Jump to content

I don't think people are either sexual or asexual


Beachwalker

Recommended Posts

First off, nice avatar.

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.

Any word can work. None of the terms really make sense. Gay means happy. Straight is a biblical reference. Bi is just the start of Bisexual. I would suggest ace, as it seems to already be used, but as for the technical word, we really don't have a word for it I guess.

Micorgroups? There really aren't that many groups. Almost everyone fits into hetero, homo, bi, or asexual. I suppose that for some asexuals, it may be hard to understand, as there is a bit of a language barrier. You're a furry, right? How ridiculous would it be for a site to separate everyone into llamas, and not llamas? To define a group by not having something that the other group has is rarely accurate, and would appear to exclude people that aren't llamas. and while this may be accurate, what if they called the other group "canines"?

I know enough about the asexual community to know it's not meant as anything. But my first reaction is that you are trying to exclude non-asexuals. There are probably a few people that think asexuals are bad people because of the term.

Another thought is that asexuality is something that one identifies as. thus there are people that aren't asexual because they don't differentiate orientation. So no matter how you use the word, it's not 100% accurate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Thanks Gnik that sums up exactly what I mean. My point being why make differences out to be bigger than they really are, why not focus on our similarities. Yes it might be difficult for an asexual to know what sexual attraction feels like but I think most 'sexuals' know what it feels like to not feel sexual attraction to someone and it that context may be able to accept asexuality easier than the concept asexuals are not 'sexuals'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Obviously one can't argue with that. Maybe everyone is bisexual, yet some people never feel sexually attracted to anyone, some only to their own sex, and some only to the opposite sex. Maybe all asexuals are actually demisexuals, we just never meet the "right one" who we can get emotionally close to. We can only take the past and the present into account when we identify as whatever-sexuals, we can't be 100% sure about the future. We have to accept that.

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.

I was oversimplifying things, that's true. I'm generally very liberal and also an individualist. If every single person on this planet wants to identify as asexual/gray-A/demisexual because they only rarely feel sexual attraction I'm OK with that. Yet, you yourself said many times how important sex is for you in a romantic relationship. Your girlfriend doesn't feel that way. Maybe you two are different after all? Maybe that 0.5% is more important than it looks?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the misunderstanding went way off

Aven has few thousands of members of course some of them would be your old good "point-fingers-to-everyone" kind of person

in a personal level I've never thought of sexuals as people who fuck all day, thinking of sex all day, masturbate and watch porn 24/7!

and in my honest opinion who ever thinks like that is more likely very immature and needs to grow up and face life

so also some of you posting in this thread, thinking of all asexuals in this community have that definition in mind, you are being as discriminating as those who blame sexuals for all wolrd's evil!

I might be stupid or maybe I can not understand english right, but sexual for me means nothing more than: "a person who at some point in their lives they feel desire/need to engage in a sexual act and most of the times even enjoy the experience"

When I had sex at some point in my life, I didn't desired/needed it and I didn't even enjoyed the experience, it was utterly boring

so this is what makes me different from a sexual person

that's how I personally see it.

you can find derogatory to everything if you really want, I can say: "so you drink tea??" and you can take it as an offensive outburst if you want, but is it really?

I do not see the word "sexual" as a stereotype but as a simple term that helps me understand my self better

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest member25959

Right then, I hereby declare that we will now refer to all..................all......yea......as Penguins!

It totally works. Just aslong as Shark becomes a synonym for asexuality *nudge nudge* >_>

So what do you think, Penguins, nice term......horribly bad term? Surely all Sharks and Penguins can agree on this? XD

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The biggest difference, is that no other groups don't lump everyone else together.

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?

I know that "sexual" is a catch all. and I know it's not meant to be offensive. However, it's that first reaction that often changes how people view a group. Any term that causes the reaction to defend one's self should be looked at carefully. What is it about "sexual" that makes that reaction? It's the fact that the pre-existing meanings aren't taken into account. Sexual, in the way it's used here, gives the impression that asexuals think that all non-asexual people only think about sex, and want to have sex all the time.

about the inanimate objects. I'm fairly sure the people attracted to plants would say that it's the same as any other attraction. I don't really know first hand, but I know that I don't understand, so I don't make the assumption.

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)

It's not that I'm ignoring you, it's that you haven't said anything I have anything to respond with. I'm sure something will come up. XD

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?

"Just words" can be the biggest things to effect people. There will always be people that use words in a negative manner, and those that use the same words without meaning any harm. However we have known connotations that allow us to know if something is meant negatively or not, and sexual is one such term. It already has a meaning, and it's got negative connotations on it.

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 watched a show once where a group of 5 people were calling the other contestants (it was a contest type show) boogers. When the season was over and they all got together the group reviled that when they said boogers they meant unrefined. The people being called boogers were so upset in the show that some of them were in tears over it. Words have an effect. that effect isn't based on what you mean when you say it, but rather on what others see it as. that's why we have meanings.

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-

._.'

The difference is that you aren't saying that a person is one way. You are saying that someone isn't in a group. It's like if I had a word for everyone not living in America. It's fairly ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Shuttershy

Considering sharks is my fav word and also a word I use as an expletive? Yes. xD Awesome!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is that you aren't saying that a person is one way. You are saying that someone isn't in a group. It's like if I had a word for everyone not living in America. It's fairly ridiculous.

isn't the word "foreigner" used to group all people who do not live in one's home country??

if that's considered derogatory as well I better go and hung myself to escape from this paranoid world!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was oversimplifying things, that's true. I'm generally very liberal and also an individualist. If every single person on this planet wants to identify as asexual/gray-A/demisexual because they only rarely feel sexual attraction I'm OK with that. Yet, you yourself said many times how important sex is for you in a romantic relationship. Your girlfriend doesn't feel that way. Maybe you two are different after all? Maybe that 0.5% is more important than it looks?

Oh, I've never said that asexuals and sexuals are the same, so if I gave that impression, I apologize. Yes, that difference is very important. Not in all facets of life, but in the context of a relationship, it sure is!

about the inanimate objects. I'm fairly sure the people attracted to plants would say that it's the same as any other attraction. I don't really know first hand, but I know that I don't understand, so I don't make the assumption.

I also don't understand why sexual attraction to things that aren't people qualify someone as asexual. Seems weird to me. I get that people with fetishes may have a harder time fitting into mainstream society, or having a relationship, but the definition of asexual isn't "has difficulty finding people to date" or "doesn't fit into mainstream society". To me, asexual means "outside the realm of sexual", like how amoral means "outside the realm of morality".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right then, I hereby declare that we will now refer to all..................all......yea......as Penguins!

It totally works. Just aslong as Shark becomes a synonym for asexuality *nudge nudge* >_>

So what do you think, Penguins, nice term......horribly bad term? Surely all Sharks and Penguins can agree on this? XD

I would totally go for that. no joke. much better then oh say rabbits and amoebas. lol

Anyway, for clarification about myself. I don't assume all asexuals are like the ones on this site, although that was a gut reaction, making me believe that some people would listen to that. I am just trying to educate you all on how at least one person feels. Ironically, I know that some people will find what I say offensive to asexuals, but this was either unintentional, or was used to show the similarities in how it can make a non-asexual feel. (on a side note, I'm glad that all the people I've talked with have been non-argumentative. most of the time when I go to a forum people start arguing over things like this. I'm looking forward to this site because of that ^^)

Maybe not asexuals could be shortened to nas? not a-sexual? what do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest difference, is that no other groups don't lump everyone else together.

I think you mean that "no other groups lump everyone else together". And honestly, I think that observation is inaccurate.

I know that "sexual" is a catch all. and I know it's not meant to be offensive. However, it's that first reaction that often changes how people view a group. Any term that causes the reaction to defend one's self should be looked at carefully. What is it about "sexual" that makes that reaction? It's the fact that the pre-existing meanings aren't taken into account. Sexual, in the way it's used here, gives the impression that asexuals think that all non-asexual people only think about sex, and want to have sex all the time.

I agree that there is a clash of perspectives occurring; however, let me ask you then: if you compare your initial understanding of how it was being used, to your current understand of how it's actually being used, which do you think is a less derogatory definition of "sexual"? Would it not be better to adopt the less derogatory meaning?

I understand that people associate certain connotations with the word "sexual". However, call me a humanist or whatever, I'm inclined to believe that people can come to understand "sexual" in a non-offensive manner as the default, rather than the offensive manner.

"Just words" can be the biggest things to effect people. There will always be people that use words in a negative manner, and those that use the same words without meaning any harm. However we have known connotations that allow us to know if something is meant negatively or not, and sexual is one such term. It already has a meaning, and it's got negative connotations on it.

Again. Wouldn't it be great if everyone could adopt the positive connotations rather than the negative connotations as default? I'm not saying that this could happen overnight, but by "nipping it in the bud", I feel like you're not giving it a chance.

I watched a show once where a group of 5 people were calling the other contestants (it was a contest type show) boogers. When the season was over and they all got together the group reviled that when they said boogers they meant unrefined. The people being called boogers were so upset in the show that some of them were in tears over it. Words have an effect. that effect isn't based on what you mean when you say it, but rather on what others see it as. that's why we have meanings.

As I understand your example, they only became offended after they realized what the words were intended to mean when they were used. =P This example actually undermines your point, because it focuses on the intention of the speaker, rather than the interpretation of the listener. That is in fact what I'm arguing, that people should focus on the intention of the speaker when they use the term "sexual", and not on their own interpretations.

The difference is that you aren't saying that a person is one way. You are saying that someone isn't in a group. It's like if I had a word for everyone not living in America. It's fairly ridiculous.

I can't help but think you're confused here. The nature of language is that a term exists both positively and negatively. It both includes and excludes. The word "American" includes everyone who lives in America, and excludes everyone who doesn't live in America. The opposite of that is "non-American" (yes, the term actually exists :P). That's simply how language works; it's not ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Words are never the problem. Only what we bring to the words. Changing "sexual" to "nas" isn't going to fix anything. Suddenly calling a 4 legged piece of furniture with a seat and back a "whozit" instead of "chair" doesn't change the chair, and it doesn't change the connotations people have about chairs. A random assortment of letters holds no power.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest difference, is that no other groups don't lump everyone else together.

I think you mean that "no other groups lump everyone else together". And honestly, I think that observation is inaccurate.

sorry. English class wasn't my best subject. I do see that there are some words used to lump everyone else together.

I agree that there is a clash of perspectives occurring; however, let me ask you then: if you compare your initial understanding of how it was being used, to your current understand of how it's actually being used, which do you think is a less derogatory definition of "sexual"? Would it not be better to adopt the less derogatory meaning?

I understand that people associate certain connotations with the word "sexual". However, call me a humanist or whatever, I'm inclined to believe that people can come to understand "sexual" in a non-offensive manner as the default, rather than the offensive manner.

The issue is that the word sexual isn't a bad word. It has it's place and it's needed. But when it's associated with a person, it becomes negative. I don't know what I would say if sexual was changed to mean not asexual.

I watched a show once where a group of 5 people were calling the other contestants (it was a contest type show) boogers. When the season was over and they all got together the group reviled that when they said boogers they meant unrefined. The people being called boogers were so upset in the show that some of them were in tears over it. Words have an effect. that effect isn't based on what you mean when you say it, but rather on what others see it as. that's why we have meanings.

As I understand your example, they only became offended after they realized what the words were intended to mean when they were used. =P This example actually undermines your point, because it focuses on the intention of the speaker, rather than the interpretation of the listener. That is in fact what I'm arguing, that people should focus on the intention of the speaker when they use the term "sexual", and not on their own interpretations.

I wasn't very clear there I guess. the people were upset on the show when they were called it. the people calling them didn't even notice how it effected them. after the series they reviled what they meant.

I can't help but think you're confused here. The nature of language is that a term exists both positively and negatively. It both includes and excludes. The word "American" includes everyone who lives in America, and excludes everyone who doesn't live in America. The opposite of that is "non-American" (yes, the term actually exists :P). That's simply how language works; it's not ridiculous.

then why not use the term non-asexual? that's a term as well. but the double negative seems to be counter productive. probably why sexual is used. asexual is viewed as not sexual, so not asexual means not not sexual, so take out the double negative. but that doesn't make it accurate. asexual is a form of reproduction. not asexual isn't the same as sexual in this term either. personally, I kind of think penguin would be hard to be offensive. in any case the biggest thing is the per-existing connotations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Words are never the problem. Only what we bring to the words. Changing "sexual" to "nas" isn't going to fix anything. Suddenly calling a 4 legged piece of furniture with a seat and back a "whozit" instead of "chair" doesn't change the chair, and it doesn't change the connotations people have about chairs. A random assortment of letters holds no power.

It fixes the connotations with the word sexual. Which I see as a bigger issue. People will still refer to people who aren't asexual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

then why not use the term non-asexual? that's a term as well. but the double negative seems to be counter productive. probably why sexual is used. asexual is viewed as not sexual, so not asexual means not not sexual, so take out the double negative. but that doesn't make it accurate. asexual is a form of reproduction. not asexual isn't the same as sexual in this term either. personally, I kind of think penguin would be hard to be offensive. in any case the biggest thing is the per-existing connotations.

Why? Because using "non-asexual" has stronger implications that some sort of a dichotomy exists.

I am still trying to digest the rest of your post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still trying to digest the rest of your post.

Yeah.... I am told that my style of wording is hard to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Words are never the problem. Only what we bring to the words. Changing "sexual" to "nas" isn't going to fix anything. Suddenly calling a 4 legged piece of furniture with a seat and back a "whozit" instead of "chair" doesn't change the chair, and it doesn't change the connotations people have about chairs. A random assortment of letters holds no power.

It fixes the connotations with the word sexual. Which I see as a bigger issue. People will still refer to people who aren't asexual.

The word itself is fine it is just a word.

The problem though with using it on Aven and giving a new definition to it which isn't a definition people outside Aven may be familiar with is it can detract from ones ability to hear what an asexual really is.

If they have their backs up because of negative connotations they associate with the word they will be distracted by this and it may make it more difficult for them to comprehend what asexuality is because they won't be fully listening or they will be listening from a negative perspective.

If someone doesn't have negative connotations about the word 'sexual' but their understanding of 'sexual' is different from Avens definition of 'sexual', they may be confused which might distract their ability to see clearly and hear what an asexual really is.

Another issue with use of the word is I get the impression it is a word some 'asexuals' don't want to be labelled as, so why is it ok for us to label other people it if we don't like it ourselves? Why is that ok?

If we want people to accept us we shouldn't be creating unnecessary obstacles.

I accept we are not all sexuals it is based on an individuals interpretation and should be their choice if they wish to be labelled as such.

I do think we need better terminology than to refer to everyone who does feel sexual attraction as 'sexuals', I am not sure about penguin but I do think it's better than 'sexual'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think we need better terminology than to refer to everyone who doesn't feel sexual attraction as 'sexuals', I am not sure about penguin but I do think it's better than 'sexual'.

Lastly

What? Could you maybe read over what you've typed before you send it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think we need better terminology than to refer to everyone who doesn't feel sexual attraction as 'sexuals', I am not sure about penguin but I do think it's better than 'sexual'.

Lastly

What? Could you maybe read over what you've typed before you send it?

corrected thanks for pointing my error out :cake: . I do read through my posts but alas am human!

Link to post
Share on other sites

then why not use the term non-asexual? that's a term as well. but the double negative seems to be counter productive. probably why sexual is used. asexual is viewed as not sexual, so not asexual means not not sexual, so take out the double negative. but that doesn't make it accurate. asexual is a form of reproduction. not asexual isn't the same as sexual in this term either. personally, I kind of think penguin would be hard to be offensive. in any case the biggest thing is the per-existing connotations.

Then I assume you think we should not say "gay" when we mean a homosexual man, because gay means happy.

But I think you'd annoy homosexual men if you tried to take gay away from them. And you'd annoy a whole number of asexuals if you tried to take that word away from them, because it's becoming known who asexuals are, on TV shows, on blogs, in magazines, in newspapers, in personal lives.

So leave it alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

then why not use the term non-asexual? that's a term as well. but the double negative seems to be counter productive. probably why sexual is used. asexual is viewed as not sexual, so not asexual means not not sexual, so take out the double negative. but that doesn't make it accurate. asexual is a form of reproduction. not asexual isn't the same as sexual in this term either. personally, I kind of think penguin would be hard to be offensive. in any case the biggest thing is the per-existing connotations.

Then I assume you think we should not say "gay" when we mean a homosexual man, because gay means happy.

But I think you'd annoy homosexual men if you tried to take gay away from them. And you'd annoy a whole number of asexuals if you tried to take that word away from them, because it's becoming known who asexuals are, on TV shows, on blogs, in magazines, in newspapers, in personal lives.

So leave it alone.

"Gay" has positive connotations and ones that didn't really effect what homosexuality is. I have no issue with the term asexual, but I don't think it's accurate due to defining by what one isn't. Maybe it would be best to come up with a word that means people of the other orientations, that way it can be used by all orientations, and not rely one one to have a meaning. Much like foreigners referrers to anyone not from the speaker's home country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you are saying, Beachwalker, I really do. :)

By the way, am I the only one watching Celtic Woman on PBS?

Lucinda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it would be best to come up with a word that means people of the other orientations, that way it can be used by all orientations, and not rely one one to have a meaning. Much like foreigners referrers to anyone not from the speaker's home country.

You mean like "THOSE people"? That will certainly engender good will toward others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you'd annoy a whole number of asexuals if you tried to take that word away from them, because it's becoming known who asexuals are, on TV shows, on blogs, in magazines, in newspapers, in personal lives.

So lets be known as asexuals as per the definiiton of asexual, and not as not sexual.

I don't think peope would be annoyed if the language was reflected on. I think its possible the aven definition of a 'sexual' has just been assumed and taken for granted without the full implications of using the word 'sexual' to describe people who aren't asexual taken into consideration.

I think for visibility it is important to avoid unneceasry ambiguities and alienation so that when people are hearing of asexuality for the first time they can digest the information from an impartial perspective which in my opinion would be more conducive to acceptance.

I have changed my opinion I now think there are people who are asexuals and people who aren't asexuals and that we are all human!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Shuttershy

Might I plug in that 'non-asexual' would inforce a view point or connotation that asexual is the starting point. We're technically throwing a bone by saying 'sexual'; as we describe ourselves as lacking. Would you really rather we say non-asexual? Because then that elevates the asexual in that we are describing -you- as not belonging; and not us as the ones that 'don't belong'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Shuttershy

Also. Exchange students are taught we are not to go to another country to enforce our views and try to change the native people's values or ways of doing things. I think you are highly rude to come here, a person who feels sexual attraction at points in his life -dont want to offend-, and tell the ASEXUALS what we should do or want; when you do not truly know what it is like to be us. If it is not broken, do not fix it. We are mostly happy with our terminology, and our intent good, and so I do not see why you wish to change it for us.

PS you want 'sexuals' to be viewed positive?

You rep a small demographic on here -it is an asexual forum- and would do well to remember that your actions can make impressions you don't want.

Simply.

You're being rude and its counter-productive to spread sexual understanding and love.

PPS. Its a pain in the ass to keep retyping the definition of sexual so that's what I used. I apologize.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no issue with the term asexual, but I don't think it's accurate due to defining by what one isn't. Maybe it would be best to come up with a word that means people of the other orientations, that way it can be used by all orientations, and not rely one one to have a meaning. Much like foreigners referrers to anyone not from the speaker's home country.

Don't the words homosexuality and heterosexuality also define by what one isn't? For example, a heterosexual woman is attracted to men, but she is also not attracted to women, otherwise... she'd be bi?

Digressing...

The point gnik is making, about people from outside the ace community and their issues with being called “sexual”, is an important one, and has been coming up for the past few months at least, and this is going to keep coming up as the community becomes more visible.

Doesn’t matter about intent (aces say sexual simply means homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc.), because people who aren’t asexual are coming in with their own, previously understood definitions (the word “sexual” means “of or pertaining to sex”, they say it is sexualizing and therefore offensive, because of historically negative connotations).

This has been discussed/yelled about in communities beyond AVEN, and some people are acknowledging the problem and trying to come up with a less… loaded term.

However, the general consensus from aces is that you can’t expect us to leave that group unmarked. People have written many opinions about it on tumblr, but it being tumblr, they are hard to track down. Here is one that sums it up:

What “non-aces” does is center aces as the deviation from the norm and defined everything else as being “normal.” In fact, what that does is position sexuals as being so common that we don’t even need a word to describe the state of being sexual; it’s only important to discuss the perspective of being sexual when we’re talking about aces specifically! Which implies that the ways in which being sexual shape your experience don’t ordinarily matter unless ace issues are being discussed right then. And that is wrong. That’s how using this language helps contribute to our invisibility. It helps sexual people to forget about our issues and their status as the dominant class the moment that we stop speaking up.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't the words homosexuality and heterosexuality also define by what one isn't?

Not really. Why would they? A definition of something doesn't have anything to do with what that thing isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't the words homosexuality and heterosexuality also define by what one isn't?

Not really. Why would they? A definition of something doesn't have anything to do with what that thing isn't.

Actually, it does... for example, the colour "blue" is also "not not-blue", if that makes any sense. Can we perceive any concept of light without being able to compare with dark (a.k.a. the lack of light, "not-light")?

That is, we can only categorize and classify items because we perceive differences between items. When we choose to officially acknowledge those differences as significant, that's when terminology becomes established.

EDIT: Also, this:

However, the general consensus from aces is that you can’t expect us to leave that group unmarked. People have written many opinions about it on tumblr, but it being tumblr, they are hard to track down. Here is one that sums it up:

What “non-aces” does is center aces as the deviation from the norm and defined everything else as being “normal.” In fact, what that does is position sexuals as being so common that we don’t even need a word to describe the state of being sexual; it’s only important to discuss the perspective of being sexual when we’re talking about aces specifically! Which implies that the ways in which being sexual shape your experience don’t ordinarily matter unless ace issues are being discussed right then. And that is wrong. That’s how using this language helps contribute to our invisibility. It helps sexual people to forget about our issues and their status as the dominant class the moment that we stop speaking up.

It's totally what I was trying to say before but couldn't articulate. XD

I don't know if it would contribute to the invisibility of asexuality, but using "non-asexual" definitely tries to reposition asexuals as the center of human sexuality discourse and repositions all other groups at the margins, when that's not really an accurate reflection of reality at all. Asexuals, unfortunately, are part of the marginalized groups. But asexuals don't wish to "take over"; they wish merely to be heard (or that's what I think, anyway).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might I plug in that 'non-asexual' would inforce a view point or connotation that asexual is the starting point. We're technically throwing a bone by saying 'sexual'; as we describe ourselves as lacking. Would you really rather we say non-asexual? Because then that elevates the asexual in that we are describing -you- as not belonging; and not us as the ones that 'don't belong'.

I think I see the point of what you are saying but I think the word sexual unfortunately fails to achieve this and possibly may even be an impediment because the meaning of the word can be and is misconstrued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...