Jump to content
Star Bit

Gray-asexual/ the 'asexual umbrella' are not asexual

Recommended Posts

DoubleATripleA
Just now, HikaruBG said:

I'm not saying that's not true per se. It's just that bisexuality just means that someone is sexually attracted/desires sex with both women or men. Nothing more, nothing less. Adding "with preference for women" is kind of pointless you know?

ah ok, I just say that to establish that bi people can have a preference and still be bi because people who use heteroflexible or homoflexible don't understand this. Same with people who use pan who don't understand that bi people can not have any preference at all and that bisexuality has always included trans binary and trans nb people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia
28 minutes ago, DoubleATripleA said:

I agree with what you said except for the "if you experience sexual/romantic attraction so damn rarely that it might as well be nonexistent, then you're just aro and/or ace." because even if there's still some sexual/romantic attraction, you cannot be ace and/or aro. That's still allosexual/alloromantic. I agree that you did contradict yourself there.

 

tldr

No sexual attraction = ace

no romantic attraction = aro

romantic attraction = alloromantic

sexual attraction = allosexual

 

Yes, that does mean greysexuals are technically allosexual and using 'grey-asexual' just contradicts each other and makes no sense. There is no spectrum. 

I'm a little confused by your use of the allo terms here. A definition: " Alloromantic describes the opposte of aromantic: a person who experiences romantic attraction or romantic desire in a clear, consistent, frequent enough manner " It probably depends how much certain definitions are used..

A lot of gray folk don't experience it consistently or frequently. There's a reason the spectrum exist, it would just be much simpler if people saw it as a a bigger (a/sexual) spectrum.
I see it as the opposite side, while the in-between is the gray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybeimamazed

I can see how I contradicted myself in my previous post. Let me try to explain.

 

I suppose what I was trying to say was that, with 1 being asexual and 10 being sexual, if you're a 1.5 you might as well call yourself asexual. If you fit anywhere between 2 and 9.5, you're sexual. There's no need for extra terms like demi and gray to explain those positions in the scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia
10 minutes ago, maybeimamazed said:

I can see how I contradicted myself in my previous post. I suppose what I was trying to say was that, with 1 being asexual and 10 being sexual, if you're a 1.5 you might as well call yourself asexual. If you fit anywhere between 2 and 9.5, you're sexual. There's no need for extra terms like demi and gray to explain your position in the scale.

I don't understand why people think that there's no need for the extra terms. If someone doesn't feel sexual enough to call themselves sexual, it can be worth it. When meeting people and trying to get a sense of what their sexuality is or isn't, it can save some heartache. The point is, because this is such a sexual-heavy society in some ways, being able to identify where someone is on the scale will be way easier for someone else to understand, and to meet others about the same (or compatible).

I thought the original idea was just for gray folk not to call themselves asexuals. which technically or strictly they aren't, but the terms are super useful.
And someone who's gray-asexual may want to say they're asexual in public, since it makes it way easier for people to understand right away, even if they may have a few rare ways to be attracted.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybeimamazed
15 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

I don't understand why people think that there's no need for the extra terms. If someone doesn't feel sexual enough to call themselves sexual, it can be worth it. When meeting people and trying to get a sense of what their sexuality is or isn't, it can save some heartache. The point is, because this is such a sexual-heavy society in some ways, being able to identify where someone is on the scale will be way easier for someone else to understand, and to meet others about the same (or compatible).

I thought the original idea was just for gray folk not to call themselves asexuals. which technically or strictly they aren't, but the terms are super useful.
And someone who's gray-asexual may want to say they're asexual in public, since it makes it way easier for people to understand right away, even if they may have a few rare ways to be attracted.

 

If you pick a random person on the street, chances are they won't even know that romantic and sexual orientations can differ, let alone that there are different levels within those branches.

 

If someone asks whether or not you wanna have sex with that guy or girl over there and you say "nah, casual hook up is not my thing, I need to get to know them first", there's absolutely no way the average person is gonna come to the conclusion - based on that alone - that you're something other than homo, hetero or bisexual. They might call you a prude, but that's about it.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questdrivencollie
1 hour ago, HikaruBG said:

I don't get this argument.

That's like saying that a straight man would still be straight, even when he wants to have sex with men 2-3 times or so in a year... while he wants to have sex with women through the rest of the years.

He wouldn't be considered straight by the most of people.... Noone is going to say "Well, these 2-3 times doesn't count so yes, he is still straight".

So why should we make such an exception for Gray-As simply because they don't want to have sex with others ~90% of the time?


 

  Hide contents

 

Also, a bit off topic but still somewhat relevant:

 

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

 

I unironically had this told to me once (and it was the only time me ever doing this) I stated my opinion on the topic off-Aven, not to mention that I got 'scolded' with "Go check Aven's resources" (despite the fact that I already was using them) as if I'm the one who is uneducated.

 

The nerve of some people!!!

 

 

 

See, the thing is they don't want to have sex. They might look at someone and go "well yes, hm, they get me aroused", but they have no interest in sex itself.

But then I tend to define aexuality as a lack of interest in sex, rather than strictly attraction.

 

And going on the subject of heteroflexibles, they might experience attraction/desire for the same sex once in their entire lifetime. Most would still call/consider themselves straight, just with one exception... What's the point of calling yourself bisexual if you're not generally interested in dating the same sex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia
20 minutes ago, maybeimamazed said:

 

If you pick a random person on the street, chances are they won't even know that romantic and sexual orientations can differ, let alone that there are different levels within those branches.

 

If someone asks whether or not you wanna have sex with that guy or girl over there and you say "nah, casual hook up is not my thing", there's absolutely no way the average person is gonna come to the conclusion - based on that alone - that you're something other than homo, hetero or bisexual.

 

Not sure what you're saying. In the end, labels help people feel like they've identified how they are more. If you meet someone random, you can either say it a different way, or spread awareness about the spectrum(s) and your place in it.

Some people 'want' others to know where they stand, and not just say things that could be taken differently.. They want to be understood for who they are.
But there's different ways to say things, so yeah someone could find a phrase like that if they want, but personally and with people they can relate with or feel supported, it's useful knowing these terms. If you look at my a/sexuality on this site, you can know where I stand right away, so you don't have to wonder if I'm asexual or not or how much, I'm demi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HikaruBG
10 hours ago, questdrivencollie said:

See, the thing is they don't want to have sex. They might look at someone and go "well yes, hm, they get me aroused", but they have no interest in sex itself.

But then I tend to define aexuality as a lack of interest in sex, rather than strictly attraction.

I said "wants sex [with others]", not "aroused [by others]".

 

I'm well-aware with the sematics and whatnot in regards to this, have said it multiple times why it's problematic and have even expierenced this discrepancy myself (a.i. have been aroused by someone's attractiveness but did not want sex with them, regsrdless of the fact that I find them attractive).

 

It seem like we do agree on this but there is some misunderstanding here.

 

 

10 hours ago, questdrivencollie said:

And going on the subject of heteroflexibles, they might experience attraction/desire for the same sex once in their entire lifetime. Most would still call/consider themselves straight, just with one exception... What's the point of calling yourself bisexual if you're not generally interested in dating the same sex?

Exception or not, these people still have expressed sexual interest towards gender they usually are not interested in.

 

Your statement is heavily contradictory here because it does sound that they are indeed intersted dating/having sex with someone of the same sex...  even if that "someone" is only one person.

I mean if they are already dating them (or have causal sex with them), do you think that others will take them seriously if they were to say "well, I'm technically straight but my current partner, who is of the same sex, is an exception"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gnome.1
3 hours ago, DoubleATripleA said:

I agree with what you said except for the "if you experience sexual/romantic attraction so damn rarely that it might as well be nonexistent, then you're just aro and/or ace." because even if there's still some sexual/romantic attraction, you cannot be ace and/or aro. That's still allosexual/alloromantic. I agree that you did contradict yourself there.

 

tldr

No sexual attraction = ace

no romantic attraction = aro

romantic attraction = alloromantic

sexual attraction = allosexual

 

Yes, that does mean greysexuals are technically allosexual and using 'grey-asexual' just contradicts each other and makes no sense. There is no spectrum. 

Yes you are correct,  grey-asexual is a contradiction in terms.  And yes, having no sexual attraction whatsoever would be considered ace and any attraction whatsoever would be allosexual.  

 

And again you are correct when you say a Demisexual cannot be an asexual, cuz again sexual attraction means allosexual. 

 

This thread has gone all over but for the most part it's an argument on labels.  Honestly I grew up in the middle of nowhere before the internet was a thing and until recently had no need to research any of this.  Just figured I was different in some way and found a work around.  When I used the term grey-ace earlier it was because it is used quite a bit on this site and others to describe a lack of attraction that is not quite the zero that would warrant asexual.  I myself agree that it confuses two separate terms but it is what is being used.  

 

Back to the true issue at hand however, the technicality that everyone that is not asexual is allosexual is where the problem lies.  This is where people like me who have experienced sexual or romantic attraction so rarely feel the need for a way to express  themselves in a way that a very sexual person would understand.   Personally I like the idea of the grey label.  It identifies that you have experienced sexual attraction but that it is rare.  Beyond that we have come up with many different ways to label what that attraction is, however not everyone can identify what it was right away that gave them that attraction.  Grey, I feel, is a very good label for this that already exists.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SithEmpress
8 hours ago, maybeimamazed said:

I can see how I contradicted myself in my previous post. Let me try to explain.

 

I suppose what I was trying to say was that, with 1 being asexual and 10 being sexual, if you're a 1.5 you might as well call yourself asexual. If you fit anywhere between 2 and 9.5, you're sexual. There's no need for extra terms like demi and gray to explain those positions in the scale.

Yay numbers. Can I just say that I disagree with your idea that "1" is asexual? Because that implies that 1 is not a "no" answer. Like how I was scoring a test earlier and my lowest possible is 1 because I have to have it there. But guess what? I had to give my student a 4/20 despite him giving me no information because 1 was the lowest score possible. 

 

But if we're going to go down this scale road, let's play with numbers for a second.

1 to 10, right? We're going to ignore the preference of those who believe 0 should be asexual since ours is a "none" or "never" answer. 1 is asexual. You're saying 1.1 would also be asexual then, because 2 is sexual. What about 1.9 then? They're closer to 2 than they are to 1.  You have a problem. 1.1 is close to 1, true, but 1.1 is also close to 1.2, which is close to 1.3 etc etc. until you get 1.999999999999999999999 which is much closer to 2 than it is to 1. So you're saying this is still asexual?

 

Also, the ten on your scale. What is it? What clasifies a 10 on this scale? What is a "absolute sexual" compared to anything between 2 and 9.5? 

 

Because I've discussed asexuality/sexuality as a scale before. The person ended up convincing me of what I believe now. That 0 is asexual, and anything above that isn't. Because 0.1 is still not 0, it doesn't matter how close. And the end scale, be it 10 or 100 or whatever, is not possible. Because if you really wanted to get into the nitty gritty of these things, the proper way of applying it would be something like 0 to 7 billion, assuming we had 7 billion people on the planet. A person at the extreme end would have to be attracted to literally everyone (not including attraction to non-humans or to those not of age). And I don't think that is possible. 

 

The way me and the other person put it was that the scale is 0 to 1, with x being someone's sexuality. If x = 0, they're asexual. but if x > 0, they're sexual. Doesn't matter if x is 0.1, 0.5, 99, whatever. While I agree that along the lines, 0.1 is closer to 0 than it is to 99, many sexual people are also different. You have serial cheaters  in the same category as someone who is strictly monogamous. You have people content with sex once a month together with those who can't imagine life without it every day. Because "sexual" itself is already an umbrella term to contrast asexual. The a- means "not", it doesn't mean "kind of", "sometimes", or "rarely."

 

So I'm fine with the grey-(a)sexual scale (and demi-sexuals). Let them be "almost asexual" or "essentially asexual" and be in our communities. We're not kicking them out. We just don't want people thinking "asexual" is the same thing as "essentially asexual" and therefore there's hope for us to be sexually attracted to X, Y, or Z in the future. It opens up the floodgates to "You never know!" and "You just haven't met the right person." 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DoubleATripleA
On 12/4/2019 at 9:31 PM, Gnome.1 said:

Yes you are correct,  grey-asexual is a contradiction in terms.  And yes, having no sexual attraction whatsoever would be considered ace and any attraction whatsoever would be allosexual.  

 

And again you are correct when you say a Demisexual cannot be an asexual, cuz again sexual attraction means allosexual. 

 

This thread has gone all over but for the most part it's an argument on labels.  Honestly I grew up in the middle of nowhere before the internet was a thing and until recently had no need to research any of this.  Just figured I was different in some way and found a work around.  When I used the term grey-ace earlier it was because it is used quite a bit on this site and others to describe a lack of attraction that is not quite the zero that would warrant asexual.  I myself agree that it confuses two separate terms but it is what is being used.  

 

Back to the true issue at hand however, the technicality that everyone that is not asexual is allosexual is where the problem lies.  This is where people like me who have experienced sexual or romantic attraction so rarely feel the need for a way to express  themselves in a way that a very sexual person would understand.   Personally I like the idea of the grey label.  It identifies that you have experienced sexual attraction but that it is rare.  Beyond that we have come up with many different ways to label what that attraction is, however not everyone can identify what it was right away that gave them that attraction.  Grey, I feel, is a very good label for this that already exists.

Yeah, I don't mind it being used as a label by itself, it's just not the same as asexual and shouldn't be promoted to be as such. It's still being allosexual.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DoubleATripleA
On 12/4/2019 at 6:02 PM, Sarah-Sylvia said:

I'm a little confused by your use of the allo terms here. A definition: " Alloromantic describes the opposte of aromantic: a person who experiences romantic attraction or romantic desire in a clear, consistent, frequent enough manner " It probably depends how much certain definitions are used..

A lot of gray folk don't experience it consistently or frequently. There's a reason the spectrum exist, it would just be much simpler if people saw it as a a bigger (a/sexual) spectrum.
I see it as the opposite side, while the in-between is the gray.

I don't think the definition has to be more complicated than what I said, even on the homepage of this website, the first thing you see is that "Asexuals are people who have no sexual attraction" or along those lines. If Alloromantic is the opposite of Aromantic (someone who experiences no romantic attraction), then that must mean Alloromantic people experience romantic attraction, it doesn't matter how often it comes. 

 

There is just no proof that a spectrum exists, mainly because you can't be asexual and have sexual attraction. It sounds contradictory, because it lacks common sense. I think it's much easier for allo people to see it as allo = attraction aro/ace = no attraction. To me, grey, demi, fray, etc. are in the grey area of alloromanticism/allosexuality, not aromanticism or asexuality. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia
25 minutes ago, DoubleATripleA said:

I don't think the definition has to be more complicated than what I said, even on the homepage of this website, the first thing you see is that "Asexuals are people who have no sexual attraction" or along those lines. If Alloromantic is the opposite of Aromantic (someone who experiences no romantic attraction), then that must mean Alloromantic people experience romantic attraction, it doesn't matter how often it comes. 

 

There is just no proof that a spectrum exists, mainly because you can't be asexual and have sexual attraction. It sounds contradictory, because it lacks common sense. I think it's much easier for allo people to see it as allo = attraction aro/ace = no attraction. To me, grey, demi, fray, etc. are in the grey area of alloromanticism/allosexuality, not aromanticism or asexuality. 

After I posted that, I did see that for allosexual, the definition is more straightforward. For some reason alloromantic isn't as straightforward, though obviously it'd be simpler to just consider it in the same way. I don't mind the terms meaning just for someone to have the attraction, it's fine.

As for spectrum it defniitely does exist, I just don't agree with calling it an asexual spectrum. I would call it an a/sexual spectrum and include from no sexual attraction, to having a gray zone, and then to fuller sexual attraction. We need the spectrum for all the folk who are barely sexual especially, but I think in general it's good to be able to situate someone.

I think it would be good to have terms for orientation besides that too, because I'm a little confused about how I would describe how I am differently with guys and gals, but unlike a lot of people i've seen, i don't worry about labeling it. I consider myself bi-sexual even if I technically don't have sexual attraction to a man in the typical sense, it's more complicated, but there's no labels so I just have to say I'm a weirdo bi-sexual. Maybe I'm pansexual too though. Anyway, I'm just saying the spectrum and labels are useful, and I'd like more of that in other places :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
24 minutes ago, DoubleATripleA said:

If Alloromantic is the opposite of Aromantic (someone who experiences no romantic attraction), then that must mean Alloromantic people experience romantic attraction, it doesn't matter how often it comes. 

 

There is just no proof that a spectrum exists, mainly because you can't be asexual and have sexual attraction.

The persistence of attraction can be relevant, even outside of the ace umbrella. If a woman who persistently experiences attraction toward women and identifies as a lesbian were to have a fleeting experience of attraction to a man, it probably wouldn't be very useful for her to start identifying as bisexual based on that one incident. Hopefully, she wouldn't have an identity crisis and would see it as an interesting different experience. When she communicates her orientation with others, her one fleeting experience of heterosexual attraction wouldn't be relevant the vast majority of the time and calling herself bisexual at that point would probably give people the wrong idea about her, and might even annoy some people who identify as bisexual who experience attraction to both men and women more frequently. Different forms of sexual attraction (same-sex attraction, opposite-sex attraction, etc.) are already a spectrum based on the frequency of those experiences and the relevancy of those experiences, there just isn't a word for people who sometimes experience a little bit of bisexuality, but not enough for it to be relevant.

 

When it comes to asexuality, having a more explicit gray area can be useful (I've found it useful being gray asexual myself). It's useful in a practical sense to be able to express that although I don't experience zero sexual attraction, I will not be sexually compatible with sexuals. I've spent a lot of time identifying as pansexual while I was questioning, and I found that it gave people a very misleading idea of my sexuality. Gray asexual isn't perfect for communicating my sexuality, because it encompasses such a wide spectrum of experiences, but I found that label much more helpful in communicating the aspects of my experience which are relevant to a potential partner. And when it comes down to it, isn't that the point of having words to describe our experiences, wants, and needs in the first place? If a word isn't useful to you, why use it? Calling myself sexual doesn't help me, so why call myself sexual? Calling myself gray-ace is helpful for me, so it's what I use for myself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DoubleATripleA
1 hour ago, Mackenzie Holiday said:

The persistence of attraction can be relevant, even outside of the ace umbrella. If a woman who persistently experiences attraction toward women and identifies as a lesbian were to have a fleeting experience of attraction to a man, it probably wouldn't be very useful for her to start identifying as bisexual based on that one incident. Hopefully, she wouldn't have an identity crisis and would see it as an interesting different experience. When she communicates her orientation with others, her one fleeting experience of heterosexual attraction wouldn't be relevant the vast majority of the time and calling herself bisexual at that point would probably give people the wrong idea about her, and might even annoy some people who identify as bisexual who experience attraction to both men and women more frequently. Different forms of sexual attraction (same-sex attraction, opposite-sex attraction, etc.) are already a spectrum based on the frequency of those experiences and the relevancy of those experiences, there just isn't a word for people who sometimes experience a little bit of bisexuality, but not enough for it to be relevant.

 

When it comes to asexuality, having a more explicit gray area can be useful (I've found it useful being gray asexual myself). It's useful in a practical sense to be able to express that although I don't experience zero sexual attraction, I will not be sexually compatible with sexuals. I've spent a lot of time identifying as pansexual while I was questioning, and I found that it gave people a very misleading idea of my sexuality. Gray asexual isn't perfect for communicating my sexuality, because it encompasses such a wide spectrum of experiences, but I found that label much more helpful in communicating the aspects of my experience which are relevant to a potential partner. And when it comes down to it, isn't that the point of having words to describe our experiences, wants, and needs in the first place? If a word isn't useful to you, why use it? Calling myself sexual doesn't help me, so why call myself sexual? Calling myself gray-ace is helpful for me, so it's what I use for myself.

Well it's their choice to say they're a lesbian, but that's just bisexual with a big preference to the same sex. I don't understand why you can't have a big preference and be bisexual. I think it can be insulting to some lesbians for someone who is technically bisexual to say they're a lesbian, when they still have attraction to men, no matter how often it happens. It's like lesbian erasure in a sense, and reinforces the narrative that lesbians are still attracted to men and that you cannot not be attracted to men, which is really homophobic. 

 

I am okay with having a grey area to allosexuality, this is where the greys, frays and demis belong, but not asexuality. Sure, you don't have to call yourself sexual, even if that's what you are, it's all your choice whether to label yourself or not. As I said you can't be greysexual and asexual, those two terms contradict each other. You're just greysexual. No one can really stop you from using 'grey-asexual; but it's still wrong and gets people confused about what asexuality actually is. Also being greysexual isn't this ultra rare thing, it's fairly normal. The only reason some people think otherwise is because the media loves to sensationalise sexuality and sex to the point that people think every single sexual person is always wanting sex, always having sex and always having sexual attraction to everyone, which is very far from the truth. Many of the people I know don't instantly find someone sexy, it's a normal thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
25 minutes ago, DoubleATripleA said:

Well it's their choice to say they're a lesbian, but that's just bisexual with a big preference to the same sex. I don't understand why you can't have a big preference and be bisexual.

My point was just that she can count on being sexually attracted to women, but only one fleeting experience of attraction to a man isn't a relevant experience to communicate to others since it was an anomaly and not something she can count on. Dating men still wouldn't really be an option for her.

 

17 minutes ago, DoubleATripleA said:

Also being greysexual isn't this ultra rare thing, it's fairly normal. The only reason some people think otherwise is because the media loves to sensationalise sexuality and sex to the point that people think every single sexual person is always wanting sex, always having sex and always having sexual attraction to everyone, which is very far from the truth. Many of the people I know don't instantly find someone sexy, it's a normal thing. 

If we're still discussing the example of someone who experiences sexual attraction on a single occasion in their lives, then that is not a fairly normal experience for someone who identifies as sexual. Most people who identify as sexual can count on sexual attraction being a part of their lives. If someone only experienced sexual attraction once or twice in their life, their experiences will line up significantly more with asexuals than with sexuals, and it would make sense that they would find it useful to be able to communicate that with others, especially potential partners.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DoubleATripleA
15 hours ago, Mackenzie Holiday said:

My point was just that she can count on being sexually attracted to women, but only one fleeting experience of attraction to a man isn't a relevant experience to communicate to others since it was an anomaly and not something she can count on. Dating men still wouldn't really be an option for her.

 

If we're still discussing the example of someone who experiences sexual attraction on a single occasion in their lives, then that is not a fairly normal experience for someone who identifies as sexual. Most people who identify as sexual can count on sexual attraction being a part of their lives. If someone only experienced sexual attraction once or twice in their life, their experiences will line up significantly more with asexuals than with sexuals, and it would make sense that they would find it useful to be able to communicate that with others, especially potential partners.

Again, you have a warped idea of how often allosexuals experience sexual attraction. There are many allosexuals who don't have sexual attraction as often, it doesn't make you less allosexual. I've had many friends where they never talked about sex or sexual attraction at all, sure they could just not be uncomfortable talking about it, but we don't get attracted to every single person all the time. It's the media that makes all of you think that you have to be sexually attracted to everyone and anyone all the time - it doesn't work that way. Being allosexual just means you have sexual attraction in the first place. In fact, i didn't experience any sexual attraction until I was 15, which is not very common, I've seen one person who said they didn't experience it until they were 17. Does that mean we're not allosexual? No. So yeah, I think it is normal, it's happened to many allosexuals, I myself haven't experienced sexual attraction for a little while - I guess I'm not allosexual anymore lmao. 

 

Experiencing sexual attraction doesn't make you close to asexuals at all. It completely contradicts the definiton of asexual (no sexual attraction). You're not special. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia
3 hours ago, DoubleATripleA said:

Again, you have a warped idea of how often allosexuals experience sexual attraction. There are many allosexuals who don't have sexual attraction as often, it doesn't make you less allosexual. I've had many friends where they never talked about sex or sexual attraction at all, sure they could just not be uncomfortable talking about it, but we don't get attracted to every single person all the time. It's the media that makes all of you think that you have to be sexually attracted to everyone and anyone all the time - it doesn't work that way. Being allosexual just means you have sexual attraction in the first place. In fact, i didn't experience any sexual attraction until I was 15, which is not very common, I've seen one person who said they didn't experience it until they were 17. Does that mean we're not allosexual? No. So yeah, I think it is normal, it's happened to many allosexuals, I myself haven't experienced sexual attraction for a little while - I guess I'm not allosexual anymore lmao. 

 

Experiencing sexual attraction doesn't make you close to asexuals at all. It completely contradicts the definiton of asexual (no sexual attraction). You're not special. 


It seems to me that you don't understand gray-asexuals at all. You're projecting your own experiences of sexuality. Yes it's not going to be all the time. But for some it's incredibly rare, or so situational that it'd barely be considered 'attraction'.

It's fine not to consider them asexual, but you still don't understand some of  the gray section.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
4 hours ago, DoubleATripleA said:

we don't get attracted to every single person all the time. It's the media that makes all of you think that you have to be sexually attracted to everyone and anyone all the time - it doesn't work that way.

I never said it does. I never said sexual people have to be attracted to everyone and anyone all the time. It's become clear to me that you aren't making much of an effort to understand what I am saying, so I wonder what it is you're hoping to get out of this conversation in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questdrivencollie

In addition to what I stated before, aside from demisexuals, I would consider qualifications for gray-asexuality to include someone who cannot function as a normal allosexual person in a relationship. Yes, maybe once in a blue moon they experience attraction, but they have no general desire for sexual relations, even with their romantic partner. Such a person is basically asexual, despite the occurrence of rare or occasional attraction.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gnome.1
On 12/8/2019 at 8:07 AM, DoubleATripleA said:

, i didn't experience any sexual attraction until I was 15, which is not very common, I've seen one person who said they didn't experience it until they were 17. Does that mean we're not allosexual? No. So yeah, I think it is normal, it's happened to many allosexuals, I myself haven't experienced sexual attraction for a little while - I guess I'm not allosexual anymore lmao. 

 

Experiencing sexual attraction doesn't make you close to asexuals at all. It completely contradicts the definiton of asexual (no sexual attraction). You're not special. 

I have to agree with Sara-Sylvia in that you have missed the point.  You might think 15 is older for experiencing sexual attraction for the first time,  others would consider that quite normal.   I myself first experienced it at 19.  My only other experience of it was at 36.  2 in a lifetime I myself am perplexed with this second occurrence but quite pleased with it.   It is what startted my journey that brought me here.  

 

No one ever said Allosexuals have sexual attraction on a daily basis,  but more frequently than once every 20 years or so is definitely more than someone that would consider themselves Grey or Demi.

 

Most of people on here don't think they are special because of their sexuality, and other than some confusing terms and old definitions, they don't consider themselves asexual if they have had sexual attraction.  It's that ultra rare abnormality of sexual attraction that makes them different than most,  weather it's once every few months, once a decade,  or once in a lifetime.  It's this very real and regular emotion and feeling that others get on a constant basis that most times confuses the people on here that consider themselves Gret or Demi because we have not experienced it often enough to know how to deal with it properly in most cases.

 

To say we are the same as all other allosexuals is a misconception on your part as to how many on here struggle and deal with every day situations.  I have read several stories of people that have ended up in compromising situations because they are unable to read sexual advances of others.  There is more to this than you might think.  I will hope that the more you read and experience the better you understand the struggles many on here have.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl
On 11/13/2019 at 3:20 PM, Philip027 said:

Once you get people expecting sexual reciprocation from you despite the fact you've told them you're ace because they read on the internet that asexuals are completely capable of both enjoying and desiring sex, maybe you'll understand.

But this attitude is not fueled by mentions of an asexual spectrum and gray-sexuality! This attitude is, specifically, fueled by mentions that "aces can have sex", "aces can love sex"... Yes, some people who spread particularly the latter idea identify as "gray-ace". But not always, not necessarily - for me all those statements in favour of asexual people's sexual activity are, much more often than not, the result of attempts to make asexuality appear more "normal".

So this attitude is not efficiently countered by saying that there is no spectrum, that only lifelong 0% sexual attraction qualifies as asexual - almost on the contrary, it is much better to counter it by saying that there is a spectrum, but in a different sense. Simply - that aces are diverse, that any rhetoric which tries to present asexuality as some kind of "low-fat heterosexuality" or to say that "we are like everyone else, minus sexual attraction" is inaccurate. Because while "aces can love sex" is obviously controversial, "aces can have sex" is obviously technically correct - but still such statements can never be accepted if not accompanied by a reservation that some asexuals would never have sex under any circumstances. Uniformisation is not efficient in fighting misconceptions, instead it should be shown that asexual people are diverse and not all of them fit into the sex-indifferent, born this way, healthy and concentionally attractive narrative of the "Unassailable Asexual".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027
Quote

But this attitude is not fueled by mentions of an asexual spectrum and gray-sexuality! This attitude is, specifically, fueled by mentions that "aces can have sex", "aces can love sex"... Yes, some people who spread particularly the latter idea identify as "gray-ace".

Potato, potahto.

 

The attitude is ultimately "fueled" by sexual people being hopeful about getting their sex regardless, and not being able to comprehend someone enjoying something without necessarily desiring it (which isn't really our problem to solve for them).

 

Quote

Because while "aces can love sex" is obviously controversial, "aces can have sex" is obviously technically correct - but still such statements can never be accepted if not accompanied by a reservation that some asexuals would never have sex under any circumstances.

There isn't anything "controversial" about some aces being able to enjoy sex.  It's simply fact.  Being ace doesn't necessarily mean the pleasure centers in your body don't work or that your nerve endings are dead.  That's not what being ace refers to, at all.  Whatever "controversy" there is surrounding this is just in your own head.  (Now if we're talking about desiring sex instead, then yes, there is a degree of controversy.)

 

Obviously it's presumptuous to insinuate that any/all aces could enjoy it, which is why all that it's necessary to add is that "some aces can enjoy it".  The whole point is that enjoying and desiring aren't necessarily the same things.

 

The people who say this (that some aces can enjoy sex) ARE trying to convey that we're a diverse crowd.  Just as it's a misconception that any ace could potentially be coerced into wanting sex with someone if they just tried hard enough, it's also a misconception that all aces simply despise sex.  Feeding into either of these misconceptions isn't necessarily a good thing; neither of them paint an accurate picture as to what asexuality actually is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl
15 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

There isn't anything "controversial" about some aces being able to enjoy sex.  It's simply fact.  Being ace doesn't necessarily mean the pleasure centers in your body don't work or that your nerve endings are dead.  That's not what being ace refers to, at all.  Whatever "controversy" there is surrounding this is just in your own head.  (Now if we're talking about desiring sex instead, then yes, there is a degree of controversy.)

And the latter is closer to what I meant. "Loving sex" sounds like something much stronger than "being able to enjoy sex".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Homer

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain to me how "no" is a "spectrum" of any kind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl
58 minutes ago, Homer said:

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain to me how "no" is a "spectrum" of any kind.

Because I believe that "99% no" qualifies as "effectively no" too.

And myself - for me the only possible answer to a possibility of personally having sex is "NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", without any reservations. And yet I'm not a textbook asexual, I'm not "born this way", I experience sexual attraction without desire. I'm effectively asexual and it's not the same as "strictly asexual".

Aces can be sex-favourable, indifferent, averse, repulsed. This is a spectrum too. And it may highly differentiate out experiences - my experience as a strongly sex-averse person is very different from the experience of someone who is comfortable with having sex despite never desiring it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
1 hour ago, Homer said:

I'm still waiting for anyone to explain to me how "no" is a "spectrum" of any kind.

Speaking for myself only, the way I see my "no" as being on a spectrum has less to do with what that "no" is and more to do with the subjectivity of what activities can be interpreted as sex to different people in different contexts.

 

For me, there are no sexual activities that I'm driven to seek out. I could thrive in a strictly non-sexual relationship, but if I were with someone who wanted a sexual relationship, there are things I can enjoy (and can be drawn to if they're things the other person is interested in) that, to me, would feel like a sexual connection. But the vast majority of people wouldn't see them that way. Since the vast majority of people wouldn't interpret it as a sexual relationship, calling myself sexual would be (and has been) very misleading, especially to potential partners who identify as sexual. If I were to call myself asexual, it would correctly communicate my preference for non-sexual relationships, and it would correctly communicate that I wouldn't be interested in relationships most people would consider sexual. But something that would feel like a sexual connection to me is possible for me on some level, even if the relationship doesn't involve sex (because it won't). So I consider myself gray to indicate that caveat to an otherwise asexual experience, even though the caveat would only be relevant to the very small number of people who might be able to interpret such activities as sexual.

 

If all that sounds confusing, then that makes my point of why I find it very useful to indicate just how asexual my experience is first before introducing the complex and usually irrelevant extra details. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia

I find it gets super tricky if someone asexual enjoys sex. I can enjoy cheesecake, but it's something that also slightly repulses me, and I'm not attracted to eating it. But sometimes if I can overlook what I don't like, .. anything enjoyable could be attractive, couldn't it?

I do know someone could enjoy sex to please someone, in example, but then what you enjoy is pleasing, not the sex itself. If you can enjoy the sex, are you strictly asexual even if you didn't feel attraction for it up to then?

I'm just asking that because it sticks out in my mind. I don't mean to offend anyone, and I would never say you can't label yourself how you see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philip027

Enjoying something still doesn't necessarily mean you'll desire it, and sexuality hinges around the latter, not the former.

 

I have never wanted to go to the movie theater, but I can still find it enjoyable when I do go.  Just went a few days ago to see Knives Out.  Still doesn't make me want to go again in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia
8 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Enjoying something still doesn't necessarily mean you'll desire it, and sexuality hinges around the latter, not the former.

 

I have never wanted to go to the movie theater, but I can still find it enjoyable when I do go.  Just went a few days ago to see Knives Out.  Still doesn't make me want to go again in the future.

No, but if you enjoyed it you may see a preview sometimes and be like hey you know what I'd enjoy going to see that, plus I know I can enjoy the theater.

I just think like if someone can enjoy sex, and keep feeling that way even though it can be repetitive, then they have more sexual desire than strict asexuals. There has to be 'some' desire to not get bored of it, you know? At least, that's how I feel :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...