Jump to content

Allosexual? Not a good term?


Annie Mali A.

Recommended Posts

Annie Mali A.

Hi guys! ~ So, recently, I came across this interesting piece of information in the Welcome Lounge. Apparently(please excuse my ignorance) "allosexual" is not liked by many people who identify themselves as "sexual" people. Now, if you saw this conversation, perhaps you have something to add, but I wanted to properly address my curiosity in the right forum instead of going on and on in the welcome lounge about something that had nothing to do with welcoming a new member. -_-

So my question is,(and you can certainly say your piece if you're an ace too! ^_^) if you identify yourself as a "sexual" do you use "allosexual" to refer to yourself? If so, why? If not, why not? Why does this word have a negative connotation? Did you know it had a negative connotation? Is your cake getting cold?

Maybe I'm beating a dead horse and this has been addressed many times before, but I'm legitimately curious :wacko:(and ignorant) and hope to get a better understanding about this...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why anyone would use the word allosexual about themselves. Or frankly, even the word sexual, unless it is in distinction to something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aisntllecxtual

Good question to bring up so we in the asexual community are not being insensitive in distinction. I have used the word "allosexual" a couple of times in my posts, but, like you, I was ignorant of the term. I used the term unthinkingly, in reflecting its use by others. I now will dispense with the term altogether and continue using the - seems to me straightforward and rational - paradigmatic distinction I have almost exclusively been using, "asexual" and "sexual." I hope it will not be perceived as offensive. If so viewed, in following the posts on this thread, I will be more than willing to reconsider.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MÃ¥skemigselvetsted

Which word should we use? I've used allosexual a few times because I actually thought that was the prefered word. I don't mind using any other instead, but what should we use? I remember there also was some problems with 'sexual'. But is that word still better? Or are both awful and it's a third word which works instead?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems the problem with this word, and indeed "sexual" as well is that it's being taken as a sexuality instead of a description. When we refer to ourselves (when i say "we" i mean the majority on here) we use asexual as an identity and/or sexuality. However when using the word asexual as it pertains to "sexuals" we're using it as a description of sexual interest. Because we don't really see a distinction between the two and we know automatically what we mean there's no trouble. However people who are allosexual/sexual would see it as a label or a sexuality in it's own right because that's how we use the word "asexual"

Just my thoughts, mt rambly rambly, mostly coherent nonsense.

In closing, don't get offended, get cake :cake: :cake: :cake: :cake: :cake: :cake: :cake: :cake: :cake: :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites

*shrugs* Don't care. My only gripe with the term is that it's confusing, "other-sexual what the hell are you talking about?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel like allosexual should become part of the standard lexicon until we've resurrected the allosaurus and people start displaying sexual attraction toward those.

Until then, it's just kind of ridiculous-sounding and cringe-inducing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
(A)rrogant Avian

I think it's just how heteros use the word 'queer' to mean anyone who isn't hetero, we use allo to mean anyone who isn't ace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's okay, it's like how people who aren't trans are called cis. Without words to describe those who are in the majority, it's basically saying those who are not are abnormal. As if there was normal, and asexual. Normal, and trans etc. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's okay, it's like how people who aren't trans are called cis. Without words to describe those who are in the majority, it's basically saying those who are not are abnormal. As if there was normal, and asexual. Normal, and trans etc. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Well no, not really. Cis was an immediately obvious and uncontroversial word to choose as the opposite of trans, just going by the Latin meaning (trans = on the far side of, beyond; cis = on this side of; as in "Gallia Transalpina" vs. "Gallia Cisalpina").

Allo-, however, isn't the opposite of a-, by the Greek meaning - "other" isn`t the opposite of "not".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never used "allosexual" because in my country, "allô !" is the first thing people say on a phone call. Do allosexuals like sex calls ? Or do they like phone vibrators ? Or do they have a phone fetish ? :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm not saying allosexual is the best term to use, and I don't really use it myself to be honest. I usually say sexual or non-asexual/non-ace... I just meant, I think it may be a good thing to have a term for sexuals, perhaps we just haven't found the right one yet. Although, I see how allosexual could work. It could mean other as in another sexuality. Such as heterosexual, homosexual bisexual, pansexual etc. Basically something other than asexual. What do all those sexualities have in common? Well, they're more sexual-attraction based sexualities, so I think it's safe to say they're all related to sex and sexuality. Asexuality is basically the opposite, a sexuality based on the lack of sexual attraction. Some would say the absence of a sexuality, although I like to think of asexuality as a sexuality itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the term sexual as a counterpart to asexual anyday in reference to myself here on AVEN. I'm not going to freak out if someone uses that 'other' word, but if asked about it, yeah...not a word I would ever use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, personally, I find it a singularly ugly-looking word and wouldn't use it except in the most dire of circumstances. I mean seriously, it's hideous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Annie Mali A.

So I woke up this morning and saw a LOT more answers than I was expecting(thanks guys! :D), and this is what I've gleaned from it.

Basically, there are virtually NO "sexual?" people who prefer the term "allosexual" in reference to themselves.

The issues arising from this are:

  • "allosexual" is not an aesthetically pleasing word, and I see why now(attracted to an allosaurus? maybe brontosexual will pop up somewhere too :P)
  • It was coined by people of the ace community, in regards to people OUTSIDE the ace community, and henceforth, many people don't appreciate it.
  • It's not an orientation, since it encompasses simply "people who experience sexual attraction".(Not counting Gray-aces and Demisexuals, since certain circumstances are needed for sexual attraction in those circumstances)

Well, I guess this means I'm cutting it out of my vocabulary now ~ :mellow: It's funny because I always thought "sexual" was a more easily-offensive term than the alternative, but I guess not...

I admit it would be nice to have an easy word to refer to people who don't identify on the ace spectrum, but that might be impossible since, like mentioned before, simply "not being an ace" isn't an orientation..

I guess for now, I'll stick to using "sexual" and "non-asexual"...

If anyone else has something to add, or believes that my inferences are wrong, please don't hesitate to keep posting! ~ and I'm suuuper glad ALL of you responded, otherwise, I'd still be in the dark! :o As usual, you all have gone above and beyond my expectations,(I was just expecting a couple of answers) so thanks to all!!!! ~ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ :cake: :cake: :cake:

Link to post
Share on other sites
spoidersquiggle

Ah, shit. I thought it was the 'politically correct term', the least-'offensive' term. My bad! I hope I haven't offended anyone with my use of the word. I really don't like using the term 'sexual' when referring to 'non-asexuals', cuz it sounds very blanketed in how it's used in reference to someone who experiences sexual attraction. I think 'allo-sexual' sounds gentler, but I imagine it must somehow feel the same.

I'll do my best to say 'non-asexual', even though I'm not sure that works either, cuz it seems to not include demisexuals or even grey-asexuals. This may just be my opinion, so I'm open to any term that works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"sexual" is what is preferred on AVEN, I am unsure what is preferred elsewhere. There is allosexual, *sexual, non-asexual, then the normal terms heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual/pansexual etc. What someone prefers is kinda up to them. So, I use sexual, but if someone prefers another term, I try to use it when speaking to/about them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I don't know that any of us find it offensive... I know I don't... but it rests squarely against my bugaboo about making up new words when old words suffice, it's ugly, it totally makes me think of dinosaurs every damn time (that's a pro and a con, I guess)... as for it being created by asexuals about another group, I don't have a problem with that aspect at all. That's an issue that minority groups rightly have about the majority naming them, but in this context I don't really see that as an issue.

It's kind of like "irregardless". There's no reason to add the extra "ir" because "regardless" works just fine without the prefix.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's kind of like "irregardless". There's no reason to add the extra "ir" because "regardless" works just fine without the prefix.

THIS.

I love you Skulls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that 'allo' means 'other than oneself' so it's the opposite of 'autosexual' (which means sexually attracted to oneself) ..put that way, I don't see how it's offensive? But that aside I try to remember to say ''hetero/homo/bi/pan sexual'' where possible, because I have seen people voice offensive at both 'sexual' and 'allosexual' at times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Star Inkbright

I like the word 'allosexual', primarily because I think it's really pretty (words often have aesthetic value for me), and also because I thought it was just nicer than 'sexual' . . . I don't like using 'sexual' as much because 'sexual' is also an adjective when not in relation to sexuality, so subconsciously, I read 'sexual' as 'more sexual than average' or 'very sexual', and although I consciously know that isn't the case, 'allosexual' just feels nicer and more uncomplicated to me. As mentioned, it feels like cisgender as opposed to transgender.

However, now I know that people don't like it, I'll try to use 'sexual' as opposed to 'allosexual'. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have seen it used by people who aren't asexual outside of asexual communities, but still online and within groups of people who are pretty informed about sexual orientations and the like. i have just been using it as an opposite to asexual, and i have actual been corrected by a non-asexual for referring to them as sexual - she was like 'i think the term is allosexual'. so i don't know at all really - i seem to have had the opposite experience to everyone else in the thread with regards to the positivity i have encountered w regards to its use!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I think it's okay, it's like how people who aren't trans are called cis. Without words to describe those who are in the majority, it's basically saying those who are not are abnormal. As if there was normal, and asexual. Normal, and trans etc. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I see where you're coming from BUT I'm ace and I'm as normal as every other human being out there in the world. I never want to see myself as abnormal or not right. That's mean to myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
littlepersonparadox

I don't like the term allosexual. I believe distinction on sexuals and asexuals would be better.

I think it's okay, it's like how people who aren't trans are called cis. Without words to describe those who are in the majority, it's basically saying those who are not are abnormal. As if there was normal, and asexual. Normal, and trans etc. Do you see where I'm coming from?

I see where you're coming from BUT I'm ace and I'm as normal as every other human being out there in the world. I never want to see myself as abnormal or not right. That's mean to myself.

That's the thing though. I understand if someone doesn't like a particular label don't use it. The term allosexual isn't necessary for everyday or common use. However it did evolve out of a reasonable and understandable circumstance. It came about like all words - a way to clarify a idea or a feeling that not everyone has. It's there to help make the distinction between asexuals, gray a's etc. and the difference in experiences of everyone not on the asexual spectrum. ie. allosexual or sexuals. It's there to help make talking about those experiences easier to discuss. A way to celebrate diversity,

It's not a way of saying anyone is abnormal because normal doesn't exist - at least to me - so abnormal doesn't either. Its just different and way to express that. That's the thing with labels, it can be so helpful but it can inadvertently make some people who don't want to feel like there not normal feel like that. Basically just apply labels to people who want them when your talking about someone individually. As for using it in a collective term that's a gray area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...