Jump to content
Nai

“Allosexual” in the FAQ

Recommended Posts

Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)
1 hour ago, michaeld said:

It would be interesting to find out the history of the term. I'm pretty sure it originated outside AVEN, perhaps Tumblr, though its use has seeped into AVEN as well over the years. My vague recollection is that it was devised precisely because some sexual people didn't like the word sexual. I can't remember though if sexual people within the ace community were involved in choosing the word allosexual[1] or whether it was done by aces. Even if it was sexuals who chose it, obviously it was only a tiny minority even of the sexuals in the ace community at the time, so their preference may not be the majority.

 

[1] other suggestions I've heard include "zedsexual" and "pokisexual" (sp?). Not a fan of these either personally, though of course I'm asexual...

When I had this discussion like 5 years ago I found the original posts about it somewhere online and it had been made as a counter to autosexual. So like it was anyone who isn't attracted to themselves. I am unable to find those posts now but the links to them (and the copy/pasted posts) would be somewhere in my history which would take about a hundred years to search through :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Serran

I'm pretty much never going to use allosexual. I'm fine with sexual. 😛

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld
1 hour ago, DryRain said:

Moreover,

wanting to find a different word for sexuals like "non-asexual" is (in my opinion) entirely useless, as non-asexual is essentially a double negative just to say sexual, and the original word serves its purpose without using asexual as the "normal" from which sexual is derived (something I'm sure some sexual people would take offence with).

The time I've found the term "non-asexual" can be useful is if you're speaking outside the ace community, but about asexuality. If asexuality isn't the topic, you'd probably never need to use the term "non-asexual" or "sexual" or whatever, as it's pretty much the default. But if you are talking about asexuality sometimes you need to refer to people who are not asexual, and calling them "sexual" can sound pretty weird to an outside audience.

 

On the other hand I'm probably more likely to actually spell it out - "people who are not asexual" or "non-asexual people" - rather than use the shorter "non-asexual(s)", though I think I've used the latter too from time to time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nai
1 hour ago, DryRain said:

I can't say I really understand it? Sometimes people don't like being called what they are even if it does apply to them (calling someone "sexual" might seem weird and they may not like it, but if they are then it's just true regardless), but maybe that's not what you meant.

It personally does not bother me but I have heard people say that they feel being referred to as "sexual" implies some kind of hypersexuality or sex-obsession, so I was trying to be considerate of that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeChat
28 minutes ago, Nai said:

It personally does not bother me but I have heard people say that they feel being referred to as "sexual" implies some kind of hypersexuality or sex-obsession, so I was trying to be considerate of that.

I think I came across a couple of people on AVEN who mentioned that, although "sexual" is a part of sexual orientations like "heterosexual," "homosexual," "pansexual," etc. and those terms don't automatically indicate hypersexuality at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nai
9 minutes ago, LeChat said:

I think I came across a couple of people on AVEN who mentioned that, although "sexual" is a part of sexual orientations like "heterosexual," "homosexual," "pansexual," etc. and those terms don't automatically indicate hypersexuality at all.

That's a fair point :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DryRain
58 minutes ago, michaeld said:

The time I've found the term "non-asexual" can be useful is if you're speaking outside the ace community, but about asexuality. If asexuality isn't the topic, you'd probably never need to use the term "non-asexual" or "sexual" or whatever, as it's pretty much the default. But if you are talking about asexuality sometimes you need to refer to people who are not asexual, and calling them "sexual" can sound pretty weird to an outside audience.

 

On the other hand I'm probably more likely to actually spell it out - "people who are not asexual" or "non-asexual people" - rather than use the shorter "non-asexual(s)", though I think I've used the latter too from time to time.

True, if you're speaking from a community like here where ace is the "norm" then non-asexual would make some sense as the word would revolve around "asexual".

Then again, purely semantics and this particular case doesn't really need to be spelled out in a FAQ as it's dependant on context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sithgroundhog
5 hours ago, Nai said:

It personally does not bother me but I have heard people say that they feel being referred to as "sexual" implies some kind of hypersexuality or sex-obsession, so I was trying to be considerate of that.

I can see some finding it to be that way. I haven't come across anyone who is like that, but I can see some taking it that way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
13 hours ago, Kimmie. said:

In my opinion the only ones that have a actually say in this are the sexuals because it is about them. 

And every sexual I remember talking about it has said they prefer sexual.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kimmie.
12 minutes ago, Sally said:

And every sexual I remember talking about it has said they prefer sexual.  

Yup basically if they say it is offensive then it is just that and should not be used.  Because if we keep using it then we lose all the right to complain if sexuals start calling asexuals something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus DarkFox

Sexual sounds best to me, Allosexual?  Never sat too right to me “all” meaning everything seems or feel like it includes all sexualities, including asexual ones.  I guess that Allo better suited the grey middle and other (a)sexuality nuances, due to a lack of a better all-inclusive terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC
21 hours ago, Kimmie. said:

Yup basically if they say it is offensive then it is just that and should not be used. 

I don't find it offensive exactly, but I do find it... weird? I get the point of using it within the asexual community, however 'sexual' works just as well. If aces really need a term to distinguish sexual folks in the context of sexuality discussions, I've always thought 'non-asexual' works adequately. (And everyone who says it's a double negative... shhhhh, it's not really.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kimmie.
Just now, cbc said:

I've always thought 'non-asexual' works adequately. (And everyone who says it's a double negative... shhhhh, it's not really.)

Isn't a double negative equal to a positive?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus DarkFox
3 hours ago, Kimmie. said:

Isn't a double negative equal to a positive?

Multiplying a negative with another negative yep.  

  • Like 1

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...