[ 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)]

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.