case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2017-09-07 06:48 pm

[ SECRET POST #3900 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3900 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Harry Potter]


__________________________________________________



03.
(Minor X-Files character Albert Hosteen)


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #557.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
digitalghosts: valentin_icon (Default)

[personal profile] digitalghosts 2017-09-08 11:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Languages evolve. If I recall, first uses of asexual as a word were to describe 'sexually cold' women ... which meant 'just probably not that into my husband' in 19th century. It was opposed to 'hysterical' which could have meant anything in the end, to be fair.

And the homoromantic, heteroromantic and others existed as descriptor for ages. I recall seeing even heterosexual homoromantics (likes opposite gender but forms relationships with same one). However, it has tended to mean which relationships one prefers more than romantic attraction but could have varied in different areas or whatnot.

New terms would be ones like demisexual and demiromantic so ... ones you mention are long past shiny and new stage. Also, adding lesbian or gay to asexual makes sense as they tend to cover any sort of homo- relationship, attraction and lifestyle part.

Point was - language always gets blurred at some point, moves to other terms or invents new ones.

(Anonymous) 2017-09-08 11:25 pm (UTC)(link)
I mean, I'm pretty sure asexual actually used to be a biological term originally where it meant organisms that are able to reproduce asexually. So the real question is: is the person ITT who's insisting on using the word in the correct way an amoeba, bacteria or fungus?
digitalghosts: valentin_icon (Default)

[personal profile] digitalghosts 2017-09-09 12:02 am (UTC)(link)
Actually need to look that up as you probably are right on first use in biology of the world but I think there was some other thing it described first as I recall it not making sense. Anyway, meant human sexuality related uses :P, otherwise we'd have a lot of public reproduction. I imagined people casually cutting themselves in half and building new human out of spilled organs. Yeah, I know it is all cellural levels but the picture amused me.