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

Demisexuals draw a line between people who need an emotional attachment in order to be aroused, and people who don't. Or, in other words, people to whom sex has to mean something, and people who can just have sex with whomever. This is slut shaming. This is textbook slut shaming. Saying that you don't mean it that way doesn't change anything.

Additionally, demisexuality, like the other anon said, is just silly. You are taking a preference and making it an orientation. That's like saying that you're a Missionary, or a Lights On, or a KY-with-the-purple-dildo instead of a Glide-with-the-glass-one. People who only like blondes don't identify themselves as Blondies. People who fetishize Asians don't consider it an orientation. It's a preference, and that's all.

I'm sorry if you've met people who were rude enough that that is the only thing you got out of it. (I mean that really sincerely, though I know that it might not come across online...)

Demisexuals draw a line between [...] people to whom sex has to mean something, and people who can just have sex with whomever.

No, that's not it. It's drawing a line between those who need an emotional attachment to feel any sort of physical responce, and people who don't need that for anything, be it sex to masterbation to anything inbetween.

People who masterbate? Aren't sluts. People who have sex? Aren't sluts. Everyone is different, just because some people physically need something to get themselves off doesn't make them better or worse.

Again, how is this slut shaming? I never said it was bad, no one did. The only people saying that these people are 'sluts' that we're 'shaming' are you and the other anon. :I

I appreciate that you don't see it that way, and I mean appreciate as in "thank you". However, that really doesn't change anything. Some people need to be kissed in order to become aroused - are they kiss-sexual? What if you only get off to written porn, instead of visual porn - are you a Textie?

I agree with you that there are some people who require a certain level of connection in order to be aroused. I don't agree that this preference requires a whole new orientation subset, because I find it harmful to differentiate between people who are having sex "correctly" (ie the way we've been told to have it, waiting for someone to make it special) and people who aren't.

I really don't have all the answers... Wish I did. ^_^;;

I don't see either as being more "correct" than the other, so I don't really think that I can say anything about your second point. Sex is sex. Some people need something different than others to have sex. I do think there's a difference, though, between needing something physical to become aroused, and the need to have emotional intimacy to even consider someone else as someone to be aroused by.

YOU don't see one being more correct than the other, but the culture we both function within does. There is already too much institutionalized slut-shaming (and the misogyny that always goes hand-in-hand with it), and defining your preference as an orientation that feeds into this only contributes to it.

Additionally, humans in general are hardwired to be monogamous (although obviously there are exceptions to this rule). That makes being a "demi" the default. You don't need a special label that that.

Well, I'd disagree that the default doesn't need a special label -- I'm really glad that words like heterosexual, cisgender, and dyadic exist, because I like being able to identify people with a positive term rather than a negative (not queer, not trans, or not intersex). The problem with "demisexual" is it already has a label, and that's just plain "sexual".

Dyadic??

As the comment you replied to states, it means people who are not born intersexed. It's useful because it avoids the implication that intersex is "other" or weird.

I just never heard it, and couldn't quickly find it on Google - so thanks for the explanation.

I agree that the culture needs to shift. I agree that institutionalized sult-shaming needs to go perish in a conflageration, and I agree that the misogyny that goes along with it should put on a pair of cement shoes and go visit the Titanic.

I do not believe that demisexuality is as much of a preference as other things that have been mentioned though. Maybe it should be called demiromantic instead of demisexual, or it shoud have a different label. I. Don't. Know.

I do know this, I will disagree with you that it is slut-shaming, just as hard and often as I will agree with you that slut-shaming is a bad thing.

Also? When I googled "humans monogamy", most of the articles I found are saying that monogomy is a social trait, not a trait 'hardwired' into our brains. If this is true, then "demi" being the default is wuite possibly not true.

nayrt

I really hope you aren't implying that monogamy is required for emotionally-connected sex. Because it's not, and the cultural meme that having multiple sexual partners means that you aren't emotionally and romantically invested in those sexual relationships is really harmful to those of us who have healthy, loving sexual relationships with more than one person.

If that is the way it came across, I apologize- that was not my intention. <3

More like monogamous adjacent. Serial monogamists, very commonly. Humans are sort of in between having multiple partners at a time and being with just one other at a time. Some are happy being monogamous, others happily poly, many others are monogamous with serious stirrings on the side.

I read something about human male genitalia arrangement working out to mean we're built for 2 to 3 partners in our lifetime on average. Considering that's an average, that sounds about right.

I'm not even going to touch the plethora of labels flying around this thread, but I would like to ask how you arrived at the conclusion that humans are 'hardwired' to be monogamous. You can also build a powerful argument for the opposite case.

You can build a powerful argument that we were planted here by space gardeners, but it doesn't make it feasible.

Comparing apples to orangutans.

I like both apples and orangutans. Therefore, they are identical.

The Librarian would like a word. He wants you to stop trying to bite him.

I thought the current assumption by anthropologists was serial monogamy. But that's merely the most observed pattern. Humans seem to be quite flexible in that respect.

It is. 2-5 lifetime partners, as evidenced by a whole pile of evidence that I don't have access to right now. There is a great deal of individual flexibility, but the current prevailing theory is that serial monogamy is the default.

Well there you have it then.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #1716 ]

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

ook.

Re: different anon

Re: different anon

Re: different anon