fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #1716 ]

[ SECRET POST #1716 ]

⌈ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

If it makes you happy to think that, please, go on ahead. <3

Wow, you don't have any idea how to interact with other people or have any tolerance for simple misunderstanding. God you're stupid.

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

-anon you've been replying to

I like haing discussions, but it's getting to the point where I feel like we're all just going around in big circles... :/

I mean, I'd love to talk about it some more, it's just... This isn't how I was expecting to spend tonight, you know? I didn't even expect that many responces to my comment, lol. Well, that shows me!

If you'd like to continue the discussion, I'm willing, but I'm not sure where we should go from here. <3

I'm still concerned that you don't seem to understand that the label you've chosen for yourself is contributing to systemic slut-shaming. If you understood that but didn't care, that would be one thing, but you really don't seem to accept that in this case, what you call yourself has an impact for more people than just you.

Eh, I don't actually call myself a demisexual. I thought about it a while ago, but I came to terms with the fact that I wouldn't know what to label myself to label myself accurately, and I hate labels (for myself) that don't quite fit right. So, right know I'm a whattheeffamIsexual. :D

If you still are convinced that demisexual is passive-aggresively slut-shaming, then I do believe this conversation is done, as I cannot see yoru point, and you cannot see mine. I don't think the label is slut-shaming, just as I do not think that the label 'homosexual' is passive-aggressively heterophobic, 'heterosexual' is passive-aggresively homophobic, or that bisexual implies that someone just can't make up their mind.

That's not a valid analogy. Homosexuals are not attracted only to dark-haired members of their same sex. Heterosexuals are not only able to become aroused by zaftig members of the opposite sex.

Wait, what?

/is confused.

You compared demisexuality's slut shaming to heterosexuality being homophobic. I pointed out that this isn't a valid comparison to make. "Homosexual" means that a person is attracted to members of their own sex, not just to one individual person. Demisexuality is attraction to a single person, not to the group of people required to make it an orientation.

Again, demisexual is a preference, not an orientation. Attraction to a group of people in an orientation. Attraction to a single person is a relationship.

Alright, I accept that that may not have been the best analogy. However, I take issue with your claim that "demisexuality" is a preference.

Attraction to a group of people isn't always an orientation, if you're attracted to redheads, that doesn't make that an orientation, for example.

Attraction to a single person =/= a relationship. I could be attracted to someone (I don't really know/care who's "in" as famous right now, so feel free to pick your own) but that doesn't mean I'm in a relationship with them.

You can replace "relationship" with "crush" then.

Attraction to a group of people isn't always an orientation, but you must be attracted to a group of people in order to have an orientation. You can't orient off one person.

"Attraction to a group of people in an orientation. Attraction to a single person is a crush."

That makes more sense, then. But I don't understand what that has to do with being physically attracted to someone, which is what demisexuality is about.

I think the biggest issue here is the term demisexual, yes? The balancing point between sexual of any sort, and no sexual feelings. Someone can be homosexual and still demisexual, they're still attracted to the group, but not physically attracted unless they get to know somone.

But by slapping a label on it, you (general you) are doing several things. You are saying that this is unusual, when it fact it's really really common. And you are saying that this kind of attraction is to be differentiated from people who don't need that connection in order to feel sexual attraction, which, once again, is slutshaming.

There is no reason to label yourself as demisexual. There is a reason to label yourself heterosexual or homosexual, or even asexual, since people looking for sexual and romantic partners need these labels to identify potential partners. But there is no reason to say "I am only turned on by people I know". There is absolutely no purpose served by this label, except that it's another label you can slap on yourself, and people love labels. No benefit, and quite a lot of negativity (whether you agree with it or not).

How are people who don't need "that connection" sluts to be (hypothetically) shamed, though? This is the part I don't get, you and the other anon(s) are all up in arms about how it's slut shaming, but I don't get why that's turning people into sluts to be shamed.

Also, there is a good reason for that label, whether it's for your gain or not. If a person is demisexual, but trying to find an S.O., meeting people can be hard because there's the added pressure of sex. Hopefully by having the demisexual label, one can explain to a potential S.O. about themselves, if that person is sexual, they'll (hopefully, people- sexual and non and inbetween and other alike) understand that, for the other person, sex isn't just a physical need. If there potential S.O. is asexual, they won't feel the pressure of a partner going from non-sexual to sexual as their feelings (hypothetically) grow, as there will be that understanidng from the start.

It's not just another label to slap on to oneself.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. If you want to know if your partner is interested in having sex with you, ask them. If you want to take the relationship slow, and not start having sex right away, you can say that. Telling somebody "I will only want to have sex with you once we have a deep emotional connection" just sounds like something out of a teenager's diary.

(no subject)

loracarol.livejournal.com - 2011-09-15 05:00 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2011-09-15 05:16 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

loracarol.livejournal.com - 2011-09-15 15:53 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2011-09-15 17:19 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

loracarol.livejournal.com - 2011-09-15 17:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2011-09-15 17:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

loracarol.livejournal.com - 2011-09-15 17:52 (UTC) - Expand

da

Labels are fine for feeling like you aren't alone, but in those situations, explaining your personal situation is more useful than a label. Sex is not automatically on the table with every date with someone who likes sex. Labels are useless, actually comparing individual wants and needs and expectations is what's needed.

Lesbian doesn't even mean "don't bother asking, boys" after all. Labels: useless when it comes to dating.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only