Jump to content
Harley_arogreyace

"allosexual" and "alloromantic"

Have you heard of it?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. have you heard or read the word allosexual or alloromantic being used before?

    • yes
      21
    • no
      0


Recommended Posts

Im not sure how many people have heard the terms  allosexual and alloromantic as compared to referring to people who experience sexual or romantic attraction as 'sexuals' and 'romantics' but these words (allosexual/alloromantic) where created to describe such people in a clear and formal way. Im not one to tell others what to say and not say, but i personally like using these word more than saying sexuals and romantics. Especially when speaking.           ex: someone trying to ask if you experience sexual attraction "are you asexual or are you a sexual?" or telling people you are aromantic "I am aromantic" 'A romantic? Like you love romance and things?'                                                                                                                                                            Idk I just think that it makes people communicate more clearly.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, sexual is sometimes taken as an oversexualisation. 

 

This was one of the better collections of reasonings for different prefixes. Personally I love poikki, but in the outside world I'll use allo and in ace/aro spaces I'll either use allo or no prefix depending on the context. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BionicPi said:

Additionally, sexual is sometimes taken as an oversexualisation.

This is at least as much the case with "romantic" being interpreted as "hyper romantic".
A difference is that, in many societies, the concept of "too romantic" does not exist,. (Where as "too sexual" tends to be widely understood and accepted. Even by allosexuals.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that using "sexual" to describe non-asexual people isn't that great. I dunno, to me, calling people who are celibate "sexual" is a bit silly, while calling them allosexual would be accurate. I tend to shorten "allosexual" and "alloromomantic" to simply "allo". This does mean that context is important as to whether I'm referring to allosexuals or alloromantics or both. I've no doubt that allos will get offended by aces and aros by the word "allo". This is based on the fact that there are cis people who think that "cis" is an insult...

 

I've heard an argument against using "allosexual" which is that the Quebecois word for "queer" is "allosexuel". I find this argument incredibly stupid. They are two different words in two different languages that happen to sound similar. This isn't exactly an uncommon occurrence. It's not "appropriating" that word because they aren't even in the same language! To me this argument reeks tumblr getting offended for the sake of being offended.

 

(Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit salty. With pride month came my facebook feed being flooded by anti-ace rhetoric from the LGBT+ community. So yeah, I'm kinda pissed off at allos atm)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2017 at 3:04 AM, Zemaddog said:

I agree that using "sexual" to describe non-asexual people isn't that great. I dunno, to me, calling people who are celibate "sexual" is a bit silly, while calling them allosexual would be accurate. I tend to shorten "allosexual" and "alloromomantic" to simply "allo". This does mean that context is important as to whether I'm referring to allosexuals or alloromantics or both. I've no doubt that allos will get offended by aces and aros by the word "allo". This is based on the fact that there are cis people who think that "cis" is an insult...

 

I've heard an argument against using "allosexual" which is that the Quebecois word for "queer" is "allosexuel". I find this argument incredibly stupid. They are two different words in two different languages that happen to sound similar. This isn't exactly an uncommon occurrence. It's not "appropriating" that word because they aren't even in the same language! To me this argument reeks tumblr getting offended for the sake of being offended.

 

(Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit salty. With pride month came my facebook feed being flooded by anti-ace rhetoric from the LGBT+ community. So yeah, I'm kinda pissed off at allos atm)

I've gotten hateful comments on my blog from someone who hates the word allosexual. They seem to think it's inherently offensive to have a word that groups LGB people with heterosexuals on the dimension of sexual attraction. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ettina said:

I've gotten hateful comments on my blog from someone who hates the word allosexual. They seem to think it's inherently offensive to have a word that groups LGB people with heterosexuals on the dimension of sexual attraction. 

I've seen that sort of stuff as well. It doesn't make any sense to me. I wonder if they think it's inherently offensive to group people who believe in a deity or deities as "theists". If they think it is inherently offensive to do this, why? And if not, how is this scenario different to grouping people who experience sexual attraction under one label?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ettina said:

I've gotten hateful comments on my blog from someone who hates the word allosexual. They seem to think it's inherently offensive to have a word that groups LGB people with heterosexuals on the dimension of sexual attraction. 

A friend recently used this against me. I argued cis is basically the same (groups men and women by gender). Don't think I was listened to. Also got the oppression olympics. It was extremely disappointing from someone I trusted fairly well in such matters.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've come across people also using zedsexual and zedromantic as this is the antithesis of Asexual/Aromantic. Allo works just as well though and I think is more widely used

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would use allo for the same reasons of clarity - 'asexual' and 'a sexual' just sound too similar as spoken words, in some contexts. And getting offended over people merely stating facts (by grouping everyone who feels sexual attraction under the same umbrella regardless of actual orientation) is a bit ridiculous (this is one reason I wished I could have become a rich recluse in high school :P)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/06/2017 at 6:18 PM, Untamed Heart said:

I would use allo for the same reasons of clarity - 'asexual' and 'a sexual' just sound too similar as spoken words, in some contexts.

Sometimes in the printed context too.
Most obviously scanned documents originally printed in fonts which are difficult for OCR. Without a fair amount of NLP software won't be able to recognise that "It was aromantic evening." should be "It was a romantic evening."
Even in modern documents missing spaces are a common form of typo...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2017 at 8:24 PM, BionicPi said:

 

 

This was one of the better collections of reasonings for different prefixes. 

Thank you so much for linking me to this! I never knew the history behind the terms we use and honestly i had only heard allosexual, sexual, and non-ace used before!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember seeing another one that isn't on the list recently on AVEN. I forget what it was but apparently it is new. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×