Asexual “Spectrum” and Graysexuality

[The Dryad]

39 minutes ago, Anthraxite_Vampreza said:

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.

I think grey is a useful term too! I just think we need to change how we think of sexuality as a whole, but clear definitive lines are definitely needed to avoid confusion, that doesn't mean ostracize people who are different, we're not elitist but still...who knows what asexuality is if we, the asexuals, don't know? No wonder all those articles online are god-awful...

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Anthraxite_Vampreza said:

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.

Hmmm it depends though, because a lot of people have things that may cause issues of sexual disparity in a regular sexual relationship. Random example, a hetero guy who doesn't desire vaginal sex and hates doing it, and won't give oral sex because he just doesn't like the taste of it and is innately vagina repulsed, but loves being given oral. He's going to have veeeery few options for partners because most people want a give and take, and the majority of women don't have a strong enough fetish for giving oral that they're happy to forgo all other forms of pleasure just to give a guy oral. However, there are definitely guys out there like that and that doesn't actually make them grey! That's just one example of hundreds I could have thought of - people who only desire anal sex, people who only get off on feet, all sorts, but yeah - there are a lot of things that can cause issues when one is paired with a 'regular' sexual person, and can make it very difficult to have a relationship with the average sexual person.

 

The way I define grey is far more restrictive. You have sexuals and asexuals, then you have someone in a very foggy area that doesn't match either one enough to actually be sexual or ace. Even I don't fit in that category, despite having been celibate for years now and the fact that I'd happily go without sex forever. One example would be a guy I met here who was sexually aroused by sneezes, to the extent he'd actively try to get his girlfriends to sneeze. It would turn him on so much he'd have to go and masturbate, and he'd draw porn of people sneezing out their brains to get off to. He clearly had very strong sexual desires but they were directed towards something you can't actually have sex with (though if he COULD have sex with a sneeze, he totally would have), so he kind of perfectly fits in some grey area in that he's not technically ace (he has very strong sexual arousal response towards a certain thing that people do, and actively wants to make them do it) but he's also not sexual enough to be sexual in that he can't have sex with a sneeze. Maybe if he could get a girl to sneeze consistently he'd have banged her, but it was the sneezes themselves he desired sexually, not the person doing the sneezing, if that makes sense? That would fall into the grey area for me. But the vast majority of the time when I see people here trying to define grey, they are unknowingly defining things that are actually really common for average sexual people. So yeah it's the way it's defined I take issue with, as opposed to the phrase itself, if that makes sense?

[Anthracite_Impreza]

@FictoCannibal. Yeah I suppose, I mean I'm not exactly well-versed in the ways of the Common Sexual (Sexualis averagus) so it was just a way to define it that made some sort of sense to me. And that is a very good example, though I am now envisioning it 

[Elianor]

As someone who has come this year to identify as Grey Asexual it has been useful as far as it goes. In some ways, though it's easier to tell people what the specifics of my experience are rather than run through definitions. I've been reflecting on your proposal that being grey is just a condition of our sexuality, rather than the sexuality itself, like asexuality. If I consider how it works for me; I'm nearly 50 and have had about 5 people of the opposite sex for whom I have felt a attraction -  that on the surface seems to line up with what you're saying. But if I go deeper, those attractions were all almost instantaneous, lightning-bolt experiences, (which I think have as much to do with a biological attraction to a particular scent/DNA profile) which leaves me thinking that this is very much a product of my biologcal sexuality.

 

I have a very high libido - always have had - but I am not interested, indeed I am repulsed by, the idea of physical intimacy with someone with whom I feel no attraction (i.e. one of those 5 people). This is important for me because in the the past I have had friends get impatient and angry with me when I express my lonliness and they point to someone and say, "he looks nice why don't you get to know him and have a bit of fun?" and I have to repond, "I don't feel attracted...", to which they would say, "You don't have to marry him, you're just far too fussy!" I'm left asking "Why aren't I allowed to be attracted to the person I'm having sex with, let alone a romantic relationship?" For me it's all or nothing and it's immediate. I was married to a friend for 3 years and he was my only long-term relationship.

 

Romantically and sexually I am attracted strongly to itelligent men. As an artist I could tell you the physical attributes I consider quite attractive or beautiful, but in reality of the 5 men I have been attracted to none had these qualities and they looked nothing alike. It makes online dating impossible - If I don't know how they smell how will I know I'll be attracted, let alone compatible? (Need some scratch and sniff options!)

 

So I am trying to reconcile these four dimesions of my sexual identity;

1. physical attraction (grey - or very scarce, but intense )
2. libido (high)
3. romantic attraction (intellectual)
4. sexual orientation  (masculine) 

and come up with a reasonable way to express them.

 

Having the term Grey has been a kind of 'safe space' to help me not feel like a fussy freak - although I don't know how it really fits with asexuality and if they come from a similar biological or psychological place. I suspect we Greys are still sorting ourselves out, and we need to share our lived experiences so that we can appreciate the nuances of this particular 'safe space'. Maybe then those who aren't Grey will have a better understanding of the family relationship, i.e. (non-kissing) cousins ;-)

 

I personally don't align myself with the LGBT+ community as their journey and fight for rights has been different from mine, or I think, Asexuals. My experience is not one of overt discrimination, rather, feeling like I am somehow broken and that I will sped my life alone as a consequnce. It is lonley and there are no guarentees that I will ever actually feel that lightning-bolt for someone who actually reciprocates (so far they haven't). I have become quite disheartened by the whole thing.

 

I have spent the last 17 years alone with a strong libido and a strong desire for romantic and sexual companionship without any possibility of that being fulfilled. It's a little like feeling like you're they last human left alive on a dessert island with no fresh water. I hate when the lightning-bolt happens and once again it's one-sided, because an irrational part of my brain thinks, " F%#&* Hell!, now I have to wait another 5-10 years for a chance at romantic companionship!"
 

All that said, I'd rather people who aren't Grey didn't miminise us with flippant examples to justify exlcusion. You don't have to label us - that's our job. I hope this offers a little insight into a Grey experience. 

 

bright blessings El.

[Galactic Turtle]

14 hours ago, Elianor said:

I have spent the last 17 years alone with a strong libido and a strong desire for romantic and sexual companionship without any possibility of that being fulfilled. It's a little like feeling like you're they last human left alive on a dessert island with no fresh water. I hate when the lightning-bolt happens and once again it's one-sided, because an irrational part of my brain thinks, " F%#&* Hell!, now I have to wait another 5-10 years for a chance at romantic companionship!"

While I haven't been following this thread I would like to chime in and say that the above account goes along quite well with the points the OP was trying to make, particularly the portion quoted above. As someone who is both aromantic and asexual I see and acknowledge the gray experience. I understand why the gray area is an important part of the asexual community despite the fact that they are not by definition asexual and while I sympathize with the above post, I cannot relate to it at all. I'm all for community, just not for the whole umbrella term thing (even if just specifying "a-spec" instead of calling everything asexual or specifying gray like this poster did). If the above account was put out into the world to represent asexuality (as it is pitched as an umbrella term) I think it would be incredibly misleading. In many articles I've read, it has been incredibly misleading... from my point of view, anyway.

[Kayze]

On 10/28/2018 at 11:15 AM, Star Lion said:

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?

By your reasoning for claiming there's no asexuality umbrella, then there's no gray-romantic but only romantic and aromantic.

I do agree however that labels like fraysexual and cupiosexual aren't helpful to use as an identity. They're about behavior and not an actual queer circumstance of sexual attraction. Hell, attraction isn't about action, which is what cupiosexual is.

Gray-asexuality is someone who generally lacks sexual attraction but may have rare or limited circumstance in which they would experience sexual attraction. It's not about behavior, it's for people that don't exactly meet the definition of asexual because again, they do experience sexual attraction. It's being respectful to asexuals while being useful for someone who doesn't experience sexual attraction anywhere close to society norm. Someone who is gray-asexual will have similar difficulties as an asexual when dating sexuals. 

 

While gray-sexuality probably does exist, it's close enough to a societal norm that it doesn't need to be called out. A rare or circumstantial lapse of sexual attraction can be summed up as a "I sometimes don't want sex or am not attracted to some people" which is definitely not abnormal.

 

On 10/28/2018 at 11:21 AM, asshole said:

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 fir 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). 

So, if someone rarely or circumstantially experiences sexual attraction, they're not technically asexual and they aren't sexual enough to be sexual. What are they suppose to say? "Hey, I likely don't want sex with anyone or otherwise wouldn't be enthusiastic about it, but under some circumstances that could change. So here's hoping that happens!" to a sexual person? Or say they're asexual but that wouldn't be exactly true nor fair to actual asexuals, right?

 

Gray-asexuality isn't about libido, some moral code, nor inclusivity. It's that sexual attraction generally doesn't exist but sometimes can. It's not regular enough to be sexual but it's not absent and thus not asexual by definition. Having to choose sexual or asexual only would be unfair to people that are actually sexual or asexual. Misleading to the former and offensive to the latter. It's important to have as a label.

[Telecaster68]

It's perfectly possible for AVEN to have clear cut offs for what constitutes sexual vs asexual and be inclusive, in the sense of welcoming and sympathetic to people who fall outside the clear definition of asexual.

 

The whole 'you are if you say you are, regardless of your actual preferences and behaviours' thing is what makes a lot of people see AVEN as a bunch of screwed up attention seeking snowflakes - which is a pretty common reaction to the list of made up pseudo Latin terminology that gets floated as discrete orientations.

[Blondbear]

On 11/2/2018 at 1:57 PM, Telecaster68 said:

It's perfectly possible for AVEN to have clear cut offs for what constitutes sexual vs asexual and be inclusive, in the sense of welcoming and sympathetic to people who fall outside the clear definition of asexual.

 

The whole 'you are if you say you are, regardless of your actual preferences and behaviours' thing is what makes a lot of people see AVEN as a bunch of screwed up attention seeking snowflakes - which is a pretty common reaction to the list of made up pseudo Latin terminology that gets floated as discrete orientations.

 

I think AVEN plays an important role being a safe space for people who have "special" views on sexuality. But whenever I hear anyone sending people to "AVEN" to get "Educated" either about sexuality or asexuality it always make me lol. 
The amount of bul***** in AVEN about sexuality and asexuality is just equivalent or higher than outside of AVEN, and the way "demisexuality", "Cupiosexuality" and other sexualities are described are facepalmic.

I still remember the case of a woman who came to AVEN because her husband was not having sex with her and was addicted to porn (he was probably cheating and not attracted to his wife) , the wife was in denial and AVEN users created this hyper complex explanation of how he could be asexual but masturbate at the same time using porn because he had no sexual attraction he just had "aesthetic attraction"  😭 .

It is like out of a  Twiglight zone episode where the Razor Ockham way of thinking is the unusual way to reach conclusions.

 

 

[letusdeleteouraccounts]

@Blondbear

You’re right, only thing I have to say is that there are asexuals who have high libido and that can cause them to get addicted to porn. Porn is like actors putting on a show, except that show can spark your libido (whether you experience sexual attraction to people or not). From my experience, thinking about 2  people who are aesthetically attractive in the act can spark my libido. I don’t know why, I guess maybe it’s just the vulnerability and the faces people make. When I think of those people or look at them though, I never actually desire to be in that act myself

[IrishArcher]

As someone who is still figuring out my sexuality (or lack thereof), I find graysexual to be a useful term in conveying a sense of uncertainty or fluidity in my experiences, at least in my own mind. I generally don't use it to describe myself to others since I've found that most people don't even understand "asexual" as an umbrella term, so using a more specific term under that umbrella would not be helpful in conveying my point. I consider labels to be useful only insofar as they help to communicate an experience without needing too much further clarification, so I tend to shy away from the more "niche" terms that would be unfamiliar to those who had not already done extensive research into the asexual community.

 

That being said, if someone were to probe further into my experiences, I would have to admit that while I use the term "asexual" as a general category, I cannot say with complete certainty that I have never experienced sexual attraction. For me, attraction has always been a fuzzy concept, and my experiences are generally not clear cut. I have had one "crush" in my entire life, which lasted only a very short while, and which I now regard with some skepticism under further analysis of the circumstances. That experience (a little over three years ago) seems almost completely removed from me now, being such a small part of my life overall. I cannot recall my exact feelings. At the time, I did not consider myself asexual, and I didn't make a distinction between sexual attraction and other forms of attraction. I cannot remember if what I felt had a sexual component (I suspect not, but I can't say for sure). I do know that whatever feelings I had faded very quickly, and I have never had a similar experience before or since -- in fact, having matured and changed quite a bit since then, I can no longer even imagine the feelings that I once had with any clarity.

 

All of my other brushes with attraction have had a similar layer of ambiguity. I have never felt a strong desire (sexual or romantic) for a particular person outside of the experience detailed above, but I have occasionally experienced what I would describe as an openness: I would not pursue a relationship with a person, but I would not necessarily be opposed to one. All of these feelings are very dim, and I can easily ignore them if I want to (which I usually do). To me, this seems to fall under the category of something less than attraction, so I do not consider myself allosexual. It also wouldn't be considered aversion or repulsion (which is what I generally feel toward the idea of sexual/romantic relationships with most people). If I had to choose a word, ambivalence might be most appropriate, but even that doesn't completely sum up my experience.

 

In short, I find it difficult to categorize how I experience attraction, so the labels of allosexual and asexual are not as clear cut as "do you or don't you." Because of this, I find graysexual to be a perfectly valid term to describe an experience that falls under neither category.