#synsexual

[queerascat]

I'm just guessing it's the 'zero' association. But yeah - every time I see the term z/zedsexual I assume it's an orientation from the ace spectrum. And I'm proven wrong every time either by context or by Googling. «shrug» I wish I could be arsed to take on a new term for 'non-asexual' but 1. I am not ace and 2. I really doubt I can reach the proper audience & maintain such promotion.

indeed, that’s the challenge of coining/proposing a new word: will it stand the test of time and still be in use even a year later or will it become another word, like so many, to be proposed and to never gain much usage…

[queerascat]

(As this is all over my dash tonight) I'm curious as to why 'z/zedsexual' was developed instead of 'synsexual'? Synsexual seems like a more accurate version allosexual (on the basis of: if 'a-' is "without; not" then 'sin/syn' is "with; together". Synsexual would be more on point & lacks any associations allosexual or sexual would have. Side note: I always assume 'zedsexual' is part of the ace spectrum. I think I' associating 'Z / Zed' with 'Zero'. Thus it makes me think ace spec.

your guess is as good as mine. i highly doubt there’s actually any reason at all. that said, at this point in time i personally cannot be assed to take on a brand-spanking new replacement for “non-asexual”.

interesting that you assume(d) that z/zedsexual was a part of the ace spectrum. i don’t think i’ve ever come across that assumption or association of ‘z/zed’ with ‘zero’ before.