fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2686 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2686 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 059 secrets from Secret Submission Post #384.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There are only four sexualities.

What are the four?

hetero, homo, bi, and asexual

But what about the people who are attracted to animals or objects?

I don't think those groups need a sexuality label on par with the ones I mentioned.

NAYRT

I tend to consider those fetishes.

Normally, I'd agree with this. I'd say (according to my studies and readings on the subject) that in about 98% of cases, people fetishize animals or inanimate objects.

I think you're probably aware that a very small percentage of fetishists (for any fetish, really) are so attracted to the object of their fetish that they can't get aroused for anything else. There's a lot of debate about whether or not that constitutes a sexuality or a fetish at that point, and I'm somewhat on the side of terming it a sexuality in those situations.

When a fetish becomes, as you said, more than that, it is defined as a paraphilia.

AYRT

Ah, okay. I tend to not regard asexual as a sexuality (in the sense that *not* being a part of something doesn't make you part of the thing), so I was curious what you had in mind.

More controversial (maybe?): I think there are only three.

I'm guessing you don't consider asexuality to be one?

I'd like to hear why!

I can't speak for ayrt, but from my pov, asexuality is a lack of orientation rather than an orientation itself.

It's kind of like how atheist isn't a religion.

Haha. This wasn't here when I replied, but yes, exactly.

Correct.

It's hard to explain, but I guess it's kind of like how atheism isn't a religion (at least not in my opinion, I know people who'd disagree). Not having a religion isn't a religion and not having a sexuality isn't a sexuality, at least the way I see it.

Not that I have anything at all against people who identify as asexual. It's definitely a category of some type of sexuality related thing, I'm just not sure that I personally consider it an official sexuality.

I know none of this probably makes any sense.

'Cause asexuality is something lonely nerds on the internet claim when they have to defend their not having a boy/girlfriend. Nah, it isn't they can't get laid and have a personality more hostile than the surface of Io (or are just flat out terrified of the opposite sex), its cause they are asexual which means they are above such things. Then someone offers them a pityfuck and suddenly doncha know it, they ain't asexual any more.

Hmm. I'm gonna give you a 1.5/10 for this one. (The .5 is because you got me to respond.) Nice job!

But what about people who have actually had boy/girlfriends in the past and have had sex and realize later on that they're asexual?

Oh look, it's the old "you're not having sex; therefore, there is something wrong with you" argument. Wow, it's been said so many times, it must be true!

Apparently I'm the only one who took this as sarcasm.

But I do think the asexual communities has tons of issues and people are waaaay too quick to jump on the label.

I actually agree with this opinion!

Other things (attraction to objects, children, animals, etc.) fall under the definition of paraphilias (or fetishes.)

Although, I wouldn't say that heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality are always clearly defined. Recently, there more conceptualized as being on a spectrum, so there's obviously some grey areas there, where people may not fit a strict definition of --sexual. But they would still fit somewhere under the larger umbrella.

The only inclusion I can possibly think of is maybe an exclusive attraction to non-binary folk and even then I'm iffy about it.

Yeah, was going to say this. I can see "pansexual" which 99% of the time will be functionally the same as "bisexual". I also agree with ayrt that sometimes they blur together.

There was this great definition of pansexual I read somewhere, which defined it as attraction to all genders, whereas bisexual was defined as attraction to some genders.

Which I thought removed some of the tendency for people to view bisexuality as transphobic, and pansexuality as 100% accepting.

What are the genders to that pan is attracted to and bi is not?

Because I've only seen pan as treating trans as a third gender, which is pretty damn transphobic.

Re: Controversial opinions

(Anonymous) - 2014-05-12 07:39 (UTC) - Expand

diet_poison - 2014-05-13 00:53 (UTC) - Expand

Yeahhhh idk, because that brings up all kinds of issues.

Like, if we're talking trans people here (eg. MtF, FtM) they would probably identify as men and women. So they'd still fall under the umbrella of hetero/homo/bi sexuality.

But if you're talking about people who identify as third/other/neutral/no gender... is there a separate sexuality for that? Or are they too under the large umbrella? I don't know.

It would be interesting to see whether there are people who are exclusively attracted to people of third/other/neutral/no gender, but I've never heard of it. Not even on tumblr. (Then again, humans are diverse creatures.)