I don't think people are either sexual or asexual

[Beachwalker]

Man, anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this at all, but the development of "sexual" as a term in relation to "asexual" seems similar to the development of the term "cissexual" in relation to "transsexual".

Goes to look up cissexual

[Beachwalker]

Man, anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this at all, but the development of "sexual" as a term in relation to "asexual" seems similar to the development of the term "cissexual" in relation to "transsexual".

Goes to look up cissexual

Interesting and yes I can see how they are used similarly. However it sounds like cissexual was constructed for a different purpose and was not a word that was already in use by the population at large. The problem with the word sexual is it already is in use by the population at large and it means many different things to people, way more than just a feeling of sexual attraction. People consider themselves sexual for all kinds of reasons which may include but is not limited to feelings of sexual attraction, orgasms, their libido's, their sex drives, how much sex they are having, their genitalia etc. Feeling sexual attraction is only one component and not an exclusive component of being sexual. It really is confusing to people to say asexuals don't feel sexual attraction, but may have libido's, orgasm, masturbate, have sex etc but they are not sexuals, if the person has a different understanding of what a sexual is, than Avens understanding of what a sexual is,

[Sally]

I think the key issue is what we want to call ourselves. If I were to call myself sexual, it would be erroneous to me and confusing to others. The way I differentiate myself from sexuals is that I don't feel sexual attraction. That's certainly enough for me, because that's really major to other people who DO feel it.

[Faelights]

I honestly do not see a problem with creating a new definition for an existing word. Certainly, there may be some initial confusion, but the fact of the matter is, we're using "sexual" in two different ways:

(1) Sexual -- as in a sexual being, describing an individual capable of engaging in sexual activity.

(2) Sexual -- as in sexual orientations, describing an individual who does experience sexual attraction.

The key, really, is learning to read in context. There are many, many words out there that require contextual literacy, and I don't see why "sexual" can't be one of them.

[Member33070]

x

[Rivan Vox]

Sexuals are comfortable being sexuals. Asexuals are comfortable being asexuals. Defining yourself as an asexual when you are one brings a sense of identity, understanding, and relief; you no longer have to keep trying to fit your Triangle into the Square or Circle holes. You've found where you belong, so there's no stress.

Let's not rock the comfort-boat, here. Let Aces have their black-and-purple identify-coats and and let sexuals/gray-a's have their every-other-color identify-coats in all their varieties.

Diversity is good. Subsuming asexuality into sexuality makes the world less interesting.

I identify as Ace primarily because that's the identify-coat that fits me best. I don't experience sexual attraction. Don't try to insist that I would be more comfortable in a different cut of identify-coat. I know how I feel.

[Faelights]

To be honest, this thread is starting to remind me more and more of this thread.

[gnik]

a friend of mine sent me a link here, and I was reading it and got so bothered by it that I joined. (I was looking for something new to do anyway.)

I am a homosexual. I have also considered myself bisexual and straight in earlier parts of my life. however during any part of my life I would find the term "sexual," as you use it, to be very offensive.

having never been to this site, and from what I read about this term being only on this site, that means that most people probably would feel the same way as me when it comes to this term. to me it has connotations that asexual don't understand due to the very nature of the connotations.

for me, I see asexuality in two ways. as an orientation. this is the black and white view. I think orientation in terms of two questions. are you attracted to members of the same sex, and are you attracted to members of the opposite sex. if no to both, you are asexual. if yes to both you are bisexual. if yes to the first and no to the second, you are homosexual, and if no to the first and yes to the second, you are heterosexual. in this way, the term "sexuals" as you use it comes across as a them vs. us. you are coming up with a term that means something along the lines of how "everyone without white skin" as a group would sound to an African American.

the other way I see it is more of on a scale. but the scale is not linear. I see the x scale as your preference in relative gender. and the y scale as how attracted you are. I use 10 as the number limit in each direction, so I would be at -10x 0y, as I am 100% gay, and moderately attracted to guys. (as in I don't fall for every guy I see sort of thing.) a perfect example of asexual would be 0x -10y, but x could be anything and still fit the strictest definition. a bisexual person would be 0x 0y. by this graph, I would place anyone that identifies as "sexual" to be at 0x 10y or any x value.

my point here is that most people think of sexual, in the way this site uses it, to mean someone who is always involved in sex acts or thinking about sex. or even someone who finds everyone sexually attractive.

honestly, when I read this I thought that I was being grouped with people that asexuals find inferior. gays don't have terms for everyone that isn't gay. straight people don't have a term for everyone that isn't straight. for asexuals to have a term seems like discrimination.

[Cakey]

I have naturally never felt any sexual attraction...........except for when I took drugs, and they have the potential to not only make you sexual, that can also change your orientation.

[Member33070]

x

[Guest]

a friend of mine sent me a link here, and I was reading it and got so bothered by it that I joined. (I was looking for something new to do anyway.)

I am a homosexual. I have also considered myself bisexual and straight in earlier parts of my life. however during any part of my life I would find the term "sexual," as you use it, to be very offensive.

having never been to this site, and from what I read about this term being only on this site, that means that most people probably would feel the same way as me when it comes to this term. to me it has connotations that asexual don't understand due to the very nature of the connotations.

for me, I see asexuality in two ways. as an orientation. this is the black and white view. I think orientation in terms of two questions. are you attracted to members of the same sex, and are you attracted to members of the opposite sex. if no to both, you are asexual. if yes to both you are bisexual. if yes to the first and no to the second, you are homosexual, and if no to the first and yes to the second, you are heterosexual. in this way, the term "sexuals" as you use it comes across as a them vs. us. you are coming up with a term that means something along the lines of how "everyone without white skin" as a group would sound to an African American.

the other way I see it is more of on a scale. but the scale is not linear. I see the x scale as your preference in relative gender. and the y scale as how attracted you are. I use 10 as the number limit in each direction, so I would be at -10x 0y, as I am 100% gay, and moderately attracted to guys. (as in I don't fall for every guy I see sort of thing.) a perfect example of asexual would be 0x -10y, but x could be anything and still fit the strictest definition. a bisexual person would be 0x 0y. by this graph, I would place anyone that identifies as "sexual" to be at 0x 10y or any x value.

my point here is that most people think of sexual, in the way this site uses it, to mean someone who is always involved in sex acts or thinking about sex. or even someone who finds everyone sexually attractive.

honestly, when I read this I thought that I was being grouped with people that asexuals find inferior. gays don't have terms for everyone that isn't gay. straight people don't have a term for everyone that isn't straight. for asexuals to have a term seems like discrimination.

"Breeders" is the term for straight people, and it is offensive and it has never come out of my mouth except to bitch about its existence.

I agree with 100% of your post. I have also had this argument before on AVEN.

There are asexuals on AVEN that love masturbation, love orgasm, love fantasizing, have fetishes, get off on power play, get off on plushies, etc... yet somehow they escape the label "sexual". Why? Because AVEN has a really weird definition of sexual. I've said it a million times before and my position hasn't changed.

I call myself "sexual" on AVEN for the purposes of being descriptive, but every time I type it, it makes me feel icky. No wonder AVENites don't want to be considered a sexual... its horrible! The connotations are awful, embarrassing, and deeply inaccurate.

[Faelights]

a friend of mine sent me a link here, and I was reading it and got so bothered by it that I joined. (I was looking for something new to do anyway.)

Hey Gnik, fancy seeing you here.

I am a homosexual. I have also considered myself bisexual and straight in earlier parts of my life. however during any part of my life I would find the term "sexual," as you use it, to be very offensive.

having never been to this site, and from what I read about this term being only on this site, that means that most people probably would feel the same way as me when it comes to this term. to me it has connotations that asexual don't understand due to the very nature of the connotations.

[. . .]

my point here is that most people think of sexual, in the way this site uses it, to mean someone who is always involved in sex acts or thinking about sex. or even someone who finds everyone sexually attractive.

honestly, when I read this I thought that I was being grouped with people that asexuals find inferior. gays don't have terms for everyone that isn't gay. straight people don't have a term for everyone that isn't straight. for asexuals to have a term seems like discrimination.

I'll be honest--my first thought on reading your entire response was, "why do you think asexuals find people who engage in sexual behaviour inferior?" Why do you find the term "sexual" to be offensive? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here, but maybe I'm just an extremely sex-positive person, so I don't particularly feel that being sexual is anything to be ashamed of.

I understand that the term "sexual" has many connotations, and I will admit here and now that even though I identify as "asexual" in terms of sexual orientation, I also identify as a "sexual" being, i.e. someone who engages in sexual behaviour.

EDIT: I have to point out here, for a long time, people have been seen as either straight or gay. I would think that's one reason why they haven't developed terms for people who aren't straight or people who aren't gay respectively. It's because they just said "gay" or "straight". o.o But that's just a theory. Our understanding of sexuality is much more complex now.

for me, I see asexuality in two ways. as an orientation. this is the black and white view. I think orientation in terms of two questions. are you attracted to members of the same sex, and are you attracted to members of the opposite sex. if no to both, you are asexual. if yes to both you are bisexual. if yes to the first and no to the second, you are homosexual, and if no to the first and yes to the second, you are heterosexual.

[. . .]

the other way I see it is more of on a scale. but the scale is not linear. I see the x scale as your preference in relative gender. and the y scale as how attracted you are. I use 10 as the number limit in each direction, so I would be at -10x 0y, as I am 100% gay, and moderately attracted to guys. (as in I don't fall for every guy I see sort of thing.) a perfect example of asexual would be 0x -10y, but x could be anything and still fit the strictest definition. a bisexual person would be 0x 0y. by this graph, I would place anyone that identifies as "sexual" to be at 0x 10y or any x value.

Where do pansexuals fit in, considering they operate outside of the gender binary? And various other related issues that arise due to gender identification?

in this way, the term "sexuals" as you use it comes across as a them vs. us. you are coming up with a term that means something along the lines of how "everyone without white skin" as a group would sound to an African American.

Incidentally, there is a term for that: "coloured". As an Asian, the term "coloured" doesn't particularly bother me. I don't know why, and I'm not sure if it should or not. To me, as long as it is not being used in a derogatory context, I'm fine with it. It's the context that matters to me.

Anyway, I guess my point is... what did you think "asexual" meant before you found out about it as a sexual orientation? What connotations did you associate with it? Have any of those associations changed since you found out more about "asexual" as a sexual orientation? Do you think these changes have been positive? Do you think that changes to what people associate with the word "sexual" can be similarly positive, i.e. could the development of "sexual" as a term used in describing sexual orientation possibly be positive in any way?

Once again, I'm not quite sure why you think being told you that you're a sexual being is offensive. I'm of the opinion that the more a term is used in a non-derogatory context, the more the connotations associated with the term will become less derogatory as well. Reclamation of a term and all, e.g. "queer". Just as we're reclaiming the word "asexual" from misapplied stereotypes, I feel that the term "sexual" can be as well.

[Guest]

To some extent, it's just a little arresting to suddenly be treated not like an individual but as a group... a group that you've never considered yourself a part of. It takes awhile to get used to.

I mean, how would you like it if you came to visit me, and I and all of my friends, instead of referring to you as "Jane", only refer to you as "outsider". And we talk about outsiders all the time, and how awful they are, and how much pain they've caused us, and then keep referring to you as an outsider. It feels a little dehumanizing. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with using the term "sexual", just that people should keep in mind that all "sexuals" are different, and that the likelihood that I am exactly like some douchy 16 year old high school student who makes fun of virgins is... about zero.

[Faelights]

To some extent, it's just a little arresting to suddenly be treated not like an individual but as a group... a group that you've never considered yourself a part of. It takes awhile to get used to.

I mean, how would you like it if you came to visit me, and I and all of my friends, instead of referring to you as "Jane", only refer to you as "outsider". And we talk about outsiders all the time, and how awful they are, and how much pain they've caused us, and then keep referring to you as an outsider. It feels a little dehumanizing. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with using the term "sexual", just that people should keep in mind that all "sexuals" are different, and that the likelihood that I am exactly like some douchy 16 year old high school student who makes fun of virgins is... about zero.

*shuuuuuudders at the image of the 16-year old*

Rest assured, I do not in any way associate you with them. XD

I suppose I could not promise that people don't focus too much on the generalizations or stereotypes (a.k.a. generalizations that are not true). But I would point out that this is true of any term, and that once again, the context matters. I hope that people always keep that in mind.

I don't view sexuals as "outsiders". @_@ I don't know if anyone on this forum does; I suspect there are at least a few that do feel that way. But at least I don't. They're friends?

I might also ask the following question: by labeling a non-derogatory use of a word as derogatory, aren't you buying into the derogatory use of the word in a sense?

[Guest]

Absolutely. Like i said, I don't think anything is wrong with the language... just that the feelings that people have about it seem to me to be pretty natural. Being overly or overtly sexual is a cultural taboo (think Jersey Shore and how the majority of people find that sort of thing repulsive). So to spend your whole life having sex but being otherwise pretty sexually passive, and then suddenly being labeled as "sexual" creates a certain psychological dissonance.

[Pamcakes]

It has never even occurred to me to find it offensive, to be honest, and I am a loud and preachy feminist which, according to a large portion of the world, means I deliberately go looking for things to feel slighted by.

I guess for someone who found being categorised as Sexual offensive, it is. But for me, I have just always taken it to mean, quite accurately, "not Asexual". I can't really think of a simpler or more efficient semantic division.

P.

[Beachwalker]

Thanks for the links, they are relevant and interesting.

We are asexual because we don't feel sexual attraction and not because we are not 'sexual'.

Asexuals are most definitely not the opposite of what a 'sexual' is.

I don't see any point in trying to make this distinction. I suspect most people we consider 'sexuals' on this site spend most of their day not being sexually attracted to anyone, I am quite sure most 'sexuals' are not attracted to way more people than they are attracted to. During a time period between these feelings of feeling sexually attracted to someone whether it is minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years 'sexuals' are I guess technically asexual based on Avens definition and are the same as us. Weird notion I know but the definition of asexual does not say never or ever and does not set time periods. I think it is way more constructive to focus on the similarities rather than create differences that may be inaccurate and may not even exist in the first place.

[gnik]

I'll be honest--my first thought on reading your entire response was, "why do you think asexuals find people who engage in sexual behaviour inferior?" Why do you find the term "sexual" to be offensive? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here, but maybe I'm just an extremely sex-positive person, so I don't particularly feel that being sexual is anything to be ashamed of.

I understand that the term "sexual" has many connotations, and I will admit here and now that even though I identify as "asexual" in terms of sexual orientation, I also identify as a "sexual" being, i.e. someone who engages in sexual behaviour.

to start out I want to say that I believe that the offensive use of the term isn't meant to be offensive. however intent in this case doesn't effect how it effects "sexuals."

the problem with being called a "sexual" is that I'm not about sex. I'm in a relationship. I do have sex. however that is such a small part of my life, that to be defined by that is an insult to the rest of me. I don't want to be labeled by one thing, especially something that should not be public. not to mention that there is the fact that one doesn't need to have had sex to be "sexual."

as for the feeling inferior thing goes, that is part of not being defined as me, but rather what I'm not. for this reason I think a new term should be found for asexuals. you shouldn't identify with what you aren't, a (meaning not) sexual. but as of yet, there isn't a term.

EDIT: I have to point out here, for a long time, people have been seen as either straight or gay. I would think that's one reason why they haven't developed terms for people who aren't straight or people who aren't gay respectively. It's because they just said "gay" or "straight". o.o But that's just a theory. Our understanding of sexuality is much more complex now.

gay and straight used to be slang. originally straight was a religious reference. orientations are a relatively new concept. not too long ago it was simply everyone naturally liked the opposite genders. and anyone that chose to abstain was free to do so, but being gay or bi was a sin. straight referred to the straight and narrow path, referring to not sinning. so the idea of homosexuality isn't actually much newer then asexuality. (sorry if things get long, I have a tendency to go into details any type what I think.)

Where do pansexuals fit in, considering they operate outside of the gender binary? And various other related issues that arise due to gender identification?

pansexuals, like the strictest definition of asexuals and bisexuals would be, are right on the 0 y axis.the biggest difference is that by none strict definitions,pansexuals would still be right on the line. the y axis is the line where gender doesn't matter at all. this can work for either liking both genders a lot, or liking neither gender at all. due to this not being separated into groups, but rather which gender, and how often you find people attracted, the location a pansexual is would vary from person to person.

in layman's terms, if the person is directly on the line, chances are they are pansexual as most bisexuals and asexuals lean towards either gender.

in this way, the term "sexuals" as you use it comes across as a them vs. us. you are coming up with a term that means something along the lines of how "everyone without white skin" as a group would sound to an African American.

Incidentally, there is a term for that: "coloured". As an Asian, the term "coloured" doesn't particularly bother me. I don't know why, and I'm not sure if it should or not. To me, as long as it is not being used in a derogatory context, I'm fine with it. It's the context that matters to me.

I used this example because it is one that has been done. but it's now considered racist by today's standards. it wasn't when it was first coined, but the separation led to a superiority complex by some white people. I don't think it's racist to call someone black, as it's a description of a physical feature. but if you define them as black, that is where the is issues. however, this doesn't work with colored, because it's describing what they aren't so you are defining a person by what they are not. to do this is to simply say, not one of us.I find that "sexuals" is being used as a definition of non-asexuals.

Anyway, I guess my point is... what did you think "asexual" meant before you found out about it as a sexual orientation? What connotations did you associate with it? Have any of those associations changed since you found out more about "asexual" as a sexual orientation? Do you think these changes have been positive? Do you think that changes to what people associate with the word "sexual" can be similarly positive, i.e. could the development of "sexual" as a term used in describing sexual orientation possibly be positive in any way?

in order. I can't answer that first question. I honestly have a bit of amnesia from jr. high until the last half of my senior year. before then I only thought there was straight and sinning. after I was gay and had a little bit of knowledge about asexuality. I know.... it's odd...

as soon as I remember knowing anything about asexuality, I believed they were people that aren't attracted to either gender. I have a family that doesn't believe in homosexuality, but they did believe in asexuality.

I really think I understand asexuality in it's core. because of the presser I had to like girls, when I didn't have any attraction to them. it's like that with everyone. it makes sense to me, from both a mental and a biological sense. it helps that I have a good friend that I've known for a long time that is asexual.

it's hard to answer any of the other questions... but due to the fact that we tend to keep the word "sex" out of anything around children, I don't think that the word sexual should be used in any form that could cause an unaware child to try looking it up. but beyond that, I think that the word "sexual" used to mean all that aren't asexual would be detrimental against asexuals and all other orientations alike. the us them terms always cause separation until it's considered discrimination by law and new terms need to be made.

Once again, I'm not quite sure why you think being told you that you're a sexual being is offensive. I'm of the opinion that the more a term is used in a non-derogatory context, the more the connotations associated with the term will become less derogatory as well. Reclamation of a term and all, e.g. "queer". Just as we're reclaiming the word "asexual" from misapplied stereotypes, I feel that the term "sexual" can be as well.

I find that explaining this may seem like me trying to explain how guys are attractive to a straight guy. it may not be possible for asexuals to understand, but that doesn't dismiss it.

the term colored is racist because it's grouping all non members together. every time it's used casually it is derogatory. but the users don't see it. not always due to the fault of the ones saying it. (I also think that the word secular is offensive too, but freedom of religion makes it hard to address.)

reclaiming a word only works where there is actually a group. there is no non asexual group. this is part of the issue. there is no line of sexuality, even my graph is inaccurate, as it leaves out all sexualities that don't include humans. (not to say I support any, but nor do I discourage all, such as inanimate objects or plants. while odd, and hard to understand, they are not damaging, thus shouldn't be seen as negative. not to mention furies and fursuit fetishes.)

hope this makes sense.

[SFX]

Wow, this thread was confusing to begin with but now I really feel there's a huge misunderstanding here somewhere. I never thought anyone found the term 'sexual' (as in someone who experiences sexual attraction) offensive, but you learn something new every day I guess.

Anyway..

I suspect most people we consider 'sexuals' on this site spend most of their day not being sexually attracted to anyone,

Is this really how sexual attraction works? For example one is only sexually attracted to their partner for a limited time frame, say, twice a week/two hours a day/when they are awake? Could a sexual someone who feels sexual attraction help us out here?

I am quite sure most 'sexuals' are not attracted to way more people than they are attracted to.

Huh?

[gnik]

an example of how life would be if terms like "sexual" existed in everything. I would not just have brown hair, but I would have "not-blond," "not-black," "not-white," "not-gray," and "not-red" hair as well.

my eyes are brown, "not blue," "not green," and "not hazel" as well.

I am not only gay, but am "not bi," "not straight," and "sexual"

if I am defined by what I'm not, then I am mostly what I'm not. what should be a description becomes complex. so the term "sexual" isn't really simple, easy, or short if terms were made for everything we are not. it only works because no one else makes these terms.

[gnik]

Wow, this thread was confusing to begin with but now I really feel there's a huge misunderstanding here somewhere. I never thought anyone found the term 'sexual' (as in someone who experiences sexual attraction) offensive, but you learn something new every day I guess.

Anyway..

I suspect most people we consider 'sexuals' on this site spend most of their day not being sexually attracted to anyone,

Is this really how sexual attraction works? For example one is only sexually attracted to their partner for a limited time frame, say, twice a week/two hours a day/when they are awake? Could a sexual someone who feels sexual attraction help us out here?

I am quite sure most 'sexuals' are not attracted to way more people than they are attracted to.

Huh?

since I'm still on the page I'll help. my partner is at work a lot of the day. during that time, I don't think about him all the time. during that time I'm not attracted to him, as he's not in my mind. also, I enjoy just hanging out with him, so I don't find him attractive all the time, as my mind is occupied with hanging out with him in a non sexual manner. he's next to me right now, but I feel nothing as far as being sexually attracted to him. so most of the time, I don't find anyone attractive.

translation of the second part in the first person "I am attracted to fewer then 50% of the people I see. quite a bit fewer."

[SFX]

Wow, this thread was confusing to begin with but now I really feel there's a huge misunderstanding here somewhere. I never thought anyone found the term 'sexual' (as in someone who experiences sexual attraction) offensive, but you learn something new every day I guess.

Anyway..

I suspect most people we consider 'sexuals' on this site spend most of their day not being sexually attracted to anyone,

Is this really how sexual attraction works? For example one is only sexually attracted to their partner for a limited time frame, say, twice a week/two hours a day/when they are awake? Could a sexual someone who feels sexual attraction help us out here?

I am quite sure most 'sexuals' are not attracted to way more people than they are attracted to.

Huh?

since I'm still on the page I'll help. my partner is at work a lot of the day. during that time, I don't think about him all the time. during that time I'm not attracted to him, as he's not in my mind. also, I enjoy just hanging out with him, so I don't find him attractive all the time, as my mind is occupied with hanging out with him in a non sexual manner. he's next to me right now, but I feel nothing as far as being sexually attracted to him. so most of the time, I don't find anyone attractive.

translation of the second part in the first person "I am attracted to fewer then 50% of the people I see. quite a bit fewer."

Would you agree that being homosexual means you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex (in this case your partner)? If yes, does that mean you only consider yourself homosexual for lets say a few hours a week?

[gnik]

Would you agree that being homosexual means you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex (in this case your partner)? If yes, does that mean you only consider yourself homosexual for lets say a few hours a week?

I would say that I am homosexual all the time. however homosexuality is only one part of me, not something that I define myself as.

[Guest member25959]

Interesting.

Quick question: What would be the alternative term to 'sexual'? I have no idea.

Also, is it really that much of an issue if someone uses this word to describe someone in a non-offensive manner. It's more of a catch-all term really, there are some cases in which it's simply easier to just dump everyone who isn't asexual into one group, 'sexuals', rather than to split everyone into microgroups.

Really, [edit]

Yea, okay, it's not exactly an accurate term, but it's a simple term that most of us get the gist of.

Honestly.

[Beachwalker]

Would you agree that being homosexual means you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex (in this case your partner)? If yes, does that mean you only consider yourself homosexual for lets say a few hours a week?

I would say that I am homosexual all the time. however homosexuality is only one part of me, not something that I define myself as.

The persons orientation is established on the basis of the gender/genders that they are sexually attracted to it does not mean they are in a permanent state of sexual attraction to all people of these gender/genders.

[SFX]

I would say that I am homosexual all the time. however homosexuality is only one part of me, not something that I define myself as.

But you see, on AVEN we often use the term 'sexual' to describe someone who experiences sexual attraction. We're not referring to behavior or making a moral judgement (most of us don't anyway), as anti-sexuality is discouraged here. In this case 'sexual' is used as an umbrella term, which covers homosexuals as well (since they do feel sexual attraction). It's really not meant to be offensive, it's just a practical term. Obviously it does create an us-them division, but since we're a different sexual orientation that's only normal I think.

[Faelights]

Thanks for the links, they are relevant and interesting.

We are asexual because we don't feel sexual attraction and not because we are not 'sexual'.

Asexuals are most definitely not the opposite of what a 'sexual' is.

I don't see any point in trying to make this distinction. I suspect most people we consider 'sexuals' on this site spend most of their day not being sexually attracted to anyone, I am quite sure most 'sexuals' are not attracted to way more people than they are attracted to. During a time period between these feelings of feeling sexually attracted to someone whether it is minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years 'sexuals' are I guess technically asexual based on Avens definition and are the same as us. Weird notion I know but the definition of asexual does not say never or ever and does not set time periods. I think it is way more constructive to focus on the similarities rather than create differences that may be inaccurate and may not even exist in the first place.

I think one of the reasons why we make the distinction is to defend against people who say asexuality is a myth and that people who identify as asexual are lying. I'm not saying we should ignore the similarities. What I'm saying is, we need to bring attention to both similarities (e.g. asexuals still have romantic relationships, still have children, still have sex) and differences (i.e. asexuals spend a great deal of their time not experiencing sexual attraction to other individuals relative to the amount of time others might experience sexual attraction to other individuals).

And honestly, I think we've done a pretty good job of highlighting both similarities and differences so far. We have repeatedly pointed out that asexuals can engage in sexual activity just as well. The key point is the lack of sexual attraction to other individuals over a long period of time.

Would you agree that being homosexual means you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex (in this case your partner)? If yes, does that mean you only consider yourself homosexual for lets say a few hours a week?

I would say that I am homosexual all the time. however homosexuality is only one part of me, not something that I define myself as.

All I can say is: I don't think anyone is trying to define you as an individual by the term "sexual" alone, and certainly not based on any sexual behaviour that you might engage in on a day-to-day basis; what we are focusing on is the mental element. In fact, I'm sure many of us would like to get to know you better as a person, but so far all you've shared with us in this particular thread is that you're male, homosexual, and apparently think that asexuals just see that part of you and nothing else when they use the term "sexuals" as a convenient catch-all term (as Arca and many others have pointed out).

Also, I understand perfectly what you mean by attraction to objects. However, I do believe sexual orientation is largely limited to human objects of attraction, and that other things are generally considered paraphilia?

[SFX]

Would you agree that being homosexual means you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex (in this case your partner)? If yes, does that mean you only consider yourself homosexual for lets say a few hours a week?

I would say that I am homosexual all the time. however homosexuality is only one part of me, not something that I define myself as.

The persons orientation is established on the basis of the gender/genders that they are sexually attracted to it does not mean they are in a permanent state of sexual attraction to all people of these gender/genders.

But they are capable of feeling it at any given time. The potential to feel sexual attraction is always there, it just has to be triggered. Therefore it is easier for them to identify (but not define themselves as) as whatever-sexual, even if they don't feel sexual attraction literally all the time.

That said, I think I do see your point now and I feel less confused about this thread, so this has been a good discussion. Unfortunately I really have to sleep now..

[Guest]

Would you agree that being homosexual means you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex (in this case your partner)? If yes, does that mean you only consider yourself homosexual for lets say a few hours a week?

I would say that I am homosexual all the time. however homosexuality is only one part of me, not something that I define myself as.

The persons orientation is established on the basis of the gender/genders that they are sexually attracted to it does not mean they are in a permanent state of sexual attraction to all people of these gender/genders.

But they are capable of feeling it at any given time. The potential to feel sexual attraction is always there, it just has to be triggered. Therefore it is easier for them to identify (but not define themselves as) as whatever-sexual, even if they don't feel sexual attraction literally all the time.

I'm not sure what "capable" in this sense means. How is that any different than me saying that asexuals are capable of sexual attraction, it just has to be triggered, and it just never is triggered?

I spend like 99.5% of my life not sexually attracted. There are lots of times I'm with my partner where I'm not sexually attracted to her... that percentage has dramatically increased since I learned about her asexuality, of course, but even before, it wasn't continuous. I'm not sure it's fair for you to say that I'm capable of sexual attraction 100% of the time, but then say that asexuals, or grays, or demis, aren't. I don't see that its based on anything.

EDIT: Gnik, I feel like you're ignoring me... I want to play with you guys too. :) (I feel like a 4 year old right now, but oh well)

[Mr. Shuttershy]

Is it possible to just accept them as WORDS? and allow everyone to use the word they feel fits them best? And that, maybe, there is no harm in ANY TERM we use to describe people we are different from?

In theory, removing labels and discrimination is good.

In execution, languages can only exist if things have labels to differentiate things. You can't just say, "I want." well, what do you want? I mean. If you can't describe it in words, how do you relate ideas and communicate? Even wanting is a state of being that needs a label.

Sexual.

Asexual.

Homosexual.

Gay.

Straight.

Hetero.

Bi.

Pan.

Black.

White.

Tall.

Short.

Its all just words used for concepts. I see how you -could- get offended. However, when people are using it positively, then its really just too much trouble to get offended.

I say sexual because here we are specifically referring to sexual orientation. It is a community built on an orientation, so naturally people get described by their orientation. Does it mean that Mr. Blueberry is the same as Faelightsjust because we are asexual? No. And guess what, my mother, my father, my sister, and pretty much everyone I know has an orientation to a gender, but they don't become 'just that sexual' in my mind. Will I use it to describe them? Occassionally. But ultimately I know they are people and sexual is a label. And I also know that sexual doesn't mean horny all the time. We say it just to mean someone with sexual attraction. But again. Everyone is a person

I also want it to be noted we all label groups! Do you not call someone of Finland a Finn? That's a label. And while you recognize that that doesn't mean a Finn is rigid in their ways, and that everyone has the same values. Its just a label for convenience because you can't list all 5 million people to talk about the concept.

-steps off soapbox-

._.'