[ 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

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

Wait, what?

/is confused.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

"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.

[(Anonymous)]

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).

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

For you, maybe.

[(Anonymous)]

It's a fad and it will pass, thankfully. I'm just concerned that this trend of trying to divvy up interests into the tiniest possible categories is going to result in a population even more isolated from each other.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Who knows? I just feel like it's too much like label policing to say that a group of people can't self-identify because XYZ. I mean, I'd understand if XYZ was offensive in a way that didn't require a leap of logic (i.e. beatingpeopleupsexual), but...

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

You're right, but labels (if that's something that helps a person) can be useful to that/those person/people. And comparing wants and needs are good, but having a way to explain it is helpful as well.

Labels: Can be useful, but that doesn't mean they are automatically.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, hypothetically. My encounters with people's labels has more often informed me that they say things about that person's attitude toward the label, not what the person is actually like.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

Yeah, people like that bug me. I mean, if you like personal labels, and you have them for yourself (but you don't try and label other people) that's one thing. When you act like your personal labels are the most important thing about you, though, or act like everyone should feel a certain way... Yeah, that's not cool. :/

[(Anonymous)]

This. Very well said. I don't get why some people have such a problem with the way other people identify themselves. If the label doesn't work for you, don't use it. But don't attack other people for using labels that make them feel more comfortable.

[(Anonymous)]

When that label is an implicit attack on me? You're damn right I'm going to say something against it.

[(Anonymous)]

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.

I can't stay much longer, but I'll try to explain this one.

The prevailing culture is very slut-shaming. From what I've read in this discussion so far I'm pretty sure you'll agree with me on that one.

Demisexuals are people who only experience sexual attraction to people they have a close emotional connection to, right? This label differentiates demisexuals from people who do not need that connection. Demisexuals claim that the differentiation is between people who need the connection, and people who don't necessarily need the connection, but if you define yourself as The X Group, you are pointing out that the other group is full of Ys, not that the other group is Xs and Ys combined.

By identifying themselves as needing this connection, demisexuals are saying that others don't.

Now, people who have sex without deep emotional connections are commonly called sluts. This is why demisexuality as a concept is a slut-shaming concept. This doesn't mean there's anything bad or wrong with people who need a deep emotional connection in order to become sexually aroused. It just means that by choosing to label themselves by this preference, they are implicitly slutshaming everyone who doesn't identify as demi.

Does that make sense?

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

gdi, wifi died for the night. Your post is an interesting one, and I'll be posting a full reply to it tomorrow (usong my phone right now, but it's not the best). Is that agreeable?

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

The prevailing culture is very slut-shaming. From what I've read in this discussion so far I'm pretty sure you'll agree with me on that one.

Agreed.

It makes sense in a way, but I still can't completely agree with you. Your argument seems to me like "X group can't self-identify because some people might assume Y group are sluts to be shamed because of the definition of X group" which is just a bit over the top. Add into that the fact that non-demi's are the norm, and more people are likely to look on a person who is demisexual as someone who is weird/a virgin/a prude/ice cold bitch/"queer" (which shouldn't even be an insult IMHO, but it often is, I seriously doubt that most people would look at demisexuality and assume it meant the rest of society is a bunch of "sluts", rather that there is somethign wrong with demisexuals.

So, while I agree with the way you put your argument, I can't agree that it's a valid argument for most of the population/society or that it actually is effective in a larger group than just LJ circles. I mean, you could easily switch the labels in that argument around a bit, and argue that anyone who is bi/pan/omni are sluts to be shamed... Which they aren't. -_-;;

[(Anonymous)]

Your argument seems to me like "X group can't self-identify because some people might assume Y group are sluts to be shamed because of the definition of X group" which is just a bit over the top.

If X group defines themselves in opposition to Y group, X group represents the socially accepted default, and Y group is composed of a systematically oppressed minority? Then yes, I am saying that X group should not self-identify that way.

Add into that the fact that non-demi's are the norm, and more people are likely to look on a person who is demisexual as someone who is weird/a virgin/a prude/ice cold bitch/"queer"

Asexuals are seen as frigid and prudes, and sexuals (a term I really don't like) are seen as sluts and whores. That's misogyny, plain and simple. No matter what kind of sex a woman is interested in, it will be considered wrong... unless it is sex in a committed relationship with a person she has a strong emotional connection to. Men aren't exempt from this, either. If a man has a lot of sex with a lot of partners he's cheered on as a stud, but media tells us this is an unsatisfying situation, and that he'll only be happy when he settles down. Seriously, go watch any movie with a man and a woman as the stars. In 99% of the cases they will end up having a sexual relationship, but only after they've formed a strong (frequently stress-related) relationship.

Too, there's the part where love is an addition. (http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html) Our brains reward us with happy-making chemicals when we form pair-bonds, and it's been scientifically proven that, for most people, the sex is better when you have a deep emotional connection. Sound familiar?

Most people are already demisexual. The label is unnecessary.

[loracarol.livejournal.com]

How are non-demi's the "systematically oppressed minority"? Seriously, how. Hell, neither demi's nor non-demi's are really oppressed until you start bringing gender into the equation. There is no systematic oppression... Unless you're talking about social stigma, but that is not the same as oppression. >_>

But demisexuality isn't saying that a deep emotional connection makes sex "better", it's saying that it's required to even exist.

No, most people aren't already demisexual, going by the way you seem to describe it. You description says that it makes sex better to have a bond, mine is saying that the bond has to be there for a sexual relationship to even exist. We are really talking about two different things here.

[kallanda-lee.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to say this is a very eloquent post and I applaud you for it.