[ SECRET POST #2393 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2393 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08. [tb]


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 052 secrets from Secret Submission Post #342.
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.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I wish asexuals would find a different term to use. At least the non-aromantic ones. The "sexual" in "homosexual" and whatever-sexual refers to the sex of the people you are attracted to, not the type of sexual activity you perform. It's not all about physical attraction. Can't you just say you're gay or straight but have no interest in having sex with another person? People are constantly erasing the romantic elements of same sex relationships and making them all about sex.

[(Anonymous)]

asexual here who doesn't particularly care for the word either. i find that people are way less confused when i say i'm non-sexual rather than asexual which makes them think of asexual reproduction like bacteria

[(Anonymous)]

sex of the people you are attracted to

they are attracted to people of neither sex

none of the sexes

also too bad people are already using that word to mean that thing, if you want to change language you have to invent something and start using it and hope that it catches on

[othellia]

Except many of them claim they are, at least in a romantic sense.

I think what OP is complaining about is that you end up with a lot of "biromantic asexual" or "heteroromantic asexual" labels with a clear emphasis on the former being about the gender of the people they're attracted to and the latter being purely about sexual activities.

So in that case there is this sort of disconnect in which hetero/homo/bisexual all refer to the gender of attraction and asexual - for many - refers to the level of sexual activity. Which I also think is where a lot of drama unfolds with regards to recognition from the LGBT community. Some say all asexuals should be included, some say none, some say only the homo/biromantic asexuals should be included, at which point others say having to draw that line in the first place (placing the gender attraction above sexual activity levels) means that they are really being included under the banner of homo/bi-ness and at that point being asexual has nothing to do it, and of course that starts up all the wank of sexuals vs romantics and identity erasure all over again.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, the word "atypical" refers to something being not typical.

Homosexual and heterosexual refer to gender preference. If someone has no desire for sex at all, asexual just sounds correct. They don't prefer either gender.

[(Anonymous)]

Wait, are we regressing? I thought hating on demisexuals was the new trend now.

[(Anonymous)]

Demisexuals aren't real, though. They're just regular ol' sexuals who want to feel special snowflake, so they made up a bullshit term to describe...what's completely and utterly normal.

[(Anonymous)]

Totally with you...I've been saying this for a long time. There's a definite incongruity in terms and that just bugs me. Asexual is the only label that describes sexual activity rather than the gender(s) of the people you're interested in having a relationship with. I know some people like to say "oh, but it's about sexual attraction, it just means you're not sexually attracted to anyone, it's not how much sex you do/don't have", but first of all, "sexual attraction" is kind of a nebulous concept that means different things to different people, and second, why is that the sole defining characteristic? Sexual attraction is not considered to be the sole defining characteristic of hetero-/homo-/bisexuality, and in fact people seem to get quite annoyed when others claim it is. I'm not denying that it's useful to have a word for people who aren't interested in romantic relationships with either gender (what's usually called aromantic), and if that were considered asexual, it would at least be consistent.

But if you want romantic relationships with people of the opposite/same/both sexes and you're just not interested in sex? Then you're a straight/gay/bi person who's not interested in sex. Why does that need a special label? Most people seem to agree that demisexuality is not an orientation because it has to do with the amount/circumstances of sexual activity and not genders of people, but asexuality is also solely about sexual activity and not gender, so I don't see why it is an orientation.

Demisexual and asexual, at least the concepts they represent if not the exact words, are useful when discussing sexuality, but as subcategories of gay/straight/bi/pansexual/whatever. They don't make sense as categories of their own, at least the way I see it.

Also, I find it pretty ironic that the people who aren't interested in having sex are the only ones who base their entire orientation around it.

[saku]

being asexual means you are not sexually attracted to any gender, not that you are not having sex. furthermore there is a big difference between sexual attraction and romantic attraction.

[(Anonymous)]

there is a big difference between sexual attraction and romantic attraction.

And that's the exact point the OP is making. By using asexual, it's making it all about sex and ignoring the romantic attraction aspect.

[saku]

yeah but all sexual orientations do that. that's the entire point of listing your sexual orientation. romantic orientation is something else entirely. asexual individuals who still face romantic attraction to, say, people of the same gender as them would thus be homoromantic asexual people. a lot of times non-aromantic aces will specify.

many people who fall under common orientations (ie. gay, straight, bisexual) use the aforementioned labels to describe both their sexual and romantic orientations. other people do not use them the same way, and that doesn't make them wrong for doing so.

[(Anonymous)]

But not really? Sexual orientation isn't the same thing as sexual attraction. Sexual orientation, at least that I've seen, is usually defined as something along the lines of "an enduring pattern of sexual or romantic attraction (or some combination of the two) to the same, opposite, or both sexes" (sometimes it includes other words, like physical, emotional, and affectional, in addition to or in place of sexual and romantic). If you say someone being gay is only about being sexually attracted to the same sex, you'll have a ton of people jumping on you (at least in my experience, maybe yours is different) telling you that it's not just about sex, it's also about who you want to have a romantic relationship with (maybe they won't use those exact terms, but they'll list a bunch of things that make a relationship romantic that have zero to do with sex). I guess if you want to get technical, you could say hetero/homosexuality is only about who you want to have sex with, but I think that's why a lot of people have moved away from those terms and use straight and gay instead, because there's more to it than just sex.

When someone says they're gay or straight it's always assumed to include sexual and romantic attraction. If people want to start saying they're a biromantic homosexual or a homoromantic heterosexual or whatever, okay, but it just doesn't make sense for all of the orientations to be about sexual AND romantic attraction, except for asexual, which is ONLY about sexual attraction.

I mean, obviously people can identify however they want, it just doesn't make sense to me personally. The OP was saying they thought there should be a different term, and I was agreeing. I don't think either is necessarily "wrong", it's just a complicated issue and people have different ways of seeing things.

[saku]

the wikipedia article on orientation is not very in-depth or accurate. i'm just guessing you might have referenced it based on the language you used.

gay and straight aren't really the same as homosexual and heterosexual though. the -sexual label is used primarily for describing one's sexual attractions. the asexual label is generally used in this way but even if you want to argue that -sexual is also by many people to describe their sexual and romantic persuasions (which is true, lots of people do use it in this way), many aces also use their respective label in the same manner. in my experience aces who are not aromantic tend to specify when asked about their orientation.

even if they don't though it's really nobody else's business what word they use. if it makes sense and feels right to them, then that's enough imo.

[(Anonymous)]

True, Wikipedia describes it similarly, but I've seen it various places. The HRC website is one (they use "physical and/or emotional"), and I know I've seen it on a few others that I can't think of at the moment. Obviously not everyone uses it in that way, but I don't think it's necessarily wrong if people want to.

I agree that heterosexual and homosexual aren't really the same as gay and straight but it seems like a lot of people seem to be moving away from the first two and using gay and straight instead, while still using asexual, which has more in common with the other two.

Honestly I think it's mainly a semantic issue for me, but yeah...ultimately it's up to everyone to decide what labels to use for themselves.