Jump to content

Learn about the spectrum


V.T.

Recommended Posts

Things are very rarely even just black and white in life. Here we talk about the diversity amongst the asexual spectrum, and how asexuality is a spectrum, not something defined with clean cut lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be the first to reply to this topic to start off the conversation. Asexuals such as myself can often feel invalid if they don't fill a certain criteria, when in reality there is a whole asexual spectrum that we can fit into. This is also a great place to ask if you're questioning or have questions about asexuality.

This is a judgement free zone. All genders and sexual orientations are welcome in this conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zero is not a spectrum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Homer said:

Zero is not a spectrum.

Just saying but to people who are Demi and grey, that's kind of disrespectful. But, I'm not a jerk so I won't report you or anything. Just an FYI here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, V.T. said:

Then how do you describe greysexuals and demisexuals Homer? .5?

The question is: Do these people experience sexual attraction? That's all there is to it and it's a yes/no question.

 

Yes, they do. It might be rare and/or require certain circumstances, but they do experience sexual attraction. That's what makes them sexual.

 

BTW, I'm not saying that grey/demi folks don't exist. That would be disrespectful indeed. I'm saying that people who do experience sexual attraction/desire aren't asexual. They might relate to asexuals much more than to sexuals, who am I to judge that. But that's not the actual question. How is that even debatable?

 

Would it make me vegetarian if I only ate meat like once a month? I could relate to vegetarians just fine 29 days a month. Yet I'm still not vegetarian.

 

You're free to report this if you feel the need, no offense taken.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point. What I'm saying is that they are still in the asexual spectrum because at one point or another, they felt a lack of sexuality, and would not necessarily be seen as a full sexual orientation in the eyes of the lgbtq+. That's why places like aven exist. People who feel a lack of sexuality are often not taken seriously and rejected by the lgbtq+. That's why we welcome them here, and include them in our spectrum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
a minor triad

@V.T., actually, I'm with Homer on this one. Asexuality, the lack of sexual attraction/innate desire for partnered sex, cannot be a spectrum by definition. Either you are asexual or you are not. Sexuality, on the other hand, can. Asexuality is an extreme point on the sexuality spectrum, or as Homer described it, a zero. A point is not a spectrum. Understanding sexuality as a spectrum certainly allows for demi and grey identities, and people who identify with them will fall closer to the asexual point on the spectrum, but that doesn't make them asexual.

 

1 minute ago, V.T. said:

I see your point. What I'm saying is that they are still in the asexual spectrum because at one point or another, they felt a lack of sexuality, and would not necessarily be seen as a full sexual orientation in the eyes of the lgbtq+. That's why places like aven exist. People who feel a lack of sexuality are often not taken seriously and rejected by the lgbtq+. That's why we welcome them here, and include them in our spectrum.

The word you are looking for is community, not spectrum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even full-on sexuals feel a lack of sexuality every now and then. So once more, we can't "include them in our spectrum" because there is no such thing as an asexual spectrum. However, we can and should include and welcome them in this community :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
swirl_of_blue

Since the discussion on "the spectrum" has risen up against, I will state (again) that it would make all of our lives much easier if there was a word for non-allosexuals, under which we could group asexuals, greysexuals, demisexuals and other non-allosexual minorities. Personally I'm against the "asexual spectrum", since it includes both asexuals and the greys, demis and others who are neither ace nor allosexual, and in many things are closer to aces than "normal" allos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, swirl_of_blue said:

Since the discussion on "the spectrum" has risen up against, I will state (again) that it would make all of our lives much easier if there was a word for non-allosexuals, under which we could group asexuals, greysexuals, demisexuals and other non-allosexual minorities. Personally I'm against the "asexual spectrum", since it includes both asexuals and the greys, demis and others who are neither ace nor allosexual, and in many things are closer to aces than "normal" allos.

I personally don't find it bad at all. I love diversity. Heck, I'd probably be a part of the lgbtq+ if I wasn't scared of being torn apart bit by bit for being a "fake" sexual orientation. I actually find it quite sad when people don't support spectrums, because I feel like separating every sexuality into its own corner would be very isolating and would not support diversity, y'know. I do see your point of view, wanting everything to be clear cut and less blurry, but I myself believe that someone should associate with whichever community they are most like and feel most invited in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
a minor triad

@swirl_of_blue, that is a very good point, and briefly looking into what allosexual actually means, I have come to the conclusion that it will be a tricky task. We'll have to decide what we want that word to imply/mean.

 

2 minutes ago, V.T. said:

I personally don't find it bad at all. I love diversity. Heck, I'd probably be a part of the lgbtq+ if I wasn't scared of being torn apart bit by bit for being a "fake" sexual orientation. I actually find it quite sad when people don't support spectrums, because I feel like separating every sexuality into its own corner would be very isolating and would not support diversity, y'know. I do see your point of view, wanting everything to be clear cut and less blurry, but I myself believe that someone should associate with whichever community they are most like and feel most invited in.

Here's the thing, when people say "asexuality is not a spectrum," it doesn't mean we are rejecting the idea of a spectrum. Often, it is quite the opposite. We are saying that asexuality is on the spectrum of sexuality, which, in my opinion, offers more diversity than having asexuality alone on its own spectrum. In fact, your argument against understanding sexuality as a spectrum doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If sexuality is a spectrum, then the sexual orientations are not alone in their own corners; they are all related and slowly blend into each other. That is what a spectrum is. Just because we are naming definite points on said spectrum doesn't mean we are taking away the diversity of the spectrum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, a minor triad said:

@V.T., actually, I'm with Homer on this one. Asexuality, the lack of sexual attraction/innate desire for partnered sex, cannot be a spectrum by definition. Either you are asexual or you are not. Sexuality, on the other hand, can. Asexuality is an extreme point on the sexuality spectrum, or as Homer described it, a zero. A point is not a spectrum. Understanding sexuality as a spectrum certainly allows for demi and grey identities, and people who identify with them will fall closer to the asexual point on the spectrum, but that doesn't make them asexual.

 

The word you are looking for is community, not spectrum.

It's not really like a zero though. It's more or less, shades of white. Also, asexuals are people who don't experience sexual attraction, not libido. Someone can be asexual and have a sex drive. Although rare, they are still classified as asexual, because they do not feel sexual ATTRACTION. Libido and sexual attraction are two different things, thus why there can be a spectrum. Other sexualities may need a certain connection to feel sexual attraction, but otherwise they do not feel it, making them asexual most of the time.

Excluding demis and geys would be like saying because a straight person had one gay crush their whole life, they're now automatically gay. Attraction is a spectrum. Especially since asexuals  can feel romantic attraction and romantic attraction can be a spectrum as well. There are always shades of grey when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
swirl_of_blue
Just now, a minor triad said:

, that is a very good point, and briefly looking into what allosexual actually means, I have come to the conclusion that it will be a tricky task. We'll have to decide what we want that word to imply/mean.

I used "allo" in the sense many people use it: "normal" sexuals. Though I have also seen ace/grey/demi/whatever communities where it is a term that some think shouldn't be used, and there should only be asexuals and sexuals. However, I feel that having clearly defined terms for different orientations helps people understand the different orientations better. I simply don't like using the same word (asexuality) for "true" asexuals AND as an umbrella term for "non-allosexuals". Having one word mean several different things is not informative and causes confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, V.T. said:

It's not really like a zero though. It's more or less, shades of white. Also, asexuals are people who don't experience sexual attraction, not libido. Someone can be asexual and have a sex drive. Although rare, they are still classified as asexual, because they do not feel sexual ATTRACTION. Libido and sexual attraction are two different things, thus why there can be a spectrum. Other sexualities may need a certain connection to feel sexual attraction, but otherwise they do not feel it, making them asexual most of the time.

Excluding demis and geys would be like saying because a straight person had one gay crush their whole life, they're now automatically gay. Attraction is a spectrum. Especially since asexuals  can feel romantic attraction and romantic attraction can be a spectrum as well. There are always shades of grey when it comes to this kind of stuff.

To elaborate on the spectrum thing... According to the Collins dictionary, a spectrum is a range of things, and a range can be almost anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, V.T. said:

I personally don't find it bad at all. I love diversity. Heck, I'd probably be a part of the lgbtq+ if I wasn't scared of being torn apart bit by bit for being a "fake" sexual orientation. I actually find it quite sad when people don't support spectrums, because I feel like separating every sexuality into its own corner would be very isolating and would not support diversity, y'know. I do see your point of view, wanting everything to be clear cut and less blurry, but I myself believe that someone should associate with whichever community they are most like and feel most invited in.

You're still mixing up definitions and communities. Everyone is welcome to join AVEN, regardless of their orientation. They're welcome in this community. That doesn't mean that everyone is justified to call themselves asexual. That's not what "diversity" is about.

 

 

2 hours ago, V.T. said:

Libido and sexual attraction are two different things, thus why there can be a spectrum.

The presence or absence of libido has got nothing to do with asexuality. Therefore libido doesn't make asexuality a spectrum either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
a minor triad
1 minute ago, swirl_of_blue said:

I used "allo" in the sense many people use it: "normal" sexuals. Though I have also seen ace/grey/demi/whatever communities where it is a term that some think shouldn't be used, and there should only be asexuals and sexuals. However, I feel that having clearly defined terms for different orientations helps people understand the different orientations better. I simply don't like using the same word (asexuality) for "true" asexuals AND as an umbrella term for "non-allosexuals". Having one word mean several different things is not informative and causes confusion.

I agree. It would be useful to have a word that encompasses the people near the asexual side of the spectrum.

 

3 minutes ago, V.T. said:

It's not really like a zero though. It's more or less, shades of white. 

It is like a zero in the sense that if you are asexual you lack sexual attraction/innate sexual desire for partnered sex. You can't partially not experience attraction/desire. Either you do or you don't.

 

Quote

Also, asexuals are people who don't experience sexual attraction, not libido. Someone can be asexual and have a sex drive. Although rare, they are still classified as asexual, because they do not feel sexual ATTRACTION. Libido and sexual attraction are two different things, thus why there can be a spectrum. 

But you see, that is not what I said. I never said asexuals don't have libido. An alternate definition for asexuality is the lack of innate sexual desire for partnered sexual activity. Notice that that is different from a sex drive or libido. A sex drive is a drive for sexual stimulation. Innate sexual desire for partnered sexual activity would be when people naturally have that sex drive directed towards people; as in, people who are not asexual would like that their drive for sexual stimulation to be fulfilled with another person.

 

Some would argue that sexual attraction and lack of innate sexual desire for partnered sex are similar/the same. I like to list both because different people understand things differently. 

 

Quote

Other sexualities may need a certain connection to feel sexual attraction, but otherwise they do not feel it, making them asexual most of the time.

You are referring to demisexuals here, yes? Demisexuality is not the same as asexuality. Certainly they share a lot of similarities, but when it comes down to it, demis can experience sexual attraction and aces cannot. I think it is incorrect to say the demis are asexual most of the time. They may not experience sexual attraction often, but that does not diminish the instants that they do. It's almost like saying bisexuals are sometimes heterosexual and sometimes homosexual, which is also incorrect. Just because a bi person is experiencing sexual attraction for a member of the opposite sex/gender at one moment in time doesn't mean they are temporarily straight. That's not how sexual orientations are defined.

 

Quote

Excluding demis and geys would be like saying because a straight person had one gay crush their whole life, they're now automatically gay. 

Again, by denying asexuality as a spectrum, I am not also saying we should exclude demis and greys from the asexual community. And to your example, I would say that person is probably bi, however he is closer to the heterosexual point on the spectrum rather than the homosexual point. 

Quote

Attraction is a spectrum.

Er, yes. That is what I am saying. That doesn't mean asexuality is one.

 

Quote

Especially since asexual can feel romantic attraction and romantic attraction can be a spectrum as well. There are always shades of grey when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Ok, this is going into the split attraction model. You shouldn't consider romantic attraction and sexual attraction on the same axis/spectrum/whatever.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ilerneo Fricai said:

Where does "solo work" fit in then, masturbatory practices and pornographic content consumption, etc?  

It has nothing to do with asexuality unless you feel any sexual feelings towards people, and are not just doing it for the sake of arousal

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, a minor triad said:

I agree. It would be useful to have a word that encompasses the people near the asexual side of the spectrum.

 

It is like a zero in the sense that if you are asexual you lack sexual attraction/innate sexual desire for partnered sex. You can't partially not experience attraction/desire. Either you do or you don't.

 

But you see, that is not what I said. I never said asexuals don't have libido. An alternate definition for asexuality is the lack of innate sexual desire for partnered sexual activity. Notice that that is different from a sex drive or libido. A sex drive is a drive for sexual stimulation. Innate sexual desire for partnered sexual activity would be when people naturally have that sex drive directed towards people; as in, people who are not asexual would like that their drive for sexual stimulation to be fulfilled with another person.

 

Some would argue that sexual attraction and lack of innate sexual desire for partnered sex are similar/the same. I like to list both because different people understand things differently. 

 

You are referring to demisexuals here, yes? Demisexuality is not the same as asexuality. Certainly they share a lot of similarities, but when it comes down to it, demis can experience sexual attraction and aces cannot. I think it is incorrect to say the demis are asexual most of the time. They may not experience sexual attraction often, but that does not diminish the instants that they do. It's almost like saying bisexuals are sometimes heterosexual and sometimes homosexual, which is also incorrect. Just because a bi person is experiencing sexual attraction for a member of the opposite sex/gender at one moment in time doesn't mean they are temporarily straight. That's not how sexual orientations are defined.

 

Again, by denying asexuality as a spectrum, I am not also saying we should exclude demis and greys from the asexual community. And to your example, I would say that person is probably bi, however he is closer to the heterosexual point on the spectrum rather than the homosexual point. 

Er, yes. That is what I am saying. That doesn't mean asexuality is one.

 

Ok, this is going into the split attraction model. You shouldn't consider romantic attraction and sexual attraction on the same axis/spectrum/whatever.

Holy crap! This got out of hand fast. *face palms*

WHAT IM SAYING IS:

The romantic spectrum is the asexual spectrum. Like I'm not talking about how much sex you have or don't have or anything like that. Sweet mother of cheese and crackers guys I'm not that stupid. I happen to be asexual myself just FYI.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ilerneo Fricai

What I mean is, there are lots of posts and discussions surrounding participating in "solo work" as an ace, specifically that doing so invalidates your claim to be an asexual. 

 

So my question really is, I suppose, if asexuality is not a spectrum then does participation in "solo work" also become a black and white issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, V.T. said:

Holy crap! This got out of hand fast. *face palms*

WHAT IM SAYING IS:

The romantic spectrum is the asexual spectrum. Like I'm not talking about how much sex you have or don't have or anything like that. Sweet mother of cheese and crackers guys I'm not that stupid. I happen to be asexual myself just FYI.

How on earth is the "romantic spectrum" the "asexual spectrum"? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Messen said:

How on earth is the "romantic spectrum" the "asexual spectrum"? 

Because asexuals feel romantic attraction, not sexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ilerneo Fricai said:

What I mean is, there are lots of posts and discussions surrounding participating in "solo work" as an ace, specifically that doing so invalidates your claim to be an asexual. 

 

So my question really is, I suppose, if asexuality is not a spectrum then does participation in "solo work" also become a black and white issue?

If someone says solo work invalidates you as an asexual then I think that they are quite narrow-minded. This why I myself, have never publicly come out to anyone but my closest friends (who also happen to be mostly of minority so it's all good). There are MANY judgemental asexuals. This is a point I guess I'm kidding of proving by making this conversation. Everyone here has a different opinion, but quite frankly, no one person is right either. Everyone has their own experiences. I find that men and women tend to have different experiences too. Btw, if solo work classifies as being not asexual then I'm pretty sure that one quarter of the people on here aren't "really asexual" then...

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, V.T. said:

The romantic spectrum is the asexual spectrum.

No. Just no.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Messen said:

Romantic attraction is not a thing exclusive to asexual people.

So should I just strip myself of my asexual label and go then? Because making asexual a clear cut, and exclusive to only people who feel no sexual and romantic attraction would make someone aromantic, not asexual. Asexuals are the only sexuality that feel just romantic attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, V.T. said:

So should I just strip myself of my asexual label and go then? Because making asexual a clear cut, and exclusive to only people who feel no sexual and romantic attraction would make someone aromantic, not asexual. Asexuals are the only sexuality that feel just romantic attraction.

That's what makes that spectrum ours. We're the only one that experiences just romantic attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not feeling sexual attraction, at all, ever = asexual

Not feeling romantic attraction, at all, ever = aromantic

 

Two different things. Might go together, but don't have to. For the record: Both are yes/no things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
a minor triad
17 minutes ago, V.T. said:

Holy crap! This got out of hand fast. *face palms*

WHAT IM SAYING IS:

The romantic spectrum is the asexual spectrum. Like I'm not talking about how much sex you have or don't have or anything like that. Sweet mother of cheese and crackers guys I'm not that stupid. I happen to be asexual myself just FYI.

I'm not sure what you got from my post, but the romantic spectrum is not the asexual spectrum. That would imply only asexuals can experience romantic attraction, and that is false.

 

1 minute ago, V.T. said:

So should I just strip myself of my asexual label and go then? Because making asexual a clear cut, and exclusive to only people who feel no sexual and romantic attraction would make someone aromantic, not asexual. Asexuals are the only sexuality that feel just romantic attraction.

No. That is not what we are saying at all. Romantic attraction and sexual attraction are two different things. That is why you can have panromantic asexuals, aromantic heterosexuals, etc. 

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...