Terminology Poll

[greenchestnuts]

Hi everyone,

After a lot of discussion in the Tumblr asexual communities, I've created a poll trying to get some feedback on preferences for a term for people who aren't asexual, demisexual, or grey-asexual. The link to the poll, and a brief explanation of why it is necessary, is here at my Tumblr. Even though this project came out of things on one particular social media site, I'm hoping to get a wide cross-section of responses from across the Internet, so I'm sharing it here.

Thanks!

Comments

[gehayi]

I can't answer on Tumblr because I don't have one, but how about just plain sexual?

[allati]

The tumblr link says sexual is a bad option for many reasons, but it doesn't really bother to specify them. I can't think of any issues with it, so I don't know why I would be thinking about other options. There's also, as a result of people making this assumption on my behalf, no option for "sexual" in the poll (only *sexual, which is not the same thing.)

You don't need tumblr to answer the poll, I think.

[sqbr]

I tried to do your poll but I find I don't care, any of them will do (I am not feeling very well, so concentrating on the answers was more than my brain was up to, sorry)

[notthemarimba]

I am also deeply curious on this point. Nobody on tumblr has ever been able to point me to a cogent argument as to why "sexual" is a bad option. The only argument I've seen on tumblr is that it makes it sound like the person is all about sex, which doesn't hold any water to me.

[bubbleblower]

I think the whole point of this community is that we tend to be, on average, less about sex than the general population. So "Sexual" might be the best term for the ones who are not us.

Brainstorming a bit:

If you want a different term, maybe we should use something other than "___sexual". Maybe "sex-centered" or "genital-oriented" or something?

Or maybe we need something analogous to the word "vanilla" as used in the kink communities, such as "standard" or "erotypical"?

Something like "erotypical" would differentiate them from those of us who feel erotic attraction that is not based on a desire for coitus or other genital-oriented sex.

Mischievous thought: "McSexual", indicating willingness to take whatever comes off the assembly line?

[notthemarimba]

If the issue with "sexual" is that it reduces people to being all about sex, how on earth would "sex-centered" or "genital-oriented" be any better?

Also, "McSexual" seems very dismissive of people who do experience sexual attraction as consumers and predators...

[greenchestnuts]

This post by missvoltairine, while I don't agree with all of it, does a pretty good job of laying out the issues. Basically, lots of people are punished for being sexual or too sexual or sexual in the wrong ways, because of their sexual orientation, their gender, their race, their ethnicity, etc., and so labeling them "sexuals" is like rubbing salt into wounds. It's a word that hurts people and is used to hurt people, and to me, that's a good enough reason to discontinue it.

And you are correct: the poll is open to everyone, whether or not you have a Tumblr.

[jeshyr]

Not all but most of what she says in that post implies that any single word which lumped all non-ace-type peoples together would be just as bad as "sexual" ... so I am somewhat baffled about why it is good evidence for finding a different single word to lump them all together.

[allati]

I really don't understand how the vast majority of what she says is accurate, let alone useful in light of this poll.

Calling people sexual is rape-enabling because it makes it sound like "they want it" (...), and other related issues (where I have no idea what she's getting at). In what way does any term in the poll rectify this issue.

Sexuality is not a monolith, a single name for it is inaccurate. How does trying to find a single name for it change this problem?


If you're trying to help people who it's hurting, how does picking another label and forcing it on people who in most cases will have had absolutely no say in choosing it make any sense, especially if it resolves nothing it's setting out to?

[greenchestnuts]

I don't agree with her proposed solution partially because I know people identify as more things than heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and pan/polysexual, and so writing them all out will never be totally inclusive. I think it's important to have a concise term with which we can discuss our outgroup, the 92-99% of the population that isn't like us. However, her post illustrates some of the ways in which "sexual" has been used to hurt people. I myself am uncomfortable with the use of "sexuals" because I know that throughout history, many groups have been punished or hurt because they were viewed as too sexual.

Besides that, "sexuals" is very vague and inaccurate. Asexuals can be sexual, too, if we have sex or act on sexual arousal in some way. "Asexual" only has one other meaning, reproducing without a partner, but "sexual" has a host of different meanings, and I think if we try to set up "sexual" as an antonym of "asexual" we're going to contribute to stereotypes about aces not having sex drives and never having sex.

[greenchestnuts]

(partially c&ped from above)

I don't agree with her proposed solution partially because I know people identify as more things than heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and pan/polysexual, and so writing them all out will never be totally inclusive. I think it's important to have a concise term with which we can discuss our outgroup, the 92-99% of the population that isn't like us. So, to that end, yeah, this doesn't solve anything. But I think if we're going to use a single term, as we should, "sexuals" is a particularly egregious one because of the many groups of people who have been punished for being perceived as too "sexual" over the years. People with privilege can and do use the perceived sexuality of people with less privilege, against them.

Also, as I said above-- "sexuals" is very vague and inaccurate. Asexuals can be sexual, too, if we have sex or act on sexual arousal in some way. "Asexual" only has one other meaning, reproducing without a partner, but "sexual" has a host of different meanings, and I think if we try to set up "sexual" as an antonym of "asexual" we're going to contribute to stereotypes about aces not having sex drives and never having sex.

[allati]

So, "asexual" is vague and inaccurate. Basically, we should be seeking a rename as well, that is more encompassing? "Asexual" creates those stereotypes without "sexual" as a counterpart.

Her solution is a bit daft. "Write them all out" has never been an issue for me because of laziness, it's always been "shit, I'm missing out ones I've never heard of, and that really bothers me". I would use *sexual, but I don't see how that solves the problem, it still brings it down to sexual. I don't know why "sexual orientation" isn't an issue but "sexual" is, and I don't know why nobody finds "bisexual" and "heterosexual" an issue. All of these terms reduce someone to "likes to fuck" or "in what way they like to fuck". Maybe having never been victim to it or known anyone who's been victim to it, I'm having a hard time understanding it because it's purely intellectual for me and the logic isn't quite working for me yet. I'll get there eventually most likely.


I haven't actually ever seen people use the label "sexual" in conjunction with using people's sexuality against them. I've only ever seen people go right to the point, describing people's behaviour. I have limited experience, though.


Personally, I'd be really annoyed if anybody applied any of the terms in the poll to me (except *sexual, because that's shorthand for "idk your orientation yet, soz"). I don't mind the concept of me being "sexual", but I do mind the concept of an external group trying to apply wacky labels to me, which is how this comes across.

[greenchestnuts]

I think there's a big difference between the problems with "asexual" and with "sexual." Asexual basically has two meanings, and only one of them applies to people. If you describe someone as asexual, a few people will make budding jokes, but that's because they've never heard of the other meaning, and that's something we're fixing with awareness and education. However, if you describe someone as sexual, what does that mean? That they have sex? That they experience sexual arousal? That they enjoy sex? That they experience sexual attraction? Three of those definitions can apply to aces. If we're going to have a word to define everyone who's not us, as I believe we should to facilitate discussion, that word should be something that can't be used to describe us.

When I say that people use "sexual" as a weapon, I don't mean the way we're applying it, but the word in general. For example, as a resident of the US, I can't think of any racial groups of color that don't have an associated stereotype about their sexuality. Often it's about hypersexuality, and these ideas bias jury trials, influence how teachers interact with their kids, etc. Or, for another example, the stereotype that gay men are sexual to the point of being hypersexual is used to portray them as predators and whip up homophobia. Not everyone gets to express their sexuality in a way free of repercussions or social fetters; in fact, most people don't. Many people are punished or hurt for being sexual or perceived as sexual, in any sense of the word.

The concept of "sexual" is so fraught, troubled and nuanced, and it means so much besides the meaning we're trying to establish here.