Reworking the A/Grey/Allo/Orchid Attraction System

[enfysiridescent]

As it stands currently, the a-spectrum encompasses any identity involving little or no attraction. This includes all grey orientations by default. The allo spectrum is treated as less of a spectrum, but more of a term for people who aren’t a-spec or grey. I think that this ultimately ends up being confusing, and could use some reworking.

(Some people might be getting a little anxious about where I'm going with this, especially if you're greysexual/demisexual/etc, so I want to make it clear right away: This rework is not designed to invalidate or exclude you.)

 

I keep seeing the a-spec get stretched to encompass more and more experiences, such as meneromantic: a term for people who experience romantic attraction easily, but prefer not to act on it unless they think their crush will reciprocate… Which just describes how most alloromantic people approach their attraction. This was described as an “aro-spec” orientation, and as an aromantic person, I feel like that misses the point of the spectrum completely. I admit, it is a pretty niche term, and isn’t the end of the world, but it’s a symptom of a larger problem.

 

It’s becoming clear, at least to me, that people are unsure how to draw the line between a-spec and allo, due to the subjectivity of what “little attraction” even is, to the point of both terms becoming less meaningful over time. I don’t even know where I’m supposed to fit among those terms myself, at least when it comes to sexual attraction. I’ve actually opted not to label my sexuality largely for that reason; it’s why I’m a neu aro.

 

So I wanted to take a shot at proposing a change. Not for the sake of excluding or assimilating, but for the sake of making attraction/orientations more easy to navigate and explore, especially for people who are questioning. I made an effort to make this rework as inclusive as possible, while also being much more clearly understood. If you experience attraction and identify as a-spec, don’t worry! The rework still includes you; it just includes you in terms which are easier to define.

A-spec

The a-spectrum, under the rework, includes any identity which is defined by zero attraction, as well as experiences adjacent to that. In other words, if a person experiences absolutely no sexual attraction, no romantic attraction, and/or no tertiary attraction, they are a-spec. This includes:

• Asexual: Experiencing zero sexual attraction, or having an adjacent experience to this.
• Aromantic: Experiencing zero romantic attraction, or having an adjacent experience to this.
• Aplatonic: Experiencing zero platonic attraction, or having an adjacent experience to this.
• Cupio: Experiencing zero (sexual/romantic/platonic/etc.) attraction, but desiring a relationship commonly associated with that attraction anyway. For example, desiring a sexual relationship as an asexual person.
• Apothi: Experiencing zero (sexual/romantic/platonic/etc.) attraction, and feeling repulsed by relationships and/or activities associated with that attraction. For example, being asexual and sex-repulsed.
• Icula: Experiencing zero (sexual/romantic/platonic/etc.) attraction, but being open to relationships/activities commonly associated with that attraction anyway. For example, being asexual and open to sex.
• Etc.

 

“Experiences adjacent to that” refers to anyone who doesn’t necessarily experience zero attraction, but still:

• Feels strongly represented by a-spec identities/experiences.
• Strongly relates to a-spec identities/experiences.
• Needs access to a-spec resources, communities, and support.
• Finds it easy, useful, and/or helpful to identify as a-spec, especially as opposed to not identifying as a-spec.
• Finds one’s attraction to be irrelevant to one’s life, either because it’s so vague or infrequent that it has no impact, because one has negative interest in acting on it, or because one’s attraction otherwise has no relevance.

 

Note that “experiencing little attraction” is not a qualifier on its own, because what’s “little” is entirely subjective, and can be incredibly difficult to define. Note that you do not have to check each bullet point in the list above to be a-spec; just one is enough.

 

Greysexuality, greyromanticism, etc. can be a-spec, but these identities are not a-spec by default. It depends on the individual, their own experiences, and how they define/feel about their own identity.

Grey-spec

The grey spectrum, under the rework, includes any identity which doesn’t fit neatly into an a-or-allo binary. This includes:

• People who aren’t sure whether they’re a-spec or allo-spec.
• People who resonate with both a-spec and allo-spec identities/experiences.
• People who resonate with neither a-spec nor allo-spec identities/experiences.
• People whose identities are in constant flux, and thus difficult or impossible to pinpoint as a-spec or allo-spec.
• People who fit into the a-spec category, but feel like the a-spec category is still insufficient in some way.
• People who fit into the allo-spec category, but feel like the allo-spec category is still insufficient in some way.
• People who feel like they fit somewhere between “experiencing attraction” and “not experiencing attraction” in some way.
• Anyone else who can’t or won’t fit themselves into an a-or-allo binary.

 

Greysexuality, greyromanticism, etc. can be a-spec and/or allo-spec, but these identities are not either by default. It depends on the individual, their own experiences, and how they define/feel about their own identity.

 

I think this is a much needed change, not just because this is easier to define than figuring out what “little attraction” means, but because grey-specs don’t always want to be pigeonholed into being a-spec by default. It is a grey area, after all.

Allo-spec

The allo spectrum, under the rework, includes any identity in which one experiences attraction, no matter how much or how little. This includes:

• People who experience little attraction.
• People who experience a moderate amount of attraction.
• People who experience a lot of attraction.

 

I’ve decided to include all experiences of present attraction in this spectrum because it can be extremely hard (or impossible) to quantify how much attraction you experience in comparison to other people. If you experience attraction, it isn’t necessarily going to be clear whether you experience a lot or a little or something between. Including all present attraction under the allo-spec, no matter the amount, makes it much easier to define where you fall within these spectra.

 

Greysexuality, greyromanticism, etc. can be allo-spec, but these identities are not allo-spec by default. It depends on the individual, their own experiences, and how they define/feel about their own identity.

Orchid-spec

This is an additional spectrum for people who experience attraction, but do not want to act on that attraction. For example, an orchidsexual person experiences sexual attraction, but does not want to have sex under any circumstances.

 

I didn’t come up with this spectrum, but I’ve decided to include it here, because a person may feel that orchid-spec is the only spectrum that feels relevant to their experience, with a/grey/allo being completely irrelevant or inapplicable. Though, a person may resonate with orchid-spec in addition to other spectra, which is also valid!

Overlapping spectra

All spectra within this proposed system can overlap in some instances.

 

For example, if a person experiences attraction, but feels strongly represented by a-spec identities, they could be a combination of a-spec, grey-spec, and allo-spec. They might identify with one spectrum more than the others, but they would be included in all three.

 

As another example, a person may fall under all four spectra, because:

• Their attraction is irrelevant to them, so they identify as a-spec.
• They relate to both a-spec and allo-spec, so they identify as grey-spec.
• They experience attraction, so they identify as allo-spec.
• They don’t want to act on their attraction, so they identify as orchid-spec.

 

A person might also identify as both grey-spec and a-spec, but not allo-spec, because they don’t know whether they experience attraction or not, but they relate to a-spec identities and experiences.

 

Another person might fall under both allo-spec and grey-spec, but not a-spec, because they experience attraction, but feel that the allo-spec is insufficient to describe their identity, while also not resonating with the a-spec at all.

 

These are just a few examples of how spectra could possibly overlap. There are other ways that these spectra could be combined which have not been listed here.

And of course, it's up to you how you identify! I just wanted to propose a system which (hopefully) makes attraction easier to understand and navigate.

___________________________

Tumblr post version here.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

@enfysiridescentIt would be very hard to come into the picture at this point and try to instill a different way to view it when the ace community is larger and already going by how terms have been used, it'd create a lot of confusion and division if people were to try to change for these kinds of differences.

 

Also, as someone gray, I feel like I wouldn't really fit in the gray-spec if it's broadened as much. Or at least I wouldnt really like the label anymore, since it's too connected to the allo side even more than usual.

Edit: I'm actually not opposed to talking about a gray-spectrum, if we were more known about in the first place, but I still think it's a bit too broad here

 

Also how you described the allo-spec doesn't make sense (but i get youre trying to allow overlapping). You're including any amount attraction in it? that's not right (considering how people in the community have been using terms). plus would create so much division in the community.

[DemonicEnby]

I'd find it more confusing, if I was newly questioning tbh. And am a bit thrown how that would be clearer, seems more muddled than before, but that might be my tiredness talking or brain not computing. 

[enfysiridescent]

9 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Also, as someone gray, I feel like I wouldn't really fit in the gray-spec if it's broadened as much. Or at least I would really like the label anymore, since it's too connected to the allo side even more than usual.

I'm not sure how my definition is "broadening" the term, because it's based on identities that I've already seen, like quoisexual, aceflux, dark greysexual, light greysexual, etc. Grey is already a pretty broad term. I also explicitly stated that the grey-spec isn't inherently allo-spec; it just depends on the individual.

 

But also, how do you define grey?

4 minutes ago, DemonicEnby said:

I'd find it more confusing, if I was newly questioning tbh. And am a bit thrown how that would be clearer, seems more muddled than before, but that might be my tiredness talking or brain not computing. 

What's confusing about it? [genuine question]

My girlfriend and I have found the existing system of attraction confusing for a while now, and this rework made a lot more sense to both of us than trying to figure out what "little attraction" is supposed to be.

 

Wish this website didn't have this damn timer so I could reply right away.

[Mrs Telecaster-to-be]

Alternatively...

 

People who never experience an intrinsic desire for partnered sexual activity are asexual.

 

People who do experience an intrinsic desire for partnered sexual activity are sexual. If they don't want to act on it, they're called 'celibate' but they're still sexual.

 

People who've experienced an intrinsic desire for partnered sexual activity so notably infrequently that they don't feel like they can relate to most sexual people and are closer to asexuality, but who still haven't literally never desired it at all in their entire lives, can choose to label themselves as grey-a if they find it more useful than 'sexual' or 'asexual'.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

9 minutes ago, enfysiridescent said:

I'm not sure how my definition is "broadening" the term, because it's based on identities that I've already seen, like quoisexual, aceflux, dark greysexual, light greysexual, etc. Grey is already a pretty broad term. I also explicitly stated that the grey-spec isn't inherently allo-spec; it just depends on the individual.

 

But also, how do you define grey?

gray Is broad, which is both good and bad (but bad mostly because of a lack of terms), because it's good to include more people but I don't see it as good to focus on it being even broader. like  In what you wrote, you said someone who identifies as both, as in including allo, as well as those who fit allo but that it's not quite enough. That doesn't quite work but it would work in your overlapping way of seeing things, which i think is probably what would broaden it too much.

I am in the gray area, and someone could say it's its own spectrum and i dont have a problem with that, but it becomes too much when it's so combined with allo, which would be even bigger of a problem saying someone is both asexual and allosexual. Not to say there can't be odd cases.

All that said, i wouldn't even have had to talk about that since I do think that the first thing i said is the most important, that's that there's no way to make big changes like that in a community that's gotten larger (way beyond aven too).

 

 

[enfysiridescent]

20 minutes ago, Sarah-Sylvia said:

In what you wrote, you said someone who identifies as both, as in including allo, as well as those who fit allo but that it's not quite enough. That doesn't quite work but it would work in your overlapping way of seeing things, which i think is probably what would broaden it too much.

I am in the gray area, and someone could say it's its own spectrum and i dont have a problem with that, but it becomes too much when it's so combined with allo, which would be even bigger of a problem saying someone is both asexual and allosexual. Not to say there can't be odd cases.

 

The thing is, I don't see why a grey area should only include alignment with a-spec experiences and not allo-spec experiences. If it can only align with one, what's even the point of having a grey area? It's not exactly a grey area if it can only align with one end of that binary; it's just the same binary at that point. It feels reductive.

 

And again, identities like light greysexual exist, in which a greysexual person feels closer to allosexual than ace, but still doesn't fit exactly in one category or the other. I prefer not to label my sexuality because of how inaccessible I find the existing categorizations to be, but if I had to, I'd actually say grey-spec first, allo-spec second, and a-spec third, because that's what makes sense to me.

 

And I also want to emphasize that the allo-spectrum in this rework doesn't mean "not a-spec at all" inherently, nor does it mean 100% allosexual- that's why it's a spectrum, and it's why these spectra can overlap. It just means that attraction is present.

[Mrs Telecaster-to-be]

3 minutes ago, enfysiridescent said:

And I also want to emphasize that the allo-spectrum in this rework doesn't mean "not a-spec at all" inherently, nor does it mean 100% allosexual

How would you determine what percentage 'allosexual' someone was? What would make me 72% allosexual vs. 93% allosexual vs. 100% allosexual?

[Frameshift07]

26 minutes ago, Ceebs said:

How would you determine what percentage 'allosexual' someone was? What would make me 72% allosexual vs. 93% allosexual vs. 100% allosexual?

The post says this about that: "Greysexuality, greyromanticism, etc. can be a-spec and/or allo-spec, but these identities are not either by default. It depends on the individual, their own experiences, and how they define/feel about their own identity". I also believe the use of 100% was likely a figure of speech.

[enfysiridescent]

25 minutes ago, Ceebs said:

How would you determine what percentage 'allosexual' someone was? What would make me 72% allosexual vs. 93% allosexual vs. 100% allosexual?

I'm using "100% allosexual" here to mean "someone who fits exclusively into the allo-spec category." Sorry if that wording was confusing; I admit that I could have phrased it better. I'm referring to people who experience attraction, and are also not grey-spec, a-spec, or orchid-spec. I'm not saying that there's a specific "amount" of attraction needed to be allo-spec; I explicitly go against that idea in my original post.

 

And now I get to wait 20 minutes to even comment this.

[Mrs Telecaster-to-be]

4 minutes ago, enfysiridescent said:

I'm using "100% allosexual" here to mean "someone who fits exclusively into the allo-spec category."

Fair enough as far as your intended meaning, however if they're sexual/'allosexual' then I would say that means they inherently cannot be any type of asexual. 
 

5 minutes ago, enfysiridescent said:

And now I get to wait 20 minutes to even comment this.

Off-topic but why are you having to wait to post? Posts go through immediately...

[Frameshift07]

1 minute ago, Ceebs said:

Off-topic but why are you having to wait to post? Posts go through immediately...

There's some threshold around 25-50 posts before you can make comments in intervals of less than 30 minutes.

[uhtred]

1 hour ago, Ceebs said:

Alternatively...

 

People who never experience an intrinsic desire for partnered sexual activity are asexual.

 

People who do experience an intrinsic desire for partnered sexual activity are sexual. If they don't want to act on it, they're called 'celibate' but they're still sexual.

 

People who've experienced an intrinsic desire for partnered sexual activity so notably infrequently that they don't feel like they can relate to most sexual people and are closer to asexuality, but who still haven't literally never desired it at all in their entire lives, can choose to label themselves as grey-a if they find it more useful than 'sexual' or 'asexual'.

I agree with keeping it simple. There are far too many variations of human sexuality to have names for all of them.  A few simple labels can cover the most important differences, and everything else needs to be discussed with a partner anyway.

[Mrs Telecaster-to-be]

1 minute ago, Frameshift07 said:

There's some threshold around 25-50 posts before you can make comments in intervals of less than 30 minutes.

Oh interesting. Learnt something new today lol.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

48 minutes ago, enfysiridescent said:

The thing is, I don't see why a grey area should only include alignment with a-spec experiences and not allo-spec experiences. If it can only align with one, what's even the point of having a grey area? It's not exactly a grey area if it can only align with one end of that binary; it's just the same binary at that point. It feels reductive.

To me the whole point of having the gray area is to extend the asexual-type experiences. Allosexual experiences are already the norm. There could be more to talk or label experiences there but it's the norm, while the asexual community is queer and does need its own place. I don't want to be considered in the same area as allo experiences, it would complicate things and for me defeat the purpose of having an a-spec label.

 

48 minutes ago, enfysiridescent said:

And again, identities like light greysexual exist, in which a greysexual person feels closer to allosexual than ace, but still doesn't fit exactly in one category or the other. I prefer not to label my sexuality because of how inaccessible I find the existing categorizations to be, but if I had to, I'd actually say grey-spec first, allo-spec second, and a-spec third, because that's what makes sense to me.

There's someting to be said about that, but also is something in contention. Light graysexual is hardly something talked about. And I don't know anyone who views it in an overlapping way like that, besides possibly someone acefluid. I'm more saying that I don't understand it, not to judge your feelings.

 

48 minutes ago, enfysiridescent said:

And I also want to emphasize that the allo-spectrum in this rework doesn't mean "not a-spec at all" inherently, nor does it mean 100% allosexual- that's why it's a spectrum, and it's why these spectra can overlap. It just means that attraction is present.

That would be the biggest in contention, since being allosexual means not being asexual.

 

I like some ideas around more areas of spectrums, but I don't agree with how you've divided them up, even if I thought it could gain traction in the wider community.

[enfysiridescent]

@Sarah-Sylvia If grey-spec and allo-spec can't overlap, then there needs to be a clear line between grey and allo. How do you propose we define that distinction?

[Sarah-Sylvia]

31 minutes ago, enfysiridescent said:

@Sarah-Sylvia If grey-spec and allo-spec can't overlap, then there needs to be a clear line between grey and allo. How do you propose we define that distinction?

There isn't a clear one which is why someone has to label themselves the best they can, for if they want to consider themselves allosexual with some traits that don't quite fit or graysexual with some bits of more sexual traits, etc.

 

I was thinking and I 'might' be starting to understand some reasoning behind your model, and you can tell me if I'm wrong but are you trying to combine differents aspects that someone could have and say that they're partly one because of those, partly the other because of other ones, that typically you'd find in those identities?

 

If that's the case, it's not how things are done, but it's not like it's a bad idea conceptually, but it goes beyond being nuanced which would be really hard to understand for people on average.  It's hard enough for people not to think in black and white, for us to have more gray, but this goes beyond that xD.

[Snao Cone]

There is no way to create an airtight model of something so distinctly personal. This model could indeed be very helpful for a number of people, in which case it's done its job and you can feel good about that. But, it's important to remember that things like this should start constructive conversations instead of give a definitive answer. The purpose of language like this is to give people a framework to view their feelings and experiences so they can express themselves adequately and relate to other people because of it. Using the language is optional — for example, someone 20 years younger than me* might read two random sentences I've ever written and say "um akshually you're orchidsexual" but I'm going to choose to use "asexual" anyway regardless of the terminology framework (though based on what you've said about orchidity, you probably sympathize with my choice).

 

It's an interesting subject to do thought experiments on and come up with tools to discuss things that can be very useful, even if it never explains every possible element of a/sexuality nor pleases everyone taking part.

 

 

*no shade on younger folks thinking these things through; I'm just coming from much more experience that informs how I decide to express myself than a lost soul just figuring this out

[Qiri]

In this model, is it that each category (A-spec, Grey-Spec, Allo-Spec, and Orchid-Spec) has their own spectrum? Are we're talking about four different spectra being created? 

 

It was my understanding that sexuality was one single spectrum, and when talking about the 'asexual spectrum', it wasn't a wholly different one, just a sub-section of the existing one - zooming in on a specific bit for a closer look.

 

In my mind, as a newbie, I've visualized it like this:

 

Asexual ------------- Grey Asexual ------------- Grey ------------- Grey Sexual ------------- Allo/Sexual

 

Asexual - Zero sexual attraction

Grey Asexual - Sexual attraction occurs; however, the person identifies closer to the asexual side of the spectrum

Grey - Sexual attraction occurs; however, the person feels right down the middle or prefers to be in the grey zone

Grey Sexual - Sexual attraction occurs; however, the person identifies closer to the allo/sexual side of the spectrum

Allo/Sexual - Definite sexual attraction 

 

And where you belong is where you feel like you belong based on your life, experiences, feelings, and so on.

[enfysiridescent]

@Sarah-Sylvia If there isn't a clear line between grey and allo, then there has to be overlap by necessity.

 

But I give up. I'm just sticking to keeping my sexuality unlabeled, because people as a community are never going to come to a clear consensus on how these terms are defined.

[Sarah-Sylvia]

2 minutes ago, enfysiridescent said:

@Sarah-Sylvia If there isn't a clear line between grey and allo, then there has to be overlap by necessity.

 

But I give up. I'm just sticking to keeping my sexuality unlabeled, because people as a community are never going to come to a clear consensus on how these terms are defined.

Sorry to hear you feel that way, though i think in any case someone would be confused if anyone said they were both asexual and allosexual.
There can't be a clear line because it's based around what are the norms in society. I think your model could make sense if we didn't take history in mind, if people were more unified or the diversity of how people are would be more balanced. Having a more detailed spectrum that's multi-faceted would be awesome if people in general were smarter too.

There's an interesting thought I had though that you made me realize. We actually have something closer to overlap when it comes to gender identity, with the onset of non-binary views.
If there was any approach I'd suggest for you to kind of introduce a new way of thinking about sexuality, I would compare it to that, because when it comes to gender identity the community is coming to accept the notion of being multigendered and demigender, etc.

I'd need to think a lot more around the differences between sexuality and gender but one thing that comes to mind is I do think the circumstances are a bit different as in both sides of the gender binary already existed, while for asexuality we're still just trying to be acknowledged as existing in the first place (making progress though). It feels complicated when I try to define parts that people could be, but maaaybe there could be more defined, though i do think more thought needs to be put into it. You could still find ways to talk about it and try to get people to think, because speaking about an ideal, I think unifying all sexualities in a giant spectrum sounds pretty good in some ways.

 

[Sarah-Sylvia]

37 minutes ago, Qiri said:

In my mind, as a newbie, I've visualized it like this:

 

Asexual ------------- Grey Asexual ------------- Grey ------------- Grey Sexual ------------- Allo/Sexual

 

Asexual - Zero sexual attraction

Grey Asexual - Sexual attraction occurs; however, the person identifies closer to the asexual side of the spectrum

Grey - Sexual attraction occurs; however, the person feels right down the middle or prefers to be in the grey zone

Grey Sexual - Sexual attraction occurs; however, the person identifies closer to the allo/sexual side of the spectrum

Allo/Sexual - Definite sexual attraction 

 

And where you belong is where you feel like you belong based on your life, experiences, feelings, and so on.

There was a time I kinda wished it was like this xD. Unfortunately gray-asexual and gray-sexual are being used to mean the same thing.

[Qiri]

Yeah, it's messy.  

 

People will debate definitions. Where to draw the lines for classifications. How many classifications there should be. Lump or split, and to what extent. 

 

I, too, have largely given up on labels. 

[victorian221b]

As someone who recently discovered “asexual spectrum”/“asexuality”, who for the longest time considering myself “straight”, while I don’t fully identify with the orientation “asexual” I also do not see myself as fully “allosexual”. When I discovered the term “demisexual”, it is probably the closest label that can describe me. Which made me think that I was never fully comfortable with “heterosexual” or “straight”, even though I have considered myself that my whole life, up until recently. 
 

With that being said, having never considered my sexuality can be anything but straight or heterosexual, the discovery of asexual spectrum has been quite interesting and enlightening for me. Notice how I use “spectrum” and not just plain “asexual”. 
 

One thing I have learned is human sexuality is fluid and can change as we age or life changes etc. However, there may always be that “foundational” sexuality for certain people that will remain the same throughout their lives while others don’t. I think at the end of the day, what labels to use is up to the person questioning for themselves. To some, there may never be a label to describe themselves and to others they believe certain labels work for them. And both are fine. What isn’t fine is being “corrected” by the community they felt they belong to because others feel the labels are not “correct”. 
 

As an example, I recently learned that there is a spectrum in bisexuality. I always thought bisexual means equal attraction to both binary gender. But nope, one can be bisexual but leaning more towards one gender versus the other. Some bisexuals may consider themselves “more” gay or lesbian. Should that community create micro labels for those leaning one way or another? Not up to me to answer, but the power to them if certain individuals feel they fit better under certain labels. Or don’t care for labels. 
 

If the community feels the need to create more labels so that it is even more inclusive, by all means. Just make sure it doesn’t create an environment where one must be “correct” about the labels they choose. 
 

Just my ten dollars and five cents 😄

[nanogretchen4]

How about letting demisexuals identify as demisexuals without requiring them to locate themselves on a spectrum that is not about demisexuality or designed or chosen by demisexuals?

 

How about letting everyone who is not asexual identify as whatever their actual sexual orientation is without having to locate themselves on a spectrum of how not asexual they are, when that is likely the least interesting and relevant thing about their sexuality?

[Qiri]

On 4/30/2024 at 12:52 AM, Sarah-Sylvia said:

Unfortunately gray-asexual and gray-sexual are being used to mean the same thing.

I learned something new today!

 

I had been under the impression that grey ace and grey sexual were similar but different; one being closer to the asexual side and one being closer to the sexual side of the sexuality spectrum but both still being in the grey area. Glad to be informed so I don't embarrass myself in the future! 

[Sally]

On 4/29/2024 at 1:39 PM, enfysiridescent said:

Experiencing zero sexual attraction, or having an adjacent experience to this.

Just what does that mean?  

[nanogretchen4]

My guess is that it means so close to zero sexual attraction that you might as well just round down to zero.

 

Some asexuals obsessively question their sexual orientation and are very uncomfortable with any uncertainty or ambiguity. Unfortunately sexual attraction is a subjective experience and nobody can agree on a clear or consistent definition of sexual attraction other than attraction that makes you want to have sex. So those who insist that sexual attraction and an intrinsic desire for partnered sex are two totally different things are constantly second guessing whether maybe they experienced sexual attraction one time for three seconds but they aren't sure. 

 

So I think the OP wants to get rid of the asexual spectrum and say either you are asexual or you are not asexual, while leaving a tiny bit of common sense wiggle room. I would agree if the OP would just leave it at that. 

 

Unfortunately, after getting rid of the asexual spectrum, the OP then wants to define and label all sorts of other sexual orientations that are outside the OP's experience. I don't think the OP is an expert on other sexual orientations, and I don't think being placed on a spectrum in reference to asexuality is interesting or helpful to most people who are not asexual.

[nanogretchen4]

The confusing part, though, is that the OP also says it is fine to identify as asexual if you really want to or feel asexual or find it useful to hang out in asexual community spaces. And I am all for having inclusive spaces like AVEN and letting well behaved visitors hang out here regardless of their orientation. But none of this has anything to do with a spectrum. Zero attraction is a point, not a spectrum. Practically zero attraction is a slightly fuzzy point but still not a spectrum. Hanging out with asexuals for various reasons ranging from questioning your own sexual orientation to being definitely not asexual but married to an asexual is not a spectrum. 

[Aries A.]

On 4/29/2024 at 11:39 PM, enfysiridescent said:

Experiencing zero sexual attraction, or having an adjacent experience to this.

why can't everyone just use this