fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2257 ]

[ SECRET POST #2257 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2257 ⌋

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

#8 and 9 are moving gifs.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

[Jessica Alba]

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11. http://i56.tinypic.com/2ih02df.jpg
[porn... sort of. illustrated]

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

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

13. [SPOILERS for A Song of Ice and Fire]

__________________________________________________

14. [SPOILERS for Supernatural]

__________________________________________________

15. [SPOILERS for Brave, Wreck-It Ralph]

__________________________________________________

16. [SPOILERS for Persona 3]

__________________________________________________

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

17. [WARNING for suicide, self harm]

[My Mad Fat Diary]

__________________________________________________

18. [WARNING for rape]

[Far Cry 3]

__________________________________________________

19. [WARNING for self harm and sexual abuse]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #322.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - ships it ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So. That post up above or below or wherever reminded me that I wanted to post this awhile ago but never did.

I think I'm most likely asexual but considering I don't even completely understand what it means I can't say for sure.

If it just meant 'isn't interested in having sex with people' then I would have no problems making sense of it. But people on that site always point out that it's about 'sexual attraction' and not whether or not you want to have sex with people.

I don't really see the difference tho? I mean what IS 'sexual attraction?' The only explanation I could find was that you could look at a specific person and want to have sex with them and that was 'sexual attraction.' But if that's what it means then I'm not going to look at ANYONE and want to have sex with them because ... I don't want to have sex with anyone. So how is 'not feeling sexual attraction' NOT the same as 'not wanting to have sex with anyone' when sexual attraction MEANS 'wanting to have sex with someone?'

Maybe I'm missing something but I just really don't get it.

Could be about those cases where you find someone else hot but still wouldn't really want to have to have sex with them, because of reasons? If you're celibate, or if there are medical reasons why you don't want to have sex, or if you want to wait until your married, or whatever, then you might still feel that if you were to have sex, you could still feel drawn to certain people in a way that tells you that if you were to have sex, it could totally be with them if your body has any say in the matter.

That said "sexual attraction" for me isn't the way the people like that site described it at all. It's more that I like to be around some people, and I feel like I want to touch them a lot (usually I don't actually touch them, because boundaries). And (oversharing alert) my nether parts start feeling warm when I look at them or when I'm near them, although I don't always notice. That's pretty much it, for me. I'm sure it's different for different people, though.

da

yup, same for me

Thank you that does make some sense about your nether parts feeling warm but the rest of it still doesn't make sense to me

If you were celibate or it was for medical reasons or you wanted to wait until marriage then that does make sense to me because you would want to have sex you just wouldn't be doing it. Right?

But you can find someone hot without wanting to have sex with them right? And if you do want to have sex with them but you just aren't doing then obivously you wouldn't count as asexual I think.

DA

Yeah, being celibate, medical reasons, or waiting until marriage doesn't quality as asexual, because the want to have sex is there (or was there, but due to whatever condition or medication was altered), but it's not being acted upon. Where as with asexuality there's no desire to have sex in the first place.

And yeah, you can find people hot without wanting to screw them either. In my case, it's more of aesthetically pleasing (think like really great architecture or nicely composed art) than any romantic or sexual desire towards that person, but it's apparently different for other asexual folks.

Also, I don't quite get what you're trying to say with your last sentence. Could you rephrase it?

Okay thank you. That makes sense.

I just meant that if you DO want to have sex with someone but you aren't doing it for some reason then you don't count as asexual because asexuals don't want to to begin with. I think that's right anyway.

Yeah sounds right!

Do you have any other questions by the way?

No I think I get it now thank you!

Well, I think you're taking 'having sex' to mean they want it. Asexuality is simply the lack of sexual attraction to any gender. Asexuals who are in relationships with regular sexuals are going to have sex, as that is a part of being in a relationship.

I'm a hard 0 on the sex-o-meter. I do, however, have sex with my partner because he is sexual and I want to make him happy. Compromise is part of a healthy relationship and all that jazz.

Asexuality is simply the lack of sexual attraction to any gender.

No but that's what I'm trying to say. I get that and that's why I'm confused because I'm not even sure what SEXUAL ATTRACTION is.

I tried looking up an explanation of it and what I found was that sexual attraction means looking at someone and wanting to have sex with them. BUT I can already say that I don't look at ANYONE and want to have sex with them because I know that I don't want to have sex with ANYONE no matter who they are.

Also what about things like people saying they're not asexual but they have a low sex drive and they never want to have sex with anyone? How is that any different if being asexual means not having sexual attraction and sexual attraction means wanting to have sex with a specific person and they don't want to have sex with anyone? Wouldn't that mean they ARE asexual?

Maybe I'm saying it all wrong or maybe I'm just dumb but I just don't understand how all these things are different.

NAYRT

I don't think this is at all what the OP is talking about. I think the issue is that they're not sure what the definition of "sexual attraction" is, not whether or not someone is having sex, wanted or not--though I hope to hell it's the former because regardless of their reasons for wanting it (which include "to make my partner happy"), no one, asexual or otherwise, should be having sex that they don't want to be having because that's called rape.

Asexuals who are in relationships with regular sexuals are going to have sex, as that is a part of being in a relationship.

First, what are "regular sexuals"? And no, it doesn't have to be "part of being in a relationship".

Completely new anon!

Some asexuals don't feel very strongly either way about sex; it's not something they'll actively seek out, but don't mind if they do it either. Does that make sense?

AYRT

Yeah, I totally get that. If you don't care about it either way and you want to do it to make your partner happy, go for it. It just seemed to me like the person I was replying to was trying to say that it was a requirement for being in a relationship, and it's definitely not. The obvious example is if both people are asexual, but even if one person was asexual and the partner wasn't, they could get their sexual needs met outside the relationship (hopefully with their partner's knowledge/consent), or even if neither person is asexual there are myriad reasons why people would be in a relationship that doesn't include sex. But then I guess that gets into what is and isn't considered "a relationship," and that's a whole other issue.

ayrt

Oh that makes sense then and agree with you there. Looks like we're on the same page then!

Sex is part of a relationship. Regular sexuals are anyone who isn't asexual-Hetero, Homo, Bi, etc. It is far, far more likely to end up with a sexual person than an asexual one, and to think "Oh, if he/she loves me she'll give up sex period and forever because I'm asexual!" is just not realistic. At all.

Way to completely miss the point.

Way to get overly offended over nothing

Not offended, just annoyed at an apparent lack of reading comprehension.

If it helps by way of a basis for comparison, I (and, I assume, many other people) can find someone sexually attractive without having any desire to act on that attraction. Sexual attraction means finding someone pleasant to look at, listen to, or otherwise experience their presence in a way that makes the viewer sexually aroused. This does not necessarily equate to being interested in actually having sex with that person, even if one is available and the person is willing.

I...think I get what you're trying to say, and if I'm understanding right then it's really just a matter of semantics.

This is why I hate the "official" definition of asexuality. There are just way too many possible interpretations, it causes way too much confusion, and like "demisexuality" and "grey" asexuality, and all the other words people have come up with for varying degrees of desire, it really serves no purpose in describing someone's actual orientation.

I gave up trying to keep track of all the names people assign to every subset of an orientation. Relationships are negotiated between individuals, not orientations. Sexual incompatibility can happen to any couple, even when their orientations are supposedly in alignment. Then there are the non-sexual reasons two people won't work together...

ayrt

Yes, exactly. At a certain point having a label for every possible variation/subset of an orientation ceases to be useful and just makes things more confusing. And like you said, relationships are between individuals anyway, so I kind of don't see the point of having a billion different labels.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2257 ]

Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me

Re: Asexuality confuses me