[ SECRET POST #5752 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5752 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 23 secrets from Secret Submission Post #823.
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)]

I think it has to do a bit with respectability politics in the LGBT+ community, and in the sub- ace and gay communities; and a bit to do with the histories of said communities; and a bit to do with the language people are simply used to using to define themselves based on their sexual attraction and drive. And an intersect of all these things.

A lot of the pushback by aces about how they can and do love sex is just that -- pushback. Not liking sex at all ever gets you called a prude and more, and I've even seen more times than I can count when someone would act like just the state of someone else existing as a person who doesn't enjoy sex is the same as being a slut-shamer. This makes the perfect condition for lots of neutral aces to overcompensate and be loud about loving sex to dispel the myth, when probably not as many of them actually do love sex.

On the gay side, it's always been expected that being gay means you hate sex with anyone of another gender, but some are people who loathe the act itself and some more loathe what it represents: the pressure to be "cured of gayness." Whether there's any functional difference depends on the person. If it weren't for all the historical baggage, there probably would be gay people who are open about liking sex with other genders while only being attracted to their own.

So. I think neither "being ace and loving sex with people" nor "being gay and loving sex with people-not-your-gender" are that common, but if it weren't for all the outside influences, the amount of ace and gay people it does apply to would be about the same.

[(Anonymous)]

The being loud/overcompensating thing isn't something I've really thought about, but it makes sense.

there probably would be gay people who are open about liking sex with other genders while only being attracted to their own

I think that kind of goes back to me being confused about what sexual attraction even IS. I feel like it's really hard to find a concrete definition, but the closest thing I've been able to find is "the desire to have sex with someone" = being sexually attracted to them. And if these gay people like having sex with other genders, then obviously they had the desire to have sex with them (assuming it's consensual, obviously), and if that's what sexual attraction means, then that means they WERE sexually attracted to them, which means they're obviously not gay.

It just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe there's some definition of sexual attraction that I've somehow never come across that's drastically different than anything I have found, that would make it make sense.

I don't know...sexuality is confusing lol.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I think what you're possibly running into is not having experienced the difference?

This is probably a better metaphor for libido, but I still think it works. Think of it like eating and hunger - people eat when they're hungry. But they also eat for other reasons, including pleasure, and they don't need to be hungry to enjoy the act of eating.

But if a person who had never experienced hunger came across someone really enjoying food when they weren't hungry, they'd probably be confused - 'you're getting something out of this, surely your desire for food is hunger?' Because it's pretty difficult to imagine or describe what a physiological sensation feels like without a reference point.

For reference, I am working with the concept of sexual attraction as being when a person experiences sexual desire/arousal caused by stimuli from another person, be it looks, smell, taste, touch, voice, and the main source of their arousal/desire is the other person. I.e. even if someone also needs to be in the right mood or whatever else to have sex, and needs to work up to their orgasm, the other person is still the main source of their arousal.

Which is different from being aroused primarily by a fantasy or by physical stimulation, which you may happen to enjoy with another person. Or even if a close relationship with another person facilitates your arousal because you are able to relax with them/ they know how to physically stimulate you. This is different from the above definition, because the source of your arousal isn't the other person, even if they might be necessary for you to get off. If that makes sense.

I think general/ working definitions of sexual attraction seem to sometimes not be as specific as the above and/or be circular (i.e "Sexual attraction is the desire to have sex with someone" = not very helpful for anyone who is ace), probably to cater for different sexual experiences. I'm not an expert, just an internet random, but as someone who sometimes experiences sexual attraction as defined above, and sometimes does not, I think it is a pretty useful way to describe the difference, and one that seems to align with both allo and ace experiences I've come across.

(I also think that people who don't or very rarely experience physiological arousal based on sexual attraction to another person are probably on the ace spectrum, even if they don't identify as such. But that's another discussion.)

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry for replying late but this:

I think what you're possibly running into is not having experienced the difference?

is interesting to read! I'm fairly sure I'm aroace but still questioning because I've never been able to get a definition that made enough sense to me to say for sure. I've always gone with "well, if I can't say, then that must mean I don't experience" because if I had surely I would know, right?

And obviously I'm missing something, but if the person really likes sex, and it's not really about the other person, do they just do it because that person happens to be there? If someone isn't sexually attracted to anyone but they love sex, how do they seek out people to have sex with? Just the first person they come across that seems like an acceptable gender/age/whatever?

This is all probably further confirmation that I'm definitely asexual because none of it makes any sense at all to me lol.