Is the label allosexual is important to you?

[nonmerci]

So on AVEN there is this discussion about the term "allosexual", saying that the term allosexual should not be used and that we should talk about non-asexual or sexual instead. The argument being that "allo" is a stupid prefix, that it creates a problem with the wors "allosexuel" in Franch that means "queer", and that it grouped queer people (bisexual, esbian, gay, etc) with their oppressor (heterosexual), or that the word isn't useful because wan refer to people by their sexual orientation instead.

 

In the discussion it was mentioned some aro "but not asexual" people use that term, to which a person replies somthing like "I'm still waiting for an aro who isn't asexual to tell me the label is important for them", and indeed you are the only one who can tell what you think on the subject so... Here we go. Aro allo, tell me your opinion!

 

Do you use that term and why?

Is it important to you?

Would you like people to use another term, or even don't use the concept at all?

 

[aro_elise]

i wouldn't say it's important for me to call myself that, but it's important that nobody tries to tell me not to.  and the term doesn't suggest anything about who is or isn't oppressed--it groups those people together because they are in the same group of people who experience sexual attraction, that's a fact.  and i'm still waiting for a gay, bi, etc. aro to tell me they have a problem with being referred to as allo, but if they did, i wouldn't refer to that individual as such.  

[Mark]

27 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

So on AVEN there is this discussion about the term "allosexual", saying that the term allosexual should not be used and that we should talk about non-asexual or sexual instead.

Maybe this bunch of bigots should be called "non-allosexual" :)
Moreover it was the asexual community, i.e.AVEN, who coined "allosexual" as an antonym of "asexual".

[nonmerci]

16 minutes ago, Mark said:

Maybe this bunch of bigots should be called "non-allosexual" :)
Moreover it was the asexual community, i.e.AVEN, who coined "allosexual" as an antonym of "asexual".

 

That's one of the problem mentioned by the people who are against it (there are non-asexual in here) : that the word was coined by asexual and not by the people it describes and who get the term forced on themselves even if they don't or don't identify with it.

[Aronaut]

Very interesting topic for a newcomer like me. May I ask a question? 
 

Who exactly asked to remove that label? Was it an allo person? Ace? Any of the other identities? 
 

I always assumed (I’m sorry for the nativity) if I say I’m aroace, that means I’m neither inclined to romance nor sex. And if I say I am aro, that means I am inclined or at least willing to have sex. (I have never used any term for myself apart from being ‘straight’  before I start to doubt myself; and I used that word very rarely; only when people asked me directly for my sexuality). So having so many to chose from might really be overwhelming and I think sometimes not using any would do the trick as well. For example: not using aro would automatically means you are romantic (oh god, is that the right counterpart to aro??). 
 

Thinking further down the lane, there is one option where I can imagine the use of allo in context to aro: which is when an aroace person is in a relationship with a partner, has sex and says: I am not not aro allo, but we have sex. That means you have sex because it is important to your partner and you’re making a concession for whatever sake there is. In this case it sounds a little like a cry for help in my ears *cough*. On the other hand, saying I’m aroace but I have sex for the sake of my partner is also an option and sounds less confusing. 
 

Back to my question: if the person or group who do not want the usage of allo is the allo group itself, it reminds me a little of the ‘white people’ premise where the obvious does not want to be called out. It’s like they have been in their bubble for too long to acknowledge that they too belongs to some sort of group instead of reigning supreme and being the norm. 
 

if it’s one of the lgbt++ community, then well, might as well consider it if there is a consensus since I feel like nothing is set in stone yet and more and more definitions and micro groups emerge day after day (I encountered so many groups in a short amount of time that I barely dare to use any term recklessly now because I really do get confused all day long). I think just because something is used today doesn’t mean it has to be used tomorrow when there is solid reason not to. It just depends on who the one offended is. 

[nonmerci]

In the thread there were different people, but they are not all asexual. The non-asexual people seemed te be LGBT++ for what I understood from their responses.

46 minutes ago, Aronaut said:

I always assumed (I’m sorry for the nativity) if I say I’m aroace, that means I’m neither inclined to romance nor sex. And if I say I am aro, that means I am inclined or at least willing to have sex. (I have never used any term for myself apart from being ‘straight’  before I start to doubt myself; and I used that word very rarely; only when people asked me directly for my sexuality). So having so many to chose from might really be overwhelming and I think sometimes not using any would do the trick as well. For example: not using aro would automatically means you are romantic (oh god, is that the right counterpart to aro??). 

Saying you are aroace indeed means no romantic or sexual attraction. But saying aro alone doesn't mean you are not ace. Usually I only precise aroace when it is useful to the topic, mainly because I identify more with the aro part of my identity than the ace one. There are also people who uses the "just aro" label because they don't feel the need to label their asexual orientation or don't think it is relevant. So we can't really assume here.

Usually, the counterpart to aromantic is alloromantic, but after I saw this discussion I wonder if the alloromantic would not prefer to be just call romantic. I doubt everything right now.

[mewix]

I think people can choose to use either allosexual or sexual whichever they want so long as people aren't forced into it and in many contexts outside we talk about the other sexualities separately so lumping them all doesnt make sense. Yeah at first I found allo a bit redundant but I can see the advantages in using it in comparison as long as it makes sense otherwise I would drop the Allo bit. It's weird I guess normally we don't refer to people as sexuals to begin with either but I think non-asexual sounds even weirder, though I use "not asexual". I can see allosexual being a problem in the french context though. 

On AVEN I noticed that there were assumptions made about "sexuals" that sexuals "need" sex which is not true or maybe this was from people who are sexual themselves ? I think thats generalisation, and I guess sexual can imply stuff like that, even someone with a low sex drive if they aren't asexual technically a "sexual". Maybe another way to say this is "having sexual attraction" but that's a bit of a mouthful lol. Like there was a sort of generalised vibe of this is what "sexuals" are like vs "asexuals".  But then again I guess still sexual makes more sense than allosexual in describing someone. Allosexual just sounds like "im not asexual". 

Sexuality can go up and down or depend on the person or gender of such someone and is not a need as such imo. And some asexuals seem to have sexuality but only to themselves or to fantasy, are they not "sexuals" too?  I guess the sexual concept does not apply in that sense.

I don't go on AVEN a lot not being asexual I only been on it vaguely a few times to ask some questions I had and browse (though im sure at one point I thought I could be). Still if it weren't for me looking into Asexuality I probs wouldnt have looked into Aromanticism.

1 hour ago, Aronaut said:

Back to my question: if the person or group who do not want the usage of allo is the allo group itself, it reminds me a little of the ‘white people’ premise where the obvious does not want to be called out. It’s like they have been in their bubble for too long to acknowledge that they too belongs to some sort of group instead of reigning supreme and being the norm. 

I think that's unfair. Homosexuals have been suppressed in many societies and still are. Like for sure I find it unfair that forms do not include an asexual box or such and the lack of sexuality or over the top saturation in society. But I think if people do not want a label it shouldnt be forced on them.

And gays/lesbians face a lot more problems like getting kicked out the house especially if their household is strongly religious this still happens. Meanwhile if you are celibate (regardless of asexuality) that is seen as better than being gay by far such as just being dedicated to faith etc. 

Allo is literally putting asexual as the comparison operator. As allo means other. So that puts asexual as the default. 

I have nothing against the term itself but I don't think that comparison to white people makes a lot of sense. And even people with sexual attraction are fighting against the fact that sexual culture has gotten over the top these days. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by mewix

[DeltaAro]

1 hour ago, nonmerci said:

That's one of the problem mentioned by the people who are against it (there are non-asexual in here) : that the word was coined by asexual and not by the people it describes and who get the term forced on themselves even if they don't or don't identify with it.

This is very common, though. Like with lesbian – the label comes from a straight, male 19th century poet. Not from actual lesbians. [as an outsider, I still kind of like lesbian, because it’s just a simple geographic term – “from the island Lesbos” – that got a special meaning. Very neutral. No connotations besides Sappho. It’s also international and similar in most languages. You can’t say that about “gay”. ].

But in the end this is not a democratic decision anyway. It’s not like all cisgender people came together and decided on a label – instead some researcher coined it (who is cis, but still it was just he himself who coined that term). Of course trans was invented by a cis researcher, too.

Some labels for whatever reason simply get entrenched in language… sure afterwards certain labels may get sanctioned or recommended by major organizations who represent those groups. But usually they didn’t invent the labels.

Regarding allosexual – nobody knows this word outside of the aro and ace universe. So it could still be replaced with some effort.

[Aronaut]

20 minutes ago, mewix said:

I think that's unfair. Homosexuals have been suppressed in many societies and still are.

Oh, no no. I am not referring to the homosexual community here. I am referring to... hmm... I guess we can call them white cis male, although I am not sure if that’s correct either. The common straight white male. But I guess most of them wouldn’t even know such words exist in the first place (?). I am just assuming here. I guess if they know there is a term for them they might not want it. It’s just that some people do not want to be included in anything remotely against their beliefs. And some people don’t even think there is another way of life other than their own. I had men not believing me when I said I wasn’t into sex. Or relationship. They assumed I was playing coy. Or they straight asked me if I had bad experience with other men - as if that’s their problem to solve. That’s why I made that comparison. Not all men are like that. And there are also women who wouldn’t understand. 

40 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

 I doubt everything right now.

That’s how I feel my life right now ?

[mewix]

28 minutes ago, Aronaut said:

I had men not believing me when I said I wasn’t into sex. Or relationship. They assumed I was playing coy. Or they straight asked me if I had bad experience with other men - as if that’s their problem to solve. That’s why I made that comparison. Not all men are like that.

Oh yeah tru I know some guys like that who won't take no for an answer (i mean not to the point of actually forcing you just like still continue to push) regardless of your sexuality such as asexual or lesbian (or I heard sometimes that one works I know some people pretended with it). Or even if you are just not interested in them or that kind of thing. They think if they do the right thing they can solve this problem or yeah treat you like you are shy. Stuff like "but sex is fun, don't you wanna try it?" For me it's complicated exactly what, I am questioning (I am not ace tho) but yeah pushing anyone to sex is not acceptable I think and especially if you know someone is asexual surely that is a boundary to respect.

28 minutes ago, Aronaut said:

And some people don’t even think there is another way of life other than their own.

Yea that's often the case for some people it's hard for them to look out and see how others live.

Edited August 3, 2021 by mewix

[DeltaAro]

17 minutes ago, Aronaut said:

Oh, no no. I am not referring to the homosexual community here. I am referring to... hmm... I guess we can call them white cis male, although I am not sure if that’s correct either. The common straight white male.

Only that ‘allosexual’ doesn’t mean that.

The problem is that certain properties are not independent from each other. Sometimes the dependence is so strong, it’s strict logical inclusion. As it is with homosexual => allosexual. This is a problem for the standard theory of social justice, which analyzes persons regarding certain aspects or dimensions (on which they can be either privileged or oppressed).

For some people it doesn’t make much sense to speak of an allosexual aspect of a person, that can be isolated from a homosexual aspect.

[JustMe]

I think the word "sexual" is more direct than "allosexual" bc you could even as stranger interpret what it means. When I heard the first time the word "allosexual" I was quite confused. On the other hand "sexual" sounds like those people would  do nothing than daydreaming about sex. And "non-asexual" is just weird

 

[Aronaut]

This is confusing. But I do understand where all the aspects come from. 

There are words and slangs that are hurtful to a certain group of people and no matter how small it is, they should be considered and no matter if the word is taken out of context or being used solemny (see picking up the soap), it shouldn't be used bc it will always recall the trauma for the victims involved (for example the french queer community).

If it's just nitpicking (Avon community) then I won't even take that seriously to be honest. 

By definition through Google: "Allo- comes from Greek állos, meaning “other.” This word's distant cousins in Latin, alius and alter, which have similar definitions, give us words such as alien and alternative. The opposite of allo- is the form auto-, from Greek autós, “self.”"

For someone like me who doesn't have all vocabs in place I find this word really confusing... I'm sorry.
To what I have been made believe, having sexual urges or needs are kinda natural to the vast population (althought I am not sure now lol) - should it even be called 'other'? At least I can see why the French call their queer community allo-... they made more sense? 

 

What about using sex-positive? Or is that not possible because of the sex positive movement? (Asking because I've seen this being used often while mingling in the ace community) 

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Aronaut

[Jot-Aro Kujo]

Yes, it is important to me. As an aromantic person, I'm generally assumed to be asexual. I am not asexual, and calling myself allosexual allows me to convey that. Why should I call myself "non-asexual"? Why do I need to define my sexuality around asexuality?

Plus, frankly, the argument that allosexual is a bad term because (insert reason here) originated with aphobes/exclusionists who wanted to take away the language ace people use to describe their experiences- You can even still find it used "ironically" by aphobes to this day. For YEARS the ace community fought to convince people that "allosexual" is not a dirty word. I find it extremely telling that only once allo aros started using the term to refer to ourselves, suddenly all these aces think it's a term that shouldn't be used anymore... They're just doing the same thing. People see a group they don't like use words that are relevant to them, they decide to take those words away to prevent them from talking about their experiences. This happened to aces, they fought against it along with their allies, and now they're turning around and doing the exact same thing to allo aros because they don't like us. That's all it is.

[DeltaAro]

2 hours ago, Aronaut said:

By definition through Google: "Allo- comes from Greek állos, meaning “other.” This word's distant cousins in Latin, alius and alter, which have similar definitions, give us words such as alien and alternative. The opposite of allo- is the form auto-, from Greek autós, “self.”"

For someone like me who doesn't have all vocabs in place I find this word really confusing... I'm sorry.
To what I have been made believe, having sexual urges or needs are kinda natural to the vast population (althought I am not sure now lol) - should it even be called 'other'? At least I can see why the French call their queer community allo-... they made more sense? 

The “other” of allo here means: towards other* people. So allosexual = someone who is sexually attracted to other people.

* It can’t be only directed at oneself. If someone solely feels such an auto sexual attraction, it would also be a type of asexuality. So allosexuality is a quite precise term

2 hours ago, Aronaut said:

What about using sex-positive? Or is that not possible because of the sex positive movement? (Asking because I've seen this being used often while mingling in the ace community) 

1. Yes, it is the name of a social/political movement
2. (a) “X-positive” for humans means either “has a positive attitude towards X” or (b) in a medical context “has a certain (infectious) disease” – e.g. HIV-positive.

=> Does not work!

Edited August 4, 2021 by DeltaV

[Agape]

We find the term "allosexual" to be important, as we didn't actually know that it was possible to be aro without being ace for a very long time (and would've figured out we were aro much earlier if we'd known that it could be used independently from the term asexual). So it's important to those in our system that experience sexual attraction that we can say we're alloaro (which... "non-asexual/sexual aromantic" doesn't really have a shorthand that's equivalent to aroace) so that other people will be more aware that being aro while feeling sexual attraction is something that exists!

[mewix]

6 hours ago, Aronaut said:

For someone like me who doesn't have all vocabs in place I find this word really confusing... I'm sorry.
To what I have been made believe, having sexual urges or needs are kinda natural to the vast population (althought I am not sure now lol) - should it even be called 'other'? At least I can see why the French call their queer community allo-... they made more sense? 

 

What about using sex-positive? Or is that not possible because of the sex positive movement? (Asking because I've seen this being used often while mingling in the ace community) 

Hmm I don't think sex is a need or an urge though for everyone. It's a want yeah, seen as a way of getting close and in some cases it can be involuntary (that puts kind of dark images in my mind :/) but I think in the cases it feels like a desperate need that is often driven by trauma. I guess its a need in the bio sense that some people need to make babies for there to be a population. But yea most people are not asexual ofc but I guess it is in comparison (and I guess now its stated what sense other is meant)

The thing is your sexuality and being sex positive is not related you can be negative or just neutral to it and it is possible to be celibate completely without being Ace as a lifestyle choice.

But yea sex positive is pretty much to do with the movement at this point and there is some pushback to some unintended aspects e.g. too much acceptance of non consensual/barely consensual violence in sex.

39 minutes ago, Agape said:

. So it's important to those in our system that experience sexual attraction that we can say we're alloaro

Yeah that shorthand is useful for sure and important. 

4 hours ago, DeltaV said:

The “other” of allo here means: towards other* people. So allosexual = someone who is sexually attracted to other people.

* It can’t be only directed at oneself. If someone solely feels such an auto sexual attraction, it would also be a type of asexuality. So allosexuality is a quite precise term

Yea in that sense it makes sense if it only means other people although the word is not quite so clear sometimes if you take the defintion of Allo on it's own. If it was defined that way more often it would help. 

I do still sometimes think of metal alloys and thinking so which two or more metals have been combined.. xP yeah makes sense. That does put another question in my mind if some "allos" do not have a sexuality directed towards themselves and only exclusively externally. 

 

[nonmerci]

Thanks for al your responses, that's very interesting.

[Mark]

On 8/3/2021 at 11:38 PM, Aronaut said:

What about using sex-positive? Or is that not possible because of the sex positive movement? (Asking because I've seen this being used often while mingling in the ace community)

Someone of any sexual orientation, including asexual, can be sex-positive. Thus it makes little sense to attempt to use it as an antonym of asexual.

[eatingcroutons]

On 8/4/2021 at 4:00 AM, nonmerci said:

and that it grouped queer people (bisexual, esbian, gay, etc) with their oppressor (heterosexual)

This argument is disingenuous at best. The words "sexual" and "non-asexual" do exactly the same thing. 

On 8/4/2021 at 4:00 AM, nonmerci said:

the term allosexual should not be used and that we should talk about non-asexual or sexual instead.

"Non-asexual" seems like an overly contrived double negative to me. 

Calling people "sexual" has its own problems. If someone wants to identify that way then sure, more power to them. But as a general label for third parties? Consider the connotations of calling a woman, especially a woman of colour, "sexual" in conversation. It brings up connotations of objectification, and assumptions of sexual availability, none of which are particularly comfortable. "Sexual" comes with multiple meanings and significant cultural baggage. 

Edit: Case in point: I am AFAB, generally present as a woman, and when I tried reading that AVEN thread just now I had to stop because I was extremely skeeved out by people referring to people like me as "sexuals" and "sexual people". I've had far too many bad experiences of people using that sort of language to describe me. 

On 8/4/2021 at 4:00 AM, nonmerci said:

the word isn't useful because wan refer to people by their sexual orientation instead.

My sexual orientation is complicated! But the one thing I can be 100% certain about my sexuality is that I am allo. 

On 8/4/2021 at 4:00 AM, nonmerci said:

it creates a problem with the wors "allosexuel" in Franch that means "queer"

My understanding is that it is one of several terms for queer used in one part of one French-speaking country. The two words developed independently, and any speaker of both French and English will be familiar with the concept of faux amis. So I'm not sure quite what "problem" this creates. 

On 8/4/2021 at 5:34 AM, Aronaut said:

And if I say I am aro, that means I am inclined or at least willing to have sex.

Personally I've had far more instances where if I just say I'm aro, people assume I'm also ace. 

To get to the actual point of this thread: I don't often have occasion to identify as just "allosexual" by itself, but "alloaro" is a very important term to me, which I use all the time - and which explicitly includes my allosexual identity. 

 

Edit: Sorry the quotes from the OP are out of order here but it's fucking impossible to rearrange them on mobile. 

Edited August 5, 2021 by eatingcroutons

[DeltaAro]

On 8/4/2021 at 7:43 AM, mewix said:

But yea sex positive is pretty much to do with the movement at this point and there is some pushback to some unintended aspects e.g. too much acceptance of non consensual/barely consensual violence in sex.

This movement seems more a reaction to: making sex something that has to be analyzed in a critical manner, e.g. what socio-cultural forces and power structures influence it – including suggestions of false consciousness (“You think you like it, but actually…”) against people engaging in a certain type of sex. Not that this is wrong. But you don’t want to open that can of worms. Those people are simply nasty.

On 8/4/2021 at 7:43 AM, mewix said:

I do still sometimes think of metal alloys and thinking so which two or more metals have been combined.. xP yeah makes sense. That does put another question in my mind if some "allos" do not have a sexuality directed towards themselves and only exclusively externally. 

Confessions of an alloysexual: “Ohhh… chromoly steel 4130… such strength, such elegance. If it touches my skin, I find it irresistible!”

Edited August 5, 2021 by DeltaV

[mewix]

10 hours ago, DeltaV said:

This movement seems more a reaction to: making sex something that has to be analyzed in a critical manner, e.g. what socio-cultural forces and power structures influence it – including suggestions of false consciousness (“You think you like it, but actually…”) against people engaging in a certain type of sex. Not that this is wrong. But you don’t want to open that can of worms. Those people are simply nasty.

Yeah for sure, there is that sort of thing around. And demonising what essentially is people's free choice at least from what I seen.

I think as long as its just things like consent and considering wellbeing. And sex isn't compulsory.

But yeah anyways I think being sex positive would be a confusing way to say things even without thinking of the movement.

I don't think being asexual necessarily means you are disgusted by sex like just not having a sexual orientation to people or maybe a lack of sexual libido generally, though I think repulsion is included too as part of lacking sexual attraction.

Not asexual myself so I don't know exactly what is and what isn't counted as asexual. I remember one of the older AVEN definitions included something that might not be now and then there is a defintion drama again I hear. but essentially yeah. 

 

 

[cyancat]

ok but when is there NOT definitional drama in aven lmao.

but yes, being sex positive is more a general attitude/ideology towards sex. it's also different from being averse/repulsed/ambivelent/indifferent/favorable. aven has a page abt it: https://www.asexuality.org/?q=attitudes.html

as for like - who is asexual. that depends who you ask and has been an argument that no one wants to delve into. currently, it is simply anyone who experiences very little to no sexual attraction. your libido, sexual attitude, etc, don't factor, though they are often part of the experience.

[nonmerci]

3 hours ago, mewix said:

I don't think being asexual necessarily means you are disgusted by sex like just not having a sexual orientation to people or maybe a lack of sexual libido generally, though I think repulsion is included too as part of lacking sexual attraction.

You can be asexual without being sex repulsed. I saw a poll once that said around 50% of asexuals are sex-repulsed (lower for people in the grey area). In fact it's like aromanticism, being aro doesn't mean you are romance-repulsed, even if a lot of aro are. According to this poll only 3% are sex favorable, which is very low, but they still exists.

[nonmerci]

Here we go again...

Yeah, that may not be correct to talk about AVEN here like that, but I am very curious. I don't think we enter the detail about that here, so here's my questions :

1) How do you feel about the word romantic and sexual as meaning for alloromantic and allosexual, and being used to replace alloromantic and allosexual? (probably mostly allosexual as I don't think there is a lot alloromantic people here, but I suppose it is the same debate so... share your thoughts)

2) Do you think it is more neutral than alloromantic and allosexual? Because I always felt like it was consider to be the contrary in the aro community, but I could be wrong.

3) Do you use it as an orientation term? I mean, that seems weird to me, I don't think anyone people use it that way (because their orientation will be pan, bi, etc...). But that seems to be their argument to oppose the use of the allo vocabulary, that it is used as an orientation term, or (as said in the other thread), use to replace other orientations (which is even weirder to me). I wanted to say when I say this "nobody said it was an orientation", but what do I know?

4) Anything you want to add on this subject? I'm ready to... well, maybe not start a fight, but at least say "hey, here's what people who use allo instead of sexual think about this topic, maybe consider them before saying what is the default terminology, because they need to be include in this conversation". I mean, considering how ended the other thread when I try to do this, I'm not confident in people on AVEN being thrilled about having a conversation about that, or just acknowledging the aro community, but... Well, I guess AVEN has a hot box for a reason. ?

 

Sorry for coming back on this topic and new questions. The thing is : the fact why AVEN dislike the terminology the ace community invented, while the aro community use it and no one cares... that confuses me a lot, so I want to see what people think about this topic. (I mean, I do have an idea about why, but I won't say it here because it would start another debate, let's focus)