Jump to content
LGBTAtreyu

Are some sexualities fake??

Recommended Posts

PaganUnicorn
4 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

@Dreamsexual I think you and @PaganUnicorn should have a discussion somewhere, so you could question each other endlessly till one of your heads exploded

Why was I mentioned? What do I have to do with this discussion? What?

...do you want my head to explode...? </3

 

3 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

The alternative is that anyone can say they're asexual, regardless of what they actually think, feel or do, and as a non-ace who's not completely embedded in the LGBT discourse, it's very clear to me that the micro-labelling contributes a lot to the 'bunch of weirdos' impression.

I appreciate the concern...?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

Just to lighten the mood a little ...

 

71260923.jpg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpiderSquid

In all honesty I hope so cause someone told me and I quote " I am colored. That means I belong in the LGTB, under the rainbow." Turned out they has misunderstood and thought bi was mix so they thought it should be colored but that's actually a race so we were all confused, we like sat there googling the sexuality 'colored' (TBH we were still quiet young... I think 13 and not exposed to sexualities so it was confusing cause we knew straight, gay and lesbians.)and when we figured it out we could not stop laughing at how stupid this situation was. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
1 minute ago, AwkwardSquid said:

In all honesty I hope so cause someone told me and I quote " I am colored. That means I belong in the LGTB, under the rainbow." Turned out they has misunderstood and thought bi was mix so they thought it should be colored but that's actually a race so we were all confused, we like sat there googling the sexuality 'colored' (TBH we were still quiet young... I think 13 and not exposed to sexualities so it was confusing cause we knew straight, gay and lesbians.)and when we figured it out we could not stop laughing at how stupid this situation was. 

Dafuq?  That's pretty funny, lol :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SpiderSquid
Just now, Dreamsexual said:

Dafuq?  That's pretty funny, lol :)

The only thing we knew about any sexualities was from Tv shows and movies. So the us were very confused.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to Avalon
4 hours ago, CBC said:

As opposed to those of us turned on by people we think are stupid as a fucking brick...?

I laughed out loud at this, Ceebs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

I feel like I've met people for whom that could actually be a thing...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to Avalon

To use fictional examples, Joey Tribbiani and Kelly Bundy had pretty active dating lives.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to Avalon

Thanks for posting the Animism trailer, @Anthracite_Impreza. As I've read your posts over the months, I've gotten the impression that you have a special bond with your car, and I think the trailer and your comment helped me understand you and people like you a little better.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
6 minutes ago, Back to Avalon said:

Thanks for posting the Animism trailer, @Anthracite_Impreza. As I've read your posts over the months, I've gotten the impression that you have a special bond with your car, and I think the trailer and your comment helped me understand you and people like you a little better.

Thank you. I have a special bond with my other car too, though not romantically, so he doesn't tend to come up as much on here. And I've lost too - I had a special bond with a car my father used to have and was literally heartbroken when my dad sold him due to the turbo breaking. I still have his pic and pillow under my bed and I'm not ashamed to admit thinking of him, 7 years on, still brings me to tears.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
10 hours ago, Telecaster68 said:

Why challenge a point you don't know anything about in the first place? Isn't demanding someone do the research you need to back up your point rather arrogant?

 

No.  Lazy, possibly, but not arrogant.  

 

And what the hell is sealioning, she asks lazily but not arrogantly.    

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sally
6 hours ago, CBC said:

I feel like I've met people for whom that could actually be a thing...

There was at least one person of that ilk in every office I ever worked in.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to Avalon
4 hours ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

And I've lost too - I had a special bond with a car my father used to have and was literally heartbroken when my dad sold him due to the turbo breaking. I still have his pic and pillow under my bed and I'm not ashamed to admit thinking of him, 7 years on, still brings me to tears.

I'm sorry to hear about this. Can you track him down and buy him back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

@Sally I had to look up sealioning, never heard of it. Apparently: "Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility." The origin is something to do with this 2014 webcomic.

 

2014-09-19-1062sea.png

 

I was going to say that explains why I don't know it then, I'm just too old to keep up with internet-based terms, but then Tele knew it, so. I'll revise the reason to I'm just not cool enough haha.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

Definitely on the sealions side in the comic, lol ...

 

Edit:

Seriously.  I mean, replace her negative comment about sealions for another people group (like black women, or gay teens, or whatever), and instead speaking out loud in a zoo replace it with writing something on a public forum, and instead of the sealion (black woman) following her into her house, replace that with waiting politely for responses at/on that forum.  The sealion was fine, IMHO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual

Getting back on topic, I suppose the key difference to me would be sincerity.

 

If someone makes up a term simply as a joke or a way of mocking other people, then it shouldn't be treated as a 'proper' thing, it should be treated as what it is - a joke (or an insult to others).

 

But if someone is sincere, and they invented a term to reflect their identity because they couldn't find an already existing term that worked, then I would take the term seriously.  Of course, taking a term seriously doesn't mean you can't disagree with it - you might find it inappropriate, or wish to point out than already existing term does in fact exist, or whatever.  But you should take it seriously, and because you're dealing with someone's identity be polite and respectful rather than dismissive or invalidating.

 

I am, of course, biased here because that is exactly what I did.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
2 hours ago, Back to Avalon said:

I'm sorry to hear about this. Can you track him down and buy him back?

I couldn't afford another car, not unless I had an unknown rich relative pop their clogs. I don't even have a paying job.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
25 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Getting back on topic, I suppose the key difference to me would be sincerity.

 

If someone makes up a term simply as a joke or a way of mocking other people, then it shouldn't be treated as a 'proper' thing, it should be treated as what it is - a joke (or an insult to others).

 

But if someone is sincere, and they invented a term to reflect their identity because they couldn't find an already existing term that worked, then I would take the term seriously.  Of course, taking a term seriously doesn't mean you can't disagree with it - you might find it inappropriate, or wish to point out than already existing term does in fact exist, or whatever.  But you should take it seriously, and because you're dealing with someone's identity be polite and respectful rather than dismissive or invalidating.

 

I am, of course, biased here because that is exactly what I did.

This is basically me. There's enough nastiness in the world without adding more.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PaganUnicorn
22 hours ago, CBC said:

I feel like I've met people for whom that could actually be a thing...

Haven't we all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBC

My stoned ass came here just to say that I'm listening to Feist and her song 'Sea Lion Woman' just came on and the first thing I thought of was... this thread.

 

Thanks, AVEN. 😑😂

 

/(un?)necessary derailing

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skullery Maid
On 5/26/2019 at 11:43 PM, Dreamsexual said:

Getting back on topic, I suppose the key difference to me would be sincerity.

Seems a legitimate test to me. That's how the courts determine the validity of a claimed religion... whether or not it's "sincerely held." 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marrrija

Since I don't AT ALL grasp sexuality unless the biology and mechanics.. for me, this is (pardon me) hell of a hard question to answer. 

So, I can say only this: asexuality IS real.

...but we're still a long way away from being recognized, and not being asked about our "celibacy". 😑

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
verymelancholic

To be honest, yes. Sometimes people just tend to microlabel too much.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
20 minutes ago, verymelancholic said:

To be honest, yes. Sometimes people just tend to microlabel too much.

Guilty :)

But excessive labelling isn't the same as 'fake' labelling ... imho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowhere Girl
On 5/5/2019 at 8:49 PM, Star Lion said:

 

I don’t mean to invalidate the attractions to objects but the literal definition of sexual orientation is in relation to genders which is what I’m going off of. You can have a label to describe your attraction to the inanimate objects but they shouldn’t be described as sexualities. They’re just simply labels for another experience

So it's time to recognise that sometimes - in case of object-directed attraction - orientations can describe something else than only the gender one is attracted to.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
1 minute ago, Nowhere Girl said:

So it's time to recognise that sometimes - in case of object-directed attraction - orientations can describe something else than only the gender one is attracted to.

Or perhaps adopt a tri-partite system where 'orientation' is limited purely to gender, 'sexuality' encompasses form/species, and 'preference' fills out the gaps (if required).

 

Like: homo-anthro-sexual or pan (robo-) sexual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza
5 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

Or perhaps adopt a tri-partite system where 'orientation' is limited purely to gender, 'sexuality' encompasses form/species, and 'preference' fills out the gaps (if required).

 

Like: homo-anthro-sexual or pan (robo-) sexual.

That wouldn't work for me, cos I'm not sexually attracted to cars (and I'm sex repulsed so the idea grosses me out). I'd rather just have orientation open to everyone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
Just now, Anthracite_Impreza said:

That wouldn't work for me, cos I'm not sexually attracted to cars (and I'm sex repulsed so the idea grosses me out). I'd rather just have orientation open to everyone.

Wouldn't that just be a switch from sexual to romantic? 

So, for example, following the same format: homo-mecha-romantic-asexual

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telecaster68
7 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said:

homo-mecha-romantic-asexual

I think we can all agree that's much clearer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dreamsexual
Just now, Telecaster68 said:

I think we can all agree that's much clearer. 

Clearer than what?  What's the alternative, for accurate use in specialised contexts?

 

Side-note:

Also, do you ever post in anything other than one-line snark swipes?  It'd be more pleasant, and seem less hostile, if you formulated your thoughts into paragraphs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...