[ SECRET POST #2442 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2442 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 045 secrets from Secret Submission Post #349.
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

[pantswarrior]

Oh hey, I can answer that. I'm asexual, not demisexual, and so although I can identify people who look or present as attractive to me, physically or personality-wise, they're attractive in pretty much the same way as my pets.

Much as with my rabbits and cats, I want to maybe snuggle up to them and touch them and pet them and maybe rub my face against them. And just as with my rabbits and cats, I do not want to have sex with them.

Like my crush on DeForest Kelley was well known in my circle of Trek fan friends, and someone once asked me what I would do with him if I had him alone for a night. I was like "...Uh. I guess I'd have him settle down and get comfortable and then I'd lay my head on his chest. :D" I think that was a disappointing answer...

[republicanism]

i think what was confusing me was the terminology--i don't think of 'attractive' as the same thing as 'aesthically pleasing'. i can certainly understand being able to evaluate whether or not someone (or something) is aesthetically pleasing without wanting to have sex with them (or even kiss them), and i think everyone is this way on some level. to use your example, i would never describe a pet as 'attractive' because i would never do anything sexy (which isn't limited to straight-up sex) with a pet. i suppose this is just arguing semantics, though.

i don't know i guess i just think about these things too much. what does 'sexual attraction' really even mean for most people? i'm sexually attracted to some people that i still wouldn't have sex with. it seems like there's a lot of lines being drawn but no consensus as to what they actually mean.

it's just... confusing, you know? if attraction isn't explicitly sexual and sexual orientation is about attraction asnd dafskdfk sdn UGH i just don't
i can't

thank you for speaking to me i'm going to go have another beer