Member33070

"Sexuals" - What do YOU want to be called?

Is the term "sexual" okay with you, or not? ("Sexuals" only, please!)  

  1. 1. Are you okay with the current standard of using the word "sexual" to describe you?

    • Yes
      31
    • No
      5
  2. 2. Which of these sound acceptable to you? Check all that apply.

    • Sexual
      32
    • Non-asexual
      14
    • Non-ace
      10
    • Not asexual
      11
    • Verisexual (ie, "true sexual")
      1
    • Listing - something like "heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and pansexual folks"
      14
    • "A person who experiences sexual attraction"
      13
    • I have a better idea and I will tell you in a post in this thread!
      0
    • I don't have any ideas but I hate all of these.
      1
  3. 3. Now, which of those terms is your favorite, preferred term?

    • Sexual
      30
    • Non-asexual
      0
    • Non-ace
      0
    • Not asexual
      1
    • Verisexual (ie, "true sexual")
      0
    • Listing - something like "heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and pansexual folks"
      2
    • "A person who experiences sexual attraction"
      3
    • I have a better idea and I will tell you in a post in this thread!
      0
    • I don't have any ideas but I hate all of these.
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

45 posts in this topic

"Sexual" is fine by me.

It is a bit othering, but this is an asexual space, so that's expected. I'm certainly not going to be Privilege Denying Dude and insist that as being sexual is the norm in the wider world, it has to be treated as the norm in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asexual here, but thought I'd just cross-post this here, too, for easy perusal:

There was a poll on Tumblr a while back about this, with various terms. Here is a list of all the terms that were on the poll.

I liked mono/polysexual the best. =P

For reasons.

I don't think the results are out yet though. This is the last I've heard of it thus far.

EDIT: Oh, I found my reasons!!! I went back to the poll, and they were still there. ^_^

I chose

1. mono/polysexual

2. sattracted

3. zedsexual

I would prefer sattracted to zedsexual because zed implies opposites, and well. Anything that might imply that asexuals are the opposite of everyone else strikes me as strange, when there's a spectrum.

I prefer mono/polysexual the most because it's already in usage, and they make sense to me. It may have something to do with the fact that I used to identify as pansexual, still identify as panromantic, and I also identify as a relational anarchist (which means I am supportive of the idea of polyamory).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously? Is there any better term other than "sexual", what about grays and the sometimes sexuals, Semi and demi fits that. Is there any point in threads like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some opinions about this topic that I remember as particularly insightful are in this thread, if anyone's looking for background reading.

While the use of "sexual" might be odd outside of AVEN, I don't think the other terms listed are any better/more PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were to somehow magically agree on a new term for the majority of the population, would this be changed to 'for mono/poly sexual partners friends and allies? (Or whatever the hypothetical magically agreed upon term is)?

Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were to somehow magically agree on a new term for the majority of the population, would this be changed to 'for mono/poly sexual partners friends and allies? (Or whatever the hypothetical magically agreed upon term is)?

Just curious.

That reminded me of the board game! A Monoploysexual, hmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were to somehow magically agree on a new term for the majority of the population, would this be changed to 'for mono/poly sexual partners friends and allies? (Or whatever the hypothetical magically agreed upon term is)?

Just curious.

That reminded me of the board game! A Monoploysexual, hmm...

Oh God. I wasn't even thinking about that LMAO. Though, now thinking about it, I do find it curious that no one so far (to the best of my knowledge) has created a 'sex edition' of monopoly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were to somehow magically agree on a new term for the majority of the population, would this be changed to 'for mono/poly sexual partners friends and allies? (Or whatever the hypothetical magically agreed upon term is)?

Just curious.

That reminded me of the board game! A Monoploysexual, hmm...

Oh God. I wasn't even thinking about that LMAO. Though, now thinking about it, I do find it curious that no one so far (to the best of my knowledge) has created a 'sex edition' of monopoly.

Never forget Rule 43...

http://www.amazon.com/Sexopoly-Adult-Board-Couples-Friends/dp/B0035ETLJY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how "sexual" can be offensive. It seems accurate enough & makes sense in context, though I can see how it can easily get confusing or carry misconceptions. The mono/polysexual sounds like a good idea. I noticed on Demi Grce they use isosexual, which I don't see being offensive at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it appears that most people posting here are either asexuals, or people that see the site as being for asexuals thus they should have there terms.

for me, I think it should be changed for this reason, among other reasons: when I came on the site and saw there word sexual meaning non-asexual, I wanted to defend myself. this is because sexual tends to refer to acting or currently being involved in sex. if one person had this mindset, others probably do. and that isn't good for how it looks to people that don't know about asexuals. as this site is about visibility and education, we don't want to turn off the people that we are trying to educate.

I think that either the the other orientations should be listed, or the term non-asexual/ not asexual should be used. I don't mind the us and them as much, because this is an asexual site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm fine with sexual :P I'm ok with pretty much all of those terms :D but I said I prefered "A person who experiences sexual attraction" because I like having people type more than they need to ;3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were to somehow magically agree on a new term for the majority of the population, would this be changed to 'for mono/poly sexual partners friends and allies? (Or whatever the hypothetical magically agreed upon term is)?

Just curious.

That reminded me of the board game! A Monoploysexual, hmm...

Oh God. I wasn't even thinking about that LMAO. Though, now thinking about it, I do find it curious that no one so far (to the best of my knowledge) has created a 'sex edition' of monopoly.

Never forget Rule 43...

http://www.amazon.com/Sexopoly-Adult-Board-Couples-Friends/dp/B0035ETLJY

You can find anything on the internet if you look long enough?

Hmm, now I'm starting to wonder if no one so far makes any sense. I initially started typing, so far no one, but I thought it'd make more sense the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL MONOPOLYSEXUAL.

For the record, I say mono/polysexual with a different pronunciation, emphasis on different syllables, and pauses, like mono-poly-sexual, and not munahpoly-sexual

But MONOPOLYSEXUAL. ROFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fundamentally, for me it comes down to asexuals being entitled to use whatever damned language they please in an asexual space, and as non-asexual members of that space, we just have to deal. I'm good with that, I really am; it seems to balance the wider world, where sexuals set the linguistic agenda and asexuals just have to deal, just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what's wrong with using the term "sexual," especially in contrast to "asexual." Technically, "not asexual" is redundant, because it literally means "not not sexual."

monopolysexual sounds like a board game for sexuals.

It is, as a matter of fact. It's similar to other board games, but a bit more pornographic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I agree it carries the connotation for me that sexuals are people actively involved in sex, rather than people of an orientation other than asexual. And I think that contributes to people identifying as grey or demi as an orientation, when in fact they are heterosexual, bisexual, whatever, and not particularly immediate in their attraction. After all, are 'grey' or 'demi' really orientations? Aren't they just degrees of sexual attraction, which could be oriented to a different gender, or same gender, or both genders, or maybe even no gender (so like, attracted to trees or water or whatever)? I think if anybody wants asexuality taken seriously as an orientation, there needs to be a clear distinction that 'grey' and 'demi' are not orientations, but rather degrees of immediacy that exist within all orientations, with the exception of asexuality, because asexuality is an orientation towards nothing and nobody.

But I'm not too sure about the mono/poly sexual name, because it really does sound like a monopoly sexual, which sounds like someone who picks up at every bar and street corner and pays for it... not really the image I'm looking for to describe myself :lol:

Super like ^^^ !!!

I also agree with Olivier and have said many times that in an asexual space, asexuals get to be normalized and we should be the "other". I have zero problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Asexual here so haven't voted.) On AVEN and in other asexual spaces I use "sexuals", though I would of course stop if there were general consensus among the so-labelled people that this label offends them. Asexual space or not, I have no wish to be insulting to anyone, in-group or otherwise.

Outside asexual spaces, I normally use "non-asexuals". "Sexuals" is too confusing for the most part, and is unlikely to be accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this on a similar page, and don't want to type it all out again.

I want to say, as a non-asexual, that non-asexual is the most accurate term for me. for me the term asexual isn't saying not sexual. I don't split it into a-sexual, but rather asex-ual. this is due to the other orientations. if sexual refers to someone who isn't asexual, then what does bisexual mean? or heterosexual, or homosexual?

to expand what I'm saying to say that asexual is a-sexual then the four basic sexualities are a-sexual, bi-sexual, homo-sexual, and hetero-sexual if sexual means someone who experiences sexual attraction then they mean the following: not sexually attracted, two sexually attracted, same sexually attracted, and different sexually attracted. how does this make sense?

instead I slit it after the "sex". this leaves me with asex-ual, bisex-ual, homosex-ual, and heterosex-ual. if asexual means one who doesn't feel sexual attraction, then they would mean the following: one who isn't attracted sexually to anyone, one who is sexually attracted to 2 genders, one who is sexually attracted to the same gender, and one who is attracted to a different gender.

sex doesn't refer to the act here, but rather sexual attraction to relative gender.

also to those who say that non-asexual or not asexual is a double negative, you need to research double negatives a bit more. as a double negative occurs when two negatives cancel each other out. asexual is one who doesn't experience sexual attraction, non-asexual or not asexual thus means one who isn't in the group of people who don't experience sexual attraction.

to demonstrate this, I will use the term like. I like cake. I dislike broccoli. I don't like cleaning. I don't dislike crackers.

this may look like I said that I like cake and crackers, and dislike broccoli and cleaning, but this is just an artifact created by English. realistically, I am neutral toward crackers and cleaning. not liking something doesn't mean I dislike it. much like not being an asexual doesn't mean I'm the opposite of asexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also to those who say that non-asexual or not asexual is a double negative, you need to research double negatives a bit more

No, they have the right of it. "Non-asexual" is a double negative.

to demonstrate this, I will use the term like. I like cake. I dislike broccoli. I don't like cleaning. I don't dislike crackers.

this may look like I said that I like cake and crackers, and dislike broccoli and cleaning, but this is just an artifact created by English. realistically, I am neutral toward crackers and cleaning. not liking something doesn't mean I dislike it

You are right. You can like crackers, dislike crackers, or be neutral toward crackers.

But we aren't talking about liking crackers.

What we are talking about is this - you either DO, or you DO NOT experience sexual attraction.

If asexual is defined as "does not experience sexual attraction", then you are either asexual (meaning you don't), or you are sexual (meaning you do). You may be some degree or derivation of one or the other, but asexual/sexual is the big line that is drawn. There isn't a 3rd option.

"Not asexual" is a double negative, the same way that "not unheard of" is a double negative.

Fundamentally, for me it comes down to asexuals being entitled to use whatever damned language they please in an asexual space, and as non-asexual members of that space, we just have to deal.

I don't know that I agree with that. Being an asexual space doesn't give asexuals or anyone else the entitlement to use derogatory language, for example. People should still exhibit proper consideration for other people and what they want to be called. In any case, the OP is asking what sexuals wish to be known as, not what asexuals should call sexuals.

We all know that "asexual" isn't a commonplace term. Talk about asexuality to someone and they probably won't understand the term until you explain it to them. Once you have explained it, you will NOT have to then explain what "sexual" means within the "asexual" context. It obviously means someone who is not asexual. This is intuitively understood. Throwing another hyphenated-sexual term around would simply require more explantion.

The word "sexual" certainly has additional meanings in the English language - but within this context/website/forum, if asexuals choose to be known by the term "asexual", then the logical term for the "others" is "sexual".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also to those who say that non-asexual or not asexual is a double negative, you need to research double negatives a bit more

No, they have the right of it. "Non-asexual" is a double negative.

it's not a double negative. asexuality is an orientation. if it was heterosexual instead of asexual, is non-heterosexual a double negative?

to demonstrate this, I will use the term like. I like cake. I dislike broccoli. I don't like cleaning. I don't dislike crackers.

this may look like I said that I like cake and crackers, and dislike broccoli and cleaning, but this is just an artifact created by English. realistically, I am neutral toward crackers and cleaning. not liking something doesn't mean I dislike it

You are right. You can like crackers, dislike crackers, or be neutral toward crackers.

But we aren't talking about liking crackers.

What we are talking about is this - you either DO, or you DO NOT experience sexual attraction.

If asexual is defined as "does not experience sexual attraction", then you are either asexual (meaning you don't), or you are sexual (meaning you do). You may be some degree or derivation of one or the other, but asexual/sexual is the big line that is drawn. There isn't a 3rd option.

"Not asexual" is a double negative, the same way that "not unheard of" is a double negative.

there is something inherently wrong with this statement. first off, there are degrees of attraction. gray-asexuals, demi. ring a bell? also "not unheard of" doesn't mean "heard of." "not unheard of" means that it's rare, but not unknown. example, knowing foxes are closer to wolves then cats is not unheard of.

I don't think we need to come up with a new term when we have the tools to say what we mean. Also, on this site "sexual" has been used to mean things that are sexual in nature. I cannot see the word without thinking it's definition. so to say a person or group are not asexual(s) then say they aren't asexual(s)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sexual" is fine. I think we can get a little too hung up on linguistics. Perhaps it's an American thing. I have heard that Americans are much more sensitive to perceived insults, language and name offenses, etc. than folks in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Didn't vote here because, well, asexual.)

Regarding the use of the word "non-asexual": I'm not going to use that one not because of the double-negative, but because I find it othering. Depending on the context, it either feels like I belong to some elite club in which it's "us" and "them", or like I belong to "the asexuals" while the rest of the human population is just "normal". The former is no reason for me to not call people what they want to be called, but the latter certainly is.

("Verisexual" also makes me uncomfortable, by the way, but I guess I'd better take that to the "What do we call them?" thread before I derail further.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asexual here so I didn't vote. And I respect that this is supposed to be towards "sexuals" (I'll replace with new term should one be decided).

I use the word "sexual" in the context of non-asexual. When I say "sexual" I don't automatically think of a "sexual" as being a person who is having sex RIGHT NOW or every hour or whatever. I think of it as a term for people who feel sexual attraction. I realize that just because a person feels sexual attraction does not mean they are constantly having sex, and that "sexual" people can feel attraction and not act on it, or go months or even years without having sex should they so choose. When I use it I merely mean someone who feels sexual attraction, and when I see others use it that is what I assume it is meant as. If I've ever upset anyone by using it that wasn't my intention. Should a satisfactory substitute be reached I would be happy to change to using that.

However, I do feel that if there is a poll for what "sexuals" want to be called that there should be some sort of poll for what asexuals are comfortable calling "sexuals" as well. I realize it could feel a bit othering for people but at the same time some of the suggestions might make asexuals feel othered. I for one think the use of non-asexual makes me feel like a freak, or an us vs them thing. I also don't like the term verisexual but I think that has more to do with my own feelings of inadequacy that I am still trying to overcome. The idea of "true sexual" despite knowing that I am not a "true sexual" does remind me of past hurt over my asexuality before I knew I was asexual. Which I realize has nothing to do with you. I am just concerned that in an effort to make "sexuals" feel more welcome that it may make asexuals feel odd or less welcomed. I believe the whole intention of this poll is to make everyone feel welcome and I don't want that to happen. I agree that while AVEN is primarily a place for asexuals to feel welcomed and connect with others who feel similarly and can share experiences. I don't think its a place for just asexuals and I do see the need to make sure everyone feels welcome.

I think the idea of people being called "asexual, bisexual, heterosexual, homosexual" is an idea in theory but since many people who fit into those categories have taken YEARS to come out to friends and family I think its a bit hard to request that they put it somewhere obvious for everyone to see so we make sure we use the right term. And I would be worried about using the wrong term for fear of hurting someone.

***note I put the words "sexual" or "sexuals" into "" because its a currently contested term. I mean absolutely no harm by it. I would do the same for asexuals but the label is not under contest. I think people who feel sexual attraction are equal with people who don't feel sexual attraction, one is not better then the other. Have some cake :cake:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point in time this is a small issue, and one that most people don't see a problem with, However I think that as asexuality is more known, a need for this term may be needed more.

I would suggest the following:

NA - short for not asexual

SA - short for sexually attracted

besexual - "be" meaning "having" in this case

allies - This one shouldn't need explaining

I think SA and allies would be the easiest, as to describe them would be simple, and easy to understand. although allies only includes people who are (don't kill me for this horrid use of prefixes) proasexual and nonasexual. or to make it wordy, they have to have positive feelings toward the idea of people being asexual, as well as have to be people that find other people sexually attractive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I do feel that if there is a poll for what "sexuals" want to be called that there should be some sort of poll for what asexuals are comfortable calling "sexuals" as well. I realize it could feel a bit othering for people but at the same time some of the suggestions might make asexuals feel othered. I for one think the use of non-asexual makes me feel like a freak, or an us vs them thing.

And this is why I don't object to the term "sexual". Of all the AVEN terms, I think its actually one of the easiest to understand! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.