A question about vocabulary

Because lately, I have seen people using words in the ace tags that are new to me, and also using words I know in ways that make no sense with the meanings I associate with them. Needless to say, this makes constructive dialogue a bit tricky.

Here I work through my thoughts and personal definitions for some apparently contentious vocabulary. I’d like it if people could tell me where their personal definitions diverge.

Repulsed: Having strongly negative feelings about the idea of having sex oneself (e.g. being disgusted at the idea, finding it repulsive). Does not have to mean being squicked or triggered by sex in other contexts (e.g. porn), although it frequently does. Does not have to mean not having a libido, not masturbating, not having sexual fantasies, not reading/watching porn, etc. Does not imply anything about one’s attitude to sex in general, other people having sex, etc.

Sex aversive: Is a new word I’ve seen that appears to cover the same ground as “repulsed”? It doesn’t really make sense to me, though, because averse is the word that means “having an aversion to”. Aversive mainly has meanings a la aversive conditioning. Plus, I’m also not too keen on the association with Sexual Aversion Disorder - so I’m not currently planning on using that word for myself.

Indifferent: Having neutral to slightly negative feelings about the idea of having sex oneself (e.g. feeling “meh”, “boring” about it). Just as repulsed, doesn’t have to mean anything about sex drive, masturbation, moral feelings about sex and sexuality, etc. Does not have to mean actually willing to have sex or consider having sex themselves.

Sex positive: Okay, I cheat, I know the difference in definitions here and am just taking the opportunity to point out it exists. This word frequently gets used as “not judgemental about other people’s sexual decisions and sexuality”, with the implication that if you’re not sex-positive you’re an arse. I personally don’t feel it’s possible to divorce it from the sex-positive movement, and I’ve had such nasty experiences with ace erasure and anti-ace attitudes there plus other issues with their priorities (embedded in “positive) that I refuse to identify that way despite having those attitudes; I call myself “sex-nonjudgemental” when I need to describe this, which I feel is more accurate, but that doesn’t seem to have caught on.

Nonlibidoist: Originally very strongly associated with the Official Nonlibidoism Society back in the day, it looks as if this term has lost its antisexual elitist connotations and is now just a word for “someone who doesn’t have a sex drive”?

I should probably also toss in that I, personally, try to use ace as an umbrella term for the ace spectrum - it was suggested a while back and I liked the idea a lot. Now, however, I worry that this is idiosyncratic and hence I’m being read as ignoring/erasing grey-a people.

There are probably others I can’t think of right now. What spurred this post is someone drawing a distinction between “sex-aversive” and “repulsed”, which really confused me. I’ll also note that it seemed as if “repulsed” was taking on a negative meaning, and that… kind of makes me angry? Because I actually identify that way under the above definition which I am *relatively certain* was widespread at one time and I feel as if people are stealing my label out from under me. Plus, it’s pretty frustrating to not have the slightest idea what is going through people’s minds when I say “I’m a repulsed ace and…”

captainheartless:

introvertactivism:

WHAT DOES INTROVERSION HAVE TO DO WITH ASEXUALS?

Most of us are introverts! Our tendency towards introversion can often be related to our desire to not establish sexual relationships with random people or pursue casual hookups. They’re definitely interconnected and I’m…

I would definitely be cautious about saying “most asexuals are introverts”. All the data I’ve seen (AVEN polls) are incredibly unreliable. Furthermore, it’s usually based on those Myers-Briggs personality tests, and most of the free online ones I’ve seen completely butcher their questions about introversion/extroversion.

According to those, extroversion is usually about talking a lot and being the center of attention. And then I’m usually not an extrovert, because in most groups people are talking about things I’m not interested in (for example: conversations about how hot <insert generically hot person here> is). On the other hand, I definitely get energy by hanging out with people- it just has to be the right kind of people, particularly ones which don’t call me a freak or tell me to shut up and stop queering the place up. Because of this I had always called (and sometimes still do call) myself an INTJ (which is how I’ve scored on all tests), but I think I may be a perfect example of someone who gets energy from hanging out with people.

Yeah, this.

The more I think about it the more I think we can probably throw away most data regarding introversion/extroversion in asexuality. Because, you know, introverted people are more likely to spend lots of time online, and there is very little offline asexuality stuff or asexuality community - which means that a large number of asexual people ended up finding the community online, so in addition to the general problem of online polls skewing towards introversion we’ve got the issue that there may be proportionately more introverted asexuals who know they’re asexual than extroverted, or that online asexuals who know they’re asexuals skew even more towards introversion than the online population in general.

(Also, I may be the opposite of you as I’m an introvert who, in environments I’m comfortable with, can be a *total* social butterfly. At the last two maths conferences I’ve been to I ended up constantly flitting back and forth between groups of people I knew and making friends with all the other PhD students there and, yeah, talking a lot and being the centre of attention - and then somehow making excuses for myself so I could go hide in my room for a few hours every day because people are draining and I need several hours of alone time a day or I go completely loopy.)

Also, my not having casual sex and in fact not having sex at all has nothing to do with being an introvert, okay? It’s because I don’t want to. Because I’m asexual and repulsed so the idea actively puts me off. If some part of me did want to have sex I definitely wouldn’t let introversion stop me from pursuing that, and it’s not as if if I suddenly switched to extrovert mode that would mean I’d want to have sex! If anything you could make an argument for introversion being associated with aromanticism… except that the same stuff applies and a lot of aromantic people are still looking for intimate relationships and people to spend a lot of time around, they just don’t want them to be romantic.

(Source: almostsixteenace)

I don’t even understand aceslutshamers.

pond-put-some-trousers-on:

What is going on? 

Everything on that blog is really convoluted.

A troll? A real person? With real opinions?

So confused.

SO.

CONFUSED.

I have no idea, and honestly enough I don’t want to know - I just blocked them straight off because there is shit I do not need to see.

(Source: subvriska)

There are just so many things.

aceadmiral:

I’ve been trying to make this argument that repulsed =/= bad on the basis that repulsed, in fact, =/= bad, and that most people have things that turn them on as well as kinks they don’t understand, and boundaries about what they feel comfortable doing with and having done to their bodies. But, more specifically?

For repulsed asexuals (not demis or grey-aces, sorry), you are talking about saying “I don’t want to have sex with people I’m not attracted to” is bad. Because by definition there are no people we are attracted to. The reason this whole thing has a word in the asexual community instead of the way it is talked amongst people of other sexualities (namely: “You do what? Ew!”) Is because we are talking about how much we are willing to do with people we’re not sexually attracted to. This word we have? Is entirely about sexual people and sexual culture.

It is entirely about how the world rejects asexual people in favor of the sexual majority.

And that’s why nobody ever calls themselves a “repulsed heterosexual” or a “repulsed homosexual” or what have you. Because sex between people who are attracted to each other is accepted as something that is logical and makes sense, no matter what the moral judgment is that comes after it.

There are a lot of people of all different sexualities who don’t like various sexual acts. Nobody should try and force them to like it, especially not without their permission. I stand behind that general argument and will continue to do so, because it is a sound argument with solid logical underpinnings.

But on a micro level, singling out repulsed asexuals because we’re not willing to have sex with people we’re not attracted to? You disgust me.

It occured to me yesterday that this is exactly it. The reason sexual people don’t identify as repulsed/indifferent/etc. is because they are not generally expected to have sex with people they categorically aren’t attracted to in the way asexuals are, and if they refuse to have sex with people they categorically aren’t attracted to that doesn’t generally make their experience of their sexuality very different. That is, if a straight person says “nah, not having sex with anyone of my own gender”, that doesn’t have massive knock-on effects in terms of their likelihood of finding a romantic relationship or w/e. Whereas, due to being repulsed, I completely dismissed romantic relationships as an option for ages, and there’s a lot of what indifferent and/or aces who enjoy sex say that is totally alien to me. As a result, it can be an important distinction for asexuals, because it actually carries useful information beyond “ew, sex”.

Although I could see situations where it’d be a useful categorisation for sexual people as well, for instance heteroromantic homosexuals or homoromantic heterosexuals. But for most of them I suspect there’s just no point.

Another note on being repulsed

writingfromfactorx:

aceadmiral:

There are lots of things in this world I do not like, to varying levels. Asparagus. People who don’t use their turn signals. Spiders. Toothpaste of any flavor other than green. And many, many more. Nobody’s suggesting I go to a therapist checked over my burning hatred of tomatoes. Why should sex be any different?

Especially because, no one takes issue when I say “I hate tomatoes” and leave it at that. I don’t have to say, “Well, I can’t really swallow them very well, and the choking usually gives me the shakes, but if they’re very, very finely chopped or pureed like in a sauce then that’s okay, although I don’t like the taste either, so if the insides with the seeds leaks onto something I can’t really eat it, and the look of skinned tomatoes makes my stomach turn, particularly cooked ones, but I can handle them whole and even bring myself to cut them for you (although I find it super gross).” No, I just say “I hate tomatoes”!! You don’t need that much detail! You don’t care about that much detail! So why is my sex life any different?

As long as I am not going around smacking tomatoes out of people’s hands before they can bite into them or trampling tomato plants while twirling my mustache, how can my hatred of tomatoes possibly be offensive?

This right here. Seriously, what the fuck is it with the whole “repulsed is an intrinsically offensive term” bullshit? 

I am getting really tired of sexual people expecting us to cheerlead for their sexualities all the time when they can’t, in general, be bothered to understand or respect ours. It is possible to be repulsed by sex without, in fact, judging other people for having it or enjoying it! I for one am repulsed by bacon—the texture and smell both are utterly repugnant to me, to say nothing of the taste. One of my best friends loves bacon like it’s going out of style. It is utterly possible for me to go “ewwwww, bacon is disgusting” without judging my friend for loving it; my friend, likewise, is capable of hearing “bacon is disgusting” rather than “you are disgusting for liking it.” 

Why is this so hard to extend to sex? Why can’t people hear the words “I think sex is gross” without imagining the implication “I think you are gross, too?” I hate things my friends love all the damn time, and I love things that people I know think are disgusting and vaguely icky, like peanut butter and fluffernutter sandwiches; doesn’t mean that they think I’m disgusting. More for me! 

This forever and ever and ever.

Honestly, I think that when people get omgsooffended by the term “repulsed” it says a lot more about their issues than it does about mine. If you can’t hear “I am repulsed by the thought of having sex” without taking it as a personal attack? I respectfully suggest that you might have some problems with sex and sexuality you might want to take a look at and stop getting all over innocent bystanders. Because I for one am getting very sick over having to bend over backwards for the people who find the idea of someone, somewhere, going “ew, sex :/” offensive.

zincfingers:

Oh no, some people were telling you not to use a homophobic slur to describe straight platonic relationships. HOW DARE THEY

Because. You know. The relationships I - nonbinary identifying as in between female and neutrois and presenting as/passing as female in RL - have with two women. Both of whom I love very much and where I really, really want to permanently live with at least one of them (both is looking pretty unlikely :( and this would require a transatlantic move in both cases), maybe raise kids with them, maybe marry one of them if legally possible - because of tax/visa/citizenship stuff and because if I’m ever going to marry *anyone* they’re at the top of the list-

Those relationships are totally straight platonic relationships.

Not even going to touch the rest of it, just. JFC.

as came up via chatting with Sciatrix

Who on earth came up with the “hey, want to go out for a drink sometime?” = “I am expressing romantic and/or sexual interest! I am expecting you to pick up on this, and if you agree this will be tacitly assumed to be an expression of reciprocated interest!” code anyway?

Definitely not autistic people, anyway.

*remembering a certain incident where ze may have accidentally agreed to go on a date with a guy ze never saw again and only realised three months later? Yeeeaaaah.*

*yeah, the asexuality and divide-by-cucumber romanticism may not have helped.*

*but seriously, you say “want to have a drink?” I hear “hey, let’s go have tea and chat together! this is a good idea!” if you are interested in me nonplatonically say so.*

weesleyisourking:

Most of which are people replying, saying things akin to “No one cares about your micromanaging of your relationships”; “Stop trying to be pretentious or get oppression street creds”; “I have relationships like this, you don’t need a special word for it”; and even, “Wow, the asexuals always have…

I… had no idea this was going on, and this upsets me so. Damn. Much.

Okay. People. You’ve got issues with the word queerplatonic? Shut the FUCK up. I’m not the originator of the word, that’s s.e. smith/meloukhia of this ain’t livin’, but it *was*, AFAIK, first properly introduced to the world on my blog in a conversation ou was having with me… partially because we had both felt the lack of a word for this so keenly.

I spent two. Fucking. Years. Driving myself up the wall over my relationships - in particular, over my ideal relationship *and* over the relationship I had with one of my now-zucchini. Was it romantic or friendship? Was I accidentally dating someone? Did I have a girlfriend? How could you even tell? And what on earth did you do if the question didn’t lead anywhere because neither of the two options really fit? I agonised over this, and I honestly don’t think someone who has been there, facing not just “this relationship I have, I have no fucking clue how to categorise it, I don’t think the categories I’ve been given work” but “actually, the categories I’ve been given don’t work for my relationships at all, neither in terms of the ones I have but also the ones I want.” All around me were people iding as hetero/homo/biromantic or aromantic and I was sitting there going “…homoromantic? aromantic? in between? NOTHING WORKS NONE OF THIS MAKES SENSE”, do you have any idea what that feels like?

Queerplatonic? Zucchini? I may not have invented those words, but they’re my words all the same. They are, in a a way, some of the most important words I have. More than asexual. More than nonbinary. And if you don’t feel the need for them, then don’t you fucking touch them.

nextstepcake:

So, the most recent issue of the journal “sexualities” had not one, but three new “themed essays on asexuality”. Out of nine articles total. Not bad for us one-percenters. I for one am excited :D

1) There’s more to life than sex? Difference and commonality within the asexual community - Mark…

Oh maaan I hope my uni has access to those because I really want to read them. Especially since, you know, for ages it’s felt like I was the only person talking about asexuality and disability and now there is someone writing academic papers about this ?!?!

sir-kit:

Yes, it was a decent answer. Yes, it was surprising and kind of nice to see something reasonable on the subject coming from that source.

He gave a decent-human-being response to that one. Not going to deny it.

But the couple of times I’ve heard the word “praise” mentioned in the posts about…

It’s worth nothing that he hasn’t appeared to change his opinions on whether asexuals should come out at the start of a relationship, it’s just that this didn’t actually come up in this question. He does seem more inclined to view asexuality as a genuine orientation than he used to, but the main points that made ace people throw up their arms and go “WHY” still seem to be present.

On my part, it’ll take a LOT more before I start praising him. I’ve been more occupied trying to figure out if I fell into an alternate universe without realising.