fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2474 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2474 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

[Once Upon a Time]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

[ ----- SPOILERY SECRETS AHEAD ----- ]

07. [SPOILERS for NCIS]

__________________________________________________

08. [SPOILERS for Breaking Bad]

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for Dangan Ronpa]

__________________________________________________

10. [SPOILERS for Breaking Bad]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #353.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

ayrt

From what you're saying I'm guessing you mean demisexuality? I was talking about asexuality, but I guess it's the same kind of thing. Why the need for the label? Why not just say "I'm not into having sex with people until I get to know them"? I mean, to me gay, straight and bi (what's the fourth?) are more cultural/social identities and I get why they're useful. Who you want to date, fall in love with, marry, live with, possibly have children with, etc. is a huge part of who you are and wanting a term that encompasses all that makes total sense to me. But how much sex you want to have and/or what circumstances you want to have it in doesn't seem like something that really has a great impact outside of you and the person you're having it with (or not, I guess, as the case may be). So going around telling people you're demisexual just doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Maybe I'm underestimating it, I don't know, but unless they want to date you I just really doubt that anyone cares that much.

Not that the asexual label makes any more sense to me because I also don't see how "I like the opposite gender but I'm not interested in having sex but I'll do it anyway to please my partner" (for example) is really relevant to anyone you're not romantically interested in. Why not just discuss these things with potential partners by just telling them what you actually want or don't want instead of using labels that not many people outside the internet are even aware of and are unlikely to ever become widely used?

It sounds like you're against the over-share more than anything else. And, I've got to admit, I'm not that fond of it myself. I don't really need to know everything about everyone, whether I've met them or not. But then, that's also why I didn't sign up for twitter.

ayrt

Yeah, exactly. That kind of thing is definitely important to discuss with your partner or potential future partner but putting it all over Twitter or Tumblr just doesn't make sense to me. Why does anyone care? And it's interesting that you mention Twitter, because now that I think about it, I think it's the same impulse that leads everyone to share everything on Twitter or Facebook. I don't think anyone cares what you had for lunch, either. Social media is another thing I just don't get, though, so I guess this is kind of along the same lines.

You are aware that an asexual person can be interested in a relationship on an emotional level, but not on a sexual level?

I'll rephrase your sentence for you:

Asexuality is a cultural/social identity and it's useful. Who you want to date, fall in love with, marry, live with, but at the same time, don't want to have sex with is a huge part of who you are and wanting a term that encompasses all that makes total sense.

People can get irrationally angry if you give all the "sure, relationship would be great" signals but then, you don't want to have sex with them. So better to get that out of the way first, sort of a disclaimer. How is that any different than any other person's oh-so-useful cultural/social identity?

No, I totally do, I guess I would just consider them a gay/straight/bi (whichever fit) person who wasn't interested in sex. To me unless someone is completely uninterested in relationships altogether (and I know there are people like that also) I don't see why it's considered an entirely separate thing. Let's say there's a heteroromantic asexual and a homoromantic asexual. Yes, they have the sex issue in common but outside of the that someone who's interested in relationships with the same sex is going to have more in common with the gay community and someone who's interested in the opposite sex romantically is going to identify more with straight people in general.

And like I said above I definitely think it's useful when used in contexts of people you're potentially interested in dating but I see it as more of a subcategory of gay, straight, bi, etc. rather than a completely entirely separate thing. For example I work with a man who is completely uninterested in sex. It's just not something he's into, and he's told me that when the other guys are talking about sexy people of their preferred gender he can never join in the conversation because he has no idea what makes someone sexy or not. I think this guy would be considered asexual by any definition I've come across. However, he has a wife that he's very clearly in love with. He considers himself straight and I don't know that it'd ever occur to him to call himself anything else.

I definitely get what you're saying that it's a useful disclaimer for someone you're potentially interested in because that's something they need to know but it also doesn't seem descriptive enough because yeah, sex isn't your thing but if you're still interested in a relationship it doesn't say anything about what gender(s) you're into. I guess that's where the various romantic labels come in though.

Yes, I was referring to demisexuality.

But how much sex you want to have and/or what circumstances you want to have it in doesn't seem like something that really has a great impact outside of you and the person you're having it with

And this just goes back to what I was trying to say before: It's not about who I *want* to have sex with and under what circumstances. It's literally about who arouses me. Give me someone I just met? Not going to interest me sexually or romantically in any way, no matter how attractive he is or how great his personality appears to be, or how fun it might be. That same guy some time down the line? Yes, please.

And yes, I was calling asexuality the potential fourth sexuality. And the label matters because it fosters community. Deviating from the norm, whether you have any choice in it at all, can be difficult and lonely. But when there's something you can call it, there's a way to find people that don't make you feel so alone.

And this just goes back to what I was trying to say before: It's not about who I *want* to have sex with and under what circumstances. It's literally about who arouses me. Give me someone I just met? Not going to interest me sexually or romantically in any way, no matter how attractive he is or how great his personality appears to be, or how fun it might be. That same guy some time down the line? Yes, please.

Then the circumstances would be "maybe when I know him better"? I'm honestly not trying to be difficult but that just doesn't seem like something that really needs a separate label. Are you also into girls if you know them well enough? Because that's not obvious if you just use demisexual. I can definitely see how demisexual (and asexual) are useful labels as subcategories of the other orientations, it's just using them by themselves that doesn't make sense to me. Saying "I'm straight and demisexual" or "I'm gay and also asexual" if you're talking to someone who knows those terms (or "I'm bi but I'm only into people that I know well" to someone who doesn't know what demisexual means) makes total sense and is useful. It's just when someone uses them alone without any other descriptive label and considers them an entirely separate thing that it kind of confuses me.

And yes, I was calling asexuality the potential fourth sexuality. And the label matters because it fosters community. Deviating from the norm, whether you have any choice in it at all, can be difficult and lonely. But when there's something you can call it, there's a way to find people that don't make you feel so alone.

That I definitely get. It sucks when you're outside the mainstream in any way and finding other people like you can make you feel a lot less lonely. But considering demisexual to be your sexual orientation instead of a modifier of one of the others doesn't make sense. That's like if someone who doesn't know the word demisexual, when someone asks them what their orientation is, they say "well, I'm not into anyone unless I know them really well". Ok, and? That's not an orientation itself.

I have no objection to the labels when used in conjunction with other ones, I just don't see them as completely separate and independent of gay/straight/bi/etc.

[ SECRET POST #2474 ]

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread

Re: Unpopular opinion thread