I don't think people are either sexual or asexual

[Pamcakes]

I am stepping away from this thread; not because I don't care, and not because I'm getting emotional, but because it's beginning to make my brain hurt - I simply can't follow[/i ] it, anymore.

P.

[Mr. Shuttershy]

To mention:

All my sexual friends unrelated to AVEN say sexual isn 't offensive. I dont wish to offend. But I do still find this matter ridiculous. If we polled a bunch of sexuals, and there was a mix of AVENities and non, and they said it was offensive, thrn ya. However, ALL my sexual friends responded that it wasn't.

[gnik]

To mention:

All my sexual friends unrelated to AVEN say sexual isn 't offensive. I dont wish to offend. But I do still find this matter ridiculous. If we polled a bunch of sexuals, and there was a mix of AVENities and non, and they said it was offensive, thrn ya. However, ALL my sexual friends responded that it wasn't.

The issue with this is that I've found that friends tend to be friends due to similar opinions.

Maybe we should post polls on other sites and then see what it actually looks like.

[Mr. Shuttershy]

To mention:

All my sexual friends unrelated to AVEN say sexual isn 't offensive. I dont wish to offend. But I do still find this matter ridiculous. If we polled a bunch of sexuals, and there was a mix of AVENities and non, and they said it was offensive, thrn ya. However, ALL my sexual friends responded that it wasn't.

The issue with this is that I've found that friends tend to be friends due to similar opinions.

Maybe we should post polls on other sites and then see what it actually looks like.

Similar opinion?

No. My very best friend is the exact opposite of me and we have very different opinions on many things.

Perhaps. Except I don't think it needs to go that far. I'm going to try and be sensitive, but my opinion does not change that the term should not offend.

[Beachwalker]

Probably this link won't work I have't had much success with links but I hope it does. If it doesn't if you google 'responding to questions of cultural insensitivity' it should be at the top of the list. It was culturally insensitive of me to say we are all sexuals and I apologize. I understand that this term because of its different cultural meanings to individuals is not always received in the manner it was intended. Because of these individual cultural understandings some people irrelevant of whether they are asexual or people who experience sexual attraction do not like being labelled a 'sexual'. We need to be aware of this and take it into consideration when communicating because our image is important.

My link

[gnik]

Probably this link won't work I have't had much success with links but I hope it does. If it doesn't if you google 'responding to questions of cultural insensitivity' it should be at the top of the list. It was culturally insensitive of me to say we are all sexuals and I apologize. I understand that this term because of its different cultural meanings to individuals is not always received in the manner it was intended. Because of these individual cultural understandings some people irrelevant of whether they are asexual or people who experience sexual attraction do not like being labelled a 'sexual'. We need to be aware of this and take it into consideration when communicating because our image is important.

My link

I'm lost I don't see understand that site... maybe you should just copy the link and put it in the response?

[Lucinda]

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ide/support/responding.html

Hope this helps,

Lucinda

[Beachwalker]

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ide/support/responding.html

Hope this helps,

Lucinda

Cheers Lucinda

I thought that this just gave some good examples of how meanings can be received differently than they were intended. Sometimes it can be very difficult to see other peoples points of view. In my opinion these questions and responses highlight that, and highlight the need for open communication as a means to resolve these differences.

[gnik]

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ide/support/responding.html

Hope this helps,

Lucinda

Cheers Lucinda

I thought that this just gave some good examples of how meanings can be received differently than they were intended. Sometimes it can be very difficult to see other peoples points of view. In my opinion these questions and responses highlight that, and highlight the need for open communication as a means to resolve these differences.

what exactly was the initial question? it doesn't show up for me

[Beachwalker]

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~ide/support/responding.html

Hope this helps,

Lucinda

Cheers Lucinda

I thought that this just gave some good examples of how meanings can be received differently than they were intended. Sometimes it can be very difficult to see other peoples points of view. In my opinion these questions and responses highlight that, and highlight the need for open communication as a means to resolve these differences.

what exactly was the initial question? it doesn't show up for me

Hopefully this will work and I am not breaching any copyright or anything!

Responding to Questions of Cultural Insensitivity

Listener – Speaker

I find the term you are using makes me uncomfortable.

I support your desire to speak your mind but the language you are using strikes me as disrespectful.

I am interested in your perspective, but the way you are approaching this topic promotes hostility not understanding.

Did you need to make your point by using that language?

Your understanding of this subject is important to me, but when you present your information this way you turn me off to learning more about your ideas.

My judgment is not about you, it is about the language we are using.

I think language is important, but I appreciate how difficult it can be to communicate.

Statements or language usage can make a speaker's intentions misunderstood. Did I understand you to mean……?

I don’t want to take your comments/terms out of context. Did you mean to suggest that women/minorities/gays…..?

I hope I am not being too sensitive, but…

Speaker – Listener

My meaning and usage is technical but I am open to further discussion.

Give me a second, I have never had someone ask me that question.

I’m not sure I understand your position, but I want to explore your concerns.

You raise a good point, but we won’t have time to examine this idea until next week.

Sounds like we should discuss these terms in greater detail.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain myself further.

Language is important, but thank you for not jumping to conclusions about my intentions.

I try and keep up on language usage and what might be considered terms that are culturally insensitive. I apologize if my words were offensive, that was not my intention.

Thank you for not taking my remarks out of context. I was trying to be provocative not offensive.

This list of possible responses is meant to open up possibilities for more effective communcation. We welcome your feedback and suggestions on these or other approaches.

[gnik]

Hopefully this will work and I am not breaching any copyright or anything!

seeing as you stated the website, I think that counts as siting your source.

[Beachwalker]

Hopefully this will work and I am not breaching any copyright or anything!

seeing as you stated the website, I think that counts as siting your source.

Cool and thanyou to you and everyone else who have shared their opinions. If people hadn't voiced their concerns about being referred to as 'sexuals' I would have continued along the same thought processes, and considered it ok to refer to everyone as 'sexuals'. If people didn't speak up I would have been none the wiser. Cheers.

[shaedofblue]

Just because some people say sexual in a rude way it doesn't mean we can't use it if it is understandable.

People still say gay and it's useful for basic communication. I know some don't like the usage and they say what they'd prefer but at this point in time changing every possible word because someone used it badly means we'll just have trouble communicating all the time.

Shouldn't it be up to the people being labeled? People outside of a group can't know how most people in the group feel about being labeled. In this way, I don't think that asexuals should come up with a term for people who aren't asexuals without seeing if it is considered offensive or rude by the "sexualas." I don't like the term, but I can't really explain why I have issues with it, but other people have expressed the same feeling when I ask. Not everyone is offended, but most seem to be, but have either never heard of the term used this way, or don't speak up about it.

Frankly, actually, no. It shouldn't always be up to the people being labeled.

Here's the thing. People hate being labeled as part of a majority. They don't like having their privileges, the way that society assumes their experiences (in this case, feeling sexual attraction some of the time and having that be a factor in romantic relationships) are either universal or the only ones that matter, pointed out to them. So when they get told they are sexual, or cisgender, or sometimes even white or heterosexual, they complain that they are being non-consensually labeled, but what it usually comes down to, what they are ultimately so offended by, is that their "normal" experiences are being decentered and made visible as another variable, in which there are other just as valid categories.

So, when majority groups are offended by a minority group's deliberately neutral language, there is good reason to examine the reasons for this reaction and not immediately acquiesce to it. Half the time they suggest "normal" as the replacement.

A term for people who experience sexual attraction that does not center them unnecessarily is necessary to discuss sexualnormativity in society. Sexual people probably aren't going to come up with another one that fits the bill, and people who want to dismantle the norms that deny their existence cannot wait around for more acceptable people to hand them down an acceptable vocabulary.

[gnik]

This isn't about being labeled, it's about the word used. I have no problem with being included in a group that consists of everyone but asexuals, as long as it's not in a derogatory way. But not if the word used is offensive to a large number of people in the group. We've already established that the term "sexual" is offensive to many many people that aren't asexual. We've also established that non-asexuals appears too much like a double negative.

Frankly, actually, no. It shouldn't always be up to the people being labeled.

Here's the thing. People hate being labeled as part of a majority. They don't like having their privileges, the way that society assumes their experiences (in this case, feeling sexual attraction some of the time and having that be a factor in romantic relationships) are either universal or the only ones that matter, pointed out to them. So when they get told they are sexual, or cisgender, or sometimes even white or heterosexual, they complain that they are being non-consensually labeled, but what it usually comes down to, what they are ultimately so offended by, is that their "normal" experiences are being decentered and made visible as another variable, in which there are other just as valid categories.

ok, now this is more then a little biased. I think you need to look at what you say a bit more carefully before blurting it out. You don't know if most people that aren't asexual assume that having sex is the only thing that matters. Most people I know, asexual or not, believe that sex isn't what makes a relationship. If it was, then prostitutes would be the most loved people on earth. Also there is a big difference between labeling due to a characteristic, and labeling all that don't have a characteristic. From the sounds of it, you seem like you would take away rights of people just because they are the majority group. (not saying you think that, just saying how it looks)

So, when majority groups are offended by a minority group's deliberately neutral language, there is good reason to examine the reasons for this reaction and not immediately acquiesce to it. Half the time they suggest "normal" as the replacement.

The reason I suggest the term to be changed is because of what "sexual" already means. From what you said above, you appear to believe that all people that aren't asexual are crazed about sex and can't think of anything else, but just don't want to admit it. And I can't help but feel that you believe this due to how the term has been used.

A term for people who experience sexual attraction that does not center them unnecessarily is necessary to discuss sexualnormativity in society. Sexual people probably aren't going to come up with another one that fits the bill, and people who want to dismantle the norms that deny their existence cannot wait around for more acceptable people to hand them down an acceptable vocabulary.

By this logic, black people would still be called the n word. How do you know if you don't even try? Isn't that what we are trying to do?

Again though, your entire post appears to be filled with biased against people that aren't asexuals, which is the very thing this site is/should be against. You can't educate if you offend people with a term used casually.

[SFX]

We've already established that the term "sexual" is offensive to many many people that aren't asexual.

It's more like we've established that there are some people who find the term 'sexual' offensive, but whatever.

The reason I suggest the term to be changed is because of what "sexual" already means.

Sorry to be blunt but what exactly does the term 'sexual' already mean that is offensive? Could you provide a few examples when the term 'sexual' is used in an offensive way?

[gnik]

The reason I suggest the term to be changed is because of what "sexual" already means.

Sorry to be blunt but what exactly does the term 'sexual' already mean that is offensive? Could you provide a few examples when the term 'sexual' is used in an offensive way?

Sexual means "1. Of, relating to, involving, or characteristic of sex, sexuality, the sexes, or the sex organs and their functions.

2. Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.

3. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction characterized by the union of male and female gametes:"

This is offensive for many reasons. For one thing the word itself is reserved for specific conversations. These are not conversations that one usually would be open about. It's a private matter for the most part. People wouldn't relate this to the third definition, due to being irrelevant. leaving the first and second definitions.

the first definition sounds like you are saying the person is always taking part in sexual activity.

the second definition is kind of obvious.

I also want to add the phrases that have sexual in them. sexual activity, sexual content, sexual desires. they all show that sexual is already understood to mean relating to sex.

I can't seem to find the treads where "sexual" has been used negatively right now, maybe they got removed or something, but in any case it's been addressed a bit recently on the sex-positive threads.

[NotAllHere]

You don't know if most people that aren't asexual assume that having sex is the only thing that matters.

I would love to know how you got this line out of shaedofblue's post. i really would. They pointed out that most people feel sexual attraction and it usually has a factor in their relationships. That is true- and much different than saying that sex is all that matters for sexuals. That latter statement isn't true.

I use the term 'sexual' and yet I know that not all sexuals are sex crazed. heck, that type I actually have yet to find. Even the people I know who are what they themselves have labeled 'sluts' aren't OBSESSED with sex. It does not occupy a majority of their life. And none that I have asked have been offended with the label 'sexual.' Oh, and I did ask more people than those that are promiscuous. My sister's definition of the word, which admittedly is off and might be why she has no problem with it- 'A person who finds others 'hot' and would probably like to sleep with them.' AKA experiences sexual attraction.

[gnik]

You don't know if most people that aren't asexual assume that having sex is the only thing that matters.

I would love to know how you got this line out of shaedofblue's post. i really would. They pointed out that most people feel sexual attraction and it usually has a factor in their relationships. That is true- and much different than saying that sex is all that matters for sexuals. That latter statement isn't true.

here

They don't like having their privileges, the way that society assumes their experiences (in this case, feeling sexual attraction some of the time and having that be a factor in romantic relationships) are either universal or the only ones that matter, pointed out to them.

if you take out the () it's "They don't like having their privileges, the way that society assumes their experiences, are either universal or the only ones that matter, pointed out to them."

it's a bit confusing due to the language used. but it states that people that aren't asexuals don't like having it pointed out that they think that having sex at some point is universal or the only thing that matters

I use the term 'sexual' and yet I know that not all sexuals are sex crazed. heck, that type I actually have yet to find. Even the people I know who are what they themselves have labeled 'sluts' aren't OBSESSED with sex. It does not occupy a majority of their life. And none that I have asked have been offended with the label 'sexual.' Oh, and I did ask more people than those that are promiscuous. My sister's definition of the word, which admittedly is off and might be why she has no problem with it- 'A person who finds others 'hot' and would probably like to sleep with them.' AKA experiences sexual attraction.

This isn't something that you can look at, take a small sampling, and assume it's true to everyone. virtually everyone I ask has an issue with the term. only one person outside of this site didn't have a problem. so far there have been 3 people that say that almost no one had an issue with the term when they asked people, and 3 people that say that most people have an issue,if my memory serves me correct. However sluts is a good metaphor of how the term can make a person feel. What does slut mean? Someone who engages in a lot of sexual activity.

if there is still an issue, maybe we should go outside of this site, ask if it's offensive, and see what people think in general.

[NotAllHere]

But by assuming it is offensive, you are doing the same thing I'm doing. Taking a small sampling from your own experience and generalizing it to everyone. I did go off this website and ask- and I did so to people who have no idea what asexuality is and hence no reference to the way we are using it (yes, my friends and family don't know I'm asexual). I'm guessing what you mean by that, though, is going around to a random bunch of websites and asking about it. It would work, but it would all depend on the context of 'sexual' that we give and our attitude toward it. It's harder to know if people read that we are or aren't offended and go slightly off that. Your friends might have heard in your voice that the term offended you and thus found something in it to be offensive, whereas my friends found no reason to be offended because I didn't give off the vibe that there was some reason to be offended.

And, I can't really say if I think your right about shaedofblue, but I can definitely now see where you are coming from. it makes more sense without the ()'s in it.

[Guest]

Shouldn't it be up to the people being labeled?

Frankly, actually, no. It shouldn't always be up to the people being labeled.

Here's the thing. People hate being labeled as part of a majority. They don't like having their privileges, the way that society assumes their experiences (in this case, feeling sexual attraction some of the time and having that be a factor in romantic relationships) are either universal or the only ones that matter, pointed out to them. So when they get told they are sexual, or cisgender, or sometimes even white or heterosexual, they complain that they are being non-consensually labeled, but what it usually comes down to, what they are ultimately so offended by, is that their "normal" experiences are being decentered and made visible as another variable, in which there are other just as valid categories.

So, when majority groups are offended by a minority group's deliberately neutral language, there is good reason to examine the reasons for this reaction and not immediately acquiesce to it. Half the time they suggest "normal" as the replacement.

A term for people who experience sexual attraction that does not center them unnecessarily is necessary to discuss sexualnormativity in society. Sexual people probably aren't going to come up with another one that fits the bill, and people who want to dismantle the norms that deny their existence cannot wait around for more acceptable people to hand them down an acceptable vocabulary.

I have no problem with the word "sexual". I agree that it connotes extreme sexuality, but I understand that's not the way its being used here. (mostly, anyway)

Again, I don't think the words themselves are as important as the meaning behind them. Our world is becoming more and more integrated. You have different cultures coming together in a way that has never happened before. We need to become less sensitive to how people word things, and pay more attention to what people mean when the speak.

Personally, I find that discussion between the speaker and the audience member to be embarrassing.

That being said, ShadeofBlue's response is hella biased! Holy cow! So you just decided that any complaint that's being made by a member of the majority is bullshit and should be cast aside? What right is it of yours to determine the validity of someone else's offense? How dare you tell all sexuals that any time we are offended, that its just because we hate our privilege?

Your response, Shadeofblue, is the exact thing we're talking about. You don't get to discount people just because they're sexual.

[gnik]

But by assuming it is offensive, you are doing the same thing I'm doing. Taking a small sampling from your own experience and generalizing it to everyone. I did go off this website and ask- and I did so to people who have no idea what asexuality is and hence no reference to the way we are using it (yes, my friends and family don't know I'm asexual). I'm guessing what you mean by that, though, is going around to a random bunch of websites and asking about it. It would work, but it would all depend on the context of 'sexual' that we give and our attitude toward it. It's harder to know if people read that we are or aren't offended and go slightly off that. Your friends might have heard in your voice that the term offended you and thus found something in it to be offensive, whereas my friends found no reason to be offended because I didn't give off the vibe that there was some reason to be offended.

And, I can't really say if I think your right about shaedofblue, but I can definitely now see where you are coming from. it makes more sense without the ()'s in it.

If we were to ask on a bunch of sites, we would need an emotionless matter of fact way of asking. Maybe "Would you be offended if the word "sexual" is used to mean the group of people who feel sexual attraction?"

Something simple, that doesn't use connotations? Maybe we could make this into a research paper of some sort if things go smoothly to see how people react to the term? That way if it's offensive, then people can work to make a new term, and if it's not, then it can become more commonly known. This would remove the issue in either outcome.

[SFX]

Sexual means "1. Of, relating to, involving, or characteristic of sex, sexuality, the sexes, or the sex organs and their functions.

2. Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.

3. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction characterized by the union of male and female gametes:"

This is offensive for many reasons. For one thing the word itself is reserved for specific conversations. These are not conversations that one usually would be open about. It's a private matter for the most part. People wouldn't relate this to the third definition, due to being irrelevant. leaving the first and second definitions.

the first definition sounds like you are saying the person is always taking part in sexual activity.

the second definition is kind of obvious.

Would it make you less concerned if the dictionary listed another meaning, like this:

noun

4. a person who experiences sexual attraction

I also want to add the phrases that have sexual in them. sexual activity, sexual content, sexual desires. they all show that sexual is already understood to mean relating to sex.

That's obviously true, but it's very hard to talk about sexual orientations without relating to sex.

I can't seem to find the treads where "sexual" has been used negatively right now, maybe they got removed or something, but in any case it's been addressed a bit recently on the sex-positive threads.

I think it's good if anti-sexual statements are being addressed. It seems what you really want to achieve is to change the anti-sexual attitude of some people (and that's something to support), but I don't think that "banning" a term that more often than not is used in a non-offensive way will help all that much.

[gnik]

Seriously, what do you guys think about doing a web wide survey? Post on different forums asking what people's opinions on the term is. we ask the question in a non biased way, so as not to sway the results. Wait a week or two then gather the information. Them maybe have something written about the results.

If the results come back that people do find it offensive, then we could see about asking the same sites for options for names. It would solve the problem on the site.

If the results come back that people don't find it offensive, then the term will have gotten out there and it would remove the connotations associated with the word "sexual." Thus solving the connotation problem that people who find it offensive would have.

Either way, the site would get more attention, and people would find out a bit about asexuality. It's a win win for everyone.

[Guest]

I'm against it for reasons of:

laziness

skepticism about objectivity

not caring

feeling like maybe a sexual focused on sexual issues shouldn't be making policy decisions for asexuals

I am, however, very curious about it. If it were done, I'd like to see it done so that a few different variations are sent out to a few different locations, to see just how "objective" the wording of the survey is. I'm curious about the results for sure. I'm inclined to think that most people don't care either way and that the poll would show that.

[gnik]

I'm against it for reasons of:

laziness

skepticism about objectivity

not caring

feeling like maybe a sexual focused on sexual issues shouldn't be making policy decisions for asexuals

I am, however, very curious about it. If it were done, I'd like to see it done so that a few different variations are sent out to a few different locations, to see just how "objective" the wording of the survey is. I'm curious about the results for sure. I'm inclined to think that most people don't care either way and that the poll would show that.

I have to admit, a lot of it is my curiosity about the result. If we did it, we would want to have a neutral option.

[Nogitsune]

However sluts is a good metaphor of how the term can make a person feel. What does slut mean? Someone who engages in a lot of sexual activity.

Uh, no. That's like saying the n word means "a black person".

As for the survey, I don't really see the point, but hey, if you word the question subtly (as opposed to suggestively), I don't see the harm, either.

[Beachwalker]

Personally, I find that discussion between the speaker and the audience member to be embarrassing.

Why? If you had caused offense to someone and you were oblivious to this, wouldn't you prefer it was brought to your attention in a nonconfrontational manner. I would always rather know than not know and have the opportunity to address it.

[Guest]

Personally, I find that discussion between the speaker and the audience member to be embarrassing.

Why? If you had caused offense to someone and you were oblivious to this, wouldn't you prefer it was brought to your attention in a nonconfrontational manner. I would always rather know than not know and have the opportunity to address it.

Honestly, I think my answer would have been different prior to moving to Portland, OR. But since I've been here, i see so much of this, and it drives me crazy. The point of language is to convey a message. We are all responsible not just for what we say, but also for what we hear. If we choose to hear offense in things where no offense was meant, we need to take a step back and do some introspection.

In other words, we are just as responsible for avoiding feeling offended as other people are for offending us.

Yes, words like nigger should be avoided. But if a well meaning person is trying to have a conversation and uses a word that Person X just doesn't happen to personally like... well too frickin' bad. There are lots of words that I personally dislike, but I don't expect the rest of the world to bow to my personal taste. Language isn't meant to operate a level of "most morally pleasing" to any given person. That's far too high a standard to hold.

[Beachwalker]

Personally, I find that discussion between the speaker and the audience member to be embarrassing.

Why? If you had caused offense to someone and you were oblivious to this, wouldn't you prefer it was brought to your attention in a nonconfrontational manner. I would always rather know than not know and have the opportunity to address it.

Honestly, I think my answer would have been different prior to moving to Portland, OR. But since I've been here, i see so much of this, and it drives me crazy. The point of language is to convey a message. We are all responsible not just for what we say, but also for what we hear. If we choose to hear offense in things where no offense was meant, we need to take a step back and do some introspection.

In other words, we are just as responsible for avoiding feeling offended as other people are for offending us.

Yes, words like nigger should be avoided. But if a well meaning person is trying to have a conversation and uses a word that Person X just doesn't happen to personally like... well too frickin' bad. There are lots of words that I personally dislike, but I don't expect the rest of the world to bow to my personal taste. Language isn't meant to operate a level of "most morally pleasing" to any given person. That's far too high a standard to hold.

But surely you would rather know that the person is feeling offended by something you had said? And surely that person has a right to say something to you in an attempt to resolve it, rather than just avoiding you because they didn't understand your meaning and felt offended by it?

[gnik]

But if a well meaning person is trying to have a conversation and uses a word that Person X just doesn't happen to personally like... well too frickin' bad. There are lots of words that I personally dislike, but I don't expect the rest of the world to bow to my personal taste. Language isn't meant to operate a level of "most morally pleasing" to any given person. That's far too high a standard to hold.

Most people will take what is said first by the emotions that come when they read it. I felt that I needed to defend myself just from being called a "sexual," and now I know for a fact that I'm not the only one that has this reaction. This site is about making asexuallity known and educating people about it. This cannot happen if the audience finds the very term used to define them offensive. That is why I addressed this, emotions aside, but not ignored.