SchrodingersCat Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I don't mean morally. I mean linguistically. The prefix "allo" means "different from the usual." I think we can all agree that most members of the human species experience sexual attraction. Ergo, if anything, it is asexuals who are the "allo" members. I get that if you're in a group of aces and you need a way to refer to the people not in the group, then "allo" is appropriate as the "others." But wouldn't it make more sense to come up with something that non-asexuals might actually adopt as a personal identity? i.e. something they'd feel comfortable owning in a way that normalizes the notion that not everyone owns that identity? Sorta like cisgender started gaining popularity when transgender became more understood and accepted... And that something as simple as using the label "cisgender" has the deeper implication that you accept that "transgender" is also a thing and that it's valid, as opposed to something dismissive like "real" or "genuine" man/woman which imply that trans* is not a real gender... Link to post Share on other sites
Spectre/Ex/Machina Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Or maybe "Adsexuals". I see where you are coming from and agree that we need to make language better. Also, I admire you use of view bating. Link to post Share on other sites
ghoul Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Sunt-sexual? Esse-sexual? Habe-sexual? Amo-sexual? I think something that would literally just mean "to be sexual", or something in that direction in either Greek or Latin would make sense. Or maybe something that would sexual person, like a suffix or preffix they have in Greek or Latin. Sexuali? Sexualites? Link to post Share on other sites
Robin L Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Some people use "non-asexual" or just "sexual". Link to post Share on other sites
poindexter Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Using that logic, asexual is also wrong. "A" means "not" or "non", so it's technically "not/non-sexual", which is wrong for a lot of aces who have a sex drive/engage in sexual activities. But it's accepted, so that's the word we use. I don't think most people really look into the etymology of words anyway, and I don't think we should if we want to know what words mean to us now. Language doesn't stay the same forever and it's pedantic to protect words from being "mis-used". Personally, I think "sexual" is fine, if only because people know what you're talking about straight away, and most people don't use "allo" outside of the internet.. I question why people feel like they need to use "allo" at all. I guess it could be like "hetero", which was invented to bring some semblance of equality to the matter of sexual orientations. But I still don't really see why that means we need "allo" to be a thing. Link to post Share on other sites
noparlpf Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 It doesn't mean "different from the usual". It's from the Greek "allos", "other; another; different". See also Latin "alius", "other; another; else" and Old English "elles" or English "else". The idea is that it would mean "other-sexual", i.e., sexually attracted to people other than oneself. This neatly includes heterosexuality, homosexuality, bi/pansexuality, &c. Where did you get the "from the usual" part? Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Girl Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Sexual works for me, it's what I always use on AVEN (the only place I talk about my orientation). I personally don't really like being referred to as an allosexual. Link to post Share on other sites
paperwishes Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I never use "allosexual", I didn't understand the point. I just say "sexual". Link to post Share on other sites
marki Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Yeah....allosexual is kind of offensive... It keeps the whole us vs them type mentality strong. Link to post Share on other sites
noparlpf Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Yeah....allosexual is kind of offensive... It keeps the whole us vs them type mentality strong. Yeah, the same way "blonde" and "brunette" keeps an "us vs. them" mentality going. Having a word to distinguish me from somebody with a quantifiably different trait really makes me feel antagonistic towards them. Link to post Share on other sites
marki Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 You serious ? The fact that we aren't the same as everyone else doesn't give us the right to make up random terms to try and make those people seem different. Just call them sexuals like everyone else. Link to post Share on other sites
noparlpf Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I don't understand the problem. A word doesn't make them different. We're already the ones who are different and that doesn't change when we invent new terminology to discuss things. Would we have to be the majority to invent terms? Like "broken" or "freak"? Link to post Share on other sites
I'd rather be in band. Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I just use sexual in real life, but here I at times use allosexual. Honestly, I don't really mind the terminology used as long as it is not derogatory. Link to post Share on other sites
poindexter Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I don't understand the problem. A word doesn't make them different. We're already the ones who are different and that doesn't change when we invent new terminology to discuss things. Would we have to be the majority to invent terms? Like "broken" or "freak"? Using specific words can sometimes be used to promote equality. For example, before heterosexuality was a thing, there were "normal people" and homosexuals - inventing the word "heterosexual" meant that it was easier for people to see sexuality as part of a spectrum, rather than as an hierarchy with heterosexuals on top. Things don't change but people's perception of those things do change, so in that respect, it's worth inventing new terms. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Sexual works for me, it's what I always use on AVEN (the only place I talk about my orientation). I personally don't really like being referred to as an allosexual. I asked my sexual partner if he preferred allo or just sexual and he chose sexual as well. Link to post Share on other sites
5_♦♣ Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I use sexual. Because 1) it's easy to understand and 2) I'm not a fan of any of the prefixes people have come up with over the years. Link to post Share on other sites
The Great WTF Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I've never liked allosexual and I tend to cringe when I see it. It's akward, requires explaining too often (as most of the variant prefixes do), and never fails to make me think of a dinosaur. Most of the non-asexual members of this community have said they prefer sexual anyway or generally don't care, so sexual is what I continue to use. Link to post Share on other sites
littlepersonparadox Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 "hetero", which was invented to bring some semblance of equality to the matter of sexual orientations. But I still don't really see why that means we need "allo" to be a thing. Figureing out good terms in context with historical use can be hard. So It really doesn't matter if you use allo this way or not. I mostly go with sexual though but i'll use allosexual interchangeably. As it's been pointed out Asexuality isn't the best fit for us in terms of description either if you go by perfex-definition. i'm pretty sure we can all agree that the term literally has dual meanings now depending on context of its use. And as for hetrosexual that actually came first before homosexual. The source is sexplanations and the speaker is a official sexologist someone who study's human sexuality. Link to post Share on other sites
Welsh Ace Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I don't like the term allosexual or sexual to be honest. I think both could be see as being guilty of erasure of other types of sexualities and the differences between them or painting all people who have sexual experiences are the same. While I do not believe that is the intent behind it, I believe that it could certainly be interupted as that way. I just don't think that such language sends off the right kind of signals about asexuality and the asexual community. Link to post Share on other sites
littlepersonparadox Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I don't like the term allosexual or sexual to be honest. I think both could be see as being guilty of erasure of other types of sexualities and the differences between them or painting all people who have sexual experiences are the same. While I do not believe that is the intent behind it, I believe that it could certainly be interupted as that way. I just don't think that such language sends off the right kind of signals about asexuality and the asexual community. Labels aren't a perfect description of the human condition and they aren't ment to. It's ment to point out that not everyone is the same. I suppose sexual and allosexual came about in the use here in the community to distinguish the fact further that we don't expeance or only experience very little sexual attraction. a way to discuss how what we experience is deviates but still normal from the standard point of view of society that everyone is sexual. Saying sexual or allosexual in this context really doesn't offend anyone in my opinon becasue where just referring to how there is more than just Bi,Pan,Hero,Homo etc sexualitys that do experience that feeling/level of feelings. I'd get ackword quickly trying to say "I'm asexual i'm not like people who are not not asexual and you need to respect that" Link to post Share on other sites
noparlpf Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Actually, both words in English ("homosexual" and "heterosexual") are attributed to C.G. Chaddock's translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis" in 1892. In German, "homosexual" originated earlier, in an 1869 pamphlet by Karl-Maria Kertbeny. Either way, the word "heterosexual" didn't emerge first. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Off aven, sexual is a better term. However, for the sake of a catch-all term for non-asexuals, I don't mind using allosexual (honestly until now i though it meant all sexuals...oops) on aven. We don't use it in a derogatory way, nor mean any offense.....but I can see why the term allosexual is problematic....hmm.... Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 I read the at allo means "other than oneself" so it's the opposite of auto-sexual. Auto-sexual is sexually attracted to oneself, allo-sexual is sexually attracted to things (ie people) outside oneself, A-sexual is not sexually attracted to anyone.. put that way it made perfect sense and I didn't think it was offensive at all. the person who was saying that could have been wrong though? I couldn't find where they got that definiton of allo from, but I was assuming Latin or something? :o Link to post Share on other sites
Ashmedai Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Using that logic, asexual is also wrong. "A" means "not" or "non", so it's technically "not/non-sexual", which is wrong for a lot of aces who have a sex drive/engage in sexual activities. According to the articles I've read, "A" means without, which would be fitting. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.