whenever i see these post-apocalyptic films set in the USA where everyone is pretty much just killing each other with no mention of other nations i always just assume that the rest of the world is fine and has learnt how to resume life as normal
I think on of the main obstacle to asexual visibility is that allosexuals are scared to admit that they are not really that different from ace/grace/demi people. They weigh so much of their identity on sexual attraction that they can’t see that is not what defines a person. That a person is not incomplete without sexual attraction.
I am allosexual:
- I get mad crazy platonic crushes.
- I have been romantically in love with someone for years but have no sexual attraction to them.
- I get sexually attracted to people that I feel nothing for romantically.
- I have periods when I’m sex repulsed.
- I can enjoy sex with people I have no sexual or romantic attraction to.
- I have a few months where I had no sexual attraction to my partner what so ever and even lost some of my romantic feeling for them.
- We’re still happy and together because we both knew that THIS IS ALL TOTALLY NORMAL. It doesn’t change who I am or my identity as a allosexual queer person, sexuality is nuanced and fluid.
But most other allosexuals I know don’t see it as normal. They get worried, they try and ‘fix’ these things, or invent feelings they don’t have to validate their situation.
And I just want to tell them not to, that it’s ok, that their sexuality doesn’t have to define them like that. That they are still amazing even without those things. That they can still be the same person, that this is OK AND TOTALLY NORMAL.
I think that the queer and LGBTQA movement exclude asexuals for MANY reasons. One of which being they are too scared to admit that feeling no sexual attraction or no romantic attraction or anything I listed above is OK AND TOTALLY NORMAL.
Because they rely on their sexuality to define themselves and get uncomfortable when others do not.
I’ve def seen this. I’ve also, weirdly enough, seen the exact opposite of this. Where people have similar experiences to what an asexual (or grey or demi) might talk about (like sexual attractionless sex, being repulsed or uncomfortable with sex, not experiencing sexual attraction, sexual attraction to someone they’re emotionally close to etc) and then they can’t seem to connect that asexuality (and the spectrum) is (nearly) entirely about sexual attraction only.
Like they admit that those things are normal and if it’s a normal thing to do then why would someone call themselves asexual… it’s odd, but I think it could also connect to what you said about them relying on their sexuality (or, I suppose, their sexual attraction) and seeing it as a totality, rather than separate parts that fit together.
On page 84 of S.E.X. by Heather Corinna, it’s explaining the LGBTQAI+ acronym, and says A stands for Asexual or ally. >:( <—This is me being annoyed.
The term “asexual” is currently in common use for those who feel there is no gender or sex to which they are attracted. Those who identify themselves as asexual may not yet be in the right developmental place to feel sexual attraction or arousal, may not have met anyone they’re very attracted to yet, or really may simply not feel any sexual or romantic attraction to others. (83)
The way that’s written kind of rubs me the wrong way. None of the other sexualities were in quotations, they were italicized.
In that second sentence, the first part hits me as ableist. Does anyone else feel the same or am I seeing things? The second part gives fuel to the “you haven’t met the right person yet” fire, and the third would be the actual definition if she hadn’t added romantic orientation in there as well.
Yeah, that description’s sketchy all over the place. Is this from 2007? (I don’t know if the books been revised at all.) ScarletTeen (and by extension Heather Corinna) was kind of iffy towards asexuality in the beginning, iirc. I know there were some questionable opinions about asexuality a couple of years ago, but I think the site’s been representing it better since then.
I have a question that’s going to sound like me being a fucking asshole. But I am actually very confused about something and would like an answer.
Do asexuals think that all other kinds of sexualities are in relationships solely for the sex?
I keep seeing tumblr posts saying “asexuals still like to date and flirt” (which cleared up a previous confusion I had, thinking asexuals and aromantics are the same thing) and I think I start understanding.
But then I see things like “sometimes asexuals enjoy sex but they don’t feel sexually attracted to people” i don’t understand this.
The only explanation for this that makes sense to me is that asexuals think that other sexualities (being hetero, gay, lesbian, bi, pan, etc) only are in relationships for the sex. Like the only purpose of dating someone is to get to sex. Which certainly isn’t true.
I don’t understand. Can someone explain this to me in simpleton’s terms because I’m a fucking idiot.
Most asexuals (probably? seem to?) feel that, for many/most non-asexuals, sex is an important component in relationships (specifically romantic relationships). This is due to lots of stuff… non-asexuals refusing to date asexuals because there won’t be sex, non-asexuals saying that non sexual romantic relationships are just being friends, society in general having a ‘sexual compatibility is super important’ slant to it… those kinds of things.
Asexuals who enjoy having sex is a totally separate thing. This comes up because, it seems like, for a lot of people, sexual attraction towards someone and the ability to enjoy sex go hand in hand, so it has to be pointed out that this isn’t always the case and that enjoying the act of sex doesn’t automatically mean that sexual attraction is being experienced.
Does that clear anything up?
The theme for Jurassic Park is amazing, but the very end is just awkward. Like it should have ended just a bit earlier.
I JUST HAD EASTER DINNER W MY MOM’S SIDE OF THE FAMILY AND MY UNCLE DWAYNE TOLD THE MOST WILDASS CONSPIRACY THEORY ON THE ORIGINS OF BIGFOOT THAT I’VE HEARD IN MY 17 YEARS
okay so according to him, bigfoots (bigfeet??) are actually the biblical nephilim, which means they’re supernatural creatures
this means that
- no dead bigfeet or child bigfeet have been seen because the nephilim are immortal
- they can appear and disappear at will
- they communicate using telepathy
he says a friend of his met one in the woods once and it told his friend all of this information jesus chRIST
Let me just word vomit about what is so great about this scene. Hannibal Lecter is, above all else, a narcissist. Everything he believes can be traced back to the belief in his own superiority, and he gets a raging metaphorical boner for his ego being stroked. ie when his plans go perfectly, when he makes cannibal jokes that no one understands but him, and when he watches will prove his theories right. He finds pleasure primarily in his own superiority.
But there’s something really different about this one scene. It is an awkward balance between wills superiority and his own. He believes (even though Will is arguably playing him like a fiddle) that this was all his doing, that he pulled the right strings and brought out in Will what he saw as his true nature. The devil making demons in his own image. Yet he tells Will, essentially, that Will is beyond him. That Will surprises him, that will surpasses his intellect. This is the second time that Hannibal has put Will in a position of power (the first being when he asked if he needed to call his lawyer, rather than saying he should or he will call his lawyer).
This isn’t to say that Hannibal isn’t being a fucking narcissist. He’s being entirely in character, in the only way I can describe it as a Narcissist in love. He has admitted fallibility, which is INCREDIBLE, but only in so much that Will surpasses him as he himself surpasses everyone else and is therefor his soulmate. He’s so proud, not just of Will but of himself, for having what he deems as a soulmate someone who fine a specimen of what he deems a worthwhile human being.
I just find the various levels of Hannibal’s crazy really interesting, okay?