[ SECRET POST #1907 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1907 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[Disney's Gargoyles]


__________________________________________________



08.
[X-Men: First Class]


__________________________________________________



09.
[keanu reeves]


__________________________________________________



10.
[keanu reeves]


__________________________________________________



















[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]


















11. [SPOILERS for Death Note]



__________________________________________________



12. [SPOILERS for Kuragehime]



__________________________________________________



13. [SPOILERS for The Walking Dead]



__________________________________________________



14. [SPOILERS for Supernatural]



__________________________________________________



15. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 3]



__________________________________________________



16. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 3]



__________________________________________________



17. [SPOILERS for Mass Effect 3]



__________________________________________________


















[ ----- TRIGGERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]



















18. [TRIGGER WARNING for sexual abuse]



__________________________________________________



19. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________



20. [TRIGGER WARNING for rape]



__________________________________________________


































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #272.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - hit/ship/spiration ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I am not knowledgeable enough about this topic to give you a proper answer to ALL of that, but I can tell you something regarding one specific thing you said.

"And looking at this way, it seems like "asexual" (although, again, that seems to me to imply "not attracted to anyone" more than "not interested in sex", so maybe "non-sexual" is a more descriptive term?) is more like "demisexual", a qualifier to gay/straight/bi/whatever than an entire separate orientation in itself."

This REALLY rubbed me the wrong way because it's assuming that everyone experiences romantic attraction, even people who don't experienc sexual attraction. Aromantic asexuals exist. I know this because I am one, and I don't appreciate being told that I don't have an orientation at all (I also don't appreciate being compared to demisexuals, because I agree with all the people in this thread who've been saying that demisexuality isn't a sexual orientation). Anyway, sorry I couldn't give you a explanation about this stuff. Hopefully someone will be able to!

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry! That totally wasn't what I meant at all!

I definitely know that aromantic asexuals exist, and I don't think this part:

"it seems like "asexual" ... seems to me to imply "not attracted to anyone"

contradicts that. Neither does this:

I've always thought of the "sexual" part of hetero-/homo-/bi-/pan-/a-/whatever- sexual referred to the sex of the person you're attracted to, in whatever way you're attracted to them

At least I hope it doesn't. I guess what I meant, the way I look at it "asexual" makes me think first of what most people refer to as aromantic asexuals, because like I said above, to me the "sexual" part refers to the sex of the person, and the "a" implies interest in neither sex.

When I said "not a separate orientation in and of itself", that was referring to people who do have a romantic attraction and already identify as gay/straight/bi/whatever describes that attraction. I guess my point is that if someone is romantically attracted to people of the opposite sex and identifies as straight, they shouldn't necessarily have to start identifying as asexual.

I was actually agreeing that asexual is not the same as demisexual ("maybe "non-sexual" is a more descriptive term?"), just that in a context I commonly see it used, it's used more as a descriptor of sexual interest, like demisexual, rather than an orientation (that's why I suggested "non-sexual" instead of "asexual" in that context).

I guess my point is that it seems that with straight/gay/bi/whatever, romantic/emotional attraction/interest is assumed to be the primary definition (although yes, the majority of the time sexual attraction/interest is included in that), but "asexual" is primarily about sex, at least the way I usually see it used. It just seems inconsistent with the other definitions, and I think asexual meaning "not romantically interested in either sex" makes more sense than "not interested in sex, but possibly romantically interested in one or both sexes", which just isn't quite as clear as the other terms.

I guess I'm not making much sense (I really should get to bed!) but I didn't mean to offend you, and I'm sorry if I did. I definitely do not think you don't exist or don't have an orientation!

[(Anonymous)]

No need to apologize! I'm the one who should apologize, since I completely misunderstood what you said and I probably came off as rude. So sorry about that. And I wasn't offended so much as annoyed. My earlier comment was just a kneejerk response, really. You wouldn't believe how many people can easily accept the concept of asexuality but refuse to believe that anyone could have no interest in romantic relations.

What you're saying actually makes perfect sense to me, but I doubt you'd find many who would agree with that. I once saw someone bring up a similar point in a asexuality-related discussion, then they got dogpiled and accused of "identity policing" before the discussion could go anywhere.

[(Anonymous)]

No problem. I know it's easy to get frustrated with these kinds of things! I'm still not even entirely sure what my own orientation is, and I know so many people who think straight and gay are the only options, so I definitely get frustrated when people are like "oh, yeah, you're just confused if you think you're anything but straight or gay".

And yeah, I don't think many people here would agree. The one other time I saw it brought up was I think probably the conversation you're referring to (if it was here), where they were accused of identity policing, and the discussion never really went anywhere. I've seen several comments outside of this comm that seem to see it that way, but as they weren't specifically sexuality-based discussions they never went in depth enough to know for sure.

I think it's mostly just that all these different terms for different orientations or aspects of sexuality popping up kind of confuse me, especially when it seems most of them, outside of straight/gay/bisexual, don't seem to have specific definitions that everyone can agree on. I guess that's kind of the nature of such a complex topic, though.