What exactly is caedsexual?

[taka]

I learned today that caedsexuals exist. I'm a littleeeee confused about how caedsexual will be considered an asexuality and not trauma? And if caedsexuals are asexuals, why dont they just identify as ace/acespec/etc?? My apologies if im being ignorant or rude!

[Ceebs]

7 minutes ago, illumis wife said:

I'm a littleeeee confused about how caedsexual will be considered an asexuality and not trauma?

Same, considering that the definition is that they don't desire sex due to trauma. I don't know what's wrong with saying 'I don't want a sexual relationship with anyone because of the effects of past trauma'. That's a totally valid reason to not want sex. (I mean, any reason one doesn't want sex is valid.)

[Sarah-Sylvia]

I guess it's not that bad to have a label if that helps, but just like a lot of microlabels most people won't know what you're talking about anyway so you always have to explain it XD.

Isn't any term that considers orientation can be caused by trauma controversial though?

[Karst]

Just now, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Isn't any term that considers orientation can be caused by trauma controversial though?

I think a lot of people are worried that *anyone's* orientation being changed by trauma opens up the argument for bigots that everyone who isn't cisgender and heterosexual must have some sort of trauma or mental illness. 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

1 minute ago, Karst said:

I think a lot of people are worried that *anyone's* orientation being changed by trauma opens up the argument for bigots that everyone who isn't cisgender and heterosexual must have some sort of trauma or mental illness. 

Yes like asexuals who were considered to be ill in some way for not having sexual attraction.

But also, is orientation just something temporary, or is how someone really would be what determines their orientation, like how they would be if trauma gets healed (though it can take incredibly long in some cases,  or always some things around it to deal with).

[MoraDollie]

It's another way to say "I'm asexual but I believe it came from trauma, I wasn't born this way". 

[Snao Cone]

I have no idea what this is. But if people are using language to work through their shit and figuring out what they want in life and why, it could be beneficial to them. And if it's used as a label to indicate that they are intrinsically sexual but need to work through trauma, then it's not asexual — but it could still mean they find comfort in the asexual community and want to participate in it, perhaps to clarify the differences for people who have assumptions that asexual people are just mentally ill.

 

If somebody using this label has no interest in opening up to their own sexuality and is happy never having sex because no matter how much they may be into a person it doesn't feel like an intuitive next step to meet their needs...then they'll probably call themselves asexual in a general sense, because that's what's ultimately practical for them. Deep inner digging into reasons for things is just personal reflection, and it doesn't always change how a person is oriented in a practical interactive sense.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

3 minutes ago, Snao Cone said:

I have no idea what this is. But if people are using language to work through their shit and figuring out what they want in life and why, it could be beneficial to them. And if it's used as a label to indicate that they are intrinsically sexual but need to work through trauma, then it's not asexual — but it could still mean they find comfort in the asexual community and want to participate in it, perhaps to clarify the differences for people who have assumptions that asexual people are just mentally ill.

 

If somebody using this label has no interest in opening up to their own sexuality and is happy never having sex because no matter how much they may be into a person it doesn't feel like an intuitive next step to meet their needs...then they'll probably call themselves asexual in a general sense, because that's what's ultimately practical for them. Deep inner digging into reasons for things is just personal reflection, and it doesn't always change how a person is oriented in a practical interactive sense.

That makes complete sense.
But here's the definition from the lgbta wiki:

"Caedsexual, or caedosexual is an orientation on the asexual spectrum, defined as someone who feels that they were, at one point allosexual, but that has been taken or “cut away” from them due to past trauma. . "

[Janus the Fox]

If anything of sexuality helps to explain in full labelling, micro labelling or Nano labelling, I’m all for and support it.  AVENs Values validates this feature of sexuality identity.

 

Personally it’s a new term to me.

9 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

I guess it's not that bad to have a label if that helps, but just like a lot of microlabels most people won't know what you're talking about anyway so you always have to explain it XD.

Isn't any term that considers orientation can be caused by trauma controversial though?

Anything brand new will be controversial I’d say, there’s always some resistance.  I’ve seen use of Autism and Gender combined in its own label and that’s valid to me.  Gatekeeping is difficult to get under control in places.

[Acerna]

32 minutes ago, illumis wife said:

And if caedsexuals are asexuals, why dont they just identify as ace/acespec/etc??

I’m sure some do (never heard of this label either, but heard of the concept) but I think whether we consider it on the asexual spectrum or not, it should be up to the individual to claim being part of ace-spec or not. I don’t really associate with LGBT+, even though asexuality is a part of it, so I just apply the same mindset to micro labels that blur the lines.

 

Also since it’s possible to happen from trauma, I wouldn’t say they’re allosexual either because they used to fit that, but now no longer can experience sexual attraction. 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

13 minutes ago, Janus DarkFox said:

If anything of sexuality helps to explain in full labelling, micro labelling or Nano labelling, I’m all for and support it.  AVENs Values validates this feature of sexuality identity.

 

Personally it’s a new term to me.

Anything brand new will be controversial I’d say, there’s always some resistance.  I’ve seen use of Autism and Gender combined in its own label and that’s valid to me.  Gatekeeping is difficult to get under control in places.

I guess the complication isn't so much about inclusivity, but definition. That's why I'm wondering would people really want to say that an orientation can be caused by trauma?

I found another definition that doesn't mention orientation on another site though:
"Caedsexual is a neurosexuality defined as "a feeling that one was previously able to experience a particular kind of attraction, but that ability was lost due to trauma or other negative events."

 

[Autixnboam]

I was actually trained through a number of traumatic experiences in my childhood to feign sexual attraction and to satisfy sexually. 

As an adult I utilized it. I'm not sure at what period I first experienced sexual attraction, but I had a child, married, had two children, divorced, married to someone I think I had attraction to, had two children, he died. Married to a man I was madly in love with and absolutely had sexual attraction for, we were pregnant with my last when he died.

He took his life with a gun. I found him. It was traumatic. 

I haven't experienced sexual attraction since, and am sex-repulsed. It's actually the same romantically. It feels permanent, I have no intention of seeking treatment for the aversions, as I don't perceive them to be problematic, and my religion has a bit to do with it. 

I identify as asexual and aromantic generally (and these are the terms I use when speaking with others), and feel I qualify and fit under the following specifically:

Apothisexual

Caedsexual

Erassexual

Requisexual

Erasromantic

Caedromantic

Apothiromantic

 

[Acing It]

I agree with what @Ceebs. said.

[Sally]

A caedsexual is a sexual.  Just as all the other xxxxsexuals are sexuals.  

[The Sword]

In essence, it is nothing.

 

In practice, it's whatever a person identifying as caedsexual thinks it is, as long as it gives them a sense of belonging to the caedsexual community.

 

Under a collective identity view, caedsexuality is a choice, as are all orientations. There is no such thing as essence in collectivism; the essence of collectivism is the rejection of essence.

 

 

(And this is not a snark, neither under a collectivist nor under an essentialist view.)

[Sherlocks]

On 4/10/2021 at 4:32 PM, Karst said:

I think a lot of people are worried that *anyone's* orientation being changed by trauma opens up the argument for bigots that everyone who isn't cisgender and heterosexual must have some sort of trauma or mental illness. 

I mean was that not the assumption for the longest time. I remember in MS a lot of people asking things like "Are ya gay cuase of trauma or are you just like that" to every gay person 

[TheOfficialMelog]

On 4/10/2021 at 7:17 PM, taka said:

And if caedsexuals are asexuals, why dont they just identify as ace/acespec/etc??

Having a label that specifically fits you is a lot better. For instance, being ace (not the umbrella term, just asexual)  means you never did and never will feel sexual attraction. But being caedsexual means that you once did, and might feel it again eventually. It's also a lot easier to have a label than to have to tell someone when you date them "I don't want sex and probably never will." Instead, at the beginning of your relationship, it's a lot easier to just say "I'm caedsexual." Some people might prefer to just use ace as their label, and that's totally ok, but there's also some people who would rather have an exact term to describe what they're feeling. 

[Ceebs]

2 hours ago, TheOfficialMelog said:

It's also a lot easier to have a label than to have to tell someone when you date them "I don't want sex and probably never will." Instead, at the beginning of your relationship, it's a lot easier to just say "I'm caedsexual."

See, the problem here is that you almost always will have to tell them you don't want sex and probably never will. Almost no one knows what 'caedsexual' means so you'll have to do exactly what you would've without that term -- explain in full sentences.

[megagem]

I’m really disappointed in the responses here. As people who are so often left out of the LGBTQ+ community, I would expect the asexual community to be more kind and inclusive to the people that identify this way. Finding this label can be really validating and comforting for the people it applies to. And that’s the whole point for all of these different types of labels. To create community and help people understand themselves better. 

[Blue eyes white dragon]

13 hours ago, megagem said:

I’m really disappointed in the responses here. As people who are so often left out of the LGBTQ+ community, I would expect the asexual community to be more kind and inclusive to the people that identify this way. Finding this label can be really validating and comforting for the people it applies to. And that’s the whole point for all of these different types of labels. To create community and help people understand themselves better. 

If it comforts someone then that's good. A lot of the reason why people are iffy on it is because it pushes the idea that asexuals are just traumatized repressed sexuals that need to be fixed instead of asexuality being an intrinsic part of someone. If someone is repulsed and uninterested in sex because of trauma it's understandable why they wouldn't want sexual relations anymore. But it's different than saying someone just isn't attracted sexually to someone and doesn't desire sexual relations due to it being something that just isn't part of them. It's similar to other ideas that aces are that way because of low hormones which isn't accurate. Asexuality gets so little accurate representation and visibility and we have to work hard to be seen as valid without misconceptions so naturally when something saying that aces are made we want to clarify things. No one is stopping anyone from identifying that way bit it is important to open discussions on what something is and why in order to help people understand themselves better

[R_1]

On 4/10/2021 at 7:32 PM, Karst said:

I think a lot of people are worried that *anyone's* orientation being changed by trauma opens up the argument for bigots that everyone who isn't cisgender and heterosexual must have some sort of trauma or mental illness. 

At the same time, we know that sight can be lost at the neurological level even without physical trauma or diabetes, so sexuality can actually not be permanent. I think the argument that should stand that preference or the lack of thereof is not a problem.

[R_1]

On 2/22/2022 at 10:37 AM, Ceebs said:

See, the problem here is that you almost always will have to tell them you don't want sex and probably never will. Almost no one knows what 'caedsexual' means so you'll have to do exactly what you would've without that term -- explain in full sentences.

I wish I can copy and paste quotes with ease on mobile.

 

That being said, there's also simply saying you're asexual. The now and then is the only thing that matters. For me, that's true. There's no evidence my sexual attraction to others will be back, so therefore, it is dead and I must move on as if I was asexual my entire life. If someone asks if I used to feel that way, that's the only time it's appropriate.

[Ceebs]

I agree with that, yeah. I understand people see things differently and they're free to conceptualise and express their experiences however they wish. As they should be. If I were in that position myself, I'd likely take one of two routes -- I'd openly acknowledge my trauma and simply say that's why I don't want a sexual relationship with anyone without changing my orientation label, OR I'd identify as asexual if I thought I was unlikely to change and leave the terminology at that so that people in general can understand, and I would explain my past in private to any partners or potential partners. If you've got an identifiable reason for being effectively asexual and you don't see it as something changeable, I genuinely believe it makes total sense to call yourself asexual. I'd say that to anyone about their sexual orientation, asexual or otherwise. After all, in everyday life, it comes down to what you desire to do with other people. Anything that's a long-standing pattern (rather than, say, 'I'm a woman who desires sex with men but I haven't had much interest for the past two years because I've been struggling with severe depression, but I know that if/when I'm better, I'll almost certainly want the same things I used to') is what's most important to convey to others. If you've never wanted sex with anyone and you think it's because of trauma, because you're autistic, or some of the other things I've seen people ask about on here... ok, still valid. It's ok to just call yourself asexual, IMO.

 

I get that some others see it differently, and like I say, that's fine. But when it comes to explaining your sexuality to the larger world, it's going to be easier for you and for other people to understand and accept if you make the terminology fairly simple.

[DoBetter]

Hello, I am biromantic caedsexual and I'm going to explain my experience and some questions here. 

 

TW: Mentions of transphobia, corrective rape, abuse, suicide, and conversion therapy.

 

I was 19 and voluntarily entered into a mental health facility to escape domestic abuse from my father. I was at the end of my rope and needed some escape. I was immediately treated differently for being transgender, deadnamed, given dirty looks, and told very strange comments that made me uncomfortable to the point that I couldn't physically eat without vomiting anymore. 

 

One day a staff/nurse came into my room, I wasn't allowed a roommate, as I was sobbing and proceeded to perform corrective rape on me. I had my insides/genitals clawed at as she told me I was a girl and the proof was the organ she was scraping at until I bled. I was bruised, slapped, scratched, and assaulted in a brutal cruel way. This led me to also have a severe UTI the facility didn't treat and I had to go to the hospital for when I submitted my 8 hour letter (?) to be allowed out.

 

When I left I was on autopilot, just planning on dying. I tried to drive my car onto train tracks, into a lake, ingest a bottle of pills, and slit my wrists and thighs. I did eventually get help and diagnosed with PTSD (and white coat syndrome) 

 

I felt abandoned by the community. I was terrified of being trans, and to this day I don't feel sexual attraction anymore. I do have a libido but I don't feel attracted to anyone sexually, even my fiance (who is demi-biromantic asexual) 

 

I tried to talk to asexual people about my problems, but I was told to "kill myself", told I was a "mockery to the community", that I was "causing allosexual people to think we were traumatized babies". I was a traumatized barely adult who just wanted comfort, to not feel alone anymore... But I wasn't given that. (I'm not going to talk about the shit I got from other trans people because that's not relevant, but be aware it happened)

 

That is why I don't call myself asexual, I don't call myself even a-spec or ace-spec. I use caedsexual exclusively. It makes me feel comfortable, like I'm less alone, and is a great coping mechanism because I feel like there is a community of people who understand that I didn't ask to be like this and just want to feel okay again. 

 

As others have pointed out, if you aren't caedsexual then it is not your place to police us. Don't tell me to just use asexual or a-spec/ace-spec, don't tell me I should say xyz or do xyz. It. Is. Not. Your. Place. Trauma induced sexualities exist, it's a different experience than non- traumatic people. 

 

I hope some of you here have grown up.

[Acing It]

On 7/20/2021 at 11:06 AM, The Sword said:

is a choice, as are all orientations

erm... nope. You can choose to identify as asexual, gay etc... but it's not a choice to actually be one. At least not in my experience. Not sure if that applies all of those more or less exotic micro labels though. 

[The Sword]

1 hour ago, Acing It said:

erm... nope. You can choose to identify as asexual, gay etc... but it's not a choice to actually be one. At least not in my experience. Not sure if that applies all of those more or less exotic micro labels though. 

Context matters.

 

Under CIM (the Collective Identity Model), "choosing to identify as" is 100% the same as "actually being". These expressions are fully equivalent; there is no essence to "being gay" other than calling yourself gay. "Gayness" means the membership in a social club ("the gay community"); "gayness" has nothing at all to do with how you feel (sexually, romantically, whatever) about people of the same sex/gender as yourself. And yes, that makes all orientations a choice, and nothing but a choice. You can absolutely stop "being gay" in a matter of seconds; it's very simple, actually - just call yourself something else. 

 

And that's exactly why The Sword (and a lot of others) consider CIM to be completely ridiculous.

[SilenceRadio]

On 4/11/2022 at 7:04 PM, Blue eyes white dragon said:

If it comforts someone then that's good. A lot of the reason why people are iffy on it is because it pushes the idea that asexuals are just traumatized repressed sexuals that need to be fixed instead of asexuality being an intrinsic part of someone. If someone is repulsed and uninterested in sex because of trauma it's understandable why they wouldn't want sexual relations anymore. But it's different than saying someone just isn't attracted sexually to someone and doesn't desire sexual relations due to it being something that just isn't part of them. It's similar to other ideas that aces are that way because of low hormones which isn't accurate. Asexuality gets so little accurate representation and visibility and we have to work hard to be seen as valid without misconceptions so naturally when something saying that aces are made we want to clarify things. No one is stopping anyone from identifying that way bit it is important to open discussions on what something is and why in order to help people understand themselves better

Some aces feeling like they "became" that way (be it due to trauma or low hormones) doesn't necessarily mean that all aces have a similar origin story. I can understand not wanting to spread misconceptions about asexuality, but I think we can do that without arguing about some (necessarily meaningful to everyone) difference between "intrinsic" aces and "made" ones.

 

In fact, I feel like a potential reason as to why a lot of these microlabels exist is because some of these people don't feel asexual enough to claim being just "asexual" (or feel like common ace narratives forget about their existence), and therefore prefer to create a term for "I'm asexual because of trauma" in order to break away from the "neurotypical, non-traumatized ace" norm that some ace communities seem to follow. I might be wrong though.

 

3 hours ago, The Sword said:

"gayness" has nothing at all to do with how you feel (sexually, romantically, whatever) about people of the same sex/gender as yourself.

I feel like even under a non-essentialist paradigm, gayness can still hold these connotations. At the end of the day, people won't identify as "gay" if it doesn't say anything about them. Their experiences of attraction may not be a choice, but they still have the choice not to identify that way, and maybe identify as heteroflexible/bi/homoromantic or something else that fits them better.

 

 

If someone "chose" to be asexual because they had no interest in acting on the sexual attraction they experienced, would that be bad?

 

[The Sword]

15 minutes ago, SilenceRadio said:

I feel like even under a non-essentialist paradigm, gayness can still hold these connotations. At the end of the day, people won't identify as "gay" if it doesn't say anything about them. Their experiences of attraction may not be a choice, but they still have the choice not to identify that way, and maybe identify as heteroflexible/bi/homoromantic or something else that fits them better.

Connotations, yes. But in CIM, "being attracted to people of the same sex" doesn't have much more solid a connection to "being gay" then, say, "being a socialist" has with "being a Star Trek fan". Sure, there's some overlap there, but it's an incidental tendency, and does not work as a reliable indicator in either direction - it's neither neccessary nor sufficient. The only deciding factor is still wanting to be in the club. "Gay" under CIM has much, much more in common with "Trekkie", "Democrat", or "Roman Catholic" (deliberately chosen socio-political associations that kinda resonate with some value or interest of yours) than with "person of color", "left-handed" or "tall" (inherent traits).

 

If you can't even make an argument against the age-old question "Have you tried not being gay?" any more substantial then "oh, I know I could very easily not be gay, I just kinda don't want to because all the gay kids are so cool 😎"... then your model seems very poorly thought out, indeed.

 

The Sword could rant more, but it would just become an anger sink and/or defdeb, so let's leave it at that.

 

 

20 minutes ago, SilenceRadio said:

If someone "chose" to be asexual because they had no interest in acting on the sexual attraction they experienced, would that be bad?

Yes. And more importantly, it would be wrong.

 

"Celibacy =/= asexuality" is a standard we should be able to agree not to fall back behind.

[SilenceRadio]

1 hour ago, The Sword said:

If you can't even make an argument against the age-old question "Have you tried not being gay?" any more substantial then "oh, I know I could very easily not be gay, I just kinda don't want to because all the gay kids are so cool 😎"... then your model seems very poorly thought out, indeed.

Homomisic people don't just want people to not call themselves gay: they're mostly targeting certain behaviors. And they want gay people to change because they don't believe that anything but being straight is a valid option. The reason why people say "you can't choose being attracted to the same gender" is not just because it tends to be true the majority of the time, but because the only way they managed to counter the "try not to be gay" statement was to argue that they couldn't change it, that they "couldn't help it". That if they could change it, they should, but they can't, so we have to "accept" them instead.

 

And then, you have bi people who are told that they can "choose to be straight" and so shouldn't try to get in same-gender relationships because they can "choose" the "right" option. Because these heterosexist people only have conditional "acceptance" of gayness. Same-gender relationships shouldn't be allowed just because some people didn't choose to be gay, but because there's nothing wrong with them.

 

If gay people could stop being gay, stop being attracted to the same gender at any moment, do you feel like the ethical choice should be for them to do so?

 

1 hour ago, The Sword said:

Yes. And more importantly, it would be wrong.

 

"Celibacy =/= asexuality" is a standard we should be able to agree not to fall back behind.

Sure, that's true. The same way "having a same-gender partner =/= gayness". But we wouldn't say they're completely unrelated, either.

 

That doesn't mean celibacy can't be part of the reason why someone identifies as asexual. If they're not interested in having sex and feel more connected to the ace community, regardless of any sexual attraction or desire they might have, it might make sense for them to ID as ace. "Lack of interest in having sex", or not considering it an issue, has always been a valid way to identify as asexual.

[The Sword]

45 minutes ago, SilenceRadio said:

Homomisic people don't just want people to not call themselves gay: they're mostly targeting certain behaviors.

If that's true, and CIM is true, it means hardly anyone is really discriminated for being gay. How is homophobia a real societal problem again, if people don't really discriminate against orientations but against sexual practices?

 

(Fun fact: outside of the realm of rape, the sexual behavior a person engages with is... a choice, and nothing but a choice.)

 

How is that a constructive model? How does it serve to oppose bigotry, rather than forming a disturbingly neat common ground for allying with bigots? 

 

 

53 minutes ago, SilenceRadio said:

And then, you have bi people who are told that they can "choose to be straight"

If CIM is true, then that statement is factually correct - bi people can indeed choose to be straight, and it's very simple to make that choice.

 

 

45 minutes ago, SilenceRadio said:

If gay people could stop being gay, stop being attracted to the same gender at any moment, do you feel like the ethical choice should be for them to do so?

No, obviously not. As long as nobody is harmed, people should be themselves and live how they feel, regardless of what their orientation is. Being gay and having consensual gay relationships does not harm anyone. There is no ethical problem there.

 

 

But if you're keen on a gotcha for The Sword, he's one The Sword volunteers for you:

 

If the only reason people have for calling themselves gay is because they want to be in the club (i.e., if CIM is true), then The Sword doesn't want to hear them complain about being victims of homophobia. They chose to be gay in a world where homophobia exists*, and should shoulder their share of responsibility for the backlash they invite into their lives due to that choice. That's the adult thing to do, and it's perfectly fair to expect it.

 

(* That is, if we are to believe that anti-gay discrimination even really exists in the first place, see above.)

 

 

26 minutes ago, SilenceRadio said:

But we wouldn't say they're completely unrelated, either.

Within CIM? Oh yes, we would certainly say that they unrelated. That's the party line: Nothing else is a relevant factor, only the choice to identify. Assuming someone has a non-average stance on celibacy just because they call themselves asexual, or a non-average interest in sex/relationships with same-sex people just because they call themselves gay, will inevitably be decried as "elitist gatekeeping". 

 

 

29 minutes ago, SilenceRadio said:

If they're not interested in having sex and feel more connected to the ace community, regardless of any sexual attraction or desire they might have, it might make sense for them to ID as ace.

We won't find common ground there, no.

 

They should be referred to celibacy groups, instead of trying to bastardize asexuality by including them into a community where they simply do not belong (other than as sexual allies). If their feelings lead them to misidentify as asexual, they should be firmly (albeit respectfully) corrected; in doing so, we further education and visibility.