[ 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

[vethica]

I just don't see how needing to feel emotionally connected to someone before having sex with them is 'special'. In my experience, most people (even if they might say, "Oh man, so and so is sexy/hot/attractive", it doesn't mean that they'd fuck them right then and there, because most people want or need affection/love before having sex with someone, and to me the idea that needing a label for that seems to imply that people who just enjoy sex for sex without that emotional attachment are doing it wrong.

The thing I was trying to explain upthread, and I don't think I was doing a very good job of it, was that these sexualities refer to needing a connection before experiencing sexual attraction to someone. Not before having sex with them, or enjoying sex, or anything else people are saying.

[(Anonymous)]

But finding someone attractive doesn't necessarily mean sexual attraction to me, and a lot of people will find something about someone attractive (whether it's personality or looks or whatever) before deciding to get to know them, and then that's where the sexual attraction will kick in.

I feel like if you polled people (and they answered honestly) about whether they went on a date with someone before or after being sexually attracted to them, the majority of people would tell you that they decided to date them BEFORE that sexual attraction.

And as someone said above, you could be bisexual or homosexual and demisexual at the same time, which is part of why I don't like the term, because it seems less about WHO you're attracted to and more about what (or who) you're doing with that attraction.

[vethica]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I think honestly the best thing to do would be to poll a lot of people (using clear definitions, of course). Because everyone seems to be defining things a little differently and that is where the misunderstandings come from.

[(Anonymous)]

*nod* LABELS ARE THE DEVIL. I think we just need to go with, "Hi, I'm Bob and I am attracted to X and Y and like to do Z and Q." Problem solved. >.>

I know labels make things convenient in some manners and shorten such introductions (it's faster to say you're gay or straight or bi than it is to break it down to really specific situations etc), but sometimes labels do cause more problems than they solve.

[diet_poison]

But finding someone attractive doesn't necessarily mean sexual attraction to me

There are different kinds of attraction. Sexual attraction is just one and it's the one that's being discusses here (I think? lol)

mostly being pedantic tho because I generally agree with your comment