Jump to content

Definitions🤷🏻‍♀️


Traveler40

Recommended Posts

Traveler40

Visibility is important, yet every time I read articles like the one attached, I start to question definitions again. Across time, I’ve come to accept a broader understanding of each by engaging here on AVEN.
 

One example of my point is that I can’t have meaningless and random sexual connections. Does that make me Demi? Early on I thought so based on the definition as presented, but now understand Demi to be a bit more complicated than that....I am not Demi (I think?) 🤷🏻‍♀️

 

Gray Ace - I think my husband would willingly identify as Gray Ace as it would allow him to have mental and emotional flexibility. Who knows as that is for him to figure out (or not).  However, across 20 years with him, I’d pick a different spot on the spectrum.
 

Oh, and I loathe the term Allo!  It’s so unnecessary. Where did that originate? Simple is usually best and ”sexual”should suffice in my book FWIW.

 

Hopefully articles like this incentivize others to spend time here learning at least.
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/824b3fc4-b7b5-492c-b31e-1d37730c6770

Link to post
Share on other sites
DemonicEnby

Humans generally tend to categorise about... Well anything. Give something a name with a clear definition and that's what it's called. 

 

Allosexual is still a very often debated word, as some people think that sexual alone is confusing in itself and implies sexual activities when there are none (eg someone who is allo but at the moment does not have a partner or just doesn't engage in activities) or that it objectifies people. 

 

If you want to call yourself sexual then you can of course. Definitions of words tend to change over time too. I have added a link to an article, hope that helps. 

 

https://www.healthline.com/health/allosexual#allosexual-vs-sexual

Link to post
Share on other sites
MarRister

I don't get allosexual as a term either. The problems listed in the article above honestly seem kind of farfetched to me as being actual issues. It has never really seemed like a confusing term to me, and I feel like sexual can be used in a way that is actually more descriptive for people and also one the general public will understand, whereas most people will just go "huh?" if someone says allosexual outside of an asexual community. There is already a term that exists and works and that sexual people are totally accepting of. 

 

Someone could identify as being a very sexual person or not being a very sexual person, and all of this indicates they feel sexual attraction, but differently. This actually gives this term more versatility in my mind and one that people understand. I don't think any of this actually implies that they must be partaking in sexual activities, as this doesn't make sense in the context. The only way it would actually imply activities is if someone said something about being or getting sexual with someone else/themselves, but generally this word is not used like that. Most people would just use sex or masturbation or whatever slang colloquial term they feel like, but I would find it odd if someone said "ooh I really want to get sexual with that person" when they could just say they want to have sex or do other specific things with that person.

 

And I agree that the demi definition seems quite misleading. I would say the majority of sexual people need some level of bond (even if it is more shallow) before feeling sexual attraction and engaging in sex with someone else, so the definition as written would actually include the majority of sexual people. I think it should probably be more clear. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Traveler40
2 hours ago, MarRister said:

I don't get allosexual as a term either. The problems listed in the article above honestly seem kind of farfetched to me as being actual issues. It has never really seemed like a confusing term to me, and I feel like sexual can be used in a way that is actually more descriptive for people and also one the general public will understand, whereas most people will just go "huh?" if someone says allosexual outside of an asexual community. There is already a term that exists and works and that sexual people are totally accepting of. 

 

Someone could identify as being a very sexual person or not being a very sexual person, and all of this indicates they feel sexual attraction, but differently. This actually gives this term more versatility in my mind and one that people understand. I don't think any of this actually implies that they must be partaking in sexual activities, as this doesn't make sense in the context. The only way it would actually imply activities is if someone said something about being or getting sexual with someone else/themselves, but generally this word is not used like that. Most people would just use sex or masturbation or whatever slang colloquial term they feel like, but I would find it odd if someone said "ooh I really want to get sexual with that person" when they could just say they want to have sex or do other specific things with that person.

 

And I agree that the demi definition seems quite misleading. I would say the majority of sexual people need some level of bond (even if it is more shallow) before feeling sexual attraction and engaging in sex with someone else, so the definition as written would actually include the majority of sexual people. I think it should probably be more clear. 

Thank you for putting it perfectly. I totally agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RalphEllison

I'm also not a big fan of allosexual but I I suspect it's used because calling people sexual sort of reinforces that as the default status, with everyone else falling into a category that is lexiconically and logically a subset or qualified group. Kind of like the way mankind relates to woman. So while it feels clumsy to me, chairperson used to as did worker's comp, and now I don't miss chairman or workman's comp. So ......

 

Another thing that strikes me @Traveler40is what happens to our perceptions when we choose to fit a label around our identity, or perhaps to squeeze our identity into a label. You made a good point that Gray Ace might allow your husband more flexibility in how he identified. I fully note that labels and categories have value, but they also have limitations. The words we apply to ourselves seep into our consciousness in ways we're not fully aware of, and eventually shape our view of not only ourselves but also the world around us. I think it's why so many of us resist and resent being labeled by others. It seems ironic then that we're often so quick to apply labels to ourselves.                                          

Link to post
Share on other sites
AliveAwakeAlrtEnthusiastic
On 5/9/2021 at 2:34 PM, MarRister said:

I don't get allosexual as a term either. The problems listed in the article above honestly seem kind of farfetched to me as being actual issues. It has never really seemed like a confusing term to me, and I feel like sexual can be used in a way that is actually more descriptive for people and also one the general public will understand, whereas most people will just go "huh?" if someone says allosexual outside of an asexual community. There is already a term that exists and works and that sexual people are totally accepting of. 

I'm in the group of people who prefer the term "allosexual" over just "sexual" when describing myself. I acknowledge that they are usually used synonymously in these forums and likely in some other places, but I appreciate the term because of the more preciseness that I feel from it. Asexual roughly means not having the sex drive. Allosexual roughly means having the sex drive. "Sexual," meanwhile, is used in everyday language and can easily be misinterpreted by those who are unaware of this conversation. For example, two years ago I didn't know asexuality existed,  so to me  "sexual" meant "more sexual than normal" (otherwise you wouldn't say it) and "normal" was what I now know as allosexual. In other words, just a few years ago I would misinterpreted someone who said they were sexual as saying they had an extra strong sex drive. Meanwhile, if someone had said they were allosexual, I wouldn't have known what that meant so would have gone and looked it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2021 at 4:34 PM, MarRister said:

And I agree that the demi definition seems quite misleading. I would say the majority of sexual people need some level of bond (even if it is more shallow) before feeling sexual attraction and engaging in sex with someone else, so the definition as written would actually include the majority of sexual people. I think it should probably be more clear. 

Yeah the demi thing misleads a whole lotta people. I've said on AVEN many times that completely casual interaction holds little interest to me, and also that I'm not highly visually driven, so my interest in having sex with someone is largely based on knowing them to some degree and liking/being attracted to them because of who they are. And some people on AVEN have said 'Oh that sounds demi to me!' So... you're telling me if I met someone two or three times, really liked them based on what I knew of them, felt a spark of connection and desire, and decided to have sex with them after knowing them for two weeks, I'm demisexual? Right... okay. 🙄 I'd still prefer to have a more established connection than just that, because ideal sex for me is very much about the emotions you feel for someone, and obviously those emotions are deeper if you've known a person for six months or a year rather than a day or a week, but 'ideal' has nothing to do with whether I'm simply capable of feeling attraction/desire. And I can say with certainty that with everyone I've ever been attracted to, I've felt a spark of potential very quickly. (Well, with one exception; my second ex was a casual acquaintance for a few years before she began pursuing me, and I didn't have any feelings... although even in that case, they did happen relatively fast after she initiated something.) Not being interested in banging super hot total strangers doesn't make me demisexual, and I'm pretty sure being able to develop attraction/desire quite quickly makes me NOT demi. Hell, even though I likely wouldn't have sex with him because I don't know him, I follow the Instagram account of the guy who's the touring drummer for one of my favourite bands because he's hot, lol. Not very demi of me. In my understanding, demisexuality involves becoming emotionally close to someone over a fairly lengthy period of time whilst feeling no sexual interest in them whatsoever, and then once there's a well-developed bond eventually, desire kicks in. But as long as 'I don't really want and/or fully enjoy sex without an emotional bond' gets confused with 'I have absolutely no ability to find anyone appealing in a sexual way until we have a deep connection', demisexuality is going to keep being misunderstood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mountain House
1 hour ago, Ceebs. said:

and then once there's a well-developed bond eventually, desire kicks in

Or maybe not at all as described by The One True Will (former facilitator of the Gracefully Poly Facebook group) here.  He has since dropped the label because it has been coopted and lost it's meaning as far as he's concerned.  In online dating sites it might mean something as simple as "I won't have sex with you unless I know your name and we've had 1 non-sexual meet and greet."  I too need those things, I would at least need to be friends, but I wouldn't label me anywhere but at the allosexual <ahem> end of the pool.

 

So for me, demi is confusing.  Let's say I've decided to meet people on dating sites.  I'm married to a person that would be labeled demi-sexual as defined here on AVEN (or as The One True Will) and I am looking for a little more than that in a new partner.  Do I skip profiles that label themselves demi or are they trying to tell me that they want an emotional connection before sexual connection just like me?

 

I've thrown demi-sexual out of my lexicon for general conversation and only use it here at AVEN in it's asexual aware meaning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Traveler40
2 hours ago, RalphEllison said:

I think it's why so many of us resist and resent being labeled by others. It seems ironic then that we're often so quick to apply labels to ourselves. 

True! I’m not a fan of always “having it your way” and see that it creates chaos many times. Ironically, finding AVEN (and the label asexual) dramatically changed my life. Labeling can be a double edged sword which necessitates balance.

 

A couple of years ago some posters took to labeling our situation. It was never pointed, but essentially made one. That stopped, but I find a lack of broad perspective isolating these days. I am wondering if it makes sense to back away from the habit that is AVEN.  I understand why it is, but wish I could gift insight. I’ve come to accept that which is not mine to change.
 

Interestingly, a few years ago, there was a poster I identified closely with. We had identical situations and solutions; We became friends off of AVEN. We correspond by email and were going to try and meet as families last summer, but then COVID.
 

Anyhow, while he was one year behind on opening, his wife was light years ahead of my husband in comfort. I recall pining for his setup and wishing it could be so fluid for us. Guess what? With time, patience and unwavering dedication, we are there.
 

We don’t do overnights in the same space, but integration moves tighter by the week. The inconceivable, impossible and insane is everyday life around here. I wish I’d known how it could be back when I was in the box...

 

Nothing changes unless you can. Yes, I digress, but really, what’s labeling anyhow?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mountain House said:

Do I skip profiles that label themselves demi or are they trying to tell me that they want an emotional connection before sexual connection just like me?

Yep, people are using it in various ways and so you never know quite what it means. I listen to a number of sex and sexuality podcasts (none of them about asexuality), and I've heard a handful of people mention that they're demi. And it most cases, it seems to have been the looser definition they're going with -- "I want some connection before we shag".

Link to post
Share on other sites
TurnedTurtle

Personally, I really only think of demi-sexual in the context of asexuality, as in someone who is otherwise asexual but who can/does experience sexual attraction/desire only under a narrow set of specific circumstances, and even at that it is not continuous, but as fleeting as the circumstances..... ( @Traveler40, I would not classify you as demi under my interpretation.)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is where all the vague and conflicting definitions frustrate me.  I get that we want to be inclusive, and I also get that there is always some blurring when it comes to people, but if the definition of (e.g.) demi was more along the lines of “needs to establish a strong emotional

connection for at least a year before experiencing sexual attraction” that would be much clearer.  People could still argue that they were essentially demi because it took them ten months, and that’s fine, but at least it would firmly establish that “I need two dates before I might want to sleep with you” is a fundamentally different experience.

 

I don’t mean to single out or pick on demisexuality; it just makes a handy example.

 

Maybe I find this extra-frustrating because I am ace by some definitions and decidedly not by (more) others, and especially because I have good, caring, and furious/invalidated/offended friends on both sides of the “asexuality is a spectrum”/“asexuality is a fixed point and everything else is on the sexual spectrum” divide... but I just wish someone would pick one official definition for each term and then we can adjust our language and thinking accordingly.

 

Grumble grumble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia

In the end it's just a label to try to explain how you are. It usually takes to go beyond just saying one word.
The most important is to be able to know yourself and be able to share that with those you want ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alas, that doesn’t help tackle the situation of “some people feel excluded from their own label when they’re arguable the ones who most belong there” versus “they’re a bunch of gatekeeping exclusionists,” for example.  If “asexual” had a single meaning, rather than two which are to some degree opposed, we wouldn’t have two groups waging war over which definition is the real one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia

Well, the definition debates doesn't change that everyone's welcomed and we can support anyone who has trouble that others on the spectrum can relate to.
That's what I think anyway ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arctangent

The exact definition of "demisexual" can be difficult to nail down. I've seen some people identify as demisexual because they only developed those feelings a few times in their life after a long time of being in certain close emotional relationships, and outside of that, they don't desire sexual relationships. To me, that seems different from folks who don't like casual sex and need an emotional connection to enjoy sex, but still feel a baseline desire for a sexual relationship even when they don't have that emotional bond.

 

I was discussing this topic with someone IRL recently and even though they fall into this second category, they don't feel that identifying as demi is useful for them because they don't think their experience is that unusual. Indeed, I've met a number of people who feel that way. Often, even folks who do enjoy casual sex say that sex in the context of an emotional connection is better. To me, it naturally follows that some sexual people would think casual sex isn't worth it and only want sex in a close relationship... and I feel like if that qualifies as demi, then we'll have to accept that demisexuality is 1) probably pretty common and 2) perhaps not exclusively an asexual-spectrum identity. But, if people don't like or want that, then the line will have to be drawn elsewhere... except some people don't like drawing lines... so this ambiguity will probably persist in perpetuity. 😛 (FWIW, I'm not all that invested in it either way; I just think it's interesting to think about.)

 

As for the "allo" thing, that debate's been around for a while as well. It's never really caught on to the point where I've seen a bunch of people identifying as allo... but I guess I can't say it hasn't caught on at all, since people are still finding out about it and saying they don't like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, AliveAwakeAlrtEnthusiastic said:

I'm in the group of people who prefer the term "allosexual" over just "sexual" when describing myself. I acknowledge that they are usually used synonymously in these forums and likely in some other places, but I appreciate the term because of the more preciseness that I feel from it. Asexual roughly means not having the sex drive. Allosexual roughly means having the sex drive. "Sexual," meanwhile, is used in everyday language and can easily be misinterpreted by those who are unaware of this conversation. For example, two years ago I didn't know asexuality existed,  so to me  "sexual" meant "more sexual than normal" (otherwise you wouldn't say it) and "normal" was what I now know as allosexual. In other words, just a few years ago I would misinterpreted someone who said they were sexual as saying they had an extra strong sex drive. Meanwhile, if someone had said they were allosexual, I wouldn't have known what that meant so would have gone and looked it up.

Yeah I guess it may depend how the language is used around you. At least in my little bubble of the world people would rarely use sexual to identify themselves unless it is accompanied by some sort of descriptive language saying to what degree they are sexual. I haven't really related the word sexual to be meaning highly sexual, unless said that way. It also isn't used that often anyways outside of phrases like 'sexual health/relationships/orientation/experiences' and so on. 

 

And honestly I don't really find a need to ever identify myself as sexual in day to day life (also I feel that for most people this is none of their business anyways) because being part of the majority, people will generally just assume you are (not that that is right to do, just that it is). Though if I am talking to someone who I would like to have a relationship with, not very sexual goes a lot further for me as a way to describe myself rather than just allosexual, since not very allosexual doesn't really mean anything. 

 

But I can see how if the language you have experienced has used sexual to mean something more along the lines of hypersexual that that would be frustrating when that is not how you feel. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2021 at 12:39 AM, MarRister said:

I haven't really related the word sexual to be meaning highly sexual, unless said that way.

Bit of a side note to the main topic here, but it fucks me off when people use it to mean 'highly sexual' in a derogatory way. Whether or not someone actually is more sexual than the average person, and even if they are... so??? Someone once referred to me that way (I can't recall if their exact words were 'too sexual' or 'so sexual') when listing off some of their criticisms of me, and god it felt shameful. Probably because I was uncomfortable with my sexuality for a long time, and being ok with it was still not something I was totally used to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Traveler40
7 hours ago, Ceebs. said:

when listing off some of their criticisms of me

I hear you and am sure you know this, but try to remember that observations made like the one described are usually about them and their fears or issues.

 

You’ve also moved on in the best of ways. Middle finger to the manipulative and abusive idiots from the past - here’s to them staying there in all ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Traveler40 said:
6 hours ago, Ceebs. said:

when listing off some of their criticisms of me

I hear you and am sure you know this, but try to remember that observations made like the one described are usually about them and their fears or issues.

Yeah there was more than a little irony in terms of who that came from. 😂 Definitely more to do with them than me.

 

3 hours ago, Traveler40 said:

You’ve also moved on in the best of ways. Middle finger to the manipulative and abusive idiots from the past - here’s to them staying there in all ways.

Mmm yes, cheers to that haha.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Traveler40 said:

observations made like the one described are usually about them and their fears or issues.

Yep, everyone is entitled to their opinion but it’s ultimately just that... their opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A post popped up in a Facebook group last night and I was reminded of this thread. It's a small 18+ sexuality and relationships group (spun off of a much larger general psychology-related group I've been in for about a decade). Nothing do with asexuality at all, although a handful of members identify that way. The admin of the group -- who's the one who posted this -- seems to have come to the conclusion over the past year or so that she's somewhere in the asexual realm of things, perhaps 'ace spec' or whatever... and while I don't know the intricacies of her life and obviously can't decide for her, that conclusion doesn't fit too well with lots of things I've seen her post before. And she's posted so many things about asexuality that I disagree with.

 

Anyway, so there was this. The strange ideas about what demisexual is have spread far beyond AVEN for sure. I mean yes, it's correct in the sense that the things listed as not sexual attraction can occur without sexual attraction (libido that drives someone to masturbate, having sex with someone even though you'd rather not, etc.), but the whole seeing a person and wanting sex thing is getting so old because it's only a tiny portion of what attraction and desire entail.

 

(The last, lengthy comment is me. Apparently nine people agree so far...)

 

4883-E3-F1-342-F-41-F2-9-A96-DC4-DA08177
 

36-D2-EA19-218-B-4-D3-E-B27-E-F3-FDE1-E1

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ceebs. If it helps, there's at least one other sexual person, who's written an article about sexuality, attraction, etc. (on Scarleteen, another sex-ed site), as a way to try to help educate questioning teens and young adults. They mentioned what you mentioned (i.e. that there are several ways a person could become sexually attracted to another person).

 

I've posted it, before, on AVEN.

 

Sexuality: WTF Is It, Anyway? | Scarleteen

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ceebs.yes this kind of definition feels so inaccurate to me because it doesn’t feel like something I’ve ever experienced in my life. It’s made to sound like it is some instantaneous response that you see someone attractive and your first thought is just “I want to sex that person now.” I can think someone is an attractive person and maybe over some time of interacting them, sexual feelings will arise. 

 

And I feel like it totally discredits how sexual attraction works in an actual relationship. People don’t generally immediately desire sex every time they so much as glance at their partner. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t sexually attracted to their partner. Desire and arousal may come and go but that doesn’t necessarily mean attraction is just gone. It just makes it sound so in that exact moment and then fleeting, which seems confusing and misleading to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sarah-Sylvia

I really don't like the myth either,  that 'looking' at someone and feeling sexual urges is what it is to be sexual, and that some people might think they're demisexual because it takes them more to be sexually drawn to someone. I know that a lot of men do have those urges in general and looks can trigger it easily, but that's not everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarRister said:

And I feel like it totally discredits how sexual attraction works in an actual relationship. People don’t generally immediately desire sex every time they so much as glance at their partner. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t sexually attracted to their partner. Desire and arousal may come and go but that doesn’t necessarily mean attraction is just gone. It just makes it sound so in that exact moment and then fleeting, which seems confusing and misleading to me.

Absolutely all this, yeah. And even if I do look at my partner and feel a general sense of attraction, it doesn't necessarily translate into 'DO ME NOW' all the time lol, and it's not just a physical thing in terms of 'hotness' or whatever. In a relationship it's also that you see someone you love and your brain associates their appearance with all the emotions you have about them, the things they make you feel... loved, desired, cared for, safe, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
MartinFellow

To be fair, it can be easy to assume that sexual attraction is looking at someone and wanting to be sexual with them when you don't really experience sexual attraction.

 

Like romantic attraction. I can only take potshot guessed at it from what I've heard. I used to think I experienced it, now I'm not sure. I think now I'm either demiromantic or just straight aromantic but definitions are complex and nuanced so I think we should all strive to have patience and try not get too upset if someone gets something a little wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...