Labels

[trueblue]

I'm new on this site, having recently discovered the term 'asexuality', and there seems to be a hell of a lot of 'Am I asexual?' threads kicking around. It seems some of the more 'experienced' members have pretty strong ideas of what is and isn't classified as 'asexual', some stating that it if you have any kind of attraction to any sex than you cannot possibly be asexual. The definition on the front page of this site simply states 'Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction'. So really the question should be what constitues 'sexual' attraction? I fancy girls, but I don't want to have sex with them, so I wouldn't class that as a sexual attraction.

I think some people love to label themselves, be it 'asexual' 'sexual' 'pansexual' (whatever the hell that is) and the more bizarre and unobtainable the label the better, and if someone else dares claim they belong to the same label, woe betide them. Lets face it, everyone is on this site because they don't conform to the traditional stereotype of what a sexual relationship should be, so let's not get all 'asexualist' and make someone feel small or stupid because they don't conform to your idea of what an 'asexual' is. We're all in this together.

Rant over. I fancy a pint.

[Vampyremage]

Moved to Asexual Musings and Rantings.

Asexual Q&A Moderator

Vampyremage

[RTerroni]

When I go out to parties I sometimes like to get close to females (i.e. dancing) but that's about it.

[Quill Pen Gentleman]

I do acknowledge that people tend to strive for a lable but at the same time they want the one that is so damn specific that the fact that it is a label is now quite debatable. So, I can see your point.

But at the same time, I must point out that people are trying to figure out who they are and most people just don't fit into that black and white area and feel the need to describe themself with something that is quite specific that it "defines" them. I try to resist the temptation to "properly" label myself becuase it gets a bit cumbersome in everyday conversation. In my case, to properly label myself, it would sound like this:

Other person: "What is your preference?"

Me: "Well, I am a biological female with an androgynous gender who is romantically attracted to women who wear eye glasses and like anime but only after I form a small bond with them and I am sometimes attracted to men but only in a non-romantic way that involves wanting to cuddle with them. So I am a homo-demi-romantic, hetero sensual, asexual androgynous female."

Other Person: "WTF is that?"

So this is what I end up telling people when they ask:

"I'm an asexual lesbian." or I just say "I'm gay." It just makes things ten times easier.

Wow, what a tangeant I made. Oops. ^_^

[the-letter-a]

I agree with your definition of sexual attraction, I could look at someone and admire their appearance but that's about it. I only knew what I was very recently and looking back at my life now I've realised that I've always been like this. I guess knowing that I am an aromantic asexual kind of makes me feel better because then I can explain it for my own benefit. I understand what you mean by people thinking the more unobtainable label the better, I guess some people just want to seem (I don't know) superior?

[Beachwalker]

I'm new on this site, having recently discovered the term 'asexuality', and there seems to be a hell of a lot of 'Am I asexual?' threads kicking around. It seems some of the more 'experienced' members have pretty strong ideas of what is and isn't classified as 'asexual', some stating that it if you have any kind of attraction to any sex than you cannot possibly be asexual. The definition on the front page of this site simply states 'Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction'. So really the question should be what constitues 'sexual' attraction? I fancy girls, I like athletic, dominant girls, but I don't want to have sex with them, so I wouldn't class that as a sexual attraction.

I think some people love to label themselves, be it 'asexual' 'sexual' 'pansexual' (whatever the hell that is) and the more bizarre and unobtainable the label the better, and if someone else dares claim they belong to the same label, woe betide them. Lets face it, everyone is on this site because they don't conform to the traditional stereotype of what a sexual relationship should be, so let's not get all 'asexualist' and make someone feel small or stupid because they don't conform to your idea of what an 'asexual' is. We're all in this together.

Rant over. I fancy a pint.

Hey Trueblue, Welcome to Aven

Hope you enjoyed your pint. There are some 'Asexualists' who vehemently defend the sexual attraction defintion, almost religiously but not everyone uses that defintion. Many members are here because they are not interested in sex and don't desire sex. And the good thing about this place is being part of a community where not being interested in sex is the norm. When you have a few pints and what to kick back and relax pop into the 30 something's thread and say g'day.

[Great Thief Yatagarasu]

AVEN has it's problems. Reason being, everyone here is a normal, fallible human being. There are people here who are elitist, there are people here who are stupid or ignorant and lots of other negative things. Being honest, there are annoying people in EVERY community. It happens.

[Guest member25959]

It seems some of the more 'experienced' members have pretty strong ideas of what is and isn't classified as 'asexual', some stating that it if you have any kind of attraction to any sex than you cannot possibly be asexual.

What. No, what? You'll find that it's the newer members who make such claims, and the established members who question those. ''What exactly is sexual attraction'' comes up all the time, it's not an easy thing to be defined but there are threads that explain what it is.

I think some people love to label themselves, be it 'asexual' 'sexual' 'pansexual' (whatever the hell that is) and the more bizarre and unobtainable the label the better, and if someone else dares claim they belong to the same label, woe betide them.

Stick around in the community for a bit, you'll find that there's a whole bunch of vague cluster terms that attempt to describe the person neatly and end up doing the exact opposite. Looking at you, Tumblr.

[Guest]

Dig deeper. You'll find a lot of answers to your confusions and see theres a lot more grey than black and white to sexuality.

[trueblue]

Dig deeper. You'll find a lot of answers to your confusions and see theres a lot more grey than black and white to sexuality.

Thanks for everyone's replies and perspectives. I have indeed been digging deeper and can see that many other people have questioned the definition of asexuality and it seems to me it can be different for everyone. I guess what I don't like are all the silly little sub-categories (especially when I don't know the meaning of the word!) But, hey-ho, I'm happy I found this place. I don't feel so 'strange' any more (in fact I feel quite normal compared to a lot of you--- joke!). It's good to know there's a place where I can talk to like-minded people who understand.

Also, everyone on these forum boards seem to be intelligent (as far as I have discovered so far!), makes a nice change. Maybe there's some connection between asexuality and intelligence? Hmmm.....

[phantombutterfly]

So I relatively recently realized that I'm asexual, and since I've realized this some things have become much clearer to me, but things still aren't really as clear as I'd ideally like them to be. On the one hand, I absolutely identify as asexual- I don't feel sexual attraction. I've never looked at someone and thought, "Oh yeah, I'd like to have sex with them." However, I feel aesthetic attraction periodically, and sometimes it grows into sensual attraction. I guess my frustration is that 'asexual' doesn't feel like the very best label for me because it doesn't address the attraction I DO feel. I feel like feeling that attraction is a relevant and important part of who I am, and I don't have a good way of describing it. And the reason I feel like I need a label to describe it is because I now have a label for not feeling sexual attraction, I guess. Like, before I knew anything about asexuallity, I figured that sexual attraction just meant physical attraction. I really didn't realize that it meant that most people's attraction to others was sexually based. When people would see someone and say something like "I'd hit that" I kind of figured that most of the time it was just a crude way of saying "Oh, I find that person attractive." Now that I have a label for the feeling I don't experience, I feel like I want a label for the attraction I do feel. For me, it feels like it's a matter of how I present myself to the world and how I explain the way I fit in to the world. I found out that I'm asexual which is not a typical way of fitting in, so now I can understand more how I relate to other people and having the label makes it easier for me to explain myself to others whenever the need arises. But without a label for feeling lower level attraction it's harder to explain it and that bothers me. I've considered that I might fit better under Gray-A, but Gray-As seem to be people who sometimes feel sexual attraction, but that's not me. It's not occasional sexual attraction that I feel, it's lower level attraction. And the fact that there isn't a label for it seems to me to suggest that society looks at the attraction that I feel as kind of irrelevant. I don't mean to sound like I feel victimized... What I mean is that even in the asexual community, the stress is still on sexual attraction just like it is in the rest of the sexual world. Sexual attration isn't important to me, I have no desire to feel it for anyone except a romantic partner who I love very much (I think I might be demi-sexual, but never having been in any romantic relationship let alone a serious one, I don't feel like I can say either way yet.) But when I feel physical attraction, it does matter to me. It makes me sort of giddy and shy and it's kind of fun. I don't mind fantacizing about makiing out or cuddling with certain guys, but that's as far as my fantasies ever go. And in the same way that I'm not ashamed to identify as asexual because I don't feel sexual attraction, I'm not ashamed to acknowledge these attractions with some public label, but one just doesn't seem to exist. All the labels about physical attraction seem to deal with the ways you do or don't feel sexual attraction, and then there are the labels that deal with emotional attraction, but there are no labels for acknowledging the experience of the lower levels of attraction. I know on the AVEN wiki page it says that some asexuals don't buy the concepts of aesthetic and sensual attraction because they can connect those feelings with platonic objects, but for me, the aesthetic attraction I feel toward a cute guy is definitely different from the feeling I get from seeing a cute dog. And the feelings of satisfaction that I get from imagining physical contact with someone that I'm physically or emotionally attracted to is very different from the feeling I get from wanting to cuddle like, a cuddly looking stuffed animal or something. Maybe I've missed something, and there labels for this stuff and I'm getting all agitated over nothing. But from everything I've read, I'm not wrong here. I can tell the world confidently that I'm straight, asexual, and romantic, but I don't feel like the description is complete without acknowledging the lower level attraction I feel, and it just really bothers me that there's no concise way to present that facet of myself.

[katnya]

You're probably a heteroromatic asexual, just like me. Unless you're speaking of an even deeper meaning.

[Janus the Fox]

Yeah, similar here, as I do have aesthetic attractions for both guys and girls. At times it feels slightly more to it that that, but otherwise there is no sexual, romantic platonic, sensual or any desire to do so. Apperently the labels are WTFRomantic, WTFSexual etc. but I don't/can't use those and I just accept it for what it is and don't bother labeling it beyond the Ace-Bi Spectrum ... A-B Spec orientation... Heh... Sounds familiar...

[Guest]

Attraction is attraction. What you're talking about is desire, and desire is a whole different ball of wax. You experience attraction, it seems, but you experience little to no desire. In other words, your attraction doesn't really lead anywhere, as opposed to sexuals, who (at least sometimes) follow attraction with desire. That being said, most sexuals don't desire everything they experience attraction toward... the percentages differ person-to-person, with demi-sexuals being close to 100% (they only feel attraction for people the have emotional bonds with, but when they do feel attraction, it tends to manifest itself as desire). Someone like me is actually on the opposite end of the spectrum as demi-sexuals... I am far more likely to feel desire than I am to feel attraction. the two don't overlap very often for me. I'd say most people are somewhere in the middle.

[Kitty Spoon Train]

Attraction is attraction. What you're talking about is desire, and desire is a whole different ball of wax. You experience attraction, it seems, but you experience little to no desire. In other words, your attraction doesn't really lead anywhere, as opposed to sexuals, who (at least sometimes) follow attraction with desire. That being said, most sexuals don't desire everything they experience attraction toward... the percentages differ person-to-person, with demi-sexuals being close to 100% (they only feel attraction for people the have emotional bonds with, but when they do feel attraction, it tends to manifest itself as desire). Someone like me is actually on the opposite end of the spectrum as demi-sexuals... I am far more likely to feel desire than I am to feel attraction. the two don't overlap very often for me. I'd say most people are somewhere in the middle.

This.

Also, I can see quite a lot of myself in OP (and I identify as demi/grey): I totally understand what it means to see aesthetic attraction but not really have it trigger any kind of concrete physical desire, beyond maybe some kind of vague cuddle urge.

I don't generally publicly identify as anything though. Since I'm hetero-romantic I can get away with simply being "straight". I've got a bit of label-fatigue these days. My take is generally to be mindful of over-labelling, because it tends to lead to "living up to labels", rather than just using them as honest descriptions of who you actually are. And yes, I've been guilty of doing this to myself at times. :D

[WhenSummersGone]

...

[Touchofinsight]

This is basically how I see my self for most labels and discussions. The topic of this video doesn't really matter, its the ideology and how he states his position on movements and labels that I really agree with (which is found mostly in the first minute.)

[Kitty Spoon Train]

Nice clip! :)

I think labels can be useful for explaining things (both to oneself and others), but I think they're generally not so good in terms of "belonging to an identity" as such. As he says, you automatically tend to get baggage and stereotypes about that identity which aren't applicable. eg. Being asexual means that you're antisexual and repulsed by sex, etc.

[Janus the Fox]

I like that way of thinking, the term that strikes me is 'baggage' for reasons. Take Autism, well OK I have that, but hate the baggage it has for example, being lazy. With labels other people assume things because of the label, not because of you as a person which to me is quite tragic. Having the energy to explain things is not really me. Ah, your asexual, how's that feel like? Um, no I feel what I feel, not the labels.

[Kitty Spoon Train]

With labels other people assume things because of the label, not because of you as a person which to me is quite tragic. Having the energy to explain things is not really me. Ah, your asexual, how's that feel like? Um, no I feel what I feel, not the labels.

Yeah, it's a fine balance isn't it? Like, on the one hand a label can be good for explaining a general trend, but then people assume a whole bunch of stuff along with it. On the other hand, the existence of labels for specific orientations is useful to understand oneself better too, because it's very easy to go against what you really want and feel due to social pressure.

Take me for instance: I'm essentially what would be described as hetero-romantic demisexual on here, quite far towards the ace end of the spectrum even within that framework. Until I pinned it down, life was very weird, because I'm tentatively "straight", and thus social expectations of me (both external as well as the internalised ones I had of myself - from upbringing and such) were always typical heteronormative ones. It was always easy to go along into situations and relationships feeling that you just have to do things a certain way, even if it doesn't feel 100% natural or right, simply because that's the way it's done. That's part of "being a 'normal' straight person".

I would have avoided a lot of heartache if I knew what I was when I was 12. It doesn't mean that I have to carry the label as an identity badge as such, but it definitely would have been useful as a tool to describe - to both myself and others - why "normal" relationship models and dating flows don't work as they "should" with me.

[Guest]

I hate the restrictiveness of labels. I call myself asexual, by my take on the definition of asexual, I am. I don't experience sexual attraction, drive, and very low desire. But if I were to explain my reasons, there might be someone to pipe up and say ''No you're not''. This ties in with the baggage concept, and because I'm not antisocial, not repulsed, I may be assumed to be not really asexual.

Speaking of religion, the whole atheist thing, I know how he feels in a way. I consider myself an atheist, by my take on the definition I am atheist. I don't believe in a god or deity, I do not practice a religion. But I were to explain my reasons, someone might say ''No you're not''(see a pattern here?). Because I privately study religion, am fascinated by it, and am not in your face about of trying to convert people, I may be assumed to not be a real atheist. Particularly since my school has quite a few in your face people, ironically, it's a Christian school.

May I add, people against religion are antitheists. Most antitheists would be atheist, but not all atheists are antitheist.

[Qutenkuddly]

The topics 'A rant about labels' and 'This so defines my ideas on "labels"' have been merged with this one.

Qutenkuddly,

Asexual Musings and Rantings Moderator

[aland]

labels are for tins of soup not people, I wont be pigeonholed, i am what i am and if anyone has a problem then they can feck off

[specterspark]

The way I see it, labels aren't there to LIMIT a person!

A label, to me, is a constant reminder of something I discovered about myself. When I no longer fit the bill for said label, I try to find a new one!

Not only does it allow you to become more educated about different ways of life, but it allows for constant self-discovery and soul searching to find out who you truly are!

(Wow in retrospect, that sounded like a pep talk from some kind of movie or therapist!)

[byanyotherusername]

I was hanging out with a friend the other day. He was skyping another friend of his who lives in another country, and made a comment along the lines of, “She's asexual—nothing turns her on.”

So, first he outed to me to someone out of the blue without my permission (though, at least it was someone halfway around the world who has no ties to anyone else I know, which is probably why he assumed it was okay). Then he got the definition of asexuality wrong, prompting me to feel obligated to explain the difference between attraction and being turned on both to my friend and to this random stranger who didn't speak English as his first language.

After that my friend tried to argue with me, saying that he had another friend who called herself asexual because nothing turned her on except gay porn. At that point I gave up.

But I just get so sick of this. Needing to explain myself, or deciding not to explain myself and letting stuff like this slide, being misunderstood either way. Like, how am I supposed to argue with the fact that he has a friend who says she is asexual because nothing turns her on except gay porn? Do I say she's not “really asexual”? Isn't that elitist? At the time I said people have the right to identify however they want, and I believe that, but at a certain point the word becomes meaningless.

And I don't need a label, calling myself an “aromantic asexual” doesn't make me feel any differently than when I used to say I wasn't interested in dating and felt no rush to lose my virginity. People's reactions are the same either way—I'm either a late bloomer or an alien, or, in the absolute best case scenario, they say they'll accept me no matter what I am. Though this last one is often followed by an explicit or implied statement along the lines of: “but why do you need to make a point about it?”

And why do I?

I don't. They do. I don't talk about being asexual/not interested in dating/whatever unless someone else brings it up. (“We need to get you a boyfriend!” “So, do you have a partner yet?” “What do you think is sexy?” etc.)

I kind-of hate identifying as asexual, sometimes. It feels so incomplete as an explanation and no one understands what it means anyway—but often they think they do. And it feels like I'm being forced to talk about something that I would rather keep private. But the topic will come up whether I want it to or not, and I feel like I should use the word, to spread awareness or whatever, so that more people will understand. And I know that without attaching a word to the concept AVEN never would have sprung into being and so many more people would feel that something was wrong with them and no one could relate to their experience. The word “asexual” had a real, tangible, helpful effect on the world.

But isn't the fact that people need a label to legitimize their experience part of a larger problem in our culture, anyway? Why does it matter if my lifestyle is an orientation, a choice, both or neither?

Ugh.

[Qutenkuddly]

The thread "Another Rant on Labels" has been merged with this one.

Qutenkuddly,
Asexual Musings and Rantings Moderator

[Qutenkuddly]

After some discussion with Naosuu, a number of recent posts regarding labelling that turned to a discussion of the frequency of demi-sexuality have been split off and moved to the Grey Area forum.

Qutenkuddly,
Asexual Musings and Rantings Moderator

[Arf]

One thing that really annoys me about the ace community is that people who aren't on the ace spectrum are referred to as sexuals. The way I see it, there are a couple of things wrong with this:

a) Many asexuals do in fact have a sexuality—asexuality is not the absence of a sexuality, it is the absence of sexual attraction. There are aces who are kinky, have libidos, enjoy or don't mind sex, write/read erotica, etc. "Sexual" implies that asexuals cannot be sexual beings, which is untrue.

b) The word "sexual" might be exclusionary towards demisexuals and gray-asexuals who do experience sexual attraction and sometimes function as typical hetero/bi/pan/homo/etc-sexual people (ex: when in a relationship).

c) Referring to people as "sexuals" forces a sexual identity on to people who don't necessarily see themselves that way. This category might include groups who are sexualized or fetishized against their will, such as people of color, and victims of assault might find being referred to as "sexual" triggering.

Two words I've seen used instead are allosexual and non-asexual. In my opinion, these are much better than "sexual." Thoughts?

[. . .but there are sounds]

I feel this has almost an identical relationship to the gender queer community's use of the term cis and shares many of its problems. Where the cis/trans binary does slightly better is that the language targets precisely those who are matching in terms of gender and sex as opposed to a fuzzy area described by the absence of a negation. I don't have a better term for you, but I agree that sexual is less than ideal for all of the reasons you have stated plus the fact that I don't feel it is right, even as the minority, to create a label to describe another group as we have. It tends to lead to generalisation which in turn leads to antagonism (which we can clearly see demonstrated in both the usage of sexual on AVEN and cis on the internet more broadly).

[5_♦♣]

Non asexual is nothing more than a grammatically incorrect euphemism of saying sexual. And attaching a prefix doesn't change the fact that you're referring to people not on the specturm as sexual anyway. And to me, sexual is nothing more than a shorthand for saying someone experiences sexual attraction.