Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 On 5/20/2019 at 2:34 PM, Anthracite_Impreza said: Latin is yours for the butchery .... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 55 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said: Right, so that is where the confusion lies. I don’t think it’s confusion, per se. Some people believe in the existence of abstract beings, others do not. 55 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said: I also see both ficto and objectum not really being appropriate, since an immaterial person (like a ghost or god or the soul of a tree, say) is not fictional nor is it an object, it is a person. I’m guessing most objectums would argue that their partners/crushes/etc. are “people” in that same sense as well; just not human people. I don’t know what the term is (if there is one, which there easily could be) for people who are drawn to immaterial beings (but who also believe those beings are not fictional). 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 On 5/20/2019 at 2:50 PM, ryn2 said: I don’t know what the term is (if there is one, which there easily could be) for people who are drawn to immaterial beings (but who also believe those beings are not fictional). . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 Google says “spectrophilia” applies fo ghosts and spirits, which would give us “spectroromantic” and “spectrosexual.” That may be too narrow, though. I do agree that people in that situation are neither ficto nor objectum. I just overlooked it earlier, as it falls into “fictional” for me personally (and for the people I’ve discussed this with irl, who are few). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 26 minutes ago, Anthracite_Impreza said: If I don't wanna come out IRL I say I'm aro. I feel awful lying, but the only humans I've ever trusted with the mecha- part are extremely close friends and a therapist (who was cool with it). Tbh, normally just saying asexual makes people think you aren't interested in relationships so I don't need to go further (and I actually am ace so I'm not lying there). Another option for people who are showing interest (I say that because it won’t work for the family and friends who are concerned about you, not about your availability) is to say you’re in a relationship. You are, after all. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 On 5/20/2019 at 2:59 PM, ryn2 said: Google says “spectrophilia” applies fo ghosts and spirits, which would give us “spectroromantic” and “spectrosexual.” That may be too narrow, though . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 Spectrophilia is a fetish, but spectroromanticism or spectrosexuality wouldn’t be. It’s potentially still too narrow, though, depending on your definition of “spirit.” 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Anthracite_Impreza Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, ryn2 said: Another option for people who are showing interest (I say that because it won’t work for the family and friends who are concerned about you, not about your availability) is to say you’re in a relationship. You are, after all. I have said 'it's complicated' before, that usually gets the 'ah' response. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 15 hours ago, MLJ said: I agree. I don't think sexuality is as black and white as people sometimes make it out to be. Like one experience of same-sex attraction automatically makes a person bisexual or one experience of sexual attraction means someone can't be considered asexual. Human experience is varied and messy; it doesn't always fit into perfectly defined boxes. My response: On 5/18/2019 at 9:31 AM, Star Lion said: By “0” I mean people who lack sexual attraction in their day to day life to the point where they don’t expect to ever experience sexual attraction in the future. I see identifying as graysexual as acknowledging that you probably will experience sexual attraction in the future but on rare occasion which isn’t asexual Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 Psychesexual/psycheromantic could potentially be considered an umbrella term for some of the others but it could work. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 Just now, Anthracite_Impreza said: I have said 'it's complicated' before, that usually gets the 'ah' response. Heh, yeah, people tend to hear that as “I’m letting you down gently” or “my partner, who is also my cousin, is in jail.” 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 On 5/20/2019 at 3:07 PM, ryn2 said: Psychesexual/psycheromantic could potentially be considered an umbrella term for some of the others but it could work. . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 8 hours ago, Dreamsexual said: Sure. But then we have the 'person' issue, which can be a tricky issue for some fictos, robos, digis, oneiros and especially objectums. I think we should just keep it as asexuality and sexuality itself only refers to people 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 On 5/20/2019 at 3:13 PM, Star Lion said: I think we should just keep it as asexuality and sexuality itself only refers to people . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 Just now, Dreamsexual said: Oh man ... So you're saying that objectums are actually part of the asexual spectrum ...? Asexuality isn’t a spectrum but yes to keep everything simple 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 On 5/20/2019 at 3:17 PM, Star Lion said: Asexuality isn’t a spectrum but yes to keep everything simple . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 Just now, Dreamsexual said: How can it not be a spectrum if it includes both sexual and non-sexual people? Asexuality doesn’t include sexuals. The asexual community does (in reference to graysexuals) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said: But if sexual objectums are included within the definition of 'asexual' then it does include some sexuals? But here’s the thing, I don’t see objectums as sexuals because I think that label in relations to asexuality only refers to a sexual attraction towards people 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 . 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 On 5/20/2019 at 3:27 PM, Star Lion said: towards people . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Dreamsexual said: Lol - I suggest you read the long conversation above. In short, from within an objectum POV the 'object' lover is a person ... Person- “a human being regarded as an individual” Ghost, spirits, cars, trees, etc. are not humans. If you have a belief in ghost and spirits, they are things that used to be human but are no longer. They’re ghost and spirits. Cars trees etc. are objects, not persons or more specifically humans Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ryn2 Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 Just now, Dreamsexual said: My profile now says, 'Inorganic Psychesexual' - seems a good fit. Would work for animist style objectums and robos too, as well as animistic oneiros and fictos. thanks @ryn2 for helping me work through that ... It's trivial, but still ... *feels good* Glad my contribution was helpful! 2 minutes ago, Star Lion said: I think that label in relations to asexuality only refers to a sexual attraction towards people Hm. I can see how simple is better when communicating with society at large but when it comes to sharing things like experiencing sexual attraction, desiring others sexually, and seeking/engaging in sexual relationships for personal pleasure and fulfillment (rather than out of obligation), all the [x]sexuals are sexual rather than asexual. It’s similar to demisexuality, in the sense that they are sexual people but significant “real life” caveats apply. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 On 5/20/2019 at 3:35 PM, Star Lion said: Person- “a human being regarded as an individual” Ghost, spirits, cars, trees, etc. are not humans. If you have a belief in ghost and spirits, they are things that used to be human but are no longer. They’re ghost and spirits. Cars trees etc. are objects, not persons or more specifically humans . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
letusdeleteouraccounts Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Dreamsexual said: Person doesn't equal human - that's a philosophically craptacular definition, sorry. It wouldn't include ETs, God, AIs, Chimps and lots of other stuff ... Dude, you are moving into SJW levels of illogical 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 On 5/20/2019 at 3:39 PM, Star Lion said: Dude, you are moving into SJW levels of illogical . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted May 20, 2019 Share Posted May 20, 2019 10 minutes ago, Dreamsexual said: Lol - I suggest you read the long conversation above. In short, from within an objectum POV the 'object' lover is a person ... No, that's incorrect. That would be delusional. From the POV of the lover, they feel the feelings typically reserved for people, but for objects. There's a difference. There is no possible conception of "person" where their very existence is dependent upon the point of view of another person. Put simply. My personhood depends solely on my own traits. It must. Anything else is antithetical to the concept of person, which of course requires independent existence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dreamsexual Posted May 20, 2019 Author Share Posted May 20, 2019 On 5/20/2019 at 3:43 PM, Skullery Maid said: That would be delusional . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.