fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3202 ]

[ SECRET POST #3202 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3202 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 072 secrets from Secret Submission Post #458.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

i hate this trend of splitting up romantic/sexual attraction. i don't think it makes any sense outside of asexuality.

like is a person who uses aromantic/heterosexual queer or just a straight person who doesn't want a relationship?

*waggles shoulders*

*just standing here viciously waggling my shoulders at you*

Honestly? Lookin' at your boobs.

I would say an aromantic heterosexual person is not queer, but do you know anyone who claims they are? I don't think I ever have seen romantic and sexual attraction split outside of asexuality or some other form or combination of actual queerness (for example, I knew someone who identified as biromantic/homosexual) but a lot of people just like to pretend it's a thing everyone else does to get fake queerness points?

It makes sense for bisexuals too because you can be attracted to different genders in different ways. I think the other combinations probably exist as well, but are really rare. Either way, I don't see the issue with it. How someone else chooses to identify has literally zero effect on my life.

And I don't think an aromantic heterosexual person would ever claim to be queer?

Oh but they do. On Tumblr.

I'm not asexual whatsoever, and I very much have a split between romantic and sexual attraction. I almost never feel romantic attraction to anyone, and often have sex without feeling any real emotional attachment other than general enjoyment and appreciation for whomever is generous enough to let me into their bed.

That's just being a slut.

I think you're really, really overestimating the amount of sex I actually have.

Which is a compliment in and of itself, so thank you!

I think it's possible to be into someone romantically/emotionally while not being attracted sexually or vice versa

yeah i'm not saying that isn't possible, just shouldn't your orientation reflect who your attracted to in all capacities rather than splitting it up?

it's like there's already a history with conflating being gay with being all sexual and no romance and it feels like this is just going back to that

nayrt

yeah i'm not saying that isn't possible, just shouldn't your orientation reflect who your attracted to in all capacities rather than splitting it up?

But if you're not attracted to the same thing in all capacities then how does it make sense NOT to split it up?

it's like there's already a history with conflating being gay with being all sexual and no romance and it feels like this is just going back to that

How is acknowledging that some people are romantically and sexually attracted to different things in any way saying being gay is all about sex and no romance? For example, an aromantic heterosexual person has nothing at all do with being gay and them using that label says nothing about how gay people feel about sex or romance. I just don't see how you made that leap at all.

Because the split attraction model literally says that homosexuality is all about sex, maybe?

It says that sexual attraction is all about sex, whether it's sexual attraction to the same or opposite sex. Which...it is. Homosexual DOES mean sexual attraction to the same sex.

That said, homosexual ≠ gay. It's why a lot of people have stopped using the word homosexual, because it does have that connotation of being all about sex, while gay doesn't (well, I suppose it always will with certain people, but those are people who will always have the same opinion regardless of what word is used).

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2015-10-11 04:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

kitelovesyou - 2015-10-11 05:04 (UTC) - Expand

Well, demisexuals need to feel special for being straight, so that's pretty much why.

oop

Nope to your first point, I've been romantically attracted to someone but not sexually, and vice versa. I get that the standard script for women is that it must go together, but it really doesn't always.

No one's saying you can't be sexually attracted to someone you have no romantic interest in, or in love with someone you're not really attracted to, though. That's not what the argument over the split attraction model is. It's over whether or not sexual and romantic identities are necessarily separate from one another, and it carries a lot of really heavy slutshamey baggage.

Apologies for totally misunderstanding then, I feel like this is part of a wider argument I've missed out on. *looks it up* Oh okay it's a tumblr thing. I'm not going to comment on this until I've read up on it.

I don't know, if it's not separate for you, that's cool, but I can tell you that mine certainly aren't-- I'm homosexual to the extreme, but panromantic. I honestly cannot be physically attracted to men or male bodies, though I've fallen in love with men before. However, I'm in no way asexual, and I wouldn't be happy in a sexless relationship, so I've never pursued any of those opportunities. Fortunately, I do also fall in love with women, and I am physically attracted to them, so that works out.

SA

Ugh, *but I can tell you that mine certainly are, sorry.

I'm Ace, and personally I don't understand how attraction and romance can be separate. The way I conceptualize (and have always conceptualized) romantic love is essentially as love + attraction. So to me, romantic love inherently involves attraction.

However, I try to be respectful of how other people experience their sexuality, which includes being respectful of their experience of attraction as something distinct from romantic feeling. I'm wholly incapable of understanding it, but that doesn't mean it's not very real to others.

Ugh, I forgot to specify: I can understand (theoretically) how sexual attraction can exist without romantic feeling. I just can't, personally, understand how romantic feeling can exist without sexual attraction.

I agree with you

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only