[ 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

[chardmonster]

Because someone hangs out with jerks who'd call them a prude for not wanting to fuck someone immediately

OR

someone has an inflated sense of how much casual sex everyone else is having.

[vethica]

Have I mentioned that attraction is not the same thing as behavior yet?

[chardmonster]

I know. I'm instead talking about why someone would decide to call themselves demisexual.

I guess what I'm getting at is that choosing to identify as something is a waffle-ly thing? I'm not saying that there aren't people who are only attracted to those they've already developed feelings for. I'm trying to get at why someone would choose to identify as "demisexual" specifically and then put it on their blog. It's similar to the bisexual/pansexual argument. All these terms are language constructs.

I can honestly say I've never seen someone identify as demisexual outside either tumblr or fandom spaces--right now, it appears people aren't growing up and thinking "I'm demisexual" unless they're in these specific communities.

[chardmonster]

Maybe we're on different tracks right now?

It's one of the problems I have with pushes to teach "gay history" in school. Before the twentieth century people aren't identifying as gay. The gay-straight dialog doesn't exist. Obviously homosexual activity exists, and obviously there are people who are only attracted to the same sex, but there is no gay identity. So saying "this historical figure is gay!" is inherently anachronistic. He isn't gay. He can't be. He has no idea what "gay" is. So it's great to tell the kids "this guy had a boyfriend!" but it's utterly incorrect to call him gay. Other orientation and affinity words--like demisexual--operate in the same way.

The flip side is that you can't call them straight either.