through rough times. Hopefully all is better or on its way to being so for you.

--BB

[X Phoenix X]

I actually thought it was kind of refreshing that someone else didn't like the ridiculous amount of terminology flying about. I think it's really cumbersome. I think it DEFINITELY turns other people off to the idea of asexuality. I know it has effected my view of this forum. I understand the whole how and why this terminology evolved here but it IS jargon. It is not really helpful in relating to other people. I especially don't understand the whole demi-sexual gray-A thing. So you are only attracted to people after knowing or being in love with them? A lot of "sexual" people feel that way. I think that these subdivisions are just a reaction against an over-sexualized dominant culture portrayed in the media. Aromantic, homoromantic, blah blah blah. I don't know, some of these things are so subtle and nuanced I really feel that slapping a label on it does the complexity of human experience an injustice. Do people mean to be elitist when they say, I'm a panromantic demi-sexual agendered person? No probably not, but people will undoubtedly perceive it negatively. It's just not a good way to communicate with people outside this forum and sometimes I think people here forget how to do that because they get so used to throwing around these terms. I hate the terms. I think they are dumb. There I said it.