[ SECRET POST #2487 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2487 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Vincent D'Onofrio in "Adventures in Babysitting"]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Legend of Korra]


__________________________________________________



04.
[The Little Mermaid]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Twin Peaks]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Moby Dick]


__________________________________________________



07.
[American Horror Story]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Supernatural]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Yogscast]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Welcome to Night Vale]


















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #355.
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)]

....well, if you're basically a normal person and want to label yourself, go for it if it makes you happy? Just don't... pretend that you are persecuted, or not normal, or that people don't understand you. Gay and bi people need labels to fight against real persecution and assert their sexuality as okay, but as long all of these "oh, I'm blahblahsexual, I only want to have sex with people I'm sexually attracted to" labels are just a hobby and nothing more. jeez, I can't even when asexuals compare their struggles to LGBT folks, but at least asexuality is a concept worthy of a label.

sorry, but then again I can't imagine OP made this secret thinking we'd actually talk about Yogscast. lol

[(Anonymous)]

Asexuality, that at least I get. I also understand how an asexual person could still be interested in romantic relationships, as emotions can be divorced from sexual attraction.

This whole "only sexually attracted when XYZ condition is met" thing, though, is really something else. XYZ being "romantic feelings exist" isn't any less normal than "having a goatee".

[(Anonymous)]

I definitely understand the idea of asexuality and do think it's a real thing. I also understand wanting "romantic" companionship without having sex or feeling sexual attraction.

But all this ridiculous "I'm only attracted to people whose personality I like" or whatever just boggles me. There's just no need at all to put a label on that kind of thing. You like men, you like women, don't discriminate or are open to either gender (or intersex people), or neither. I mean, seems very basic to me. I understand if you are trying to understand why/when you are sexually attracted to certain people, but making a label that clearly mirrors LGBT labels for it just seems cheap and contrived.

[(Anonymous)]

It's kind of really hard to determine what your 'true' sexuality is when you're effectively asexual 99.9% of the time and have only ever experienced attraction to 1 or 2 people. It's a very small sample size.

[diet_poison]

er, I feel like there is some persecution towards people who are actually asexual - not as much, but pressure to be "normal" and "why don't you get married already?" and "you don't want to get laid? weirdo!"

On the other hand, "demisexual" and other sub-labels or whatever you want to call them DON'T actually have persecution attached afaik. Like...I generally am only attracted to people I know well, and have only ever actively WANTED to have sex with one person (I didn't, because I'm chaste, but it was there) and I am not in any way persecuted over my sexuality and I am definitely a sexual person. I don't think I fit most peoples' definitions of "demisexual" (I do sometimes experience physical attraction to people I don't know well, even if it's not very intense) and I honestly don't think I'm unusual. There's a huge amount of variety in the amount of attraction people feel, how "picky" they are, how much and with whom they actually want to have sex, etc. but if you fit into the relatively standard model of "experiences [some] attraction and seeks an [eventual] sexual partner", you're not going to get shit for it from anyone and I don't think you qualify as a special label.

[(Anonymous)]

I totally get that about asexuals - if you "come out" you'll get skepticism. You'll get people who don't believe you. You might even get people who think you have a psychological problem, and I'm sure that can be tough and can hurt. But you're not going to get persecution, certainly not institutionalized persecution. No one is going to beat you up, rape you, or murder you for not wanting to be in relationships (well, it'd be very unusual if they did). No one is going to say you're going to hell or that you should be in prison, or executed.

That's why I resent asexuality put on the same level as LGBT people.

The other labels, honestly, I just don't see a need for. There's no advantage in these "identities" - you don't need to rally together, you don't need to understand yourself in the face of persecution, you aren't even deviant. At best, they could be a discussion point if the topic of who you're attracted to comes up or your sex drive. They sound just too much like they're trying to fit in with "homosexual" and "bisexual" and that I have a huge problem with. Like, whatever floats your boat, but just don't try to fit in with minorities.

[vethica]

Again, I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, having a label did help me understand myself. I knew I wasn't asexual, because I was sexually attracted to someone, but since it was only one person, I couldn't really call myself hetero/bi/pansexual either. I just thought I was in some weird limbo between asexual and "normal" sexual, and it made me feel like a freak somewhat. So it helped me to know that there was a term for it and other people who were the same way.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

But...why couldn't you? Look, even if your sample size is only one, if that person was of a different gender? Consider yourself hetero- or bisexual and give yourself permission to grow and learn about yourself and change if need be. If that means relabeling from what you previously in good faith and based on the evidence you had thus far in life believed? So what? Not being certain does not imply that a whole new category has to exist, it just implies that life is fluid and self-awareness ain't as easy as it's cracked up to be.

I mean, look, I'm all for understanding yourself. And if being able to describe/label helps you, that's great. But trying to fit demisexuality or these other variations under the same umbrella as labels that are addressing a completely different question is not cool, especially given the extreme real world consequences that can come from actual sexuality labels.

Maybe breaking it down like this would clarify: I have no bone to pick with asexuality as a thing that exists. I don't pretend to be all that educated about it, but it fundamentally seems to me to be part of an entirely different distinction that shouldn't be lumped in with heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, etc., either. Asexuality strikes me as more "is there sexual attraction to other human beings or not?" whereas the others are subsets if and when the answer to that has been yes-the inquiry proceeds to which human beings elicit an attraction.

The demi- or grey- or whatever-"sexuality" has nothing to do with any of that and is expressing nothing but when attraction takes place, not towards whom. Frequency and/OR timing of sexual attraction is what is being addressed, and no matter how much demi- etc. proponents spin themselves in circles to deny it, there is an implicit shaming aspect to differentiating on these grounds beyond "I feel what I feel when I feel it and act as I see fit at the time that is appropriate to me, as everyone should." When, when, when. It has nothing to do with towards whom like actual sexuality labels do.

[(Anonymous)]

God, thank you. Was typing something along these same lines when I decided to refresh the thread.

[diet_poison]

I did try to qualify that the level of persecution was much lower. In hindsight I think I used the word "persecution" wrong. I wasn't talking about anything institutionalized, and I totally get where you're coming from with saying asexuals don't have the same issues as the LGBT community.

My point was more about labels like "demisexual" being weird to me because...well, it's sort of like what you said, but shifted over from "LGBT v asexual" to "asexual v demi, etc." and on a lesser scale. People who are "demisexual" really don't face ANY kind of "persecution" or bad treatment since the behavior that results from their attractions pretty much follows the norm (unless they are in a same-sex relationship but then it would be an entirely different issue that they're being persecuted for). Asexuals on the other hand can get bad treatment or doubt.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I'd agree there! Again, I do believe that asexuality can get a negative reaction - disbelief, accusations, etc. Not comparable to LGB people but it certainly has the potential to not be fun at all. Demisexuality, just, lol. I'm imagining a tumblr girl coming out to her parents as "demisexual" and her parents going like, ".....okay? take out the trash."

[(Anonymous)]

http://www.closeronline.co.uk/2013/10/men-say-i-need-a-good-raping-asexual-woman-shares-her-experience

It's not institutionalized, I don't think, but it does seem there are men out there who take it as a personal offense when a woman is not at least theoretically available to them. It's similar to the mindset that leads to "corrective rape" of lesbians, though admittedly asexuals are not condemned by religious and conservative parties like homosexual and bisexual people are, and their rights aren't being trampled.

[(Anonymous)]

There are men out there who take it as a personal offense when a woman isn't available to them because she's in a monogamous relationship, or celibate, or just plain not interested. It's misogyny - there's a type of man who believes women, all women, exist solely for his pleasure, and any woman who is for any reason not interested in fulfilling that role needs to be "corrected".

[(Anonymous)]

that's not asexual persecution, that's a combination of male entitlement, rape culture, and misogyny though

[(Anonymous)]

So it's not an LGBT-issue when lesbians are correctively raped either? Great! Because that's the exact same reasoning i.e.: "This woman does something with her sex-life that I don't like."

[blitzwing]

No one is going to beat you up, rape you, or murder you for not wanting to be in relationships

So where do the asexuals who have been correctively raped for being a asexual come in to your theory?