[ SECRET POST #1716 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1716 ⌋


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


01.



__________________________________________________

02.


__________________________________________________

03. [repeat]


__________________________________________________

04.


__________________________________________________

05.


__________________________________________________

06.


__________________________________________________

07.


__________________________________________________

08.


__________________________________________________

09.


__________________________________________________

10. [repeat]


__________________________________________________

11.


__________________________________________________

12.


__________________________________________________

13.


__________________________________________________

14.


__________________________________________________

15.


__________________________________________________

16.


__________________________________________________

17.


__________________________________________________

18.


__________________________________________________

19.


__________________________________________________

20. [repeat]


__________________________________________________

21.


__________________________________________________

22. [repeat]


__________________________________________________

23.


__________________________________________________

24.


__________________________________________________

25.


__________________________________________________

26.


__________________________________________________

27.


__________________________________________________

28.


__________________________________________________

29.


__________________________________________________

30.


__________________________________________________

31.


__________________________________________________

32.


__________________________________________________

33.


__________________________________________________

34.


__________________________________________________

35.


__________________________________________________

36.


__________________________________________________

37.


__________________________________________________

38.


__________________________________________________

39.


__________________________________________________


40.



Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 134 secrets from Secret Submission Post #245.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 1 2 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - hit/ship/spiration ], [ 0 - omgiknowthem ], [ 0 - take it to comments ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Except there is a lot of grey area in between there, which is what people who ID as demisexual don't seem to get. The vast majority of porn doesn't get me off, even when I find the people in it attractive. Some of it does. I don't have sexual fantasies about actors. I do have have sexual fantasies about fictional characters with personalities. It's not this magic you either find everyone attractive and get off to them or you don't thing, which is why "demisexuality" as a whole is silly.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

That's the difference, though. Some of it does.

And really "as a whole is silly." ?

I mean, I don't get why some guys are into guys, or girls are into girls (I'm not a guy, nor do I have any interest in women that I'm aware of), does that make homosexuality 'silly'? No. You don't get it, fine. But that doesn't make it "silly". :/

[(Anonymous)]

Demisexuality is NOT A SEXUAL ORIENTATION. It's taking "I don't like casual sex" AND EXPANDING THAT INTO YOUR LIFE'S ID.

And that IS silly.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

?

But it's not just saying "I don't like casual sex".

It's saying "I cannot be physically aroused by anything (fic, porn, a person) without there being an emotional bond there first".

If it was just the casual sex bit, yeah I'd be side-eyeing it to, as as far as I know, casual sex isn't something that happens as much as people claim. But it's not just limited to that.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, here's an example. Let's say I can't be physically aroused without an element of domination. Does that make me a dom-o-sexual, or just a hetero/homo/bisexual with a very strong preference?

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

I don't know all the answers tbh, but I would have a question for you: Does it matter who's dominating you? Could you get off to porn/non-porn that featured that element of domination you crave? If the answer is yes, I would guess that you were hetero/homo/bi/etc. who likes domination.

If, however, the answer is no, and you could only get off when someone you have a connection with is the one providing that element, then I would say that you're a hetero/homo/bi/etc. demisexual who craves elemetns of domination.

[(Anonymous)]

You missed the point of the question. They were asking: If you only being able to feel attraction to someone you're ~emotionally connected~ with is a sexual orientation, is it also a sexual orientation if they can ONLY get off on being dominated and nothing else.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

Maybe, maybe not. I don't actually know. Sorry! <3

[(Anonymous)]

The point of the question was to draw an analogy. Analogies don't work when you bring the topic of discussion back in.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

Anon asked me a question, I based my answer off of what the discussion was about in the first place. It's how I roll. <3

[(Anonymous)]

No, you misread the question and now you're trying to backpedal. God, you're stupid.

[(Anonymous)]

If you weren't interested in continuing the discussion, you could have just said so.


-anon you've been replying to

[kallanda-lee.livejournal.com]

I just don't get why this needs to be labeled into a whole now level of sexuality.

It's not the same as an orientation because it's not about who you're attracted to, but how you're attracted to them.

I.e.: you could be bi, gay, straight and still experience the kind of attraction that is described by "demisexuality". I'm not saying that it does not exist - I'm sure it does. My point is that, humans being the varied complex beings they are, experience attraction in very different ways. I can't be in love with a man if he's not also my good friend, for example. Do we really need to box it up and separate it from the grand scope of "regular" sexuality, instead of just going with the assumption that sexual dynamics and attractions just have a grand scope?

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

You're right, it's not the same as an orientation, I'm sorry if I never made that clear that I agree. (^_^);;

As for the other bit, why say that people are bisexual? Pansexual? Omnisexual? Why not call them just plain old 'sexual'? Why are women who like women 'lesbians' while men who like men are 'gay'? Why not scrap both words and just call everyone under that umbrella 'homosexual'?

Because people like labels, like demisexual. And if people want to use that to express who they are, why not let them?

[kallanda-lee.livejournal.com]

Actually I think it is already getting out of hand with the pan, and omni, and pomosexual. Or whatever.

The thing with being gay or bi, is that you are actually going to come home with a same-sex partner at some point, most likely. And in a society that is heavily centered on couple-bonding, it's actually useful to have a vocabulary to express that.

If we would live in say, Jack's world, most those labels would be obsolete, because everyone would be assumed bi, and people would probably just say that "X prefers girls" or "X is in a boy phase now".

Labels can be useful, but the can also cause more polarization .

And there's a myriad of ways in which attraction can differ. Shall we label them all? Another example: I'm capable of loving more than one man at once. Some people can only be in love with one person. Shall we put labels on that too and use it to define out sexualities? I just think there's a point where it starts getting ridiculous.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

You have your views, I have mine. I agree that lables shouldn't be used to polarize people, though they are, but your bothersome labels might be someone elses saving grace.

As for the last bit... I thought those already had labels? Polyamorous and monogomous. (sp?) So, if there are already lables, why create more? I agree with this. But for when there are no labels? What then?

[kallanda-lee.livejournal.com]

Well, monogamy is mostly about behavior. I'm monogamous, despite the inherent ability of not being. But I'm sure I heard other labels before. Anyway, I don't care, that's the point - as I don't believe that defines anything of importance about you as a person.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

And that's you, and if that works for you, then more power to you (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SincerityMode)! <3

But, that doesn't work for everyone.

[kallanda-lee.livejournal.com]

Well the more you keep telling them that, the more it won't. If you're going on the assumption that every little quirk in human attraction needs a different label, people will assume they need to find a label that fits them. That's sort of how it works.

[bloodrivendream.livejournal.com]

But for when there are no labels? What then?
--Explain, using words that have more set, recognized, and concrete meanings.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

Admittedly, this was not the most stellar comment I've ever made, sorry. -_-;;

One good thing about labels (hopefully self-identified ones) is tha it can allow a person who uses that label to find other people with similar thoughts, feelings and ideas, thus feeling like they are not alone. However, when there isn't even the idea of a way to find other people, it can be easy to feel alone, and isolated.

Does that make any sense? (-_-);;

[(Anonymous)]

Another example: I'm capable of loving more than one man at once. Some people can only be in love with one person.

There are labels for that. ...Although I agree that it's reached the point of label absurdity.

[kallanda-lee.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and the fact that some people already use those labels quite seriously, is just mindbogglingly to me.

i. i am so sorry but this is so personal for me and lksjdfd

[(Anonymous)]

Actually the sex itself doesn't have to mean anything, just the person you're with. You can be aroused without it particularly ending in a world shattering orgasm, or even actually having sex.

I don't think what I have is an orientation. Like you said, there are people who can't be aroused without being held down, or being in control, or their partner is a certain age. It *is* a psychological requirement to have the arousal requirements. It isn't a fetish, because emotionally connecting with someone is in the mind/heart, not a body part or the color of their skin or an object, but "kink" has connotations that what arouses a person is unusual, which tbh, gets twisted to "wrong" (which is why I hate the word because all sex should be seen as fun and healthy). "Demisexual" (it really needs to be called something else), is only half of an otherwise healthy picture.

Normal people have both "sides," which allows them to not only be attracted to people they know, but others they *don't know* yet, to form emotional attachments, but *not have it be the end all requirements* for arousal to take place. Likewise you can have an emotional attachment to someone, but *not* be aroused by them. It doesn't mean you can have sex with "whoever", but it does mean your body is healthy and reactive to a variety of stimuli.

I'm seen as "weird" because SOs need to be THERE with me, connecting right back at me. I *can* do it for just physical release. But I can't have silly drunk sex where I'm not able to readily have that connection, my body just wont. I wish I could be normal, because it would be easier for SO's. There have been times when I *wanted* sex (who doesn't love orgasms), the person was attractive by social standard, not skeevy, but my body and attraction would not stir.

Tbh it's really a subcategory of intimacy. "Normal" people can express their sexuality in a variety of ways, their body and mind in agreement. But it's like how my friend describes looking at gay porn, she guesses the women are pretty, but she could never get off it. I can't look at a perfectly normal person, and think, 'I'd hit it' or joke with my friends. But an emotional attachment? At times an instant "boner."

I'm probably doing a shitty, rambling job explaining this. It was horrible during my younger years, when I didn't understand and was so embarrassed I was attracted only to people I knew intimately when hormones set in, in this case old friends, and it ended horribly at points. I didn't know why I couldn't be attracted to people I met on outings in high school, or be willing to go on a date with a person in college. It was extremely difficult to be introduced to people who clearly had the intent to be set up with me, only for me to be terribly self-loathing that I wasn't attracted at all the first date. It's taken a few years and therapy to not only make new relationships (friendships), but to stop from being attracted immediately when an emotional attachment began to form.

I don't want to call it a disorder, because I *am* happy, I came from a good family and never was starved for love or felt particularly lonely or feeling people will leave me, which normally comes with borderline personality disorders. I don't even feel like I'm unsafe, or have fear if I don't have a connection. It's my body not getting anything out of it at all, no matter it would have made my life so much less emotionally draining (irony).

It is definitely nowhere near a sexuality the way being homosexual or heterosexual is, which is prominent, and therefore has a continuing dark history of oppression and violence. Bisexuality and asexuality are not as readily under fire because it can be easier to "hide" or not as obvious, but they are still ways the body responds.

I had to just explain to my mother that it was *like* putting asexuality and bisexuality together, to get her to understand a *little* when I was in therapy. It's not, but it was the closest I could think of.

ii. again i am so sorry

[(Anonymous)]

for this tl;dr. if you don't respond i would completely understand because this is an emotional topic all around for everyone, and it went on for a while yesterday.