Y’know, considering that the whole point is supposedly to avoid forcing connotations of sexual activity/sexual availability/sexualization onto non-ace groups who may be at risk from such assumptions*, it seems kind of odd that all the popular coined alternatives to “sexual” still end with…”sexual”.
Like, if “sexual” can cause those kinds of unwanted connotations, I’m not sure how successful things like “allosexual” (sexual with other people? sexual with a lotion that’s good for sunburns?) or “zsexual” (still sexual but also with accidental connotations of zombie-dom?) are going to be at avoiding that issue. (or alisexual or consexual or poikkisexual or any other of the many -sexual alternatives.)
The ace community does have a history of loving [insert here]-sexual terminology a little too much, but I’ve definitely seen some advocacy for moving away from it here – so I’m surprised that I haven’t seen more proposed alternatives that just abandon -sexual altogether.
The only ones I can thing of atm are “non-ace” (not an original coinage) and “OTJ” (not exactly a serious proposition).
Does anyone else know if there have been any other more etymologically varied proposals?**
*There are of course other motivations for finding an alternative term, like avoiding the implication that ace people can’t do sexual things, or avoiding terms with too many other meanings, or creating a label that doesn’t rely on negation, but this is the one I see cited most often among the strongest advocates for such terms
**(I’m not necessarily advocating for more coinages, since I’m a bit of a debbie downer on that topic who is skeptical about any novel coinages (as opposed to derivations like non-ace or non-asexual) ever catching on beyond jargony spaces like ace sub-community blogs and maybe some parts of academia. But hey, maybe y’all will prove me wrong.)