Was thinking about this more last night, while trying to sleep, and I think I can say it better.
The aesexual term, as used commonly, as you and Rosa have reiterated, is an identity completely divorced from any hormonal or mental issues.
So, this requires that we (society in general) must have decided what a normal amount of sexual activity/attraction/desire is. This is the thing I have an issue with. Because if we've decided what this normal level is, and then defined aesexuality as a lower amount or complete absence thereof, this, then also, allows for a definition of hypersexuality, also devoid of hormonal or mental issues, so, existing separate from nymphomania and/or sex addiction. So we're accepting that there's hypersexuality, which, all too frequently, becomes slut shaming.
So, one could argue that aesexual and hypersexual exist on opposite ends of the spectrum which is normal sexuality, and that would be a definition I have absolutely no problem with, personally, though it could be simplified by saying that one is just sexual.
So yes, for the purposes of self-identification, the label of aesexual may be useful and helpful to some, but it's the reasoning which allows it to exist as such a label which is problematic to me.
As, again, if there's no hormonal or mental issues informing said actions, then neither the aesexual or the hypersexual are ABNORMAL. Agreeing on the apparent majority of sexual identity in the middle as normal, when the entire thing is normal sexual behaviour, is my beef.
This entire thing could be made moot if we'd agree that abnormal is not BAD, and I'm sure you and I WOULD agree with that. However, that is not the case in general, unfortunately, which is also part of my beef. If the abnormal in these sort of subjects was agreed by everyone NOT to be bad, it would seriously lower need for such labels to begin with.
no subject
The aesexual term, as used commonly, as you and Rosa have reiterated, is an identity completely divorced from any hormonal or mental issues.
So, this requires that we (society in general) must have decided what a normal amount of sexual activity/attraction/desire is. This is the thing I have an issue with. Because if we've decided what this normal level is, and then defined aesexuality as a lower amount or complete absence thereof, this, then also, allows for a definition of hypersexuality, also devoid of hormonal or mental issues, so, existing separate from nymphomania and/or sex addiction. So we're accepting that there's hypersexuality, which, all too frequently, becomes slut shaming.
So, one could argue that aesexual and hypersexual exist on opposite ends of the spectrum which is normal sexuality, and that would be a definition I have absolutely no problem with, personally, though it could be simplified by saying that one is just sexual.
So yes, for the purposes of self-identification, the label of aesexual may be useful and helpful to some, but it's the reasoning which allows it to exist as such a label which is problematic to me.
As, again, if there's no hormonal or mental issues informing said actions, then neither the aesexual or the hypersexual are ABNORMAL. Agreeing on the apparent majority of sexual identity in the middle as normal, when the entire thing is normal sexual behaviour, is my beef.
This entire thing could be made moot if we'd agree that abnormal is not BAD, and I'm sure you and I WOULD agree with that. However, that is not the case in general, unfortunately, which is also part of my beef. If the abnormal in these sort of subjects was agreed by everyone NOT to be bad, it would seriously lower need for such labels to begin with.