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

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.

I was just going off of things I'd heard and didn't want to flat out call them wrong because I can see both sides, but you're right in that most people seem to talk about the gender they're attracted to rather than the sex. I think that's why, if people are going to go off the definition I mentioned before, then you were right when you said they need another term.

I'm not saying they're right in saying "sexual orientation" refers to sex (or gender) but I can kind of see how it might make sense on a certain level. Obviously the majority of people aren't going to interpret it in the way they mean it, though, which is why I suggested "romantic orientation" instead. So I'm not going to say they're 100% misusing the terminology because in theory I can see how they could get that meaning, but the point of language is to communicate, and if the majority of people are misinterpreting your intent then obviously you need to come up with another word.

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

For what it's worth, the way I see it, one describes the sex of people (I disagree that people usually say gender instead; outside of the internet I see people using 'sex' way more) and one describes the type of relationship. They don't contradict each other because they're referring to different things.

Maybe the 'sexual' prefix used to refer only to sexual attraction but I don't think it automatically does anymore. I'm sexually attracted to the same people I'm attracted to in other ways (I'm bi) but the sexual part is only one aspect and I don't think the word for the overall concept should be based solely on sex. I don't know that calling it a romantic orientation is the answer either but it seems like there's got to be a better word out there.

"Sexual" and "romantic" are both modifiers of attraction. What you're saying would make way more sense if those kinds of relationships are the same, but they're not always. I don't think there's a better word to describe an attraction or relationship that is sexual in nature other than "sexual".

I'm sexually attracted to the same people I'm attracted to in other ways

Not everyone is.

Not everyone is.

Oh, I definitely get that. That was actually my point but I failed spectacularly at making it. :p

To put it another way, my issue with 'sexual orientation' and 'romantic orientation' is that I think most people tend to think sex and romance always go together 100% of the time, and they don't. I think no matter which term you use, most people are going to assume that it also includes the other type of attraction while it doesn't always. I mean, if someone were to mention their 'sexual orientation' I think the majority of people would assume that included romantic attraction as well, and the same goes for 'romantic orientation' and people assuming it definitely included sexual attraction. I think 'sexual and/or romantic orientation' or like you said somewhere above, 'sexual-romantic orientation' would make more sense, since by using both words it points out that they're two different things. And I think there should be a word that could mean either both sexual and romantic or just one or just the other so it includes everybody--if you say 'sexual orientation' it leaves out asexuals who have a romantic orientation but if you say 'romantic orientation' it leaves out aromantic people who have a sexual orientation. By having a term that includes both it doesn't exclude anyone, plus I think by pointing out that they're two different words, it would theoretically make people less likely to assume they were the same thing.

I don't know, it makes sense in my head!

Yes, that makes sense. The only issue I have with a term like "sexuo-romantic attraction/orientation" is that some people who only experience one of those types of attractions might feel uncomfortable using a term that implies both - unless, of course, there was a strong connotation that it was inclusive but didn't HAVE to include both and one aspect of one's s-o orientation (lol making that up) is whether they are specific to one or have both (or neither). Spelling them out separately like that might help enforce that they are separate things, but it might also reinforce the idea that they are the same since you are now including them in one word, and I guess that was my instinct here which is why I'm leaning towards it being better to keep them separate terms.

But we cannot predict exactly what would happen. And I see where you are coming from - sorry it took me so long to understand it completely! It seems we're on the same page and want to accomplish the same things, just have different ideas about how to go about it, and that's ok. That's why this kind of discourse is so important!

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.

Ah, okay. I thought that's what you meant, but I've always seen it used in relation to orientation so that kind of confused me. If it's not limited to orientation then what is the actual definition? Anything gender or orientation related that's unconventional?

Other than the dictionary one, there kind of isn't a specific and established one. Since it was often used as a slur (and still is!) against gays and lesbians, it was retaken. Then it expanded to include bisexuals, and then trans*, and intersex too, and what about polyamory too!, and etc.

If calling it unconventional works to make sense of it, why not. Pretty much if it's outside heteronormative I guess.

I don't know that asexuals are automatically not heteronormative though. Obviously they can not be but I don't think it's a given, at least as I understand it. I always thought heteronormativity referred more to gender roles and relationship dynamics, and I don't see why an asexual person couldn't have a traditional relationship in that respect. For example, I don't see a difference between two non-asexual people in a traditional sexual relationship and an asexual person in a traditional sexual relationship with a non-asexual person, where the asexual person has sex with their partner to make them happy. I don't think the fact that the asexual person isn't necessarily getting anything out of it makes the relationship not heteronormative if those people are of the opposite sex.

But then of course there are situations involving asexual people that I would say definitely aren't heteronormative, so obviously it depends on the individual person/situation.

I guess I just hesitate to call something queer if it doesn't involve same sex attraction in some way because I've seen so many people get jumped on for ~appropriating LGBT culture or whatever.

Just don't paint everyone as queer, or any label, unless they identify as such. Similar to how people in the lgbt community can reject it for themselves because of the uncomfortable background of it being used as a slur, it's going to mean different things to different people, and saying it's strictly this or that only serves to make it a rigid definition when not everything in the gender/sexuality spectrum (or lack of one) has a clear qualifier.

For instance, does a queer-identifying bisexual woman count as queer if her current partner is a man? Of course. But then you'd have folk arguing that because she currently passes as straight, she has no right to the word. I'm sorry I find it ridiculous that there's so much in-fighting already regarding policing about who gets to id as a relatively neutral word for "other," and playing oppression olympics.

Like you said, it's on the individual person/situation. Their call imo.

As far as appropriation goes, I agree about people not claiming the same political fights, or discrimination of a specific group, as their own. But that's taking up queer as more than just an id, and pretending it's a cause as a whole, as if any member of L, G, B, or T can claim the same problems of the other as their own.

That all makes sense, so thanks for the clarification. I guess I'm used to dealing with words that have a specific definition so it's kind of confusing but I think I get it. Since "queer" doesn't really have an "official" definition, like you said, it's up to the the individual person to decide if it fits them or their situation, right?

When it comes to things like this I'm kind of always nervous that I'm going to say something "wrong" and get attacked for it, but I guess there are always going to be certain people that are going to find something wrong with whatever you said no matter what.

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.

or call it appropriation if they do use it

That's the part I'm referring to. I definitely wouldn't be forcing labels on people! But some people here have indicated that they don't think asexual heteroromantics have the right to call themselves queer, and I don't really think that's fair. They aren't what would be perceived as "typically" straight and they do get shit for being who they are.

I'm neither queer nor asexual, so there's not much more I can say on it. Those are just my observations.

Edited 2012-09-05 00:07 (UTC)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only