Asexuality

[- - - - -]

I get the quite acute feeling that human experience is too diverse and nuanced to ever be perfectly pinned down by verbal labels. Language can only ever approximate the richness and fuzziness of psychological reality.

[Naosuu]

I agree to a certain extent, but if one were to simply raise one's hands and yell, "there's no point!" why do labels carry the power that they do? Why is there a point in defining asexuality from Herero/homo/bisexuality if the human experience is so "nuanced" as you claim? I also agree that there are many different experiences, but by putting a label one says they share a similar experience. Exactly how people with a "sweet tooth" will all love/crave for sugary treats and foods.

[Guest]

I agree to a certain extent, but if one were to simply raise one's hands and yell, "there's no point!" why do labels carry the power that they do? Why is there a point in defining asexuality from Herero/homo/bisexuality if the human experience is so "nuanced" as you claim? I also agree that there are many different experiences, but by putting a label one says they share a similar experience. Exactly how people with a "sweet tooth" will all love/crave for sugary treats and foods.

I don't want to get into trouble for commenting, but...

this is why I think it makes sense to have labels for the ends of the spectrum and leave everything in the middle alone. Asexual makes sense because its an extreme. Aromantic makes sense because its an extreme. You're essentially labeling the outer boundaries, and I think that's very helpful. Gay and straight are similar... they are opposites and clearly defined and distinct. It would be silly to give names to each gradient in between.

[Sally]

I don't want to get into trouble for commenting, but...

this is why I think it makes sense to have labels for the ends of the spectrum and leave everything in the middle alone. Asexual makes sense because its an extreme. Aromantic makes sense because its an extreme. You're essentially labeling the outer boundaries, and I think that's very helpful. Gay and straight are similar... they are opposites and clearly defined and distinct. It would be silly to give names to each gradient in between.

Agree. But then what about gender?

[Guest]

I don't want to get into trouble for commenting, but...

this is why I think it makes sense to have labels for the ends of the spectrum and leave everything in the middle alone. Asexual makes sense because its an extreme. Aromantic makes sense because its an extreme. You're essentially labeling the outer boundaries, and I think that's very helpful. Gay and straight are similar... they are opposites and clearly defined and distinct. It would be silly to give names to each gradient in between.

Agree. But then what about gender?

Do you mean how to label male, female, trans, etc? I'm not good with gender stuff... I find it interesting but am mostly confused by it, so I try to roll with whatever people use for themselves.

[- - - - -]

Why is there a point in defining asexuality from Herero/homo/bisexuality if the human experience is so "nuanced" as you claim?

There is a point in that because labels make it a lot easier for us to talk about these things. They are kind of like a map. They help you find your way around but they are necessarily a crude simplification of the terrain.

I wasn't arguing against labels at all. I like labels and find them incredibly helpful. I just wanted to point out that we will never be able to find enough labels to perfectly represent every single person's psychological reality. We have to accept the fact that language is always just a simplified approximation of reality.

[test account]

A post.