Asexuals... explain attraction and desire to a sexual person...

[m4rble]

3 hours ago, vega57 said:

If they're both having sex for different reasons, are they TRULY "relating" to each other?  Can they relate to each other WITHOUT sex? 

(These two questions are not meant to be snarky.  Just trying to understand HOW sexuals "relate" through sex)

You don't have to understand another person perfectly in order to relate to them. People can relate to each other by talking even if they have different reasons for doing so. And yes, it is possible to relate to someone without sex although most sexuals would be disappointed if they never had sex. 

[Salted Karamel]

I don’t have time to address or even read all of the replies since my last post on this thread, because I already have a full time job. (There are three new pages of essay-length posts in 24 hours!) But I believe the problem happening here is (at best) a semantic one, which I will attempt to explain using bisexuality as an analogy for graysexuality.

 

And before I do that, let me clarify that I use the term “graysexuality” for the whole gray part of the spectrum between asexual and allosexual. Some prefer to get more granular and make a distinction between “graysexual” and “gray-asexual,” so I want to make it clear that I am not using the word in that way. (I’m also going to limit this analogy to the gender binary so forgive me the simplification of gender.)

 

-

 

So, okay. Let’s say you have a heterosexual dude, Bob, a bisexual lady, Alice, and a homosexual woman Cara. Bob believes that there is no meaningful distinction between bisexuals and homosexuals and so he considers both Alice and Cara to be part of the same group of people who are very different from him. Because to him, the thought of having sex with or dating his same gender is so very alien to all that he identifies by. Both Alice and Cara have sexual and romantic relations with their same gender, so he considers them to be part of the group of human who have sexual/romantic relations with their same gender and he does not.

 

Cara believes that both Bob and Alice are part of the same group of people who are very different from her because they can both benefit from “straight privilege” (or at least Alice can pass as such, in Cara’s opinion). Both Alice and Bob date their opposite gender, and that is so very foreign to any of Cara’s experiences as a marginalized person, because as someone who dates women all the time, she is always “out” in a world that is often unfriendly to same-gender relations.

 

Alice believes her experiences to be very different from both Bob’s and Cara’s experiences, and considers herself part of neither group (heterosexuals nor homosexuals). Bob and Cara both believe that bisexuality isn’t real and that Alice is a confused homosexual/heterosexual. Cara does not believe that bisexuals warrant inclusion in the LGBT community because they are not gay enough, and Bob believes that Alice is depraved and going to hell because she is not straight enough.

 

Bob is categorizing both bisexuals and homosexuals by how they are different from heterosexuality. Cara is categorizing both bisexuals and heterosexuals by how they are different from homosexuality. Bob and Cara both believe that the orientational spectrum is in fact a binary, and anyone who falls in the so-called “in-between area” is really just someone on the “other” side (and/or “confused” about which side she “really” falls on).

 

But then we have handy terms in this modern day such as “WLW,” “WLM,” “MLM,” and “MLW,” which mean “women who love women,” “women who love men,” etc. Terms like this serve to categorize people like Alice and Cara by what they share in common which is that they are both women with a romantic/sexual interest in other women. It makes no distinction between homosexuality and bisexuality, so they do both fall into the category of “WLW.” Because “WLW” categorizes them by what they share in common rather than by how they differ from Bob. Alice and Darcy, a heterosexual woman, are both WLM. Alice’s inclusion in both the WLW and WLM labels does not invalidate her bisexual identity, nor Darcy’s heterosexual identity, nor Cara’s homosexual identity.

 

-

 

So back to the asexual spectrum. The problem here is that we’re trying to use the word “sexual”—and sometimes the word “asexual”—to cover many bases and mean several different concepts which we then pit against each other. We’re using these words as orientations and then we’re also using them to serve the purpose that “WLW” and “MLM” do (i.e., referring to a whole section of the spectrum rather than an individual identity).

 

You have some people claiming that graysexuality is so similar to allosexuality that they really don’t even warrant distinction and they’re basically just the same thing—so much so that they refuse to even use the word “allosexuality,” because they prefer to just lump them all together and call them all merely “sexual” (to contrast with "asexual" alone). Then you have sexuals who feel that graysexuals are so fundamentally different from themselves as to be completely incompatible due to never or rarely wanting sex. In the middle, you have graysexuals who feel that their experience is meaningfully different from both the asexual and allosexual experience, and on the ends, you have asexuals and allosexuals alike claiming that graysexuality isn’t a real thing and doesn’t deserve acknowledgment.

 

Ernie is an asexual. Fiona is a graysexual. Gary is allosexual.

 

Fiona shares some experiences of asexual people and some experiences of allosexual people, but finds her own experience too meaningfully different to be broadly categorized with either one. She felt sexual attraction and desire many years ago and can sometimes recall what that felt like, so she has experiences that Ernie does not and cannot relate to. However, day-to-day she experiences zero sexual attraction or desire to/for anyone and cannot relate to Gary, who understands sexuality to be a fundamental part of his (and, as far as he understands, everyone’s) everyday life. Gary and Fiona dated once but Fiona showed no sexual interest in him, so Gary dumped her. Fiona and Ernie also dated once, but neither one could guarantee that Fiona wouldn’t ever want a sexual relationship, so Ernie dumped her. Ernie considers Fiona to be a sexual, and Gary considers Fiona to be an asexual, but neither Ernie nor Gary believe that graysexuality is a real thing. Rather, they believe Fiona is just a “special snowflake” trying to poise herself as “different” when Ernie sees her as being no different from Gary and Gary sees Fiona as being no different from Ernie.

 

To complicate matters, we don’t terms analogous to “WLW” and “WLM” here. The closest we have is “asexual” and “sexual,” as in Fiona and Gary are both “sexual” because they have experienced sexual attraction/desire and either do or may desire it at some point in the future, and Ernie and Fiona are both “asexual” in that they both do not ever experience sexual attraction or desire on a daily/weekly/monthly/even yearly basis. But if Fiona describes herself as “asexual” in this way then Ernie pitches a fit about how not asexual she is (and Gary calls her a liar because she was sexually attracted to his friend 8 years ago), and if Fiona describes herself as “sexual” in the sense that she experienced sexual attraction/desire once then she is immediately lumped together with allosexuals and all her asexual experiences are denied.

 

-

 

So if anyone really wants to get to the bottom of all this categorical ridiculousness, I’d start by suggesting what you want to call the “WLW”s and the “WLM”s of the ace spectrum. What blanket term do we use for people who do not, on an ongoing basis, experience sexual attraction and/or desire (without using the word “asexual”) and what blanket term do we use for people who have, at some point in their life, experienced sexual attraction and/or desire (without using the word “sexual”)? Because enlightened people will recognize that some graysexuals claim both of those experiences and have meaningful conversational reasons to speak about what they share in common with asexuals and with allosexuals, and not constantly be “othered” back and forth on the basis of their differences.

[binary suns]

stating that "greysexuals are really ace" or "greysexuals are really sexual" are both equally offensive to me.

 

greysexuals are greysexuals. one specific grey may, for their own sake and purposes, say they feel more like an ace or more like they're sexual, but that does not speak to all greys, and to claim blanket-term that all greys are the same, or all of ANY group is the same, is not appropriate by my books.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, katydidd said:

So if anyone really wants to get to the bottom of all this categorical ridiculousness, I’d start by suggesting what you want to call the “WLW”s and the “WLM”s of the ace spectrum. What blanket term do we use for people who do not, on an ongoing basis, experience sexual attraction and/or desire (without using the word “asexual”) and what blanket term do we use for people who have, at some point in their life, experienced sexual attraction and/or desire (without using the word “sexual”)? Because enlightened people will recognize that some graysexuals claim both of those experiences and have meaningful conversational reasons to speak about what they share in common with asexuals and with allosexuals, and not constantly be “othered” back and forth on the basis of their differences.

Those sexual people can argue over that LGBT stuff all they want, but if you look at it logically all of them desire sex with some other people, at least some of the time, under certain circumstances, for pleasure. Their personal arguments and differences don't matter because, when it comes to their sexuality, that's the one thing they all have in common. Sometimes they want to fuck certain other people for pleasure.  (I know that's not the point you were trying to make, but your comment was really off topic for this entire discussion - that's what happens when you don't read posts)

 

I know some good blanket terms though

 

Asexual 

 

and

 

Sexual

 

There, easy. That's all that's needed. And yes someone can use the term 'grey' if they're not entirely sure either way.

 

Example 'I'm asexual buuuut I'm kind of grey because I get very aroused if someone puts a dog collar on me and leads me around the house. That's a very arousing act for me. But I certainly don't want to have sex or anything as a result. I'd be happiest literally never having sex again in my life. But I am pretty grey due to how aroused I get from that one act and another person is required for it, and I do want that.. It would just never lead to sex for me.''

 

Someone who maybe once or twice had a desire to connect sexually with this one person in college but has never felt that again in the past 20 years can say ''well I ID as asexual now even though a long time when I was much younger I did experience a desire for sex with someone once or twice, so I know what that feels like. I just know I'd be incapable of experiencing that ever again and haven't in so many years that it would feel like a lie if I called myself a heterosexual''. They don't need to say they're 'grey' just because once for a very brief time 20 years ago they may have had an experience that wasn't exactly asexual.

 

I still use the term 'grey' even though I'm sexual, I'm just a sexual in a very grey area. Easy.

 

It really doesn't have to be complicated.

 

There, even though I'm an extremely busy person with a job and two kids, I took the time to read and respond to your post. I hope that you also can find the time to read my response to you, as it's not a 'discussion' if someone just randomly throws an opinion in every now and then without reading anyone else's comments or reading responses to one's own comment. I tried to keep it short for you.

 

Also, no one is 'othering' people who ID as grey. Explaining how normal sexuality works isn't 'othering' certain people. Maybe it's making them realize they were initially wrong about how they personally defined sexuality (and therefore, asexuality) but that's not 'othering', it's education.

[weijiangling]

On 9/24/2017 at 7:03 PM, FictoVore. said:

Pan (weirdly) comes the closest to 'asexuality' if you ask me, in that the 'extreme' pan people I have met (who aren't just confused bisexuals) literally seem to have no preference physically or gender/wise. They say things like 'I desire sex with souls and nothing else matters'. There is no preference there in the same way a bisexual might have a preference for 'men' and 'women' but obviously a lot of deciding factors come into that. But yeah those 'full' extreme pans, in my experience (which on Fetlife is the only place I have met people like that) are generally extremely open to literally any kind of sex with anyone - pretty much just 'email me and if you're close we can fuck'. Those people are probably as rare as asexuals, but the way they define and explain their sexuality when you meet them seems to be how some people try to explain asexuality, but the extreme pans claimed a label for that experience ages ago lol. The difference is the asexuals have no desire to connect sexually with anyone for pleasure, which renders 'sexual preference' invalid. Whereas those extreme pans don't have a 'sexual preference' other than 'be willing to fuck me!'.

I'm sort of fascinated by this comment just based on personal experience, because it seems so right (even if I really don't agree with the further discussion of that type of pansexual being labeled as ace, technically within psychological definitions or not). I was obviously never one of those people with the unlimited sex drive or I wouldn't be here calling myself grey-a now but back when I'd deluded myself into thinking I had more of a sex drive than I actually did, I was calling myself pansexual. Now I say panromantic. I'd say most of the people I've dated developed out of internet friendships and I had feelings before I ever met them or in some cases even had a concept what they looked like. it's pretty safe to say that I really don't care about physical anything. I also don't have any particular desire for sex, but I've always felt a certain kinship with these types of people despite that, because we at least share the "whatever, I just like people" aspect. 

 

For the sake of the argument, even in theoretical models, I'm not sure it would actually make sense to call people in that model of pansexual a type of asexual because I'm not sure it's safe to assume they "don't feel sexual attraction" to specific people. It's more that they're on some level attracted to everyone (or at least can be attracted to anyone) which means the attraction still exists. Just because they aren't using physical criteria for that attraction doesn't mean there isn't one. In a similar vein, I would in no way claim that my being poly and tending to have romantic feelings toward several people at once somehow means I don't experience romantic attraction. That seems pretty silly.

 

On the overall orientation debates, I tend to believe that everything exists on spectrums, and various midpoints between any binary exist no matter what you're talking about (gender, orientation, (a)sexuality) and only think labels exist for ease of communication, so really use them however you see fit. If someone thinks "sexual" and "asexual" is sufficient to cover all the bases and uses it to mean large categories that have huge amounts of variance in them, whatever. I only get bothered when people assume there's a specific thing those labels mean and anything in the middle just gets lost, because then it basically invalidates my existence, since I'm kind of in the middle of every possible spectrum.

[joeymac]

Awesome thread guys ! I'm only through September 21st but I can't wait to go through it all. 

I suspect the thread has been hijacked many times by now so please indulge my two cents formed through my very limited personal experience.

I now understand that when one defines themselves as asexual they may be referring to one or more of many different experiences, conditions or 'lifestyles' , sometimes by choice - more often , not. This took trial and error LOL . Lots of error! In my continuing experiences with a young lady , because she could not , and often ,still does not communicate honestly or , at least , effectively. 

So asexual folks ( again, at your expense please indulge me ); 

If a self-professed or patently obvious hetero sexual flirts with you and you give him your number - that's called being attracted. It does not mean that I will necessarily ask you to bed anytime to soon or that I expect you to accept the offer , it means we're attracted to one another.

If you expect me to appear and carry myself in a manner other than that of the other men in our circle of friends and always chose to be near to me - that's called a date 😂 It doesn't mean that if you call it a date I am expecting sex , or that you should. 

If we habitually go on dates to the exclusion of other people ; it's mean we are dating . You can well expect myself and everyone else to call it that. It does not mean that you have to question your identity. It does mean I get to pick up the cheque , because I'm old- that's why ! Not because I expect sex in a quid pro quo , regardless of what the internet or your classmates told you. 

If you gets scared of your feelings while we are dating ; that is somewhat common and often called a Fear of Intimacy . From my research on AVEN and elsewhere this can be easily mistaken for, and/or blatently defined as asexuality . This doesn't mean I think you are dishonest or I question your choices or Rights. Nor does it mean I feel you owe me a 'fixed' you. It does mean I have a Right , honestly , an obligation to be concerned for your welfare , express those concerned ( decently) and wish you health and happiness. Because , after all , we're dating ! 

I swear , such a sweetheart, I absolutely adore her.