letusdeleteouraccounts Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 I want to share my thoughts and I want to hear yours. Despite what’s commonly said, I no longer believe that asexuality is an umbrella or a spectrum. To me, asexuality only covers one definition that also has many experiences: “a person who does not experience sexual attraction.” I also don’t exactly see the point of labels such as cupiosexual because that’s just an extension of an asexual experience. After talking about it, I also believe that a graysexual is just a sexual person who relates to the asexual experience. The difference is that they have experienced something that an asexual hasn’t and that’s what really makes the two different. Some people say that graysexual isn’t a thing and doesn’t make sense but I do believe that the label is useful considering that these people have a much different experience from your average sexual and is legitimate enough to be under the asexual community. One thing I don’t believe though is that graysexual (and things such as demisexual which is under the graysexual umbrella) is a sexuality. By definition it wouldn’t make sense for graysexual to be a sexuality because it only describes a circumstance of your sexuality. I’m a grayromantic for short but my one experience of romantic attraction was towards the opposite sex/gender meaning that I’m technically a gray heteromantic. I also don’t identify with any extensions under the grayromantic umbrella so there’s nothing else added on to that label to describe my experience. I also wouldn’t see myself as aromantic because I know what romantic attraction feels like while an aromantic has never had that experience. This experience of romantic attraction also gives me an idea of what sexual attraction feels like, even though I’m asexual, while it would be much harder for an aro ace to get that idea. I also don’t get why we try to throw sexuals with low libido, asexuals with high libido, and asexuals who like sex under the graysexual label. None of this is about sex drive or what you do under the sheets. The definition of asexual is purely about sexual attraction so why should we all of a sudden add these extra things to graysexual? But what are your thoughts on this, do you disagree or does this actually make sense? Link to post Share on other sites
Ceebs Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Pretty much fully agreed, and the whole spectrum thing has been one of the downfalls of this community. You either desire sex (and/or romance, since you mentioned that as well) with other people or you don't. "Sexual" isn't code for "wants to fuck 24/7". It doesn't matter if you've only desired sex with one person in your life and your ideal frequency is once a month. No that's not a typical or average experience, but it's not asexuality either. The whole spectrum thing just opens the door for people who aren't asexual to identify as such -- which actually does a disservice to those who really are and to asexuality being taken seriously as an orientation (or lack thereof, whichever you prefer). Link to post Share on other sites
Ceebs Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 I'm definitely not saying people shouldn't come to AVEN to help figure themselves out if they're uncertain or that everyone isn't welcome to participate here and share experiences, btw. And some people may think they're possibly asexual until something makes them realise they're not, and that's totally ok. I'm one of those people actually, and I don't identify as anything related to asexuality anymore. I'm not suddenly drooling over every "hot" person who walks by, I just figured out some orientation stuff and realised that sharing that type of intimacy is actually very important to me when I love someone. I'm not grey or demi, I'm sexual. I've no use for "in between" labels just because I'm not shagging everything that moves and don't have an insatiable libido. Link to post Share on other sites
TheAP Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Grey-sexual and grey-romantic are broad terms with multiple definitions. So some grey-asexual people may be technically sexual, but those who don't know if they experience sexual attraction or not, or don't know if their attraction is sexual, etc., might not be. See this and this. Also, it doesn't really matter whether it's categorized as a "sexuality" or not. A demisexual person, for example, might experience sexual attraction to too few people to know which genders they experience it to, so might just identify as demisexual. Link to post Share on other sites
The Dryad Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Agreed. But I also believe the same thing about asexuality and LGBT+. The Ace Spectrum/Umbrella is an inclusion club, which is nice because it acknowledges people and gives you definitions, however, it muddles the lines of asexuality and what it actually is. When we actually set clear definitive lines of what asexuality is, then maybe people will take us seriously. LGBT+ is seen as a sort of ☑ "check other box", oh you're not the typical straight person? Welcome! Club, which AVEN tries to mimic in ideology, however in the base problems, why LGBT is important is because of sexual and romantic freedom and gender expression, typical asexuals experience no such things (unless you fall into LGBT+ in romance expression and/gender) so why are we automatically included? Either you are something or you aren't. Link to post Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, CBC said: I'm definitely not saying people shouldn't come to AVEN to help figure themselves out or that everyone isn't welcome to participate here and share experiences, btw. And some people may think they're possibly asexual until something makes them realise they're not, and that's totally ok. I'm one of those people actually, and I don't identify as anything related to asexuality anymore. I'm not suddenly drooling over every "hot" person who walks by, I just figured out some orientation stuff and realised that sharing that type of intimacy is important to me when I love someone. I'm not grey or demi, I'm sexual. I've no use for "in between" labels just because I'm not shagging everything that moves and don't have an insatiable libido. Definitely. Everyone is welcome to participate in the community whether they are apart of it or not or if they aren’t sure but sometimes people confuse everything up in their quest for inclusion Link to post Share on other sites
Ceebs Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Indeed, and it's not ultimately helpful for the community as a whole when almost anything can be considered somehow asexual. Link to post Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 12 minutes ago, TheAppallingPhantom said: Grey-sexual and grey-romantic are broad terms with multiple definitions. So some grey-asexual people may be technically sexual, but those who don't know if they experience sexual attraction or not, or don't know if their attraction is sexual, etc., might not be. See this and this. Also, it doesn't really matter whether it's categorized as a "sexuality" or not. A demisexual person, for example, might experience sexual attraction to too few people to know which genders they experience it to, so might just identify as demisexual. I can understand that but when it comes to the asexual community, going outside of our simple definitions with sexual attraction takes away from who asexuals are and the ability for people outside the community to take us seriously. Also I’ve seen WAY too many people who honestly believe that graysexual is a sexuality and that is also toxic for the community. Like in my post, I call myself grayromantic bcus it’s easier and it represents the gray area I have with my romantic orientation better. I don’t treat it as it’s own romantic orientation though because it’s not Link to post Share on other sites
TheAP Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 If people don't want to take asexuals seriously, that's their own choice. Groups of people are never responsible for others not accepting them. And according to the Wikipedia article on human sexuality, "Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually. This involves biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors. Because it is a broad term, which has varied over time, it lacks a precise definition." So since there's no precise definition of what "sexuality" constitutes, it's hard to say if grey-sexuality is a "sexuality" or not. Link to post Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 39 minutes ago, The Dryad said: Agreed. But I also believe the same thing about asexuality and LGBT+. The Ace Spectrum/Umbrella is an inclusion club, which is nice because it acknowledges people and gives you definitions, however, it muddles the lines of asexuality and what it actually is. When we actually set clear definitive lines of what asexuality is, then maybe people will take us seriously. LGBT+ is seen as a sort of ☑ "check other box", oh you're not the typical straight person? Welcome! Club, which AVEN tries to mimic in ideology, however in the base problems, why LGBT is important is because of sexual and romantic freedom and gender expression, typical asexuals experience no such things (unless you fall into LGBT+ in romance expression and/gender) so why are we automatically included? Either you are something or you aren't. I agree even though the LGBTAlphabeticalSoup seriously needs to get it straight 😂 *bad puns* but they just need something like the QI (Queer Identity) Community and call it a day. I’m also just waiting for the day when we stop saying asexual spectrum/umbrella and say asexual community. I do believe that we should be in the LGBT+ Since we and the community deal with prejudice from a large population of specifically typical straight people which is what we have in common even though it’s not to the same extent. LGBT+ have had it out for us, but they’ve had it out for other people in their community too so it’s not all that much of a difference Link to post Share on other sites
The Dryad Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Many sexuals don't walk around being sexually attracted to all the people they meet, but rather they have the potential to be sexually attracted to certain people according to preferences and stimulus, time, love, etc. Greysexuals also have the same potential sexual attraction, but with more circumstances, such as being in love, or not being in love. In fact, you could argue that all people are asexual until they find someone in their preferences. After all, (most) familial relationships are asexual and so are most friendships, so if everyone is experiencing asexuality, then what is it? Asexuality doesn't have the potential of experiencing sexual attraction, and I think that's most telling of what asexuality is. Link to post Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 10 minutes ago, TheAppallingPhantom said: If people don't want to take asexuals seriously, that's their own choice. Groups of people are never responsible for others not accepting them. And according to the Wikipedia article on human sexuality, "Human sexuality is the way people experience and express themselves sexually. This involves biological, erotic, physical, emotional, social, or spiritual feelings and behaviors. Because it is a broad term, which has varied over time, it lacks a precise definition." So since there's no precise definition of what "sexuality" constitutes, it's hard to say if grey-sexuality is a "sexuality" or not. Not exactly because a huge majority of the world is non graysexual straight people and some of the points of our community is for acceptance and awareness. One of our goals is for a society where sexual orientation is of little importance because everyone is accepting and has learned of these orientations in a similar way that they learned about what it means to be straight. Also never site Wikipedia. Look for a dictionary definition. Saying that graysexual is a sexuality is like saying “faded is a color”. It describes a color but it’s not a color itself Link to post Share on other sites
The Dryad Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, Star Lion said: I agree even though the LGBTAlphabeticalSoup seriously needs to get it straight 😂 *bad puns* but they just need something like the QI (Queer Identity) Community and call it a day. I’m also just waiting for the day when we stop saying asexual spectrum/umbrella and say asexual community. I do believe that we should be in the LGBT+ just we and the community deal with prejudice from a large population of specifically typical straight people which is what we have in common even though it’s not to the same extent. LGBT+ have had it out for us, but they’ve had it out for other people in their community too so it’s not all that much of a difference I think AVEN is important to aces, grey-aces, as well as other LGBT+ and straight people, because it's a community based platform, but I don't really think that the spectrum/umbrella is going anywhere, actually I'd be more okay with "branches" Like a tree that begins with asexuality (the foundation since most relationships, familial and friendships begin that way from infancy), then begin to branch off as logic follows, like heterosexuals and homosexuals are second tier, bisexuality is probably third,etc. Part of the main reason LGBT+ has so many attacks on it, is conservative values, classic and antiquated thoughts and well as traditional thoughts on nature and interpretations of the Abrahamic religions (even though other religions also have conservative values). If a Christian were to meet an asexual, especially an aromantic asexual cis person, they were probably think "this person is more "pure" than me, and that's the foundation of all these problems, why LGBT thinks we don't belong, why we experience little problems from Christian groups (I've literally never seen a Westboro Baptist Church sign saying I was going to burn in hell). Link to post Share on other sites
Ceebs Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, The Dryad said: Asexuality doesn't have the potential of experiencing sexual attraction, and I think that's most telling of what asexuality is. YES. I really really like this actually. Well said. And lol, I walk around wishing most people would bugger off and leave me alone. I barely pay attention to others, maybe give them a rather impersonal smile if I pass them on the street. Or avoid them entirely because I have social anxiety hahaha. I rarely feel attracted to anyone in terms of strangers, and if I do it's this vague passing thing that doesn't include thoughts of actual sex even thought it's obviously an extension of my sexuality. But I happen to really value expressions of desire when I'm in love with someone, so that's what makes me not "asexual spectrum". Like seriously, it doesn't even have to be actual sex sometimes (not that I'd turn it down unless I was sick or in a really bad mood), and being in a long-distance relationship situation means that it usually isn't actual sex currently anyway. It's about the connection, feeling desired and wanted. I've felt that strongly about someone probably once in my 30-odd years of life. I'm perfectly capable of existing without sex, although I do want it when I have that connection. And that's what makes me sexual, rather than some sort of ace spectrum thing. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 I agree with you @Star Lion; asexuality is like a 0, the end point, nada, zilch. Sexuality is anywhere from 0.1 to 1, though in the lower tiers grey-sexuality would be an appropriate label because it's unusual. Graces, demis and such can experience sexuality, that's what sets them apart from aces. Link to post Share on other sites
TheAP Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, Star Lion said: Not exactly because a huge majority of the world is non graysexual straight people and some of the points of our community is for acceptance and awareness. One of our goals is for a society where sexual orientation is of little importance because everyone is accepting and has learned of these orientations in a similar way that they learned about what it means to be straight. If we want everyone to be accepted, we shouldn't throw other members of the community under the bus to pander to those who won't accept us. 7 minutes ago, Star Lion said: Also never site Wikipedia. Look for a dictionary definition. Saying that graysexual is a sexuality is like saying “faded is a color”. It describes a color but it’s not a color itself Just because it's Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not right, especially when it comes to broad ideas rather than precise facts. I don't think any of the snippet I posted can be argued to be incorrect. Anyway, the dictionary says "A person's sexual orientation or preference", which isn't specific either. Nitpicking terminology doesn't help anyone. Link to post Share on other sites
The Dryad Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, Anthraxite_Vampreza said: I agree with you @Star Lion; asexuality is like a 0, the end point, nada, zilch. Sexuality is anywhere from 0.1 to 1, though in the lower tiers grey-sexuality would be an appropriate label because it's unusual. Graces, demis and such can experience sexuality, that's what sets them apart from aces. I feel offended. 🙃 Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Just now, The Dryad said: I feel offended. 🙃 You're a double 0, being aro and ace; you're practically James Bond Link to post Share on other sites
The Dryad Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Anthraxite_Vampreza said: You're a double 0, being aro and ace; you're practically James Bond That's a really cool way of putting it, a numeric system to explain sexuality would work though. Anyone can understand it. Unless we start talking about invisible numbers. Link to post Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 28 minutes ago, The Dryad said: I think AVEN is important to aces, grey-aces, as well as other LGBT+ and straight people, because it's a community based platform, but I don't really think that the spectrum/umbrella is going anywhere, actually I'd be more okay with "branches" Like a tree that begins with asexuality (the foundation since most relationships, familial and friendships begin that way from infancy), then begin to branch off as logic follows, like heterosexuals and homosexuals are second tier, bisexuality is probably third,etc. Part of the main reason LGBT+ has so many attacks on it, is conservative values, classic and antiquated thoughts and well as traditional thoughts on nature and interpretations of the Abrahamic religions (even though other religions also have conservative values). If a Christian were to meet an asexual, especially an aromantic asexual cis person, they were probably think "this person is more "pure" than me, and that's the foundation of all these problems, why LGBT thinks we don't belong, why we experience little problems from Christian groups (I've literally never seen a Westboro Baptist Church sign saying I was going to burn in hell). Omg, I’m a non denominational Christian and I honestly can’t stand conservatives who flat out say “gay people are going to hell.” What I say to people like that: “first of all it’s not your business, second of all that is not at all what the Bible says. It’s a lot more complicated than that.” But I’ve actually dealt with some conservative Christians who think that asexuality is a choice and that you have to get married and reproduce. Also because the Bible says not to deny sex from your spouse, conservatives tend to look down upon asexuals in a sexless marriage even when both of the partners mutually agree on not having sex. Non Christian conservatives tend to think we’re weird attention seekers threatening their way of life Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 1 minute ago, The Dryad said: That's a really cool way of putting it, a numeric system to explain sexuality would work though. Anyone can understand it. Unless we start talking about invisible numbers. I think that would be a lot easier, 0 being ace and 1 being nymphomaniac (are they actually real? I'm sure they must be); 0.5 would be "average". It could work for all other orientations and a modified version for gender (1F for very female, 1M for very male, 0 for agender). Link to post Share on other sites
The Dryad Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 Just now, Star Lion said: Omg, I’m a non denominational Christian and I honestly can’t stand conservatives who flat out say “gay people are going to hell.” What I say to people like that: first of all it’s not your business, second of all that is not at all what the Bible says. It’s a lot more complicated than that.” But I’ve actually dealt with some conservatives Christians who think that asexuality is a choice and that you have to get married and reproduce. Also because the Bible says not to deny sex from your partner, conservatives tend to look down upon asexuals in a sexless marriage even when both of the partner mutually agree on not having sex. Non Christian conservatives tend to think we’re weird attention seekers threatening their way of life Same, I've heard the Celibacy is asexuality rhetoric before (it's all b.s.) The Bible also says some people are born eunuchs and some become them, and the Bible doesn't require marriage. Lol I've heard non Christian rhetoric too, it's weird they think we're a threat, since they basically want the most non threatening religious people they look up to, to basically be asexual or celibate. Link to post Share on other sites
Homer Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 I could have written the opening post myself *agrees 100%* Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 42 minutes ago, The Dryad said: Greysexuals also have the same potential sexual attraction, but with more circumstances, such as being in love. One thing I would like to throw in here (though I agree with all of what you've been saying) is that for many sexual people there are those same specific requirements - like an emotional bond, attraction to personality after having gotten to know the person.. I mean, some sexual people only have like 4 sexual partners their entire lives because it's just very difficult for some people to develop that attraction! That's why I disagree with the criteria for 'grey' being 'under certain specific circumstances' or whatever. The fact is, the type of sexual we are presented with in the media/books etc (wants to bang any hot person, can want sex with someone they've just met etc) those are just one type of sexual person that for whatever reason is vastly over-represented in popular culture. But if you look at normal, average sexuals, many of them would fall under the definition of grey most often used in the asexual community. What I'm getting at is that this is one of the main reasons I dislike the grey label, it makes it sound like you have to be a stereotypical, relatively shallow horndog to be a sexual person, otherwise you're some type of grey 47 minutes ago, The Dryad said: Asexuality doesn't have the potential of experiencing sexual attraction, and I think that's most telling of what asexuality is. Yes this is how I try to explain it too. The way I explain it is: An asexual person does not have the innate capacity to desire partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure. A sexual person does have the innate capacity to desire sexual intimacy with certain people, under specific circumstances, to varying degrees. That's pretty much the fundamental difference between an ace and a sexual. There isn't an 'in between', you either have that innate capacity to experience that attraction or you don't! Link to post Share on other sites
The Dryad Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said: One thing I would like to throw in here (though I agree with all of what you've been saying) is that for many sexual people there are those same specific requirements - like an emotional bond, attraction to personality after having gotten to know the person.. I mean, some sexual people only have like 4 sexual partners their entire lives because it's just very difficult for some people to develop that attraction! That's why I disagree with the criteria for 'grey' being 'under certain specific circumstances' or whatever. The fact is, the type of sexual we are presented with in the media/books etc (wants to bang any hot person, can want sex with someone they've just met etc) those are just one type of sexual person that for whatever reason is vastly over-represented in popular culture. But if you look at normal, average sexuals, many of them would fall under the definition of grey most often used in the asexual community. What I'm getting at is that this is one of the main reasons I dislike the grey label, it makes it sound like you have to be a stereotypical, relatively shallow horndog to be a sexual person, otherwise you're some type of grey Yes this is how I try to explain it too. The way I explain it is: An asexual person does not have the innate capacity to desire partnered sexual intimacy for pleasure. A sexual person does have the innate capacity to desire sexual intimacy with certain people, under specific circumstances, to varying degrees. That's pretty much the fundamental difference between an ace and a sexual. There isn't an 'in between', you either have that innate capacity to experience that attraction or you don't! I thought preferences included emotional needs? No? I'll add it, but I agree with the whole time needed to develop feelings, I think greysexuality, or what constitutes grey-aces is actually a lot bigger than most people think. Link to post Share on other sites
Galactic Turtle Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 True. I never understood why we can't accept that various people can relate to the asexual experience without calling themselves asexual. It's particularly misleading in interviews where a media outlet will grab a really outspoken 20-something "asexual" person who then goes on to talk about how they're only sexually attracted to their boyfriend because they're in love and how being asexual doesn't mean you can't experience sexual attraction because it's a spectrum. I do think a strength of the asexual community (not spectrum) is the conversations it can start regarding relationship structures and the diversity of desire that are rarely if ever mentioned in popular media. Needless to say, the majority seem to be hooked on the spectrum idea so I doubt it will ever change. Link to post Share on other sites
Tasha the demi squirrel Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 2 hours ago, Star Lion said: LGBTAlphabeticalSoup seriously needs to get it straight 😂 *bad puns* but they just need something like the QI (Queer Identity) Community and call it a day. The LGBTQ+ community already have a condensed acronym GSD (Gender Sexual Diversity) 1 hour ago, TheAppallingPhantom said: If we want everyone to be accepted, we shouldn't throw other members of the community under the bus to pander to those who won't accept us. Well said! Link to post Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts Posted October 28, 2018 Author Share Posted October 28, 2018 37 minutes ago, Tasha the demi squirrel said: The LGBTQ+ community already have a condensed acronym GSD (Gender Sexual Diversity) Well said! I’ve never heard of that and that name is also uninclusive to Intersex people. As far as throwing people under bus, there needs to be a cutoff point or else just any person could consider themselves graysexual or asexual. Also we have definitions to make sense of things. Without clear cut definitions, there’s no point to the label. It becomes faulty and causes confusion Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 2 hours ago, FictoCannibal. said: That's pretty much the fundamental difference between an ace and a sexual. There isn't an 'in between', you either have that innate capacity to experience that attraction or you don't! I agree with you, but I do think grey is a useful label for someone whose sexual desires are unusually low enough as to cause issues when paired with "regular" sexuals. I have no idea if that grammar even works but neh. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted October 28, 2018 Share Posted October 28, 2018 3 hours ago, The Dryad said: Asexuality doesn't have the potential of experiencing sexual attraction, and I think that's most telling of what asexuality is. Yes. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.