Do we need a word for "not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender in any way?"

[Ace_of_Spades]

Prior to getting onto asexual online forums and spaces, I thought that the word "aromantic asexual"-indicating a lack of sexual or romantic attraction to any gender-was adequately able to convey that I am not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender. After all, the dominant definition of an orientation is the gender to which a person experiences attraction. Most of the world does not experience split attraction (myself included), meaning that most people get to use one singular word to describe their orientation. However, I then discovered the split attraction model introduced 6 billion other "forms of attraction" and that some people who identify as aromantic asexual still seem to have a gender preference. I'm powerless to stop the micro-labeling, which means the solution might be yet another micro-label.

Think about this. The average heterosexual, who is attracted to the opposite gender, does not typically have to say that he/she is a hetero-aesthetic, hetero-affectionate hetero-alterous, hetero-sensual, heteroromantic, heterosexual. The average homosexual does not typically have to say that he/she is homo-aesthetic, homo-affectionate, homo-alterous, homo-sensual, homoromantic, homosexual. The average bisexual doesn't typically have to say that he/she is bi-aesthetic, bi-affectionate, bi-alterous, bi-sensual, biromantic, bisexual. Why should I, as someone who is not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender (and doesn't date, partner, or engage in physical intimacy with any gender) have to go around saying that I am an a-aesthetic, a-affectionate, a-alterous, a-sensual, aromantic, asexual to get the point across? I should not.

I would like to separate myself from people who generally experience attraction to a gender and engage in dating, partnering, or physical intimacy. I feel like people became very understanding of me when I started explaining "aromantic asexual" as "I'm not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender." However, if the split attraction model (which does not apply to me) is micro-labeling that away, I do not want allos to think that I could possibly still be experiencing attraction that I am simply not acting upon in a certain way.

Being able to convey that I am not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender is important to: (1) keep unwanted interest away from me (I have gotten unwanted interest from people who I could not adequately convey my lack of interest in all genders by telling them I am asexual), (2) to communicate my lack of interest in everyone (I have had people who thought that I could be interested in them because "asexual" was somehow also insufficient to communicate my lack of interest), and: (3) to prevent me from being discriminated against over misunderstanding of who I am (in law school, I was discriminated against because people thought that me being single my whole life made me a closet lesbian. My mother also insisted that I must have a medical condition for being asexual). I do not want to lose the power to convey this if aromanticism starts to become "split" too.

What are your thoughts??

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Ace_of_Spades

[nonmerci]

Personally I call myself anattractional. I've seen the word panaspec but I personally don't use it (to my ears it sounds like pansexual, so first time I heard it, I thought it has a complete different meaning... then I realized it is actually clear if you look at the word and I felt stupid lol).

47 minutes ago, Ace_of_Spades said:

(1) keep unwanted interest away from me (I have gotten unwanted interest from people who I could not adequately convey my lack of interest in all genders by telling them I am asexual), (2) to communicate my lack of interest in everyone (I have had people who thought that I could be interested in them because "asexual" was somehow also insufficient to communicate my lack of interest), and: (3) to prevent me from being discriminated against over misunderstanding of who I am (in law school, I was discriminated against because people thought that me being single my whole life made me a closet lesbian. My mother also insisted that I must have a medical condition for being asexual).

This is aphobia so having a new label sadly won't fix this. No matter how you call yourself, some people will still not get it cause for some reason, they are unable to understand the concept of not feeling romantic and sexual attraction.

[Ace_of_Spades]

8 minutes ago, nonmerci said:

Personally I call myself anattractional. I've seen the word panaspec but I personally don't use it (to my ears it sounds like pansexual, so first time I heard it, I thought it has a complete different meaning... then I realized it is actually clear if you look at the word and I felt stupid lol).

This is aphobia so having a new label sadly won't fix this. No matter how you call yourself, some people will still not get it cause for some reason, they are unable to understand the concept of not feeling romantic and sexual attraction.

I cannot figure out how to split up the quote, so I hope that you can follow this. Thank you for the response. Yeah, I probably would not use the "panaspec" because that word sounds like pansexual, even though the meaning is the opposite haha I do not trust most people to look up the definition of that word. Anattractional could be a possibility, but looks like that term includes "asocial," which I am not - I am quite social when I can be. Anattractional also nixes the desire to form friendships (that is technically called platonic attraction, but I do not use the term because I do not find it useful to label desires to be friends with people - that is not standard in society). I do love my friends and family; I'm just not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender in any aesthetic, dating, partnering, or physical intimacy way.

As to the aphobia, that is true and discouraging. I do not understand why "aromantic asexual" is not as respected or understood as other orientations. Like, if someone says that he/she is straight or gay, that is usually adequately able to keep away certain interest from the unattractive gender and communicate disinterest in the unattractive gender. I am not sure why that is not the case for aromantic asexuality.

[Jot-Aro Kujo]

1 hour ago, nonmerci said:

 

This is aphobia so having a new label sadly won't fix this. No matter how you call yourself, some people will still not get it cause for some reason, they are unable to understand the concept of not feeling romantic and sexual attraction.

This. People who don't respect boundaries don't respect boundaries- Doesn't matter if you call yourself aroace, a lesbian, married, a nun, if they don't understand/care that you're not interested then having a special label for "not interested" isn't going to change that. I mean, you can still make one if you want to, but I feel like you're putting the blame in the wrong place. Just like people who use neopronouns or xenogenders aren't the reason why people are transphobic, people who use microlabels aren't the reason people won't respect your boundaries as an aspec.

[DeltaAro]

On 4/10/2023 at 2:23 AM, Ace_of_Spades said:

Think about this. The average heterosexual, who is attracted to the opposite gender, does not typically have to say that he/she is a hetero-aesthetic, hetero-affectionate hetero-alterous, hetero-sensual, heteroromantic, heterosexual. The average homosexual does not typically have to say that he/she is homo-aesthetic, homo-affectionate, homo-alterous, homo-sensual, homoromantic, homosexual. The average bisexual doesn't typically have to say that he/she is bi-aesthetic, bi-affectionate, bi-alterous, bi-sensual, biromantic, bisexual.

"homosexual" ... nobody uses this outside of a SAM context. This term is discouraged since how long?

And that already explains the part of the problem. There is no term like "gay" or "lesbian" (referring to sexual and romantic attraction) because a lot of asexual awareness was about "we can still fall in love".

So in general, sexual and romantic orientation are strongly correlated. But the other orientations are not. Sensual, aesthetic and affectionate attraction are very commonly "pan" (maybe they're repressed because of homophobia, but that's another story).

But as concepts they aren't even known to the general population. We just talk about them to make asexuals or aromantics less confused (aros confuse platonic with romantic, aces sensual and aesthetic with sexual).

So if the cultural norms allow sensual activity like touching someone's hair (which still passes as "acceptable for a friendship" between women) it can happen. No orientation or label can prevent this. Just tell people you don't like it, and hopefully they stop without much drama.

[Ace_of_Spades]

On 4/9/2023 at 10:36 PM, Jot-Aro Kujo said:

This. People who don't respect boundaries don't respect boundaries- Doesn't matter if you call yourself aroace, a lesbian, married, a nun, if they don't understand/care that you're not interested then having a special label for "not interested" isn't going to change that. I mean, you can still make one if you want to, but I feel like you're putting the blame in the wrong place. Just like people who use neopronouns or xenogenders aren't the reason why people are transphobic, people who use microlabels aren't the reason people won't respect your boundaries as an aspec.

Thank you for your response! I do agree that some people will have a general disrespect for anybody who does not live a traditional "heterosexual marriage with children" life. To clarify though, I know that the SAM is the reason that some people do not understand me even though the SAM does not apply to me personally (and I make it clear to people that the SAM does not apply to me personally).

7 hours ago, DeltaAro said:

"homosexual" ... nobody uses this outside of a SAM context. This term is discouraged since how long?

And that already explains the part of the problem. There is no term like "gay" or "lesbian" (referring to sexual and romantic attraction) because a lot of asexual awareness was about "we can still fall in love".

So in general, sexual and romantic orientation are strongly correlated. But the other orientations are not. Sensual, aesthetic and affectionate attraction are very commonly "pan" (maybe they're repressed because of homophobia, but that's another story).

But as concepts they aren't even known to the general population. We just talk about them to make asexuals or aromantics less confused (aros confuse platonic with romantic, aces sensual and aesthetic with sexual).

So if the cultural norms allow sensual activity like touching someone's hair (which still passes as "acceptable for a friendship" between women) it can happen. No orientation or label can prevent this. Just tell people you don't like it, and hopefully they stop without much drama.

Thank you for your response! Yeah, I suppose that granted the history of the asexual community, this makes sense. Thank you for explaining. To clarify, I am not touch-averse. However, because I am not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender, I tend to not engage in non-platonic touching. I just mean non-platonic activities like kissing, cuddling, sexual activities, etc. A friendly hug or something is fine though!

Granted that an orientation is intended to be the gender(s) to which someone is or is not attracted, and we do not have another specific word to describe what I am looking for, I am still well within my right to just use "aromantic asexual" or "asexual" to mean that I am not attracted to boys, girls, or any other gender. My orientation is simply non-split.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Ace_of_Spades