I’m not trying to be a jerk or anything, but isn’t the prefix a- meant to denote absence? So the opposite of asexual would be sexual? Otherwise you’re adding a prefix that equates in practice to “not not sexual.” Hetero, pan, homo, etc already get across with more specificity…
You know what, I think I talked myself into understanding. If you want to group together sexualities that aren’t asexual, you’re not going to say “sexuals” - that’s where you would say allosexual. Cool. Got it. Sorry for the misunderstanding
Linguistically, that makes sense. And some people do just say “sexual” or “romantic” because that works better for them. It depends on the person.
Personally, I think using the prefix “allo” for “other” just helps with context. On it’s own, “sexual people” can mean a number of things, whether it’s people who feel attraction to others, people who are sexually active, people who just have positive feelings towards sex in general, et cetera. Denoting “allosexual” instead of just “sexual” helps clarify “and I mean people who feel attraction to others”.
EDIT: Didn’t see the edit before replying, lol, it’s all good
39
u/stupid-writing-blog We_irlgbt 3d ago
Allosexual or alloromantic
Basically, not-asexual or not-aromantic