[ SECRET POST #3139 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3139 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 097 secrets from Secret Submission Post #449.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

A very sexual asexual is like a vegan that enjoys hamburgers, i.e., not a vegan.

nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

I have a sex drive like whoa. There are periods when I masturbate several times daily. I write and read smut. I have a sex toy collection.

I have never wanted to have sex with someone else. I've never met a person who turns me on. My sexual fantasies are always about other people having sex, never about ME.

Seriously, it happens.

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

I wouldn't call that asexual. You sound like a sexual person who happens to be single. It happens. Sexual people aren't screwing like rabbits at all times with any available willing partner. I think a lot of people are confused about what "normal" sexual desire is.

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

But the problem isn't desire. Lust or libido or sex drive or whatever is obviously present. What is lacking is the wish to do it with another person.

I understand that non-asexual people want to have sex with people of their orientation. Some want this enough to suffer unpleasant personalities for it, to pay money for it, to risk pregnancy and disease for it. This is something that I cannot understand at all, because why would they want to share body fluids with another person when their own right hand could get the job done quicker and better?

If I had a boyfriend or a girlfriend, I'd have sex with them. I'd probably even like it. But it wouldn't be because I found them sexually appealing - I'd probably find a boyfriend's sixty-something uncle equally "attractive" as the boyfriend, and I don't think that's how it is supposed to work.

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

I just don't even know where to begin with this... the part where you make it sound like sex is an unnatural part of human existence, like why would we have been swapping bodily fluids for generations when we could just masturbate and die out as a species... or the part where if you were in a sexual relationship, you could just screw anything with a penis and get the same satisfaction out of it.

I give up.

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

...ooooor the part where the entire concept of sexual attraction is alien to me. Which is what both of those experiences are symptomatic of. I'm told that Chris Evas is sex on legs, but I wouldn't be more interested in sleeping with him than with Angela Merkel. Good night.

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

dude, not being attracted to someone is one thing, but if you can't see why anyone is ever attracted to anyone, that's a problem you need professional help for

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

*sigh* I can tell when someone looks conveniently attractive because pop culture has made no secret about what "sexy" looks like. The point was that you could line up a choice selection of those someones, and I still wouldn't find any of them to be a better prospect for sex than any random member of the European Commission. Society tells me that I should want to have sex with a pair of bouncy tits and a brazillian, but those things don't turn me on any more than stretch marks and a hairy fanny. Society tells me that I should want to shag a man of a certain age with the right fat-to-muscle percentage, but that doesn't appeal any more to me than Prince Charles does.

I know about sexual attraction. I'm certainly not denying that it exists. But I can't fully understand it, because I've never once felt it. If sex is about feeling good, then I've mastered that part of it without needing someone else. Could I have sex with someone and like it? Sure. And if I was in a relationship, I would. But I still wouldn't find the prospect of sex with my SO to be more arousing than having sex with the middle-aged couple next door, because I wouldn't find any of those prospects arousing at all.

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

They used "understand" to mean "empathise". Like, I don't understand what it's like to be trans, that doesn't mean I don't think it's a real lived experience, just very different from my experiences.

Autochorisexual Anon From Upthread

[(Anonymous)]

Hi fellow autochorisexual! Sorry I haven't been more involved in this conversation. I've been afk all day and meanwhile you've been dealing with such ignorance, condescension, and rudeness in this thread that it's turning my stomach a little.

Despite not having much of a libido (especially after going on BC for adult acne), I still identify very strongly with the way you describe your sexuality.

I have never wanted to have sex with someone else. I've never met a person who turns me on. My sexual fantasies are always about other people having sex, never about ME. Seriously, it happens.

This this THIS. HOW is this so hard for people to understand?! Perhaps they just don't want to understand it, IDK.

If I had a boyfriend or a girlfriend, I'd have sex with them. I'd probably even like it.

I envy you this, a little. I'm much further towards the Do Not Want end of the spectrum when it comes to sexual activity. I probably would have had sex by now, just to have done it once, if it weren't for the fact that I can't imagine it being anything other than deeply psychologically and physically uncomfortable.

Re: Autochorisexual Anon From Upthread

[(Anonymous)]

Heh, it mostly just seems like identity policing by someone who's not actually part of the identity. I don't think I'm changing anyone's mind, but it's grating to have someone tell me that I'm not asexual when I've spent enough of my time on Earth being troubled about the fact that I'm not interested in boys but I'm not interested in girls either and waaah what's wrong with me.

I'm not interested in being in a relationship, so the chances of me ever sleeping with someone are slim. But still, it IS relieving to know that if I ever found someone I wanted to spend the rest of my life with, the bedroom part wouldn't be an unberable duty.

Re: Autochorisexual Anon From Upthread

[(Anonymous)]

but it's grating to have someone tell me that I'm not asexual when I've spent enough of my time on Earth

Yeah, I was kind of mindblown by the extent to which they were talking to you/us like we're thirteen-year-olds jumping to conclusions at our first brush with sex, as opposed to mature, level-headed adults. As though we haven't got a pretty huge amount of time, thought, and experience behind our understandings of our own sexual identities.

And as though "I'm well into adulthood and have never felt sexually attracted to another person, ever," is not pretty conclusive on its own.

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

gonna be frank here, you sound like you have some serious issues surrounding sex and bodies because that is not at all how normal/healthy people view sex.

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I probably didn't explain it very well (I'm on GMT-ish and it was getting late). The point I was trying to make is that the world very much tells me who I'm supposed to consider sexually attractive (a person of certain age and physical beauty), but knowing this theoretically doesn't actually make my brain interested. If I had to have sex with someone, it'd be completely irrelevant to me whether that someone was Mila Kunis or Gordon Brown.

Re: nayrt

[elialshadowpine]

Okay, I'm curious. I want to state up front, I'm not trying to attack your identity; I'm of the opinion that sexuality is fluid, and what's true for someone at one point in their life may not be true later. (Example: I thought I was bisexual when I was younger, and then pansexual. I'm... really not. I have no interest in men, male-identified people, or masculine people, like butch lesbians. I am interested in women, female-identified people, or feminine people, but I'm pretty meh when it comes to body. Trying to find a word for that is a pain, though, so I use queer.) So, there's that.

If you had a boyfriend or girlfriend, would you be having sex with them because you would want to, or because you'd feel obligated to as being part of a relationship? If it's because you'd want to, would it be because of the emotional attachment? Because my experience has been that being involved with someone you love, well, makes them attractive to you, even if they're normally not your type.

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

I'd probably have sex because that's what my partner wanted, but I wouldn't mind going without - I wouldn't have any problems being in a relationship with someone who never wanted sex. That said, I'm aro and not looking for an SO anyway, so the whole situation is a very hypothetical one for me. Probably thus the unfortunate comparison above between a theoretical SO and their uncle. I wouldn't be in love with either of them and I wouldn't be attracted to either of them, and of course the SO would be a safer and comfortabler choice and I wouldn't want to cheat on them. I just wouldn't find them any more sexually appealing than the uncle.

Other Autochorisexual Anon

[(Anonymous)]

I'm aro and not looking for an SO anyway

Just wondering, do you consider yourself aromantic, or autochorisromantic (if that's even a word people are using)?

Re: Other Autochorisexual Anon

[(Anonymous)]

I consider myself aroace. I personally find the word autochorisanything too unwieldy and hazy to be useful in common conversation, and the ace community is rife enough for parody as it is with the five hundred different subsets describing the different ways people experience asexuality. I find it useful to have a name for the experience it describes, though - I just don't see the need to include it when I describe myself.

But if you're wondering: yes, I have been known to read and enjoy sappy romances.

Re: Other Autochorisexual Anon

[(Anonymous)]

I get what you mean about autochorissexual being an unwieldy term, inviting parody. Unfortunately, as I've never really felt I fit in the general ace community I kinda feel the need to use autochorissexual, as it's the term that actually describes me.

The reason I wanted to know whether you experienced romance through fiction (or however) is because you seem pretty cool with your sexuality, whereas I'm not so cool with it. I accept it and am quite sure of it, but for me it's like being hungry but only being able to watch people eat (only worse). I have zero desire for casual dating/sex, but I long to be in love and lust with another person (while still simply not feeling that way about anyone). I thought maybe that was because I'm autochorisromantic. If the appetite for romance weren't there I doubt I'd have this struggle. But it sounds like you have a romantic appetite as well, so I guess my vague hypothesis was wrong. Oh well. :)

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

Interesting. I agree with you that it's always seemed a bit odd to me that people view sex as something super-special-awesome, while masturbation is meh, not worth anything, or sometimes even seen as pathetic and desperate, rather than pretty much as satisfying as sex with another person. Why would it be that way?

I think that's a question worth digging into further rather than chalking it up to innate sexuality differences (or "I'll never understand this bizarre mindset because I'm asexual"). From what I read about the people you mention (people who are willing to pay, put up with crap, or endanger themselves for the chance to have sex with someone), the sex is actually usually not really about sex so much as romance, closeness, and acceptance. It seems like it's more about the desire for emotional/physical closeness, for a feeling of being desirable and fuckable, an indication of trust and being valued by that person. Not all people assign these kinds of meanings to sex, but if you do, I think it makes sense that attraction would follow.

Attraction is kind of like wishful thinking. A platonic version would be like, "Oh I wish I was closer to X. If we were BFF's we'd have sleepovers on the weekend and go over to each other's houses to play video games together" or whatnot. I think sexual attraction is just the sexual version of that? Or am I way off here?

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

The bottom line is that most people seem to find the idea of going a lifetime without sex upsetting; seem to find it unreasonable to be asked to be in a longtime relationship with someone who won't sleep with them. If someone told me that, I'd just shrug and go on my merry way, since I've still got my right hand. I don't understand the mechanisms that would make people unhappy about a lifetime with their right hand instead of another person.

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

For me, I wanna have sex with other people because I'm a kinky sub and it's just not the same for me imagining (even with good porn and wanking technique) being held down, dominated, whipped, fucked, as the feeling of terror, risk, pain, endorphins, pleasure, relief, safety from actually experiencing those things. I don't know if that puts me in a different category. I'm not very attracted to people in general though, so I want experiences more than specific people.

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

Dear lord you. are. not. asexual.

Re: nayrt

[(Anonymous)]

I think they actually are asexual by the definition of the word asexual (not having experienced sexual attraction to someone else in their lifetime). I think there's an interesting conversation to be had about whether this is a useful or meaningful definition of asexuality, but it IS the current definition.

I (and other people) sometimes use asexual colloquially to mean whether I consider myself a sexual being (i.e. having sexual desire, experiencing sexual arousal). In this sense, I agree AYRT is not asexual. But this is not the sense of "asexual" that they're using.

Other Autochorissexual From Upthread

[(Anonymous)]

This comment hits the nail on the head. I am unquestionably a form of asexual; I've never been attracted to or felt aroused by another person. However, I also definitely consider myself a sexual being. In fact, often one of the parts I hate most about telling people that I'm "a type of asexual," is that I don't want to be thought of as a non-sexual being and I know that unless I explain my sexuality more fully than I'd like to, people will presume I'm completely non-sexual - "like a child" or whatever. Meanwhile I'm like, "doop de doo, I'll just be over here reading my extremely explicit, often kinky-as-fuck fanfic and getting off. Possibly multiple times."