what is grey/demi?

[Guest]

As somebody said already, if people in these categories were "normal" and felt part of "normal" sexual culture, there would be no reason for them to even name themselves as something else. anyone who falls in the asexual spectrum is seen as damaged or abnormal by many people, and why would anyone bring that on themselves unless they felt at odds with "normal" sexuality?

Personally, I identify more with asexuals because I've been celibate for more than a decade and have no desire to act on any potential sexual urge, in the unlikely event I experience such urges, which I largely do not. I consider myself grey because I know I am capable of experiencing some sort of sexual attraction, but to me, this attraction seems very different than the way sexuals experience it.

But yeah, i'm getting a "greys don't exist" vibe from a lot of these posts. I see sexuality as a very complex spectrum, not a binary thing, and I think some experience some aspects and some people experience others.

Again, I haven't seen anything suggesting that greys don't exist.

But I agree that sexuality is a very complex spectrum... I think it would be fair to say that there are hundreds, thousands of varieties of sexualities. We're probably not each different like a snowflake, but I think we come close to that. So do we each get our own new vocab word? Where's the cutoff? When does it stop being helpful to keep assigning new words & definitions? And by being overly inclusive (which is where I think the problem with "gray" lies), how is that helpful at all? If "gray" means "everything between sex addict and asexual", how is that definition beneficial?

[Guest]

Because I know this thread is offensive to some, let me reiterate:

We're discussing definitions, not experiences. I don't doubt, second-guess, rationalize, or dismiss anyone's experiences. Its the definitions of the terms that are causing a curfuffle.

[Guest]

From what I've seen, most people define "demisexual" as people who develop sexual feelings only for those with whom they have some kind of emotional (usually romantic) bond. And PiF is right in saying that these people are, "technically" sexual. Still, they might feel out of place in society, so the point is moot. I do think there are probably a lot of people around who don't feel "primary" sexual attraction all that much.

Thanks, Eamonn. There is just no way that gray is anything but "sexual". It takes a lot of self-serving wordsmithing to work backward into a position that "feeling sexual attraction" does not equal "sexual".

And it's also true that there are a lot of people who don't feel "primary" sexual attraction. Using that as a definition of "sexual" is, IMO, incorrect. It would be like if my friends and I all decided to call ourselves "fewsies" because when we go out, we only have "a few" drinks. And then jumping up and down saying "we're a minority! There are only 4 fewsies in the world!" When in actuality, there are gazillions... we're just the only ones using the term.

How about we change it up a little bit then. Since we've been using alcohol metaphors I'll bring one in too.

A sexual person would be a moderate drinker, maybe the type of person who enjoys a beer or two after work week. An asexual would be somebody that never drinks alcohol period. A grey is somebody that may drink only certain kinds of alcohol, or may only drink during special occasions, or drinks very small amounts of alcohol. Or they are a social drinker but they are somewhat antisocial. Either way, they don't drink often. If somebody asks my friends who are light drinkers if they drink they always answer "a little bit, but not often" or "under certain circumstances" or whatever the case. I rarely ever heard a yes or no.

It is the same with greys. It does not mean in between asexual and sex addict. It just means in between asexual and sexual.

[NamTar]

To be honest, I was always a little unsure of the definition myself, which is one reason I mostly identify with asexuality. Because I seem closer to that than to just being a sexual who doesn't experience attraction much and is almost totally indifferent to it most of the time, anyway. Additionally, part of it for me is that, while I do have a libido, any kind of sexual gratification or desires or whatever is so much less meaningful to me than to people considered sexual. I could take it or leave it, which I don't think is the case with most sexuals, who often find it important and have deep emotions attached to it.

Again, I haven't seen anything suggesting that greys don't exist.

Well, as someone who's called herself grey, I find it invalidating to see people saying basically that greys are just sexuals by another name, because that is not how I see it. And people HAVE said that. If that's not saying they don't exist, what is it saying? That they're mistaken or wrong about their identity?

A sexual person would be a moderate drinker, maybe the type of person who enjoys a beer or two after work week. An asexual would be somebody that never drinks alcohol period.

But isn't that confusing orientation with behavior? Drinking is behavior, not a desire. Having sex doesn't make you sexual. Using the metaphor, I think a sexual would be someone who has the desire to drink sometimes. An asexual could drink or not drink, but they just wouldn't sit around thinking, "Geez, that drink looks good, I want it." A demi would only start to crave alcohol after forming an emotional bond with the drinking glass. Or something. Okay, train of thought has derailed..

[Guest]

Well, as someone who's called herself grey, I find it invalidating to see people saying basically that greys are just sexuals by another name, because that is not how I see it. And people HAVE said that. If that's not saying they don't exist, what is it saying? That they're mistaken or wrong about their identity?

No, not at all. No one is invalidating anyone's experiences. No one is wrong about their identity. We're just debating which major category it falls under... asexuality or sexuality.

My position is: Greys are a subcategory. Not a subcategory of asexuality, which means feels no sexual attraction, but rather a subcategory of sexual, which means feels sexual attraction.

Tea: your definition of sexual seems off. If you feel sexual attraction, you are sexual. You may be slightly sexual, you may be barely sexual, you may be gray, demi, whathaveyou, but technically, it's sexual. Your definition of sexual cannot be "people who feel more sexual impulses than me because i prefer to use the term asexual".

[Member33070]

I suppose there are two ways of looking at it then...

The "spectrum" concept - which puts asexuality on a spectrum going up to everything-is-sexually-attractive sexual, with grays everywhere in between. Simplified to "well, if you're sort of in the middle, you're gray".

Or Skullery's idea, of a sort of hierarchy...

Sexual, with Gray under it as a type of sexuality, with Demi under that as a type of gray. Asexual is a whole different animal, but if one sees it as a sexual orientation, I don't see a problem with calling it a type of sexuality...or even putting it as a type of demisexuality where they don't experience any type of attraction...perhaps...

So then you'd have...

Sexual

Gray

Demi

Asexual

I actually can see how both work, conceptually.

But see, with the second model, you've just made a spectrum again...sort of. The triangle could also be seen as a "hierarchy" or "umbrella" sort of diagram.

[Siggy]

But I agree that sexuality is a very complex spectrum... I think it would be fair to say that there are hundreds, thousands of varieties of sexualities. We're probably not each different like a snowflake, but I think we come close to that. So do we each get our own new vocab word? Where's the cutoff? When does it stop being helpful to keep assigning new words & definitions? And by being overly inclusive (which is where I think the problem with "gray" lies), how is that helpful at all? If "gray" means "everything between sex addict and asexual", how is that definition beneficial?

I think the language just develops organically. We get a new vocab word when there is a critical mass of people who feel that it is necessary. It could be that the people in the group don't really know why it is necessary, or even what distinguishes it from preexisting categories. The bottom line is that grays are a group of people who feel the need for a gray identity.

And yes, this is self-referential. It's not a whole lot of help for people just coming in, wondering "Should I identify as gray-A?" So we need to talk more, talk about details.

It's hard to talk about details though. "How stringent is your definition of gray-A?" "My definition is really stringent," or, "My definition is really inclusive." What does that even mean? How stringent is really stringent, how inclusive is really inclusive? You ask, "Where's the cutoff?" How can I possibly answer that question?

The cutoff is wherever the happy medium is between too inclusive and too exclusive. Or at least, where I think the happy medium is. Where do you think the happy medium is?

[Guest]

A sexual person would be a moderate drinker, maybe the type of person who enjoys a beer or two after work week. An asexual would be somebody that never drinks alcohol period.

But isn't that confusing orientation with behavior? Drinking is behavior, not a desire. Having sex doesn't make you sexual. Using the metaphor, I think a sexual would be someone who has the desire to drink sometimes. An asexual could drink or not drink, but they just wouldn't sit around thinking, "Geez, that drink looks good, I want it." A demi would only start to crave alcohol after forming an emotional bond with the drinking glass. Or something. Okay, train of thought has derailed..

You have a point there. I guess I need to be more careful with my analogies :redface:

[NamTar]

My position is: Greys are a subcategory. Not a subcategory of asexuality, which means feels no sexual attraction, but rather a subcategory of sexual, which means feels sexual attraction.

As I see it, if grey was just a type of sexual, than greys would probably have never ended up on asexuality.org. (I know lots of sexuals are here, and curious people, and that's great and fine, but I mean that many people are on this site because they identify as asexual.) I'm not suggesting they're the same as asexuals, but rather, perhaps not a subcategory of either. Maybe they're just greys.

Speaking personally, if I didn't feel I was closer to asexual than sexual, I would never have ended up here.

[Guest]

I suppose there are two ways of looking at it then...

The "spectrum" concept - which puts asexuality on a spectrum going up to everything-is-sexually-attractive sexual, with grays everywhere in between. Simplified to "well, if you're sort of in the middle, you're gray".

Or Skullery's idea, of a sort of hierarchy...

Sexual, with Gray under it as a type of sexuality, with Demi under that as a type of gray. Asexual is a whole different animal, but if one sees it as a sexual orientation, I don't see a problem with calling it a type of sexuality...or even putting it as a type of demisexuality where they don't experience any type of attraction...perhaps...

So then you'd have...

Sexual

Gray

Demi

Asexual

I actually can see how both work, conceptually.

But see, with the second model, you've just made a spectrum again...sort of. The triangle could also be seen as a "hierarchy" or "umbrella" sort of diagram.

To clarify, I'm thinking of this in the same way that we identify various species.

If you were gray, you'd be: Human, Sexual, Gray. Going from least specific to most specific. A taxonomy of sorts. The analogy falls apart to the extent that some people will have more subcategories than others, which isn't the case in actual biological classifications, but you get the gist of it.

I'm on the fence about whether an asexual would be: Human, Sexual, Asexual OR Human, Asexual. Meaning that I don't have an opinion on whether "asexuality" is a subset of "sexuality". I can see both arguments... I think that if we're looking at the general population's understanding of the terms, then asexuality would probably be separate from, not a subset of, sexuality.

[NamTar]

I think those saying grey is a subset of sexuality are considering the important part of greyness to be sexual attraction. i understand where they're coming from, but i don't agree. when i think of grey i think that the greyness is the emphasized part, that it feels fundamentally different from being sexual, so that's why I dont consider it part of a hierarchy, just a separate category, like sexual and asexual are 2 different categories.

[Guest]

As I see it, if grey was just a type of sexual, than greys would probably have never ended up on asexuality.org. (I know lots of sexuals are here, and curious people, and that's great and fine, but I mean that many people are on this site because they identify as asexual.) I'm not suggesting they're the same as asexuals, but rather, perhaps not a subcategory of either. Maybe they're just greys.

Speaking personally, if I didn't feel I was closer to asexual than sexual, I would never have ended up here.

I'm not sure I see the logic here. Grays who are close to asexual are here because its not their sexual side they need support for... since being sexual is considered "good" or "normal", grays have no problem with that part of them. Its the other part that they need support for, which is why they're here. None of that changes the fact that the definition of sexual is feeling sexual attraction, which makes grays sexual.

Imagine it this way. I'm not vegetarian because sometimes I eat meat. Fine. I go to vegetarian websites, however, to get recipes for vegetarian food, because although I do eat meat, I don't eat a lot of it. Even though i would be classified as a carnivore (omnivore, whatever), if what I'm looking for is vegetarian recipes, I'm going to a vegetarian website to find them. The mere fact that I frequent a vegetarian website and use their recipes does not, in itself, make me vegetarian.

[Yoji]

I think the key here is that most Grays find themselves feeling a lot more in common (sexually) with Asexuals than Sexuals. For most sexuals it seems they're gratified to have sex so long as they don't mind the person. With Grays...or at least for me it would be more likely that I'd rather not have someone touching me in that way (My experiences of this sort of thing have made me feel truly 100% asexual at times) but I sometimes find the thought of it appealing.

So basically I'd have to say I prefer the spectrum model rather than putting Grays as a sub cattagory of people that I personally don't think I have much in common with sexually.

I mean lets face it...we all love -_-

[Member33070]

The thing is...with the subcategory model, it looks a lot like the spectrum model. Think of it like you're getting more and more specific by "taking away" levels of sexual attraction, until there's none left and you've got asexuality.

But if we admit that there are different levels of gray, with grays that are more sexual than others, then the spectrum concept is slightly more accurate than the subcategory model (in my opinion), because the subcategory model almost implies that everyone in each category is the same (like a "species").

I do agree that gray seems like a vague umbrella term right now and I also wish it was a bit easier to pin down or separate from sexuality...I mean, how do I know when I'm fully sexual? Is that up to me mainly? *shrug*

[Guest]

The thing is...with the subcategory model, it looks a lot like the spectrum model. Think of it like you're getting more and more specific by "taking away" levels of sexual attraction, until there's none left and you've got asexuality.

But if we admit that there are different levels of gray, with grays that are more sexual than others, then the spectrum concept is slightly more accurate than the subcategory model (in my opinion), because the subcategory model almost implies that everyone in each category is the same (like a "species").

I do agree that gray seems like a vague umbrella term right now and I also wish it was a bit easier to pin down or separate from sexuality...I mean, how do I know when I'm fully sexual? Is that up to me mainly? *shrug*

Totally... spectrum is more accurate if you're just looking at the variation amongst grays. The problem with the spectrum approach is your last question. The spectrum approach suggests that there's a magic line where you become "fully sexual" as if that exists. No one is "fully sexual". All "sexual" means is "experiences sexual attraction". You are, or you aren't. There seems to be a misconception that out in the rest of the world, everyone is just "sexual". Like ya'll get to be all different from each other, but "sexuals" are all the same. Like if you cross this imaginary line into "fully sexual", there you sit, with no variations or differences from the folks around you. But that's a false view... no one is exactly the same.

Let's look at this a different way. Say I have two friends, Andy and Jim. They are both gay. Andy is effeminate and Jim is more masculine. Andy has a higher sex drive than Jim, but Andy only likes having sex with his boyfriend, whereas Jim likes one-night stands.

Who's gay? They both are. Andy's not "full gay". Jim's not "full gay". Why? Because that term doesn't make sense, just like the term "full sexual" doesn't make sense. Its a yes or no. The gradations are in the gray.

[Guest]

For most sexuals it seems they're gratified to have sex so long as they don't mind the person.

I think that's a pretty specific group of sexuals you're talking about, and I think a lot of people would be offended by that definition.

[Member33070]

Right, that makes sense. I apologize if what I say sounds weird, I get most of my understanding of sexuality from...well, AVEN. *shrug*

I get it. And...it's really interesting.

Because...hmm.

I'll think about it.

[Guest]

Right, that makes sense. I apologize if what I say sounds weird, I get most of my understanding of sexuality from...well, AVEN. *shrug*

I get it. And...it's really interesting.

Because...hmm.

I'll think about it.

I know, right?! Playing with concepts is super fun. I know I piss people off sometimes because I find it absolutely enthralling to work this stuff out and don't always realize people are putting their whole hearts on the line. But I truly don't think we can learn and grow without it.

[Yoji]

For most sexuals it seems they're gratified to have sex so long as they don't mind the person.

I think that's a pretty specific group of sexuals you're talking about, and I think a lot of people would be offended by that definition.

I didn't mean in a one night stand or having an affair kind of way, I just meant that they have more consistant attraction than Grays. Of course its not the same for everyone and some people find that they just aren't attracted to someone on an individual basis regardless of being sexual, asexual or Gray.

[NamTar]

As I see it, if grey was just a type of sexual, than greys would probably have never ended up on asexuality.org. (I know lots of sexuals are here, and curious people, and that's great and fine, but I mean that many people are on this site because they identify as asexual.) I'm not suggesting they're the same as asexuals, but rather, perhaps not a subcategory of either. Maybe they're just greys.

Speaking personally, if I didn't feel I was closer to asexual than sexual, I would never have ended up here.

I'm not sure I see the logic here. Grays who are close to asexual are here because its not their sexual side they need support for... since being sexual is considered "good" or "normal", grays have no problem with that part of them. Its the other part that they need support for, which is why they're here. None of that changes the fact that the definition of sexual is feeling sexual attraction, which makes grays sexual.

Imagine it this way. I'm not vegetarian because sometimes I eat meat. Fine. I go to vegetarian websites, however, to get recipes for vegetarian food, because although I do eat meat, I don't eat a lot of it. Even though i would be classified as a carnivore (omnivore, whatever), if what I'm looking for is vegetarian recipes, I'm going to a vegetarian website to find them. The mere fact that I frequent a vegetarian website and use their recipes does not, in itself, make me vegetarian.

You are basing what you say on greyness being a degree of sexuality. I am saying I see it not as a different degree, but rather, a different type.

since being sexual is considered "good" or "normal", grays have no problem with that part of them. Its the other part that they need support for, which is why they're here.

Are you sure you're speaking for all greys here? Personally, I'm quite okay with my "asexual side" and require no support for it. I'm happy with that. It's the fact that the way I experience sexuality seems completely different from "sexuals" and that's why I'm here, support for the "sexual" side I guess.

My problem with what you say: Asexuals can masturbate and still be asexual. They can have fetishes. they just aren't attracted to people sexually. If asexuality meant "has nothing to so do with anything sexual, ever" I could see grey as being totally different from it and more on the sexual side. But it doesn't, and that's why i see grey as a different of type rather than of degree. To me, for example, my sexuality is nothing at all like that of a "sexual," and more like that of an asexual who has a libido, but with the miniscule potential of experiencing a bit of attraction in a way I see as different from sexuals. But then, my opinion might not count because I am so close to asexual that my grey side is pretty easily ignored.

[SSRIs Fail]

The problem I see in AVEN is that sexual is described so absurdly that everyone seems "less than". But most sexual people only feel that way for a few people, and under certain circumstances. Its not even a little bit unusual for sexual people to only develop feelings of attraction after "romantic attraction" begins. And actually, until recently, it was stereotypically female to respond that way. Geez, until the last couple decades, it was ASSUMED that women were only attracted to people they were in love with. And obviously we didn't live in a world where that was considered "asexual"... it was considered normal, healthy sexuality.

ic circumstances. I kind of want to say literally everyone, but I'm sure there's some lone guy out there who is perpetually attracted. But otherwise, yeah, most people are only attracted to certain people in certain situations.

I agree with this. I think gray-asexuality is a bit different than simply experiencing attraction less often than pure "sexuals." When I've considered a gray-asexuality label it has been for a slightly different reason. I sometimes experience sexual attraction, but it never quite translates into actually wanting sex. I'm not completely without sexual attraction but I like to be sensually attracted to my partner (if that makes any sense) and there's no guarantee that I'll never want anything sexual. At the same time, there's no guarantee that I will ever want sex and it's not just an issue of "if I'm in love, it'll happen infrequently but will happen nonetheless." It may not happen at all, regardless of love, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% devoid of attraction.

[Yoji]

I agree with this. I think gray-asexuality is a bit different than simply experiencing attraction less often than pure "sexuals." When I've considered a gray-asexuality label it has been for a slightly different reason. I sometimes experience sexual attraction, but it never quite translates into actually wanting sex. I'm not completely without sexual attraction but I like to be sensually attracted to my partner (if that makes any sense) and there's no guarantee that I'll never want anything sexual. At the same time, there's no guarantee that I will ever want sex and it's not just an issue of "if I'm in love, it'll happen infrequently but will happen nonetheless." It may not happen at all, regardless of love, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% devoid of attraction.

I think that's the most concise description I've heard so far. Sums me up pretty well too :)

[Guest]

I agree with this. I think gray-asexuality is a bit different than simply experiencing attraction less often than pure "sexuals." When I've considered a gray-asexuality label it has been for a slightly different reason. I sometimes experience sexual attraction, but it never quite translates into actually wanting sex. I'm not completely without sexual attraction but I like to be sensually attracted to my partner (if that makes any sense) and there's no guarantee that I'll never want anything sexual. At the same time, there's no guarantee that I will ever want sex and it's not just an issue of "if I'm in love, it'll happen infrequently but will happen nonetheless." It may not happen at all, regardless of love, but that doesn't mean I'm 100% devoid of attraction.

I think that's the most concise description I've heard so far. Sums me up pretty well too :)

That's a definition I can stand behind. Of course, that kicks out some people on AVEN who consider themselves gray.

[Member33070]

^ Kicks me out, probably. Well, for the most part? There are some exceptions to the rule, most of the people I'm sexually attracted to I would hesitate if the opportunity actually arose and weigh the pros and cons and not just go for it. Hypothetically there are some I would just do it anyway, but that's just hypothetical - I've never actually been presented with the opportunity and don't know for sure how I would respond.

But - this goes against a definition I have heard for sexual attraction (I'm thinking of the AVEN wiki again, on my phone again, agh) which is something like "a specific feeling that sexual people get that causes them to desire sex with another person".

Are you saying that you desire sex with the person but wouldn't actually do it, or something like that? What is the disconnect there, I wonder? Not trying to be rude, but what makes the desire stop short of action?

I am the sort to go ahead and impulsively do whatever I desire without rationalizing it, usually, but if this is common among grays that something splits the desire and action...I wonder what it is.

[Tanwen]

That's a definition I can stand behind. Of course, that kicks out some people on AVEN who consider themselves gray.

No-one is 'kicked out' of AVEN. Just as no-one can tell an individual whether or not they're asexual, so it is with those considering themselves grey.

This is an area for people to sort things out, to talk things over with others not be told what they are or are not.

[Guest]

^ Kicks me out, probably. Well, for the most part?

And that's the problem with all the labels. I'm gonna bow out after this post for a minute because I'm really interested in where this is going... and I don't want to get in the way. Looks like this is heading in a great direction for better understanding! :D

But, yeah. If a definition is broad enough to include everyone, it becomes useless. If you narrow the definition, you're excluding some people who want to belong.

The worst thing anyone could do is to try to change or modify their feelings just to fit a label. There's nothing magic about being Ace, or Gray, or sexual, or gay, or straight, or bi, or poly, or trans... you don't get anything special by falling under the term's umbrella. It's just a name. We grow attached to our labels and imbue them with power they don't actually have. Fight this. Be who you are, and if a name fits, it fits, and if it doesn't, it doesn't... and remember that none of that changes who you are.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

[Member33070]

Ahh, by "kicked out" I meant "kicked out of the gray label".

I should probably clarify that all I'm trying to do (personally here, since I can't speak for others) is figure out a really good definition for gray, one that someone can look at and easily tell that they are gray.

I would like to figure out a good definition based on how grays feel and figure out what unites us (them?). What do we (they?) have in common, and what makes us (them?) different.

I mean, I'm having a hard time telling if I am gray or sexual, where gray ends and sexuality begins, if gray is a part of sexuality, if I should identify as gray if gray is a part of sexuality...

It sort of starts to turn into a mess. That's all.

Without a good solid definition and a good solid idea...it's hard to grasp. I'm not saying that any of the definitions we have right now are unacceptable, I just believe that, based on some of the posts in this thread in particular, some people desire a more concrete definition.

Everyone is still free to define themselves however they wish, of course, and everyone is still welcome in every part of AVEN. Yes.

Also, question.

Building on the possible thing of "Grays have sexual desire but won't actually do it..."

Still confused on this, loves. Not on my phone anymore so I'll post sources. Perhaps a poll is in order eventually to see how everyone feels? That would be interesting anyway. *shrug*

Anyway, current sexual attraction definition on the AVEN wiki:

Sexual attraction is a feeling that sexual people get that causes them to desire sexual contact with a specific other person. It is often, but not always, felt along with other forms of attraction - i.e. sometimes a person experiencing sexual attraction will only want sex, such as some friends with benefits relationships, and other times they will desire sex as well as romantic interaction or other things.

http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Attraction

So it's saying "desire sexual contact" which reminds me of the "primary and secondary sexual desire" and then goes back to attraction...

• Primary sexual attraction is an instant attraction to people based on instantly available information such as their appearance or smell which may or may not lead to arousal or sexual desire.
  
• Secondary sexual attraction is considered to be an attraction that develops over time based on a person's relationship and emotional connection with another person.
  
• Primary sexual desire is the desire to engage in sexual activity for the purposes of personal pleasure whether physical, emotional, or both.
  
• Secondary sexual desire is the desire to engage in sexual activity solely for the sake of the happiness of the other person involved, or for another ulterior motive such as the conception of children.
  

http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Primary_vs._secondary_sexual_attraction_model

I'm confused.

I would say that, personally, I can experience both types of sexual attraction...which by definition would need to lead to one of the two types of desire, which for me would be primary, mostly.

Still confused. Thoughts?

[Caspian]

I've been following this discussion, but haven't had anything to add thus far.

But I think that Birdie is right to be confused, as this proposed definition for gray uses a shifty interpretation for "sexual attraction." If you experience attraction but have no desire for a sexual interaction, you're not sexually attracted. And if you don't experience sexual attraction, you're asexual. Thus, this definition moves "gray" from a subset of sexuals to a subset of asexuals.

What SSRI refers to as "sensual attraction" sounds to be the same thing as the romantic attraction experienced between romantic aces-- a desire for romantic ("sensual") gestures which do not include sex or anything sexual. For the record, I consider all nonsexual romantic gestures (kissing, hand-holding, cuddling, verbal affection, etc.) to all be sensual. If others have a different interpretation, please correct me.

I agree with SkulleryMaid that if the definition of gray is broadened to the point that it includes most everyone, it becomes a useless label. However, I'm not sure how SSRI's idea for how to define "gray" differs from romantic aces.

[nleseul]

For the record, I consider all nonsexual romantic gestures (kissing, hand-holding, cuddling, verbal affection, etc.) to all be sensual. If others have a different interpretation, please correct me.

Well, I don't consider cuddling or verbal affection to be romantic, fwiw.

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

Hey guys, can I be in your discussion? :D

Sorry Pif, but I DO take offence at this assumption that any form of sexual attraction must immediately equal sexual. That's like saying that if a sexual doesn't find some people attractive, then they must be grey-A or asexual, which isn't the case.

I identify as demisexual, but I think I have some elements of being grey-A as well. I've had fleeting moments where the kind of attraction that I normally have for people - which is probably sensual or romantic attraction - has a vaguely ambiguous sexual element in there, but it still doesn't feel completely sexual to me, and it goes away very quickly (I also usually get these moments if the person in question either isn't wearing much or has bits of their chests showing, which might be why). I don't desire them or really want to sleep with them, but the thought of seeing more than what they're showing briefly goes through my mind. It's like, I dunno, the lowest, quietest volume of sexual attraction you can possible get, to the point where it only lasts a few seconds and I barely notice it. And I just feel that, if I were to fall absolutely in love with someone, I'll get all those "intense" sexual feelings that people my age are meant to be getting, but only then, and with no one else. Does this make me completely sexual? No. Does this make me completely asexual? No. So I'm demisexual or grey-A. Deal with it, bros.