fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2071 ]

[ SECRET POST #2071 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2071 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Important: I'm really sorry about this, but I accidentally misclicked and deleted the submission post from last week instead of saving it. Managed to save the first page (25) of secrets, but the rest (about 100 or so) are gone.

If you submitted something last week (Aug 26-Sept 1), please resubmit it here.

The submissions post for next week is below as usual.

Secrets Left to Post: ?? pages, ??? secrets from Secret Submission Post #296.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

There's annoying people of every orientation. And all the things you've listed, in both lists, isn't even a thing exclusive, or implicitly only common, to openly id'd aces. I just think it's weird to single them if that's what OP's friend is doing for those reasons.

Obviously, it's not common for all aces, but I can definitely understand being weary of the slut-shaming that goes on in places where some aces hang out (e.g. tumblr).

Because they do :U

Please explain to me how unoppressed people belong to a group of oppressed individuals. Please explain to me why they should be able to reclaim a word that never even applied to them in the first place. I can understand if you're a queer ace (homoromantic, biromantic, panromantic), but if they're heteromantic? No way. And if you believe that heteromantic aces have a right to call themselves queer, then you can go fuck yourself.

Yeah, heteromantic aces are NOT queer. But I noticed you didn't mention aromantic aces. Would you consider them queer? Because they're definitely not straight.

Not trying to start wank here, I'm genuinely curious.

I don't. Since an aromantic ace is presumably not going to be in a romantic or sexual relationship, they don't have to deal with marriage or work discrimination or being harassed. They may be heckled for not "settling down," but it's definitely not the same.

Fair enough. Folk are going to form impressions, and I can't say I'm going to fault them for it even if I disagree with them.

Simply by being outside the "norm" of sexual orientation (ie: hetersexual). You say they are not oppressed, but I say they are in different, perhaps subtler, ways than I would be as your "typical and acceptable" queer. Invisibility, incredulity, etc., but seeing as I'm not asexual, it's not my place to speak about how someone might feel oppressed (just as how not everyone feels oppressed, even an individual in a more obviously marginalized group).

'Queer,' on it's own, is tricky. Not every person in the queer alphabet identifies as 'queer.' Just like how someone who is the definition of bisexual doesn't have to identify as such. These labels are up to the person to grab for themselves imo. And so I will continue to welcome aces, and folk who feel they are not the most cis straight person in the world, into the community.

DA

if you believe that heteromantic aces have a right to call themselves queer, then you can go fuck yourself.

I'm not gonna say "go fuck yourself" but I do agree that if you're heteroromantic you really don't fit the standardly used definition of queer. Maybe the original one that means unusual/odd, but not the one that's usually used nowadays that seems to mean "not straight" because I think if you're heteroromantic you're pretty much straight. Not being interested in sex doesn't make you queer if you're still into the opposite sex otherwise...if that was the case pretty much all of my aunts would be queer.

Since "straight" generally means "heterosexual" meaning "sexually interested in the opposite gender" wouldn't your assertion technically not be true?

And if "queer" means "not straight" then it logically follows...

(never seen a formal definition of "queer" though. nor do I know if there even *is* a universally agreed-upon definition.)

also I think "[not] being interested in sex" =/= "[not] experiencing sexual attraction"

because if that were true wouldn't that make me not straight for being chaste? and uh, nope, still pretty damn sexually attracted to (certain) guys (I'm female). but I'm explicitly not interested in having sex at this point in my life. And there are other reasons you could be not interested in sex (it's painful, you don't know any particular individuals you want to sleep with, you're focused on other things at the time, other moral reasons/celibacy/in the process of divorce/don't want to cheat on boring or abusive spouse who you don't want to sleep with, birth control, it's boring in general, medication side effect, apathy...the list could go on...)

(Not saying that your aunts *aren't* asexual, just that "not being interested in sex" isn't enough information to determine that they *are*)

I hope that was all clear, it's late and I'm tired etc. etc.

Edited 2012-09-04 06:29 (UTC)

ayrt

Well, on Wikipedia (which isn't necessarily a reliable source, I know, but I've seen the same definitions elsewhere and that was the easiest to go directly to since I'm at work) all the different orientations say "romantic or sexual attraction" to whatever sex (although I'd say "and/or" instead of "or", personally) and the definition of "sexual orientation" is "an enduring pattern of attraction—emotional, romantic, sexual, or some combination of these—to the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes, and the genders that accompany them". By that definition, someone who's romantically attracted to the opposite sex would be straight.

I don't know that there is a formal definition of "queer" or even a universally agreed-upon definition, the definition I was talking about is just the one that I see most often. I personally don't think heteroromantic asexuals fit that definition, but I'm not going to say they can't identify that way if they feel like it does fit them.

I'm sorry, I should've worded that differently. I always tend to conflate the two even though I know that technically they're separate things. (For me, the reason I'm not interested in sex is because I'm not sexually attracted to anyone, and I guess I kind of consider people who aren't having sex for reasons other than that they're asexual to still be interested in it even if they aren't doing it.) Even so, I would still consider you straight if you were romantically interested in those guys. The only way I probably wouldn't consider someone straight (other than, obviously, gay/bi/pan/other non-straight people) is if they didn't have any attraction to the opposite sex, sexual or romantic, as in an aromantic asexual (which I am, for the record...I don't consider myself straight obviously, but I don't consider myself queer, either, just because the definition I see most often seems to imply attraction to the same sex on some level). Of course, that's just the way I personally see it, and obviously not everyone is going to agree with me/see things from my point of view, which is fine.

I'm not saying my aunts definitely are asexual, and I would say almost definitely wouldn't identify that way if they knew the word. I actually know quite a few people who aren't sexually attracted to anyone, but only a couple actually identify as asexual (or would if they knew the term) even though they might technically fit the definition.

I definitely see where you're coming from.

I'm just not sure why the term is still called "sexual orientation" if it encompasses strictly romantic attraction as well. Shouldn't it be "sexual-romantic orientation" then or something? /is picky about semantics

I've seen the argument that the "sexual" part means sex as in the sex of the people you're attracted to rather than sexual attraction, but you could look at it either way. I think that confusion is at least partly why some people/groups seem to be getting rid of the "sexual" part and just going with orientation. And I get what you mean about the semantics...I wish there were better/less open-to-interpretation words for some of these things.

Sexual attraction is a type of attraction which is sexual in nature. This is what sets it apart from romantic attraction, platonic attraction, or aesthetic attraction. The gender(s) of the people you are sexually attracted to is what defines what your particular sexual orientation is. Which is often but not always the same as your romantic orientation.

While I'm no expert on this subject, I'm quite certain that those arguing that the "sex" in "sexual attraction" itself refers to the "sex of the people you're attracted to" are wrong.

While I'm no expert on this subject, I'm quite certain that those arguing that the "sex" in "sexual attraction" itself refers to the "sex of the people you're attracted to" are wrong.

I probably said it wrong (shouldn't try to post and work at the same time!) but I meant the "sex" in "sexual orientation" (not in "sexual attraction") referred to the sex of the people. Obviously "sexual attraction" is sexual in nature, but the argument I've seen is that "sexual orientation" isn't necessarily. Not saying that's definitely right, just that I've heard/seen people say it.

But yeah, I agree that "sexual orientation" can be confusing if it doesn't include sex, and I think that's why some people are just shortening it to "orientation". I think just saying "romantic orientation" would probably work as well. Most people would assume it definitely included sex but I don't think it'd confuse anyone.

I think the word "sexual", as a prefix for both "attraction" and "orientation" means the same thing - that is, an attraction or orientation that is sexual in nature. Besides that, people often speak of the "gender" they are attracted to, not the sex.

Also contrasting "sexual orientation" to "romantic orientation" illustrates this. Nowhere in the word "romantic" is the object of attraction referenced.

It is indeed a complicated topic and the terminology can be confusing, but I still think this part is pretty clear. Some people certainly may have been misusing it.

Re: AYRT

(Anonymous) - 2012-09-05 00:28 (UTC) - Expand

Re: AYRT

(Anonymous) - 2012-09-05 21:07 (UTC) - Expand

Re: AYRT

diet_poison - 2012-09-05 21:12 (UTC) - Expand

Re: AYRT

(Anonymous) - 2012-09-06 02:20 (UTC) - Expand

Re: AYRT

diet_poison - 2012-09-06 04:53 (UTC) - Expand

Re: AYRT

(Anonymous) - 2012-09-06 05:47 (UTC) - Expand

makes sense to me. sexual orientation = which sex you're oriented towards. i don't think it's that confusing.

It's actually not just limited to orientation. The 'T' of LGBT wasn't always are a part of the queer umbrella, and it doesn't imply romantic or sexual orientation. Heck, you see official pride groups no longer sticking to just four letters, but adding on and creating longer and longer acronyms like LGBTTIQ2sA to note down the inclusivity.

eta: should probably definitely make sure it's clear that the 'A' there denotes allies, and that lengthy thing isn't a list of "this is what falls under queer"

Edited 2012-09-04 20:39 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused...what isn't just limited to orientation? Or did you mean to reply to another comment?

whoops. I meant queer isn't limited to orientation, attraction, what-have-you.

Re: AYRT

(Anonymous) - 2012-09-04 21:51 (UTC) - Expand

Re: AYRT

cloud_riven - 2012-09-04 22:12 (UTC) - Expand

Re: AYRT

(Anonymous) - 2012-09-04 22:33 (UTC) - Expand

Re: AYRT

cloud_riven - 2012-09-04 23:02 (UTC) - Expand

Re: AYRT

(Anonymous) - 2012-09-04 23:24 (UTC) - Expand

Re: AYRT

cloud_riven - 2012-09-04 23:52 (UTC) - Expand

huh, if it isn't just limited to orientation (sexual or otherwise), why would heteroromantic asexuals not be queer? That falls outside the "straight" norm.

It's up to that person to choose to use it, and not someone else to force it on them (or call it appropriation if they do use it).

What I'm saying is that, yes, they have the right to call themselves so if they want.

Re: AYRT

diet_poison - 2012-09-05 00:07 (UTC) - Expand

Please explain to me how unoppressed people belong to a group of oppressed individuals.

Right. Because people who have no interest in sex are never looked down upon. Never called "frigid" or abnormal, never told there's something wrong with them. They're never told to see a doctor because they aren't aroused by anything. Others don't look at them funny AT ALL.

We aren't denied any rights that (hetero)sexual people have by the government or society. What you described is ignorance and bigotry, which is wrong and totally sucks, but it's not the same as oppression.

da

I agree, at least for heteroromantic asexuals. Plus, if you're hetero (or homo/bi/whatever), how are most people even going to know you're asexual if you don't tell them? Most people don't tend to go around talking about what they do (or don't) do sexually.

You could probably make the argument that aromantics are maybe a little bit different because there are differences/what some people would consider discrimination against people who aren't married (tax breaks, etc.) but that also applies to gay/straight/bi people who are single.

People harassing you and making ignorant comments definitely sucks but isn't the same as being denied rights.

asexuals have the benefit of having low visibility, but they do have to put up with crap from people assuming things that aren't true; as a female asexual who is nearing thirty, my family members and coworkers heckle me frequently about my not being married/having a boyfriend/having kids. I've been asked if I'm incapable of having kids or if I have a mental disorder. I'm sure that sexual females who are unattached and without children get this as well, but it IS irritating.

Of course I wouldn't put that anywhere near the level of bigotry many other groups feel. However it doesn't feel good to be told that I never have problems that I actually do have. (Also I don't like being told that my sexuality isn't "real")

But how do you know? You just haven't found the right person yet! /sarcasm

ayrt

Oh, I definitely agree with you that all of those things suck (I'm an aromantic asexual too) and it drives me crazy when people give me a hard time for not being in a relationship, but I have a straight single friend and a bi single friend who get the same sorts of comments I get.

I just don't feel right claiming to be oppressed or whatever because even though it sucks being told your sexuality doesn't exist or that there's something wrong with you at least no one is trying to deny me any rights. (I don't know about the problems part...I personally don't see my sexuality, or lack thereof, as a problem, but I'm not sure if you're referring to that or something else.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

no subject

AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT

Re: AYRT