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

[Philip027]

Quote

But then you say they're able to enjoy the sex, the sensations, which is part of the sex,.. how does that line up with having no interest?

I already mentioned this.  People are able to enjoy things yet not particularly desire them.

 

Just because I had a decent time at the theaters the last time I went doesn't mean I ever want to go back.  But that also doesn't mean I'm opposed to going back.  It only means that I never will just want to go on my own whim, whereas most other people I know do want to.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

51 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

I already mentioned this.  People are able to enjoy things yet not particularly desire them.

 

Just because I had a decent time at the theaters the last time I went doesn't mean I ever want to go back.  But that also doesn't mean I'm opposed to going back.  It only means that I never will just want to go on my own whim, whereas most other people I know do want to.

Like I was trying to say, that doesn't line up with attraction on all fronts. I'm demi. I have no interest in 'going back' to sex. Doesn't mean it's not part of the experience WHILE you're enjoying the sex. Should be the same with those that have responsive desires.

[Philip027]

(Sexual) attraction to me is just directed sexual desire toward a person, and like I've been saying, being able to enjoy something still doesn't necessarily mean you desire it.

 

I don't like to define orientation solely through attraction anyway, though.  IMO if there's someone that still desires sex (not just enjoys) in a general/abstract sense, even if they've never yet come across anyone in particular they would desire that sex with, they're still on the sexual side of the fence, not asexual.  Sex is something that still inevitably requires another person, eventually, even if "right now" what/who that person would be is a little nebulous.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

56 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

(Sexual) attraction to me is just directed sexual desire toward a person, and like I've been saying, being able to enjoy something still doesn't necessarily mean you desire it.

 

I don't like to define orientation solely through attraction anyway, though.  IMO if there's someone that still desires sex (not just enjoys) in a general/abstract sense, even if they've never yet come across anyone in particular they would desire that sex with, they're still on the sexual side of the fence, not asexual.  Sex is something that still inevitably requires another person, eventually, even if "right now" what/who that person would be is a little nebulous.

Well there's aces who say they want sex (and have the drive) but just aren't able to do so or enjoy it with someone. I don't think sexual desire is enough, at least for what people use on this site.

So the problem here seems to be that on my side, I say enjoyment means desire is there in the moment. Your side is that enjoyment doesn't mean there's desire.
That's a toughy. And .., I don't desire sex... but when it's in the moment of loving someone and being sensual, I can enjoy the sexuality even if I'm not attracted to it. Does that make me asexual? By your definition I would be. And that doesn't feel right to me. I consider myself demi Because I enjoy sex in the right conditions. If someone is able to enjoy it without even having the conditions, how is that different from someone sexual who doesn't experience the desire before it happens? the only difference is the 'level' of enjoyment they get from it. Mine being higher than someone asexual, I would say.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

But then you say they're able to enjoy the sex, the sensations, which is part of the sex,.. how does that line up with having no interest? If they enjoy the sex with the person, there's some interest there, and that's essentially attraction. Just because they didn't feel it 'before' the sex doesn't mean they don't feel it during, if they're able to enjoy it. The 'time' of the interest doesn't really matter. I maybe wouldn't consider myself demi if it did.

When the people I speak of say 'I can enjoy sex', the way they mean it (if you ask for clarification) is that they can get pleasure from the feelings even if they don't desire them and would be happiest without sex if possible. Just to reiterate, I'm not referring to people who actively seek sex out for pleasure, but to those who have it solely because their partner would be unhappy without it etc. 

 

On the flipside, I am sexual yet CANNOT enjoy the physical sensations of sex (unable to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm when stimulated sexually by another person). Yet the reason I am sexual is because I can enjoy aspects of sex enough to actively desire it under certain circumstances. It's that active desire that makes me sexual.

 

Without any active desire to have sex for pleasure, ever, one is asexual even if one is able to experience pleasurable bodily sensations while being stimulated sexually.

 

 

[Guest]

To clarify: active desire can be as simple as 'yes I want this now, for my own/shared sexual and/or emotional pleasure'. It doesn't necessarily mean you're lusting after sex or all wet just from looking at a hot guy or whatever (damn my life would be so much easier if I could get aroused that easily, haha)

[Philip027]

Quote

Well there's aces who say they want sex (and have the drive) but just aren't able to do so or enjoy it with someone. I don't think sexual desire is enough, at least for what people use on this site.

That's the thing though; I (personally) wouldn't think of them as ace, because of the want/desire bit :<

 

If someone intended/planned on never having sex with their partner, I could still potentially understand why they would publicly identify as "effectively asexual" or something along those lines, such as on a dating site or something; it would be misleading and dishonest to say that you're heterosexual or whatever if you have no actual intent of ever having sex with anyone.  (It would be more accurate to say that you're celibate or chaste or whatever, but most people interpret those terms to be on a limited "for now" basis and it is usually assumed they won't stay that way forever.)  But when it comes to strict definitions, ace simply doesn't jive with wanting/desiring sex.  That's something sexual people do; it's what makes them sexual.

 

Quote

I consider myself demi Because I enjoy sex in the right conditions.

Thing is, some aces can claim the same thing too.

 

I too can enjoy sex in the "right conditions".  But that still doesn't mean I want sex, just like how I don't want to go to the movie theater even though I can still enjoy that under the "right conditions" too.

 

Quote

So the problem here seems to be that on my side, I say enjoyment means desire is there in the moment. Your side is that enjoyment doesn't mean there's desire.

It does seem to be a semantics issue, yes.

 

I will say though, there has been a point where I've questioned if I was demisexual too, probably for a similar sort of reasoning that you consider yourself to be.  I eventually concluded that I don't feel like I am, for the reasoning mentioned above -- but if someone still thinks of me as one, I don't really argue against it either. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  It's not really a big deal to me, I guess.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

Well thank you @Philip027 & @Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) for the responses.

I will say it's a bit of a nuanced part of the topic, isn't it? There's obviously all kinds of aces. I don't feel like I have a definite answer, and frankly if Pan Ficto is right, that someone asexual would choose not to have sex even if they're able to enjoy it, then I'm willing to say in those cases that yeah ok, and it'd help me say that I'm demi, because I might not be attracted to it, but I love sensuality so much, when I feel good, affectionate or otherwise, and sensuality can turn into sexuality, I'm happy and I wouldn't choose not to have that experience
I don't want to go there, but when I do, when I can, it's amazing. I doubt I could claim to be asexual. If you don't want to go to the movies, but it turns out really enjoy the movie so much, then to me that counts. So, is there a level of enjoyment of sex that disqualifies someone from being asexual? I have no clue. But it feels like it should still count as being sexual, you know?

It's all just to try to understand some of the nuance though. I feel like I see the line now, I'm just not sure I can be satisfied with the nuance, haha.

[Philip027]

Quote

So, is there a level of enjoyment of sex that disqualifies someone from being asexual?

The "level" is when you start to desire it

 

Asexuality doesn't have anything to do with how much you like or dislike sex.  That's not the thing that sexual orientation measures.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

5 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

The "level" is when you start to desire it

 

Asexuality doesn't have anything to do with how much you like or dislike sex.  That's not the thing that sexual orientation measures.

Well I have a problem with that lol. I don't desire sex, I just desire sensuality. And it's different from sexuality. I  'can' enjoy it all tho, more than I'm willing to claim to be asexual

[Philip027]

Well, demisensuality is a thing, too.  Might not get talked about as much but it isn't invalid.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

6 minutes ago, Philip027 said:

Well, demisensuality is a thing, too.  Might not get talked about as much but it isn't invalid.

Yes I'm demisexual but fully sensual (always desiring sensuality), but I don't think like being closer to someone will make me desire sex with them, it just makes it that I can enjoy it or more. (potentially much more)
To me that's enough for someone to be considered sexual.

Obviously, we're just going back and forth here, so I'd be curious to hear what other people think of the case.

[anisotrophic]

It's definitely confusing I've had a lot of trouble trying to understand the distinction between responsive desire vs. "no desire".

 

I think of responsive desire as ... someone else initiates, and one reacts with desire in response. "Yes I would like this thing you suggested, I desire sex with you because you're sexually attracted to me".

 

Versus, "oh, you're sexually attracted to me again, I would rather do [lots of other things] but ok it does have some good sensations I guess" ...like agreeing to go attend a sporting event, which one can enjoy even if you're not into sports in the slightest, going along with it because someone wants to do it and you like that it makes them happy.

[Ita25]

I'm still a bit confused by these topics. Personally, I'm a very romantic person. I love relationships and the mental/emotional/physical bond's that form. I am definitely attracted to certain women. Although physical looks absolutely play a substantial role, I become attracted to someone's entire being. I look for their tendencies and personality and if it all comes together for me I feel very attracted to them. The attraction is never sexual in nature though, in the sense that I have no interest in having sex. Physical intimacy...I'm all for it, just not sex. I have no desire for sex, I get turned off by porn, I get somewhat disgusted when people see someone attractive and talking about their desire to have sex with them. In that way, I've always thought I was asexual. 

 

The issue is that due to all that stuff I said about being romantic and having intimate feelings and attraction, if I entered into a relationship and we were connecting in all ways, and she wanted to have sex, I definitely think I would. It would be doing it more for her, but it wouldn't destroy me. So is the fact that I don't desire sex not enough to claim myself to be asexual if I'd be willing to have sex to benefit my partner in a strong relationship? 

 

I've been told I'm a Heteroromantic Asexual. Should Asexual not be included? Or should it be something else entirely? 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

22 minutes ago, Ita25 said:

I'm still a bit confused by these topics. Personally, I'm a very romantic person. I love relationships and the mental/emotional/physical bond's that form. I am definitely attracted to certain women. Although physical looks absolutely play a substantial role, I become attracted to someone's entire being. I look for their tendencies and personality and if it all comes together for me I feel very attracted to them. The attraction is never sexual in nature though, in the sense that I have no interest in having sex. Physical intimacy...I'm all for it, just not sex. I have no desire for sex, I get turned off by porn, I get somewhat disgusted when people see someone attractive and talking about their desire to have sex with them. In that way, I've always thought I was asexual. 

 

The issue is that due to all that stuff I said about being romantic and having intimate feelings and attraction, if I entered into a relationship and we were connecting in all ways, and she wanted to have sex, I definitely think I would. It would be doing it more for her, but it wouldn't destroy me. So is the fact that I don't desire sex not enough to claim myself to be asexual if I'd be willing to have sex to benefit my partner in a strong relationship? 

 

I've been told I'm a Heteroromantic Asexual. Should Asexual not be included? Or should it be something else entirely? 

No you would fit in as asexual. We even talked about this on this page How having sex to please a partner doesn't count as desire for the sex itself.
In my case, I'm in a the same kind of position as you, but I can actually enjoy and maybe even want the sex with them if I get in the right vibe of affection or sensuality and loving them. I don't count myself as asexual because of that last part.
 

49 minutes ago, anisotrophic said:

It's definitely confusing I've had a lot of trouble trying to understand the distinction between responsive desire vs. "no desire".

 

I think of responsive desire as ... someone else initiates, and one reacts with desire in response. "Yes I would like this thing you suggested, I desire sex with you because you're sexually attracted to me".

 

Versus, "oh, you're sexually attracted to me again, I would rather do [lots of other things] but ok it does have some good sensations I guess" ...like agreeing to go attend a sporting event, which one can enjoy even if you're not into sports in the slightest, going along with it because someone wants to do it and you like that it makes them happy.

It's a good reminder about responsive desire. I have no clue if I would count as responsive desire or just plain enjoying it. I feel like the distinction is a bit beyond me until I find another partner and look into how I feel I wouldn't be responsive to just them necessarily, it would be to the vibe and my own feelings as well. I don't even know if it's 'desire' for the sex, or for the expression of affection going into more pleasure. I need more data lol.

[Ita25]

On 12/11/2019 at 11:14 PM, Sarah-Sylvia said:

No you would fit in as asexual. We even talked about this on this page How having sex to please a partner doesn't count as desire for the sex itself.
In my case, I'm in a the same kind of position as you, but I can actually enjoy and maybe even want the sex with them if I get in the right vibe of affection or sensuality and loving them. I don't count myself as asexual because of that last part.

To be honest though, I think in the right situation I could enjoy/want it as well. It's interesting. 

[Guest]

On 12/11/2019 at 10:21 PM, anisotrophic said:

It's definitely confusing I've had a lot of trouble trying to understand the distinction between responsive desire vs. "no desire".

 

I think of responsive desire as ... someone else initiates, and one reacts with desire in response. "Yes I would like this thing you suggested, I desire sex with you because you're sexually attracted to me".

 

Versus, "oh, you're sexually attracted to me again, I would rather do [lots of other things] but ok it does have some good sensations I guess" ...like agreeing to go attend a sporting event, which one can enjoy even if you're not into sports in the slightest, going along with it because someone wants to do it and you like that it makes them happy.

Responsive desire ended up being me. And I have had no desire going along with it that wasn't awful with an ex. So ..  I'll try to explain the difference. 

 

With responsive desire it's more I can feel the energy of my partner when she is turned on and wanting me. She acts different, her body responds differently and you can tell she's into sex even if not initiating. That sexual energy from being turned on, in turn, turns me on and my desire activates. If that isn't there, if I dont feel that interest, I have no desire or libido. Even for solo masturbation, I have to get turned on by her flirting or showing some sort of sexual interest in me or I dont care about it (even for months). I absolutely need her interest to spark my own. I will initiate it and really, really want her when I feel it, even if she's not initiating or asking... but otherwise I dont care and I can't orgasm even if she tries if I dont feel it from her. And, given we do trades usually, even the loss of desire from her going first can be enough to squash my own so she usually has to finish last, or staying into it is hard for me. 

 

 

No desire it was OK but wouldn't choose it for myself was... they ask, it doesn't sound awful so why not and I can have some fun making them happy so sure. I would have said yes to sex with my ex from when I was 15, even without desiring him, just cause he was sweet and I liked doing it for him because of how nice he always was to me. I never enjoyed it much and there was no longing for his touch. It was just eh sure why not. Like watching comedies... if it's not awful I can enjoy being with the person and sharing the experience but I have no interest in watching it myself. 

[Guest]

For me Demisexuality is on the Sexual spectrum.

 

Whereas Asexual(ity) isn’t a spectrum, it’s a binary yay/nay thing

 

Can appreciate why they associate more with asexuals than sexuals though.

[rainbowocollie]

31 minutes ago, JMSH said:

For me Demisexuality is on the Sexual spectrum.

 

Whereas Asexual(ity) isn’t a spectrum, it’s a binary yay/nay thing

 

Can appreciate why they associate more with asexuals than sexuals though.

That's fair. I view demi as kinda in-between tbh. I don't think it's ace, but I don't think it's quite allo either. I kinda consider myself (along with demisexual) to be a grey aroace, cuz I have a preference to be single and celibate for life with a slim chance of that plan being derailed.....but I do think I'm likely closer to aromantic than I am to asexual.

[rainbowocollie]

Let me attempt to articulate why I believe gray-sexuality is a thing.....I think it's often wrongly defined, but I do think it's legit. Humans are made to experience attraction and reproduce, right? So, it's possible to be basically asexual and lack enough of an interest in sex to function like an allosexual, but still have remnants of attraction or even borderline interest be there (like lithsexual).

[Sally]

On 12/4/2019 at 10:39 AM, questdrivencollie said:

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

 

I think that's the best definition, because everyone always gets all hung up on what attraction means.  

[Snow in the background]

On 11/12/2019 at 6:42 PM, Star Bit said:

😩

Like Heteroflexible or Homoflexible. No one's saying those people are gay/straight because everyone knows it's a specific version of Bisexuality that strongly leans to one side. But in the Ace case, everyone IS taking it literally and saying gay ppl can be into the opposite sex, and straight ppl can want the same sex strictly because these flexible terms exist.

But one can be mostly heterosexual which is different from exclusively heterosexual. Also, someone can be mostly gay which differes from exclusively gay.

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DdyfsJT14qPQ&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjfhaL87NrmAhVliYsKHaFYD1wQtwIwAHoECAcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0euiPthNyVMjngFLOnnzM0

[Snow in the background]

46 minutes ago, CBC said:

Huh?

Sorry. I wrote the wrong word. What I meant to say is that someone can be mostly gay (they are gay, but if the right person of the opposite sex comes along they would be willing to engage in sexual activities) which is different from the exclusively gay person (who would never manifest sexual attraction towards someone of the opposite sex).

Also, some bisexuals prefer to mostly engage in sexual activities with same sex/opposite sex person (that is they gravitate towards gay or straight sexual activities, but they are nonetheless bisexuals).

[Snow in the background]

On 12/4/2019 at 6:47 PM, 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 year.

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!!!

 

 

 

Hello, @HikaruBG, I just read your comment.

In my opinion that man is still straight. Or at least he is mostly straight. I see it like this: during a course of a year I drink water in 95% of cases, on very few occasions I drink alcohol. How is this making me less of a water drinker? I don't want to sound rude or something, but for me it seems very clear that such a man is still straight.

[HikaruBG]

On 12/29/2019 at 4:35 PM, Mihnea said:

Hello, @HikaruBG, I just read your comment.

In my opinion that man is still straight. Or at least he is mostly straight. I see it like this: during a course of a year I drink water in 95% of cases, on very few occasions I drink alcohol. How is this making me less of a water drinker? I don't want to sound rude or something, but for me it seems very clear that such a man is still straight.

That's not what the point of my argument.
No, comparing the whole motion of desiring sex with someone and acting on said desire to drinking water/alcohol is rather ridiculous.

Nowhere within the framework of sexualies is it stated how many times do you have to desire sex with certain gender before you can be counted as heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual/pansexual. As far as I know, noone is using that kind of logic. (This is the reason why I find the notion of proving that you are asexual ridiculous as well.... because proving a negative is quite impossible.)


That being said...

Most of people wouldn't consider him straight, even if he only ever wants to have sex with men (a.k.a. the same sex) like 2 times throughout the year. If he claims that he is straight, while at the same time, is literally seen dating someone of the same sex currently or is about to have ONS (or something similar) with the same sex, most of people would laugh at his face and call him a snowflake.

 

To claim that those times he did that are somehow exceptions and that shouldn't be taken to account to his sexuality, is ridiculous.

(If anything else, I would consider that special pleading and is pretty much the reason why I find it ridiculous as why does demisexuals/gray-asexuals/gray-sexuals get a pass to call themselves "asexual" because they rarely desire to have sex  or desire it under certain circumstances.)

Even with the cases of say, straight men who have sex with other men in prison (note: I'm not talking about rape here), is often times looked at with skeptical eyes as these people could actually be bisexuals but they are in denial/don't really want to admit it for some reason.

It's not a coincidence why many people (especially men, with the infamous "What are you? Fucking gay?", "No homo", ect.) will police others of their own sexuality.

That's because Heterosexuality and Homosexuality work on the basis of single-gendered targeted sexual attraction and it is so straight to the point and strict, it does not allow for exceptions.
Heterosexuality means that you desire to have sex with the opposite sex only. Homosexuality means that you desire to have sex with the same sex only. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Snow in the background]

22 minutes ago, HikaruBG said:

That's not what the point of my argument.
No, comparing the whole motion of desiring sex with someone and acting on said desire to drinking water/alcohol is rather ridiculous.

Nowhere within the framework of sexualies is it stated how many times do you have to desire sex with certain gender before you can be counted as heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual/pansexual. As far as I know, noone is using that kind of logic. (This is the reason why I find the notion of proving that you are asexual ridiculous as well.... because proving a negative is quite impossible.)


That being said...

Most of people wouldn't consider him straight, even if he only ever wants to have sex with men (a.k.a. the same sex) like 2 times throughout the year. If he claims that he is straight, while at the same time, is literally seen dating someone of the same sex currently or is about to have ONS (or something similar) with the same sex, most of people would laugh at his face and call him a snowflake.

 

To claim that those times he did that are somehow exceptions and that shouldn't be taken to account to his sexuality, is ridiculous.

(If anything else, I would consider that special pleading and is pretty much the reason why I find it ridiculous as why does demisexuals/gray-asexuals/gray-sexuals get a pass to call themselves "asexual" because they rarely desire to have sex  or desire it under certain circumstances.)

Even with the cases of say, straight men who have sex with other men in prison (note: I'm not talking about rape here), is often times looked at with skeptical eyes as these people could actually be bisexuals but they are in denial/don't really want to admit it for some reason.

It's not a coincidence why many people (especially men, with the infamous "What are you? Fucking gay?", "No homo", ect.) will police others of their own sexuality. It's not a coincidence why many people (especially men, with the infamous "What are you? Fucking gay?", "No homo", ect.) will police others of their own sexuality.

That's because Heterosexuality and Homosexuality work on the basis of single-gendered targeted sexual attraction and it is so straight to the point and strict, it does not allow for exceptions.
Heterosexuality means that you desire to have sex with the opposite sex only. Homosexuality means that you desire to have sex with the same sex only. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you for your reply.

I know that comparing the desire for sexual activity with the desire for drinking water is somewhat lame. However, I believe that, getting involved in sexual activities with another person of the same sex, on a few occasions (2-3 times, as mentioned by you in your example) does not make you less of a straight person.

I prefer to use a spectrum where you have:

exclusively straight---> mostly straight---> bisexual leaning towards straight---> bisexual--->bisexual leaning towards gay---> mostly gay---> exclusively gay.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

I consider myself demisexual and I don't even know if I experience sexual attraction. It might only be sensual attraction that can lead up to it in certain conditions. It's kind of hard to tell sometimes, I think that for some I may count as a gray-asexual, I don't know. I don't really care tho, it's not like any label fits perfectly. There's no label that really describes me.

If there were actually more labels for sexual orientations, it might make more sense, like a term for someone who's mostly straight, in example. But we don't have those labels so saying that person is straight can be the most accurate. If it's 2-3 times per year though, I would say differently. In a lifetime tho, yeah I can see that as relatively straight.

There's also the fact that some labels are hard to communicate. I could say that I'm bi-romantic, but most normal people would be like huh? I'm fine saying I'm bi-sexual. I guess all I'm saying is that sometimes there needs to be leeway, since language isn't perfect.

[HikaruBG]

1 hour ago, Mihnea said:

Thank you for your reply.

I know that comparing the desire for sexual activity with the desire for drinking water is somewhat lame. However, I believe that, getting involved in sexual activities with another person of the same sex, on a few occasions (2-3 times, as mentioned by you in your example) does not make you less of a straight person.

I prefer to use a spectrum where you have:

exclusively straight---> mostly straight---> bisexual leaning towards straight---> bisexual--->bisexual leaning towards gay---> mostly gay---> exclusively gay.

No, it would make you bisexual.... Bisexuality means that you desire sex with both the opposite sex and the same sex. And again, nowhere is it said how many times do you have desire sex with either gender in order to be considered "a real" bisexual.

Noone IRL really looks at sexuality like it's a spectrum. At worse case scenario, it's done to undermine other people's sexuality.

Spoiler

Like for example, I legit have seen people telling me that if a gay man gets involuntary physical arousal at the sight of naked women (doesn't matter if IRL or on a picture) then he isn't really 100% gay... even if this gay man states multiple times that he wants to have sex with men and not women.

 

[Snow in the background]

On 11/13/2019 at 10:01 PM, Mackenzie Holiday said:

Just to make sure we're on the same page about the kind of thing I was referring to when I said "when it's relevant to the conversation", I'm going to use myself as an example. I'm what we might call a "no sex please" gray asexual (to use the terminology in this specific thread). In most if not all practical situations, the word asexual as you described it is a good representation of me. I identify as gray because of a few things that I know about myself that are mostly if not entirely only relevant to me. When people ask about my orientation IRL, I usually do say that I'm gray asexual the same way I do here on AVEN, but in some situations it would be very useful to just say I'm asexual because the reasons I identify as gray are no one's business but my own, in that they will never be relevant to the person I'm telling about my orientation. I try to steer away from doing that myself, but I understand why others find that useful. But this means that gray-As in this camp would also benefit from the general understanding of asexual being as you described. And I don't think this is an edge case either, I've come across a few people who identify as gray asexual but refer to themselves as asexual for this reason.

 

I'm not bringing this up to dismiss your concerns at all, or to imply that this is the only reason a gray asexual might just call themself asexual. I think these concerns are very important and I want to be part of the solution. All I want to do with this post is to identify how we can all support each other. I completely agree with you that as a community we need to all listen to each other and support each other, and I think a part of that is determining what exactly is and is not hurting those in our community.

To be honest I really appreciate this debate. I've always loved cultural misunderstandings rooted in semantics 😀🤯🕵️

 

I am indeed a person who was unable to understand himself when I came first to this forum, but now I have the inner confidence and the knowledge to accept the fact that I am grey-sexual.

 

I can easily relate to it the post quoted above. When I talk to my friends and family members about myself I usually tell them that I am grey-sexual, that is someone who is in between experiencing sexual attraction towards others and not experiencing sexual attraction towards others. I also tell them that grey-sexuality is part of the asexual spectrum, because grey-sexuals experience sexual attraction very rarely or only in specific conditions. Even so, from my experience I can tell that people only keep in their minds the idea of asexuality. Also, some are curious to find out what's the difference between grey and gay... I am heterosexual so most of the time I don't talk about my gender identity and let people assume whatever the want, but it's obviously that it would be much more easily for me to tell people that I am asexual. Even though, I now understand why this would be detrimental to the "asexual asexuals" (for the lack of a better term).

On 11/14/2019 at 3:08 AM, Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?) said:

and @Mackenzie Holiday too

 

In my humble opinion, I always thought this was the whole reason for the grey area. No it shouldn't necessarily be classed as under an 'asexual umbrella' because there are plenty of Greys who are more sexual than ace, and asexual only means one thing: No sexual attraction(ie no desire for partnered sexual contact). But grey does fall in the foggy area between asexuality and sexuality for many people, and is often much closer to asexuality than sexuality. We don't need a new term though because the vast majority of greys already have much more in common with aces than most sexuals, which is why they often get along so well in this community and why they are welcome here. The term 'grey' meets those needs.

 

All we are saying is that grey is not, well, totally asexual by definition, due to those few differences. 

 

You have sexuals, and you have asexuals.. And in between there's the grey area. It's an area on it's own that encompasses everything that isn't quite sexual enough to be sexual, but also isn't asexual enough to be ace.

 

I always thought that's how it was technically meant to be, and it works that way as far as I'm concerned. No one is pushed out, because greys still fall in their own distinct place on the spectrum. So there's no need for any new terms  'Grey' is itself an umbrella that covers a range of experiences and identities.

 

Just my two cents

 

I believe that we don't need any more labels, too. I truly believe that sexuality and asexuality are arranged in a spectrum, which in my opinion was correctly described by someone on this thread; so it should be: sexual person-->demisexual person and grey-sexual-->grey-asexual-->asexual person.

 

On 11/14/2019 at 3:36 PM, Galactic Turtle said:

I was expecting this thread to be locked by now but it isn't yay~~~~

 

I agree that there really doesn't need to be a new word. We already have language like the gray area/gray/demi. However, as was spoken more about at the beginning of this thread, simply saying something like "demisexuality is different from/is not asexuality" will get you banned/blocked/ejected/bombarded in the vast majority of large ace spaces. Let's not even start on the number of articles/interviews of asexual people who at some point say "not all asexual people don't experience sexual attraction, there are multiple types of asexual, I'm the type called gray-a." It just all seems like another tornado of misinformation to add to the already existing tornado of misinformation surrounding asexuality. 

 

And again, it's not that gray area folks are being kicked out of ace spaces or that they're not wanted. It would just be nice if the gray/demi population didn't insist on, for whatever reason, being called asexual... because they aren't. Similar perhaps, but definitely not the same yet for some reason it's an injustice to acknowledge that. 

I believe that choosing the easier explanation as a grey-sexual, that is simply saying you are asexual is as bad as saying that demi/grey people are not part of the asexual spectrum. I can relate more the the experiences of the majority of asexual people than to the experiences of the majority of allosexual people.

On 12/11/2019 at 4:22 PM, Nowhere Girl said:

 [...] 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".

I also agree with the post made by nowhere girl, I think this user has a good point. I accept the fact that asexual, as an umbrella term, gets confused with the word asexual, used to describe people who are completely asexuals. Perhaps we should just develop better explanations for the already existing labels.

[Snow in the background]

30 minutes ago, HikaruBG said:

No, it would make you bisexual....

[...] And again, nowhere is it said how many times do you have desire sex with either gender in order to be considered "a real" bisexual.

Noone IRL really looks at sexuality like it's a spectrum.

 

At worse case scenario, it's done to undermine other people's sexuality.

  Reveal hidden contents

Like for example, I legit have seen people telling me that if a gay man gets involuntary physical arousal at the sigh of naked women (doesn't matter if IRL or on a picture) then he isn't really 100% gay... even if this gay man states multiple times that he wants to have sex with men and not women.

 

Our opinions are different but I think we should both agree to disagree.

For sure nobody should undermine somebody's else sexuality!