[ 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)]

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.