Annoyed with myself for using my ace/depression pun and only later realizing I could make a comparison between “you don’t need a label for that, it’s average for people to only experience sexual attraction sometimes” & “oh, you say you feel unmotivated and have a hard time getting up at all? everybody gets sad sometimes! you just gotta buck up and power through it.”
Tag Archives: gray-asexual
I wonder if the people who deny gray-asexuality also view sex-repulsion as a trait that only asexual people can have. Because if so, being sex-repulsed would disqualify someone from being allo (since, again, we’re dealing with the identity police here). And that would mean a sex-repulsed person who identifies as gray-asexual must “actually” be asexual.
On the other hand, if sex-repulsion is not classed as an asexual-exclusive experience, and if even allosexuals can be strongly sex-repulsed, then… gee, it’s almost as if experiencing sexual attraction doesn’t bar you from finding some aspects of asexual discourse useful.
Huh. How about that.
This post is a response to Dragon’s model for sexual attraction and the ace spectrum, which prompted a lot of scattered thoughts that I’ll be attempting to organize here. Topics include: modeling attraction patterns, attraction vs. arousal, gray-ace vs. asexual, and issues of “frequency.” CW for brief talk of ableism and eugenics.
Gray-asexuality: the gray area around the pitch black of asexuality.
Gray-asexuality: an identity for those who find asexuality to be a useful idea, even if it doesn’t quite fit.*
Gray-asexuality: a label that’s not as clear-cut as asexuality but still marks it out as “next of kin.”
Gray-asexuality: an umbrella term for identifying with asexuality without identifying as “asexual” itself.
Gray-asexuality: a conscious choice to express the importance-yet-imperfection of asexuality in describing one’s identity.
*Wording borrowed from one of Siggy’s posts.
Do people not understand that a nighttime sky full of stars doesn’t look the same as a swath of fog at dusk? Do they not get that “black, but sometimes white” is not the same thing as “gray”? Can we quit circulating definitions of gray-asexuality that restrict it to a description of “rare” allosexuality? If you need to summarize for the sake of a chart or a diagram, opt for the broadest definition rather than the narrowest.
who think heteroromantic gray-as are “just heterosexual”
that being gray-asexual and heteroromantic
doesn’t necessarily mean
And that the idea of “for some people, romantic orientation and sexual orientation are separate”
that someone’s patterns of romantic attraction
doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about their patterns of sexual attraction
So about a month ago, Cor wrote a post sharing some notes from the SF Ace Unconference, and you should go read it, because all I’m going to be doing here is tacking on some short thoughts/agreement where applicable.
Summarizing my ideology for the purposes of this post is difficult because, despite fitting the technical definition, I’m reluctant to label myself a “Christian” and leave it at that. Even though I can’t ever really distance myself from them, I’m leery of other White Chirstians and their common practices, with their White Jesus and their clumsy rhetoric and their unwillingness to tackle the subject of systematic oppression and their overall lack of — as Anton Ego would term it — perspective.
Am I any better than them? I dunno, probably not. But you can’t convince me that labels aren’t about community to some degree. So already I have a problem before we even get into the fact that I’m not heterosexual. Continue reading