The Term Allosexual

[sirenian]

This thread was split off from this thread.

Ryn, moderator

 

10 hours ago, BZA said:

How about...

I dunno.  

Is that a thing?  Do people who know the word allosexual resist its use?  I just figured it was seldom used either because the people in question didn't know it or because it wasn't useful for them.  I'd be interested in learning more about people whom I might describe as allosexual rejecting that term. Is that something I should go research a bit?

 

 

I can say that for me, learning the word allosexual  was pretty useful. Prior to learning it, I was sort of willing to pass myself off as straight--even to myself in my own mind!--and for me realizing "oh, I see: heterosexuality is a kind of allosexuality, and I am definitely not that" was a really helpful turning point in accepting myself as full-fledged ace.  

I guess it never occurred to me that, for example, a hetero- person would resist the term allo- unless it was with the intention (either explicit or implicit) of ace erasure.  I'm having trouble thinking of a reason why such a person would reject calling themself allo- for any other reason?

[Morays]

14 hours ago, sirenian said:

I guess it never occurred to me that, for example, a hetero- person would resist the term allo- unless it was with the intention (either explicit or implicit) of ace erasure.  I'm having trouble thinking of a reason why such a person would reject calling themself allo- for any other reason?

Going off of what I've seen the sexual users of this site express, they largely seem to find the word "sexual" adequate, and find the "allo-" prefix unnecessary and somewhat alienating. (It's also identical to the French term for queer folks -- allosexuel -- and that can create some confusion.)

 

I also tend to see "allo" tossed around by aces in a similar way that "cishet" is sometimes tossed around by queer people, as a way of broadly complaining about a majority group in a disparaging way. (e.g. "why do all allos do this?" or "allos are all so sex-obsessed" or whatever.) Obviously not everyone uses it that way, but it's kinda tainted the tone of the word for me.

[sirenian]

@Morays thanks. That makes sense.  I will try to pay more attention in the future.

 

[nanogretchen4]

There is no situation in which the word allosexuals could not be replaced with the word sexuals when referring collectively to all people who are not asexuals (or gray sexuals who self identify as neither asexual nor sexual). None. Furthermore, none of the analogies that have been presented to excuse AVENites stubborn use of the term when there are sexuals right here repeatedly asking you not to hold water in any way. For example, why is it "allosexual" not analogous to "hearing"? First, because there is not already another widely preferred word that means the exact same thing, so the word "hearing" as the opposite of "deaf" or "Deaf" is necessary or at least useful. Second, because hearing people do not already self-identify with a number of distinct auditory orientations that are personally and politically significant. 

 

The implication that objection to the allosexual label is homophobic is just....Are gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and pansexuals asking you to erase their sexual orientations and lump them in with heterosexuals? I didn't think so.

 

AVENites care very, very much about their own labels. If I refused to use the labels AVENites self-identify with, and instead I chose to make up sexual orientation labels for other people and insisted on referring to them by these labels after being repeatedly asked not to, I would be banned from AVEN pretty quickly. Does AVEN uphold the right of self-identification and prohibit invalidation, or not? Does AVEN only care about invalidation of people who self-identify as some very specific flavor of asexual or gray sexual? In that case, should I coin my own labels for asexual identities then go to websites not controlled by the asexual community and spread these labels as widely as possible? Would that be a perfectly valid thing for me to do, or would that be an asshole move?

[Guest]

9 hours ago, sirenian said:

I dunno.  

Is that a thing?  Do people who know the word allosexual resist its use?  I just figured it was seldom used either because the people in question didn't know it or because it wasn't useful for them.  I'd be interested in learning more about people whom I might describe as allosexual rejecting that term. Is that something I should go research a bit?

 

 

I can say that for me, learning the word allosexual  was pretty useful. Prior to learning it, I was sort of willing to pass myself off as straight--even to myself in my own mind!--and for me realizing "oh, I see: heterosexuality is a kind of allosexuality, and I am definitely not that" was a really helpful turning point in accepting myself as full-fledged ace.  

I guess it never occurred to me that, for example, a hetero- person would resist the term allo- unless it was with the intention (either explicit or implicit) of ace erasure.  I'm having trouble thinking of a reason why such a person would reject calling themself allo- for any other reason?

I actively dislike the term and will never call myself allosexual, period. 

 

1) It sounds ridiculous

2) It literally just means "othersexual" which ... you're other to me as an asexual so should I call you allo? 

3) There is a a place where in French allosexuel means queer and using that word to mean heterosexual is appropriating their term and to find a new term they would need approval from a government body so it's not so simple to just pick a new one 

 

Lots of people dislike allo. We are forced into that label by aces. *shrug*

[nanogretchen4]

It's hilariously on the nose that "othersexual" was chosen as a label to be nonconsensually applied to sexuals. "Allosexual" has never had any purpose except to be used in othering  sexuals.

[sirenian]

4 minutes ago, Serran said:

[...] Lots of people dislike allo. We are forced into that label by aces.

got it. So the objection is to the word itself rather than the concept.  Makes sense.

This thread isn't the place for this discussion, because there is too much important work being done here, but... can we open this discussion somewhere else?  I'm not even sure which board to put it on.  It's important, though. 
I would like to stop using a word that is offensive to others.  AND I would like a word that carries this meaning.  (The word "sexual" does not get the job done.  I cannot call people "sexual" people.  I can say, for example, "Oh, my dentist is gay."  But I cannot say "Oh, my dentist is sexual." The connotation is very wrong! So I will look for a spot for this question to go...)

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, sirenian said:

got it. So the objection is to the word itself rather than the concept.  Makes sense.

This thread isn't the place for this discussion, because there is too much important work being done here, but... can we open this discussion somewhere else?  I'm not even sure which board to put it on.  It's important, though. 
I would like to stop using a word that is offensive to others.  AND I would like a word that carries this meaning.  (The word "sexual" does not get the job done.  I cannot call people "sexual" people.  I can say, for example, "Oh, my dentist is gay."  But I cannot say "Oh, my dentist is sexual." The connotation is very wrong! So I will look for a spot for this question to go...)

Not asexual

 

Heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual/pansexual/etc 

 

Lots of ways to say my dentist isn't ace.

[Rynn]

Split this off into a new thread, from here

Ryn, moderator

[nanogretchen4]

If you don't know your dentist well enough to know their actual orientation (heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual), how do you know they aren't asexual and why do you need to discuss their sexual orientation?

[nanogretchen4]

I responded at some length to the "allosexual" discussion last night. Why isn't that post in this thread?

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

If you don't know your dentist well enough to know their actual orientation (heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual), how do you know they aren't asexual and why do you need to discuss their sexual orientation?

Fair question. 

 

I'd say unless you know a specific then not asexual should suffice, honestly. "This person is not asexual, so they wouldn't understand my experiences as an asexual" 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, sirenian said:

This thread was split off from this thread.

Ryn, moderator

 

I dunno.  

Is that a thing?  Do people who know the word allosexual resist its use?  I just figured it was seldom used either because the people in question didn't know it or because it wasn't useful for them.  I'd be interested in learning more about people whom I might describe as allosexual rejecting that term. Is that something I should go research a bit?

 

 

I can say that for me, learning the word allosexual  was pretty useful. Prior to learning it, I was sort of willing to pass myself off as straight--even to myself in my own mind!--and for me realizing "oh, I see: heterosexuality is a kind of allosexuality, and I am definitely not that" was a really helpful turning point in accepting myself as full-fledged ace.  

I guess it never occurred to me that, for example, a hetero- person would resist the term allo- unless it was with the intention (either explicit or implicit) of ace erasure.  I'm having trouble thinking of a reason why such a person would reject calling themself allo- for any other reason?

What exactly does "allo" do for you that heterosexual does not?

 

Heterosexual - wants sex with the opposite sex/gender. 

 

Sexual person - wants sex with the preferred sex/gender 

 

All the "allo" does is say "other" as a catch-all phrase for hetero/homo/bi/pan sexuals. 

[quaintrelle]

It's just a term to describe anyone who isn't ace. I didn't know the term was disliked by some. Any term can be used in a negative term, including asexual. In fact I see "asexual" being used a lot as an insult ("he/she is just an asexual prude", "you're probably one of those asexuals"). I never took it seriously. 

[nanogretchen4]

Are you going to respect the wishes of most sexuals not to be called allosexual, or are you not?

[quaintrelle]

6 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

Are you going to respect the wishes of most sexuals not to be called allosexual, or are you not?

Can we have a poll on that? I've seen many of them used this term before so I'm a little confused.

[Twy]

The "allo" prefix is similar to how the "cis" prefix is used imo.

 

allo = non-asexual

cis = non-trans

 

I don't think the meaning of the prefix "allo" makes sense (it doesn't, it has absolutely no sense) but I don't think that there is something THAT wrong to have a term to refer to non-asexual. Obviously this only makes sense in an asexual conversation, and in this context nobody uses this as an insult, just as a quick way to refer to non-asexual people.

 

Maybe there is a prefix that is better, but I really don't want to start a definition debate for this XD

 

I have seen a lot of messages that say the sexual people have not choosen this prefix and don't feel represented by the term allo and nobody should "force" upon themselves a label that they haven't agreed upon, which is totally understandable.

 

But isn't this the same with cisgender?

 

Cisgender is used in the trans community to refer to non-trans people, but non-trans didn't decide to use this label, it was kind of forced. And outside of places where there are trans folks it doesn't have meaning.

 

I try not to use it (the allo I mean), but I have to say that in a conversation where you are refering to asexuals and non-asexuals... it's useful to have a term.

 

[nanogretchen4]

Nope, nope, nope. I've addressed the bad analogy between cis and allo at length within the past 24 hours and I don't have time now. I'll be back, but spoiler alert: Hell no!

[Twy]

Ok

[Rynn]

1 hour ago, nanogretchen4 said:

I responded at some length to the "allosexual" discussion last night. Why isn't that post in this thread?

I thought it was relevant enough to stay in the other thread. I have now moved it here.

[LeChat]

1 hour ago, Allinit said:

Can we have a poll on that? I've seen many of them used this term before so I'm a little confused.

Here's one: "allosexual" or "sexual"? - Census Forum - Asexual Visibility and Education Network (asexuality.org)

 

It's important to note that the poll seems to include responses from asexuals (who aren't the ones being called that), not only sexuals.

 

@nanogretchen4 I agree with you, about not using that term for sexuals. I don't agree with "othering" people with terms that they don't know about and/or don't like using for themselves; it feels, uncomfortably, rude, in a gossip, clique-y, "talking about others, calling them names behind their back" sort of way. 

 

That's what other groups of people have done to others, throughout history, referring to minorities, black people, Jews, gay and trans people, etc. coming up with their own, special slang words/slurs that were offensive and "othering" minorities. It's how genocide/wars, discrimination, dislike, etc. between groups of people, happened.

 

If asexuals want respect from sexuals, calling them a slang term doesn't seem, to me, a good way to convince them.

[quaintrelle]

I see now 👍. I wouldn't think of using allosexual as a slang, personally speaking. 

[sirenian]

Hi all.

Since I started this strand of the discussion, I'd like to give some of my thoughts.  There are three pieces.  They are all distinct.

 

Okay.  Here we go.

 

1.  So I am totally happy to not use the word "allosexual" now that I have had it explained to me that it has been used in a derogatory way and that it has been taken derogatorily.  I didn't know that before.  I do now.  Again, thank you one and all for educating me, and I'll change my behavior!  I never want to use language that others find derogatory.

 

 

2. w.r.t. the dentist situation...

If it were specifically relevant that my dentist was gay in some conversation, like, it would be no problem for me to say "my dentist is gay."  

The main context in which I can think that it would be useful for me to describe my dentist, or whoever, as [some term that has the meaning that allosexual has] is in a situation in which, for example, my dentist asked whether I was dating anyone and I said I wasn't and I got some kind of push back on that.  This wouldn't happen now, but maybe when I was younger, "oh, you're young, you'll find someone!"  That kind of thing.  And in that situation, it would be totally irrelevant what the sexual orientation of my dentist is.  I might know it and I might not know it.  What I would know and might want to say to someone is that my dentist was engaging in allonormative behavior [except, I'd want to use some word that didn't have the negative connotations I've just learned about].

Does that make sense?  

So, genuine question, if I'm not supposed to describe that kind of situation using  the word "allonormative" then what language should I use that describes my experience but does so in a way that is not offensive or derogatory to anyone?

 

A related kind of situation might be a case in which I wanted to share that I felt like a minority, even if I were a very accepted minority.
Like, let's suppose that I worked in an office with four other people, and in that office we were all good friends, and two were straight and one was gay and one was bi, or something.  In such a setting, it would be completely reasonable and appropriate that my office mates might talk about dating, or their partners, or whatever, not in ways that were ace-exclusive, but just because, you know, we all talk about our lives, and those are legitimately part of their lives!  So, then, I might have said something like, "I love my coworkers.  Sometimes I feel a little bit isolated, though, working in an office where everyone else is allo."
And what I have learned is that it would be better in this sort of situation to say, "I love my coworkers.  Sometimes I feel a little bit isolated, though, working in an office where no one else is ace."  Does that sound right?  Would this be the most respectful way to describe that situation?

 

 

 

3. Here is why I really want a word that means what "allosexual" means, but without the negative connotations.

In order to explain this, I need to describe a small slice of my experience.

I am a.f.a.b.  In my life, during my adolescence and young adulthood, I found myself romantically attracted to boys and later to men a handful of times.  Maybe six or so times between the ages of, let's say, 11 - 25.  [I'm in my 40s now and have not experienced romantic attraction in the intervening years, though I'm not ruling out the possibility that it could happen again.]  I have never experienced sexual attraction, but as an adolescent and young adult, I did not know that romantic and sexual attraction were different things, because I could not distinguish something I had experienced from something I had never experienced.

Anyhow, when I first found AVEN at age 30, I really struggled with figuring out whether I was actually ace.  For several years, I considered the possibility that maybe I was straight, but maybe because I was an introvert I experienced attraction less than other people, or something like that.  Just knowing that asexuality was available wasn't enough to convince me that that's what I was.  I was comfortable with thinking I was straight, because that had been my assumption about myself prior to age 30, and it didn't feel totally wrong, even though it didn't feel totally right.  I figured (incorrectly) that being straight was a default case, and since I didn't find it actively objectionable, then that was probably what I was, too.  I figured that only people who were NOT straight had strong urges to...  not be straight.  I just didn't get it.

So for me, learning the term allosexual was a breakthrough.  That term, more than anything else, helped me to understand, "oh, wow, all these people with all these different orientations have something in common!  So much so that there is a word to describe them, all together.  And the thing they have in common is experiencing sexual attraction.  And that is such a fundamental part of their experience (as gay or straight or whatever) that it is worthy of being labeled."  And that was a turning point for me, because while I might have been willing to label myself as straight, in a kind of default way, I sure as hell wasn't willing to label myself as allosexual.

Does that make sense?

So for me, having a word with that meaning was eye-opening and helpful.

I definitely do not want to use a word that is hurtful to others. 

At the same time, having a word with that meaning was really helpful for me.  So I am willing to get rid of this particular word, but I don't want to get rid of having a word with that meaning.  Even today, it is helpful for me to have a marked mental construct that is for "people who have orientations that involve sexual attraction."  Not because I want to say anything disparaging about that majority population, but because it is helpful for me to understand that such people have something in common with each other that I do not share.

 

[sirenian]

@nanogretchen4 I very much appreciate your correcting me.  I am sorry that you felt threatened by my asking a question that came from a place of curiosity and ignorance.  
I hope that you read my post right above this one to better understand where I was coming from and that after you have read it, you see why I would disagree with your claim that there is absolutely no call for a word that denotes 'people who experience some form of sexual attraction.'  
I do not want to have such a term in order to be able to exclude, criticize, or  "other" anyone, and I'm so sorry that that has been your experience.

I do want to have such a term in order to be able to better conceptualize how my own experience differs from others' experiences.

I don't know how to reconcile those two things, but I feel both strongly.

[nanogretchen4]

"Not asexual" or "not ace" is always fine. 

 

I'm okay with "sexual normative" as long as we agree that it means that it is normative to experience sexual attraction and desire. The problem arises if we start pretending that sexuals form any type of identity group, community, or coalition in real life whose group culture is normative. Allonormative is not a good term or a good concept.

[nanogretchen4]

No problem Sirenian. I appreciate your willingness to learn and your sincere desire to reach a solution that works for everyone.

[Catserole]

It’s redundant and sometimes used as a pejorative.

[sirenian]

3 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

I'm okay with "sexual normative" as long as we agree that it means that it is normative to experience sexual attraction and desire. The problem arises if we start pretending that sexuals form any type of identity group, community, or coalition in real life whose group culture is normative

mmm....

 

okay. So I think maybe I didn't explain my concern well.  Let me try again.

Analogously, the term "heteronormative" is used to describe behavior that assumes most people will want to partner with people of the opposite sex/gender.  E.g., asking a woman, "Do you have a boyfriend?" 
It is not a term that means "most hetero-people behave this way" nor is it a term that means "it is normative to experience hetero attraction."  Rather, it is a term that describes behavior that can sometimes be engaged in by both hetero and non-hetero people that assumes others are hetero.

So far so good?

So when I was asking for a substitute term for "allonormative," what I'm looking for is a word that does that kind of work: a word that says "this is behavior in which other people assume that everyone experiences sexual attraction, even though not all of us do."

 

 

Ugh. I feel like I used a lot of words here and didn't clear anything up.  Can someone else step in and help me out here?  

 

 

9 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

The problem arises if we start pretending that sexuals form any type of identity group, community, or coalition in real life whose group culture is normative.

Sure. I see that.  

I have no interest in assuming that there is a single culture of people who experience sexual attraction, any more than I would want to assume that there is a single culture of people who are right-handed!

I might, however, want to say that there are certain aspects of the world that are best suited to right-handed people and that are more difficult for left-handed people to navigate. 

[I know none of these analogies is perfect.  No analogy ever is.]

 

 

 

 

[Janus the Fox]

It certainly not too useful to me, outside of Ace communities.  I don't use it, I've not known anybody use it as an identity marker, though that may exist.

[nanogretchen4]

Heteronormativity is a real thing. Within very specific contexts, being gay can be more normative than being asexual, but in the majority of contexts being asexual is more normative than being gay, especially if the asexual is in a relationship that looks heterosexual from the outside. I don't think mainstream culture is set up to favor sexuality in all it's diversity. Mainstream culture is set up to favor heterosexuality, especially traditional heterosexual married couples with children. So, sexualnormativity is occasionally a thing, but first consider whether old school heteronormativity explains your experiences.

 

Comphet is a real thing, and it sounds like that is what you actually experienced when you assumed you were "straight" and thought only people who weren't straight experienced sexual attraction and desire. I suspect substituting "heterosexual" for "straight" would have been a step in the right direction. Hearing the word asexual probably would have been very helpful as well. I don't mind the use of "sexuals" as an umbrella term when the situation calls for it, which would have clarified that heterosexuals are a subset of people who are sexual. The existence of such a label would have been a big clue that some people are not sexual.

 

I consider "compsexuality" an acceptable term for when asexuals figure out that they aren't heterosexual and still assume that they must be sexually attracted to someone. 

 

I really think some combination of "sexual", people's actual sexual orientations, and "not asexual" should cover any situation that may arise.