Jump to content

Archived

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

Annie Mali A.

Allosexual? Not a good term?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tea.EarlGrey.Hot

I haven't read many of the other replies on this thread yet so I don't know if I'm repeating something already said, but...

I think the problem is that it's such an umbrella term. We came up with a word that essentially means "everyone BUT us." It further perpetuates the asexual superiority thing, making it seem like we're trying to be above and apart from other people. It also sounds like it's trying to be the name for a specific sexuality, but it isn't. Someone "allosexual" could be straight, gay, bi, pan, etc.

Why even promote something that further separates asexuals from the rest of the LGBT community? We're supposed to be part of it, not using a word that divides us that way.

EDIT:

Not to mention, the person who will be using a label should also be the person to come up with the label. I don't think it's right for us (or our community) to come up with a word and use it to label another person without their input. Allosexual is a label, while "sexual person" or "person with sexual attraction" is much less like that in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Satan

I dont like it because it erases very different sexualities, we "allosexuals" face different problems, I dont want to be lumped together with straight and bi people and i don't have much in common with gay men either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
I dont like it because it erases very different sexualities, we "allosexuals" face different problems, I dont want to be lumped together with straight and bi people and i don't have much in common with gay men either.

Well, the thing is, if we weren't calling you allosexuals, we'd be calling you sexuals. That's still lumping you in, it's just with a less clunky term.

All it is is a catch-all term to mean "people who aren't asexual"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Satan

Whatever you call it, its offensive. I personally don't want to be lumped together with straight people or the rest of the GBT, im a lesbian and that's it.

If asexuals don't respect that then I will most likely avoid them.

edit: shit I forgot to quote you^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cereal Tendencies

I just stick to heterosexual, homo/bi/etc when referring to someone who is not ace.

I figured most of them wouldn't get what "allosexual" meant anyway :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wreyck

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".

I never actually knew where allosexual came from, and was always wondering about it. I've used it off and on, mostly depending on if the person I'm conversing with uses it so as to remove confusion. I'll have to reconsider it now, though, knowing the origination. But I am at a loss of what I should be using, since I'm now learning that there is some opposition to 'sexual' as well.

I just stick to heterosexual, homo/bi/etc when referring to someone who is not ace.

I figured most of them wouldn't get what "allosexual" meant anyway :P

I have really only used allosexual on the AVEN forums. I refer to specific people as hetero/homo/bi/pan/omni-sexual, but sometimes I'm referring to anyone who is NOT asexual in general, or I don't know a person's orientation other than that they do have some form if sexual attraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SithGirl

My bf prefers "sexual" over "allosexual" but I don't remember why. I know he has a reason, but it alludes me at the moment.

But I prefer the term "allosexual" because I don't really know the meaning of "allo-" and I think referring to non-asexuals as "sexuals" implies that demisexuals and grey-asexuals aren't sexual beings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

Whatever you call it, its offensive. I personally don't want to be lumped together with straight people or the rest of the GBT, im a lesbian and that's it.

If asexuals don't respect that then I will most likely avoid them.

edit: shit I forgot to quote you^

Well, that's fine when discussing something on a personal level, where you are one-on-one and can find out the other person's label. But, it's really hard, when discussing it in a general sense, to in every discussion use heterosexual/bisexual/pansexual/gay/lesbian/etc etc instead of just using a short hand. Especially in something like a news setting, where they are devoting say, 2 minutes to asexuality out of a 30 minute show and to manually say every single sexuality instead of just "sexuals" (every news video / clip I have seen usually says "sexual" or "sexual people") or something would take up about half the segment itself (and, they would likely forget a label and end up offending people anyway via erasure...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perseus

I don't mind the term but having two is confusing to some people. They could also change it to something else. If that is the term people want to use then I guess I will go with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Touchofinsight

That's all we need is more obscure labels...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoldenaLy

A lot of people who are in minority groups come up with labels for "everyone else." The Amish call everyone who's not Amish "the English." To me, English means something else entirely - it's a nationality and furthermore, it's not my nationality. I'll never identify as English, but the Amish will persist in thinking of me as English anyway.

So most of these labels that we create for everyone who's not in our minority group strike me as serving a singular purpose: giving people in a minority a way to refer to everyone who's not in it. (I think it also perpetuates and deepens the feeling of "otherness.") Personally, I think it's unlikely that the majority is ever going to adopt the labels that the minority creates for them. As Tea Earl Grey pointed out, the majority frequently has had no part in creating the label and therefore it's less likely they're going to identify with it. I also don't think allosexual is a known term beyond the boundaries of AVEN: I've been identifying as asexual for ten years, but it wasn't until two months ago when I rejoined AVEN that I'd even heard the word allosexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pipsuxx

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 what dragon wolf is saying, i think, that being ace is normal. it's not fair that only asexual gets a prefix, therefore marking us out as abnormal, and so allo- should be used, in their opinion.

i have to say i agree, it is much like the trans/cis thing. if people get offended by it it's kind of like people who whinge about cisphobia which is pretty petty and immature, imo. it helps to clarify things because sexual is already a word, and 'behaving in a sexual manner' could mean 2 things - either 'behaving in an allosexual manner' or 'behaving in a sexualised manner' and by using the term allosexual instead of sexual you can clarify what you mean. sure, not many people know the term, but the only way that will change is by using it.

I personally don't want to be lumped together with straight people or the rest of the GBT, im a lesbian and that's it.

but when people want to talk about all (allo)sexual people, rather than you individually, you are going to be grouped in with them? that's how it works. whatever the term is, you belong to that group whether it's called sexual, allosexual or not-asexual!! i doubt anyone would refer to your sexuality as an individual as (allo)sexual because that would be conversationally somewhat bizarre.

i feel like this would be like me saying i don't want to be called asexual because it lumps me in with all the heteroromantic asexuals? idk it's just a name for a group of people that's stating a fact, how is acknowledging whether you do or don't have sexual attraction offensive?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kappamaki

The idea of a gender-sexuality minority inventing an out-group term is nothing new. Here are some previous ones, one of which has become a totally widespread term even among backwaters:

Heterosexual/Straight: Not gay. (Changed meaning to "attracted to the opposite gender" when other sexualities became more well-known.)

Monosexual: Not bisexual. Attracted to one gender. (Changes meaning when you realize aces exist.)

Cisgender: Not transgender. Identifies with the gender assigned at birth.

A lot of people don't like the term "not asexual" because it carries with it an implication that asexuality is deviation from the norm. Not just the statistical norm, but the "human nature" sort of norm. This is the same reason all the other minorities came up with words to describe the out-group.

Although "allosexual" isn't a perfect term, I think it's far better than "sexual." Although some individuals are comfortable with "sexual," using the term to describe people of hypersexualized groups and minorities - including women, some ethnicities, and pretty much all of LGBT - bothers a lot of people from those groups. "Sexual" also implies sexual behavior, which is concerning to allosexuals who don't engage in sexual behavior for whatever reasons.

A lot of other terms were suggested during the Great Tumblr Asexuality War of 2011, but "allosexual" is the one that stuck, and I'm going with it until another term that's not "non-ace" or "sexual" gets at least some recognition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
"Sexual" also implies sexual behavior, which is concerning to allosexuals who don't engage in sexual behavior for whatever reasons.

So why isn't the opposite true?

"Asexual" also implies lack of sexual behavior, which is concerning to aces who do engage in sexual behavior for whatever reasons.

It should be noted that this was actually a very legitimate confusion that I had upon first frequenting this site, and I know I'm not the only one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FallOutAtTheMotionCityDisc

I don't have much to add, however I'm very interested in reading more about this.

My opinion on the topic: I prefer to use allosexual because I've seen a lot of posts where somebody has said "I'm asexual" and an (allo)sexual comes back and says "lol I'm a sexual too!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

I don't have much to add, however I'm very interested in reading more about this.

My opinion on the topic: I prefer to use allosexual because I've seen a lot of posts where somebody has said "I'm asexual" and an (allo)sexual comes back and says "lol I'm a sexual too!"

And if you called someone an allosexual, what would stop them from coming back with "lol are you saying I'm a lo(w) sexual?"

There's no way to avoid people cracking jokes, no matter what words you use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnDoe1995

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with using the term allosexual to describe non-ace/gray-A people, but I'm demi, so my opinion isn't the one that truly matters.

Although I do use both the terms allosexual & sexual, I find the term sexual being problematic, considering that most gray-As/demis are sexuals in some ways. Gray-Asexuality (& its sub-categories) are part of the ace-spectrum, but are still sexual people. Using the term "sexual" for non-ace-spectrum people makes me feel that despite the fact I'm demi, I have no sexual side at all, which is not true.

I usually use the term full-fledged sexual, because as a demi I'm somewhat sexual & not full-fledged sexual. That way I don't feel like I've been totally ostracized from the sexual-spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perseus

What's wrong with calling them "sexuals". I like that term. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lady Valacri

I personally use the word sexual. I mean, I don't see anything wrong with it.

However, on Tumblr, I've seen people pushing for the use of zedsexual to replace allosexual. I don't really care because both seem silly, but I figured I'd throw that tidbit of information in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wreyck

What is the origin of zedsexual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What is the origin of zedsexual?

zed = the pronunciation of the letter "Z" (in British English, at least). Which, if your mind is punny enough, is (at) the opposite (end of the alphabet) from A. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wreyck

What is the origin of zedsexual?

zed = the pronunciation of the letter "Z" (in British English, at least). Which, if your mind is punny enough, is (at) the opposite (end of the alphabet) from A. :)

Okay, that's kind of cute. I'm going with zedsexual from now on, at least on the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
purplemutant

What is the origin of zedsexual?

zed = the pronunciation of the letter "Z" (in British English, at least). Which, if your mind is punny enough, is (at) the opposite (end of the alphabet) from A. :)

Okay, that's kind of cute. I'm going with zedsexual from now on, at least on the forums.

Zed is also used to refer to zombies. So a zedsexual could be someone who has a desire for sex with the undead. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68

Probably not that different from it can feel with a spectacularly uninterested asexual. Or to be fair, how the asexual feels about it all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
purplemutant

I dislike sexual to refer to non aces. I have sexual desire, sex drive, I masturbate, I partake of sexual content (porn, erotica ETC). So I would say that makes me a sexual person. Asexual doesn't mean no sexuality. It just means a lack of an innate desire for sex with people. If masturbation and porn are considered sexual then aces can be sexual.

I think the term allosexual is reasonable. All the sexual orientation terms use "sexual" in regards to sexual desire as it relates to people. Allo is a Greek prefix meaning other so allosexual = a desire for sex with other people. I am of course open to other terms people might come up with. I just don't care for "sexual" given it's association with things other than sexual orientations. I would imagine most people outside of the asexual community wouldn't think of a sexual orientation if someone uses the word sexual. Also using sexual as a noun can cause problems. Saying "that person is a homosexual" is just fine. But "that person is a sexual" could easily be misheard as "that person is asexual".

Looking at Greek prefixes I can't find anything better than allo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

I dislike sexual to refer to non aces. I have sexual desire, sex drive, I masturbate, I partake of sexual content (porn, erotica ETC). So I would say that makes me a sexual person. Asexual doesn't mean no sexuality. It just means a lack of an innate desire for sex with people. If masturbation and porn are considered sexual then aces can be sexual.

I think the term allosexual is reasonable. All the sexual orientation terms use "sexual" in regards to sexual desire as it relates to people. Allo is a Greek prefix meaning other so allosexual = a desire for sex with other people. I am of course open to other terms people might come up with. I just don't care for "sexual" given it's association with things other than sexual orientations. I would imagine most people outside of the asexual community wouldn't think of a sexual orientation if someone uses the word sexual. Also using sexual as a noun can cause problems. Saying "that person is a homosexual" is just fine. But "that person is a sexual" could easily be misheard as "that person is asexual".

Looking at Greek prefixes I can't find anything better than allo.

Okay, so generally I don't want to comment on other's sexuality, but if it's between re-defining asexual to include people who do, in fact, experience sexual feelings, and keeping the definition of asexual we all have agreed on (which would by your reasoning imply you're not actually asexual), then sorry I'd have to pick the latter..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally

Looking at Greek prefixes I can't find anything better than allo.

Sexuals on AVEN have said they prefer "sexual". It seems a bit rude to call them something they don't really relate to, especially a Greek prefix which most people are unfamiliar with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
purplemutant

I dislike sexual to refer to non aces. I have sexual desire, sex drive, I masturbate, I partake of sexual content (porn, erotica ETC). So I would say that makes me a sexual person. Asexual doesn't mean no sexuality. It just means a lack of an innate desire for sex with people. If masturbation and porn are considered sexual then aces can be sexual.

I think the term allosexual is reasonable. All the sexual orientation terms use "sexual" in regards to sexual desire as it relates to people. Allo is a Greek prefix meaning other so allosexual = a desire for sex with other people. I am of course open to other terms people might come up with. I just don't care for "sexual" given it's association with things other than sexual orientations. I would imagine most people outside of the asexual community wouldn't think of a sexual orientation if someone uses the word sexual. Also using sexual as a noun can cause problems. Saying "that person is a homosexual" is just fine. But "that person is a sexual" could easily be misheard as "that person is asexual".

Looking at Greek prefixes I can't find anything better than allo.

Okay, so generally I don't want to comment on other's sexuality, but if it's between re-defining asexual to include people who do, in fact, experience sexual feelings, and keeping the definition of asexual we all have agreed on (which would by your reasoning imply you're not actually asexual), then sorry I'd have to pick the latter..

Asexuality isn't the lack of "sexual feelings". In fact over in the huge definition of asexuality thread; there has been discussion of including a list of things that doesn't prevent someone from being asexual. Some of the items on the list are sexual in nature. Asexuality is the lack of an innate desire for sex with people. As I stated I DO have sexual desire; a sexual desire that leads to masturbation. I was actually tempted to not mention that I have sexual desire. I was concerned that someone might misunderstand it; which appears to have been the case. I lack an innate desire for sex with people. So I am asexual. Any sexual desire I have is not about sex with people.

Looking at Greek prefixes I can't find anything better than allo.

Sexuals on AVEN have said they prefer "sexual". It seems a bit rude to call them something they don't really relate to, especially a Greek prefix which most people are unfamiliar with.

People are free to use whatever term they prefer. I still don't like sexual, for the reasons mentioned. If people on here have that much of an issue with allosexual then I can always just say "not asexual". As for Greek prefixes. When someone says pansexual how many people understand what that is and don't immediately think it's a fetish for cookware? Allo is a prefix used in the English language; although not as often as other prefixes. We have words like allophone. Turns out allosexual has been in use for a little while outside the asexual community.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/allosexual#English

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Niliinvas

One of the only people I've heard saying they don't like allosexual as a term are gay/bi/pan people saying "I don't want to be lumped with straight people!!" and other shit. I still don't use the term, however, because "sexual" serves just as well. I've heard of the term "zedsexual" before, but most sexual people don't like it because once again it clumps LGBT people with the straighties and we know we can't have that :/

I dont like it because it erases very different sexualities, we "allosexuals" face different problems, I dont want to be lumped together with straight and bi people and i don't have much in common with gay men either.

I understand what you mean, but its easier than saying "Gay/lesbian/bi/pan" all the time. All ace people are lumped together under the label, whether they are sex-repulsed or sex-positive, heteromantic or aromantic. I don't like it much either but I don't scorn all sexual people for it. I have absolutely nothing in common with heteromantic sex-positive ace people, or gray-ace people.

I dislike sexual to refer to non aces. I have sexual desire, sex drive, I masturbate, I partake of sexual content (porn, erotica ETC). So I would say that makes me a sexual person. Asexual doesn't mean no sexuality. It just means a lack of an innate desire for sex with people. If masturbation and porn are considered sexual then aces can be sexual.

I think the term allosexual is reasonable. All the sexual orientation terms use "sexual" in regards to sexual desire as it relates to people. Allo is a Greek prefix meaning other so allosexual = a desire for sex with other people. I am of course open to other terms people might come up with. I just don't care for "sexual" given it's association with things other than sexual orientations. I would imagine most people outside of the asexual community wouldn't think of a sexual orientation if someone uses the word sexual. Also using sexual as a noun can cause problems. Saying "that person is a homosexual" is just fine. But "that person is a sexual" could easily be misheard as "that person is asexual".

Looking at Greek prefixes I can't find anything better than allo.

I do believe that ace people can have a libido/sex drive, and that they can do sexual things, but sometimes people use the term 'asexual' too liberally, and keep redefining it just so it can fit them. There are a lot of definitions for asexuality, but i figured "a lack of sexual attraction" is what most people usually followed. "a lack of innate sexual desire" is just another definition that we don't need.

I really hope you don't take offense. I'm just a dumb kid on the internet... speaking their mind unnecessarily... ill just go... *slinks away*

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...